treated before it got into rock creek even though rock creek is part of the over all system that controlled storm water in the district of columbia. and so the exclusions that we put in were designed to address the -- the ability for communities to look at their totality of their storm system and look at things such as retention ponds, green infrastructure components and those kind of things being built as part of the system and make sure we were not bringing all of those things into this -- into the permitted 402 system. and that is what that is about. and we believe we've retained the status quo so that water features that are within the geographic bounds of a community that is permitted under the ms 4 program if thur jurisdictional today they will stay jurisdictional and if they are

not jurisdictional today they will not become jurisdictional and he believe in the final rule we've not changed things. >> so ken as an example, a rain garden that a municipality designs to capture and infiltrate forest water, if that took on characteristics over time, that would not be covered water. >> that is correct. and so we would hope it would take on those characteristics over time because it would do a good job of taking over pollutants but taking over commercial development and you see them all over the place and the use of green infrastructure is something that our agencies strongly support and we want to encourage it and do not want to create a fear in a regulatory environment that we're taking a way a tool that we think is

popular within the communities and within local governments and also in response to the development community who makes use of this all over the country. >> can i raise just a question about the rain garden example and make talk from a practical experience perspective which is salientenity has created the wet lands that has developed fast forward 20 years and it is a wet land. and relying on the exemption for green infrastructure created in dry land talking to a regulator trying to tell them that the rain garden which is now functioning as a wet land was created in dry land becomes very difficult from a practical point of view, i think. and i don't see anything in this rule on the face of the cfr language that gives that entity a lot of comfort that were you

to go out and undertake this activity now that you have -- that you will have certainty 10 or 15 years down the road that you can point to in again rural language that you are exempt. that is one question on the green infrastructure and i have another on the ms 4 if time permits. >> well let me respond to that. first of all, of course we're talking about areas that are subject to the permitting program in 402. and i'm expecting that 20 years from now that community is still going to have a 402 p permit. it is not as though they are going to completely lose track as where the rain gardens are. secondly if the rain garden was put in and takes on the characteristics as we hope of functioning well keep in mind the clean water effect will take effect if somebody wants to dump pollutants in -- >> and can i say that and i hear you say that in outreach and

oftentimes municipalities local governments and also just entities that have a facility have these features on their property and they want to actually improve them, change them in a way that may be beneficial for the over all management of water on the site. and that then raises the question of triggering permit requirements. it also raises the concern of other elements of the clean water act like water quality standards that even if you aren't undertaking the destruction of that feature apply. so the fact that something is water of the united states limits and that is i think the goal -- limits the ability to do something in that regardless of whether you are trying to destroy or change the area. >> will always respond to say that i -- i guess we'll know in 20 years. but i find it to be a little overly speculative that in a 20

or 30 year time frame somehow both the regulated entity and the regulators will lose track of the fact that this rain garden was put in as part of the storm water permit program. and i will concede it is conceivable that people could lose track of it. but if you are living in a world where your permit is renewed every five years i find it stretching it a bit that in 28 years or 25 years or whatever that everybody is going to forget. i also would say it was put in it was exempt when it was put in and if a community wants to come in and makes changes or improvements to it, you haven't out lined a factual situation to cause the exemption or the exclusion i should say from the clean water program to change. so i just -- i realize that what you are raising is a hypothetical. i can't say definitively it cannot happen but your

hypothetical is raising a set of facts that i find a little overly speculative that it will be a problem when you are living in a world of an already regulated entity. >> okay. can i also just chime in because the whole notion of an exclusion being tied to created in uplands or draining uplands or created in dry lands, whatever the phrase is, as you said, was in the preamble, and there were exclusions to the preamable and so i think the regulated public and i personally have been involved in jurisdictional determinations where the fact pattern scenario that we are talking about which as a feature was created for a purpose, maybe not rain garden but for an industrial use, was created in a water of the united states before the clean water act, and then now 20, 30 years from -- from now, today you are being

forced to assess was it created in up lands, dry land and you are looking at all kinds of historic evidence, it is very complicated even where you've had that feature created through a permit, these are real factual circumstances that occurred under the skplugss -- exclusions as currently exist. >> i will say i do find it interesting that the points that we're hearing that we're being criticized for doing is we're taking language out of a preamble that has no real operable effect that preserve the right for the agency to change its mind any time it choose to and we put it into a final rule that binds the agency and we no longer have the discretion to change our mind and put in the same concept that has been around for well over 20 years. we formalize it and make it legally binding and are criticized for it. and so the option for us would be to go back and take the

exclusions that we proposed in april of last year and simply take them out. and then that would have left everybody with far less rights than they have today. and so while i hear that you would have liked to have had more clarity and specificity i don't want to lose sight of the fact that we have done here is created exclusions from the clean water act that do not exist today in the rule, they exist mostly in practice but not in the rule and we put them in the rule and we're being criticized for them. >> and i would like to build on that. i mean it is impossible to describe with specificity all of the kind of water resources that exist in the united states. i mean in a rule of length that isn't biblical it is impossible. and so there is -- there are

going to remain questions in the future about how the specific language in this rule apply to factual situations and that is -- that's just part of the deal here. with respect to things that might be marginal or have been created in waters originally, might not have been looking at those closely in the future doesn't trouble me. i imagine it might trouble you in the least. because what we're talking about here is whether or not we're going to allow their destruction or pollution without a regulatory over sight. and having that check-in before those kind of things happen to such features is often very much appropriate. >> so i want to make sure we don't lose questions in the office and ken, if you could

pull the microphone closer to you. we have a question up front. >> thank you. i'm miss burn balm with scb strategies. it is interesting the conversation got around to the question i have which is for deidre. at the end of your talk, you quoted an example from the preamble and suggested it wasn't a model of clarity and my reaction was pretty different. i thought it was clear. i thought it contained a number of detailed criteria but then having that detailed criteria was necessary to make it clear. and so i'm wondering from your perspective, is there a single criteria that would designate the jurisdiction of the water act and that is reductionist and what does clarity look like if it doesn't look like a detailed set of criteria.

what do you think would look like and what would it look like if it wasn't trying to cite down the conditions. >> i would love it if you diagram the example and explain to me -- i didn't say it wasn't complicated and having a junior level core district gs 12, 11, 10 -- i don't know what the core regulators are in the field working through this example will be challenging. i don't know if you've ever worked with on a jurisdictional determination with somebody at the corp of engineers but it is challenging. and an example like that would be difficult. in terms of clarity i would go back to the term ordinary high water mark. for -- ever since i've been a lawyer, which i graduated in 1996 and worked with the army the term ordinary high water mark has been a term that people have longed for some clarity in.

the word ordinary would seem to imply some form of ordinary flow. but in practice it bnls a mark on the landscape which bears no resemblance to ordinary flow and so i think the comments have asked for clarity and criteria as ken said and maybe they considered this and decided not to, but frequency, duration of flow to create an ordinary high water mark. that would have been something that i think a criteria that would have been very helpful and beneficial again to the regulator, to the public in defining what a tributary is. that is one example. water -- what is a water under the clean water act. is an industrial water that holds industrial byproduct a water meant to be protected by the clean water act?

if it is next to a ditch, is it then an adjacent water? these are the kinds of questions that i think when you read the comments, a lot of comments they ask for clarity on these questions. and the rule tiptoes up and around those but doesn't really take them on. and instead leaves a lot of the definitions vague, like dry land for example. >> if i can just comment briefly in response. to me, changing the definition of ordinary high water make would be saying we're going to take a technical term which has an established meaning and give it a different meaning which strikes me odd. but each thing you talk about is a question of setting out a different criteria or solution and it is necessarily going to be complicated.

i was wondering if you think there is a way to write it that is not complicated because you suggestion it fairs on the clarity test because it is complicated. >> that is not what i -- this is complicated. that is not necessarily why it fails to be clear. i thif there are a lot of terms that are un -- i think that there are a lot of terms that undefined that are subjective and lead to inconsistent results. ordinary water mark and dry land, there are some of the chief offenders. something can be complicated and detailed and yet be very clear and i don't think this is that. >> let me throw a comment in on just one thing. and defend the core regulators. i said before in one of my responses, i don't think it is that difficult to understand if your a professional biologist or hydrologist to go out and look

in the field and identify through field research and being on the ground to find an ordinary high walkment it is not something we concocted. this is a technical term of art long used in this business. the corp regulators don't have difficulty finding, identifying ordinary high water marks. one of the things when we -- in context, one of the things that could have been done perhaps as an alternative to ordinary high water mark is to require gaging putting in gauges all over the place, which would confound a whole host of other issues that we would have been criticized for, for requiring people to put gauges in their streams, whether the gauges are properly maintained, are they adequate and being read properly.

this is a common sense surrogate. clearly everybody reads the case justice kennedy recognized that it was a term of art. didn't come up with anything himself that could be better. but he did identify that the breath could be used for unlimited capabilities and both in the 2008 guidance that we did after rappanos and that follows up into this rule and we say and identify the things that justice kennedy said it has to be of significance to represent the type of duration, the volume of flow that one would expect that ordinary high water mark to contribute the requisite flow that one would probably find to be in an area where you would have a significant downstream effect and i don't find that all that complex, difficult or problematic to be perfectly honest with you. >> thanks, craig. we have another question in the back of the room.

>> thanks for taking the question. witness ramer. the american society of civil engineers. craig, you mentioned this earlier. i want to hear again about how this -- when this rule will take effect on permits, when their filed, sequency of how this will play out once it enters the federal register for those of us who have clients in the field, clients, stakeholders. and the second part of the question might be for diedre and that would be i'm sure this is a little speculative but i assume there will probably be folks that file suit on this rule can you walk through a possible scenario in terms of the environmental law institution how you can challenge a rule with standing issues and all of those types of things whether it is a permit filed the day of and walk through what that would take a look like in the hypothetical

sense. >> and craig if we could start with you and when the rule could be published. >> yeah. the rule has been submitted to the federal register. the rule is under the formatting process that the federal register people go through. it gets kicked back to the agency. it will be kicked back to the epa, assuming you haven't received it yet. it should be any day yet. we'll see the camera day version of the federal register. that is quickly reviewed by people that are expert in reviewing and making sure it contained everything and we didn't lose anything due to the formatting. and it is mostly to make sure that all of the paragraphs and sub-paragraphs and sub sub-paragraphs and people cite to thing it is not screwed up. we expect that to happen any day. we expect the turn around to be

relatively quickly. so we expecting the thing to show up in the federal regter within the next two to three weeks max, i think three weeks is on the outer side. we would hope within the next two weeks for that thing to go in the federal register. so now how does that effect the grandfathering provision? the date that it goes into effect will be kind of the benchmark date if you would. the corp district commanders and regulators who have a bunch of permit requests and applications, i should say and requests for jurisdictional determinations, they need to look at the date that it is announced in the federal register and make a determination whether the application or the administrative record is sufficient upon which to make a decision on that day. and again it doesn't have to be made before it is in the federal -- it could be made

after. but they have to look on it as of the date it is in the federal register whether the record is sufficient upon which to make a decision. if it is then the applicant will be informed and notified that -- that their j.d. or permit will be issued under the old -- under the existing rule. because it is not effect until the 60 days expires that it is after publication in the federal register. so if the applicant said i think it is beneficial for me to come in under the new rule please hold it until after the effective day and issue it then the corp will issue it to the benefit of the applicant. if they want to proceed they can proceed. and if they get an application in and te can process it before the new 60 days -- the new rule they can issue anything under the old rule provided it is issued before the new rule takes

effect. and i will say the corp is working on implementation guidance to its field and that is usually stuff that finds its way to the corp's district websites and for those working in a particular district or with a particular district, you can look on their websites and probably find this guidance but that is the general -- the general way we're approaching it. >> can i ask a follow up question on the grandfathering issue, which has to do with what if you have a jurisdictional determination that is all of the information is in but there is no permit application so there is no permit application that is considered complete? it is just a pending j.d. and not associated with a permit application. >> you don't have a permit applications? >> the j.d. is good for five

years. >> but it is pending and it hasn't been acted on and it is sitting with the corp now. >> and it is complete? >> well -- >> say it is complete. >> do you have to get a complete determination from the corp? >> no. the corp will make the determination when -- i'm assuming it is in the cue and the applicant wants it to be decided on. the district engineer will make that determination. it is not something someone has to apply for or seek out. >> if you have a complete j.d. submission in now and it should be decided -- you want it decided under the existing rules, the existing rules apply. >> correct. >> so can you then please take and we'll ask for some comment on the next rule and it is final and published in the general register and up for challenge in the courts, what courts have jurisdiction and what other types of challenges, are there only facial challenges through the rule itself or brought

through individual appeals? what do you see in the courts? >> it is a real good question. i know steve samuels is here so i'm interested in his thoughts and he's shaking his head no he's not talking. i know there is an issue. the preamble, i think, raises the issue that this rule should be brought under section 509 i think. it is an interesting provision in the preamble, which i don't think it is in the rule itself, is it? >> it is in the text. >> it is in the preamble. and it kind of makes the point on one hand cases have find it might be under 509 but see those other cases. and i don't have a lot of experience with that provision but it essentially requires epa rules to be challenged in a circuit court. of course this is a joint rule. with epa and the corp. and corp rules general wli are challenged in the -- generally

are challenged in the district court. section 509 talks about other limitations under the clean water act and the question will really come down to is this considered under the law an other limitation under the clean water act and as the epa has noted in the preamble, there are cases on both sides of that. i think one of the most recent ones has to do with the water transfer rule where they found that it was actually giving industry relief, saying that something wasn't a permitted regulated discharge and therefore wasn't a limitation. how this rule -- i mean this is a fundamental term under the clean water act. there are exclusions. there are -- so how this will be interpreted, i think whether it is properly brought at a circuit court level, will be interesting. and it will be interesting to see what the government's opinion on that is.

if it is brought -- if it is properly brought at say circuit court, the circuit court will assess they have jurisdiction and will then decide the case. and there may be multiple petitions brought across the country. and those petitions will ultimately be consolidated at one circuit court if it is properly brought at the circuit court and decided. meanwhile, you will likely have district court complaints filed as well. and those may be as applied challenged challenged challenges challenges, facial challenges. it is going to be complicated. when this rule does go into effect. under 509, a significant point, is that it does have a statute of limitations associated with it and that claim has to be brought within 120 days and much sooner because it will be somewhat of a race to the courthouse with multiple

petitions being filed sand i think it is like a 10-14 day period where those claims will ultimately be before a multi district court -- or multi -- >> district litigation. >> an mdl. >> yeah. that will decide where the case is brought. >> thank you deidre. >> i'm happy to hear these guys thoughts on it. >> what she said. >> we're happy to have you -- have there be no litigation on it at all. so if there is no litigation there is legislative action so there is a bill through the house and pending in the senate. john would you be interested in any thoughts you have on the senate bill 1140 if you would give us an explanation on what it does and your views on it. >> in brought strokes it does two big things. it first requires the agencies to start from scratch on a rule

making. and second it sets out some rules of decision as to what kinds of features can and can't be protected in such a rule making. and we think there are multiple problems with that though. if you want -- if your worried about clarity, that bill ain't the place to look. so it introduces a whole suite of new notions into clean water act juris prudence. it would -- like i say reboot the entire regulatory process. but fundamentally, i think it is based on a couple of flawed premises that -- first, that the agencies failed in some way to adequately consult with

stakeholders about this rule. and that, i think is belied by the enormous number of meetings the agencies had about not only this proposal but bear in mind that this issue has been debated for the better part of my children's lifetimes. and has been a public concern throughout that entire process. the agencies as i think craig alluded -- eluded to that they took public comment on that alone got 200,000 plus comments and they got a million plus comments on this. the agency -- i'm sure you got some -- i hope you got some frequent flier miles out of the amount of consultation you did with various folks of all

stripes. and so -- the motion that somehow redoing this rule with -- and talking to some new set of people i honestly couldn't imagine who that might be -- nor can i imagine that there would be no issues developed in the course of that consultation that haven't been not only raised during the last almost 15 years of ambiguity about this issue, but vetted nine ways to sunday. and then the other thing that i think the rule -- pardon me, the bill presumes, is that somehow the states, without, in the absence of this rule, that protection of our waters would be just fine thanks to state

programs. and as eli's analysis looks at, there are restrictions in the states in two-thirds of the state that make -- that can make it more difficult to protect state waters that the federal government doesn't protect. and when this issue was last vetted by the supreme court 30 plus states weighed in and said please make sure that the clean water act protects unnavigable water because doing it ourselves would be really hard, among other reasons. >> we have gotten close to our time and there are mentions of the eli website and there are regards that [ inaudible ] on our nauls.

and i want to thank our panelists for sharing thought, care and expertise on these issues. for more go to the national wet lands news letter and to learn more look at our online resources and attend the national wet lands awards which is an amazing event to come and see. six people around the country who recognize people from private land owners to government officials to ngo folks who really are doing wonderful work. i think all of us are well served to have the professionals you see here in front of us doing their wok and their job amazingly well. thank you for sharing your time with us. we prech appreciate it. and i want to thank the members of eli for making today possible and doing what we do. so let's give a round of aplank and also thank you for being here. [ applause ] >> some news from capitol hill. earlier today republican leader as announced that the house will vote on friday whether to give president obama trade promotion

authority or fast track negotiation authority that would affect a major trade deal being worked out with 11 other pacific rim nations. watch that vote live on friday, the house gaveling in at 9:00 a.m. eastern on our companion network c-span. and the white house about to get more crowded. hillary clinton will officially kick off our campaign on saturday in new york city. watch it live at 11:00 a.m. eastern, also on c-span. and on monday another hat being tossed into the gop presidential ring as jeb bush officially announces his entry into the race. from miami. we'll have live coverage at 3:00 p.m. here on c-span 3. and on tuesday at 11:00 it is donald trumps turn, live in new york city, watch that live on

c-span.org. like many of us, first families take vacation time and like presidents and first ladies a good read can be the perfect companion for your summer journeys. what better book than one that peers inside the first ladies. the lives of 45 iconic american women. inspiring stories of fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. a great summertime read available from public affairs as a hard cover and e book through your favorite bookstore or online book seller. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2 here on stash tash 3 we -- c-span 3 we show you the public affairs events and on weekends we have programs that tell our nation's

story, including the civil wars 150th anniversary visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, touring museums and hister sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past history bookshelf with the best history writers, the presidencyies loorksing at our commanders in chief and lectures in history with top college profesters delving into our past and real america, featuring educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span 3, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> on monday,arri shavit and caroline english talk about the prospect of a two state solution

in the israel palestine area in washington, d.c. the debate was moderated by the american jewish executive director danielel balm and it is a little over an hour. [ applause ] good afternoon. we've come now to one of my favorite parts of the global forum, the great debate. we jews are famous for or arguments. abraham and moses argumented with god. the great sages and other texts engage in timeless debate. even today there is little consensus in the jewish community on topics such as what judaism should look like in contemporary times the israeli palestinian peace process and

those truly peaceful issues about whether it is better to have doctors or lawyers in the family or annie hall or take the money and run in the family and it is those questions with our speakers have wrestled in the great debate. last year we heard from brett stevens and roger cohen who debated whether the still emerging iran deal was a panel to progress or a road to ruin. before that we we hosted josie clan halleffy and peter barnard on zionism. and it has given a pody um to barney and billy crystal and giving voices to positions across the political spectrum. today's debate is no different. in a moment whennari shavit and carolyn glick deputy managing

editor of the jerusalem post come on stage we are continuing the proud jewish position of debate, one that served our people for over thousands of years. they'll take up the question of the two state solution. long treated as gospel and policy circles increasingly being challenged from both the right and the left. it is no secret that a.j. counter-terrorism believes in the two state solution as a better more practical alternative than any of the others proposed and we have advocated for it. but we also believe that it is not a sign of weakness to engage varying points of view to engage in debate, discussion and to constantly revisit long held assumptions, it is a sign of strength. before our debate kicks off, please turn your attention to the screens for a short-term video to set the stage and offer a bit of background. thank you. [ applause ]

the struggle to find a permanent solution to the israeli live palestinian conflict has plagued the two peoples and absorbed the attention of the world for nearly 70 years. many american and israeli administrations have tried to forge peace in the middle east. in the summer of 2013 peace talked resumed at the behest of john kerry. >> the best way to truly ensure israeli's security is by ending the conflict with the palestinians by summoning the courage to achieve peace and by reaching a negotiating resolution that results in two states, for two peoples. >> a few months later israel made sacrifices for peace including a ten-month settlement freeze. but in the spring of 2014, the peace process ground to a halt with the merger of hamas and fatah into a palestinian government. and this was soon followed by

the kidnap and murder of three israeli teenagers. and after hamas launched thousands of rockets at israel, putting millions of civilians in danger, the idf responded with operation protective edge. for some, there is no alternative to the two-state solution. >> the only way to keep the balance of state israel is a jewish democratic state is to enter the negotiation and end the conflict with the palestinians in accordance of the idea of two states for two peoples. >> but for others, the two-state solution is a gamble that israel can't afford. >> this is it. we're not giving up more land that this approach has failed. we're not going to commit damage to ourselves because the world thinks that is the right thing to do. >> after the march electionsa prime minister net aniau changed

his mind. >> i support two states from two peoples. >> from syria to iraq to yemen, chaos has engulfed the middle east abandoned regimes and states and the status quo and making israel's neighborhood more dangerous and unstable than ever. nearly 70 years after the u.s. petition plan of an independent arab and jewish state, is the two state solution still viable or is it an illusion? >> ladies and gentlemen please welcome our moderator and debaters. [ applause ]

good afternoon. winston churchill once said you have enemies. good. that means you've stood for something sometime. our two debaters have stood for something and have the stars to prove it. today we are honored to have two opinion makers two thought leaders, two individuals who love their nation and have fought for its defense yet two distinct and different visions of how israel can live in peace and security and two distinctly different answers to the question of whether a two-state solution is viable and whether it is desirable. it is my honor and privilege to reintroduceari shavit, and author of my promised land the triumph and tragedy of israel and carolyn glick senior correspondent and contributing editor of the jerusalem post author of the israeli solution,

author of one state plan in the middle east. and it is my privilege and we have many lawyers in the room to introduce the rules. [ laughter ] >> each speaker will be given the chance to make an opening statement. it will be five minutes for opening remarks. and then they have the opportunity to respond to each other which they have three minutes to do so. at that point i'll give certain questions to them. at some point we'll then open it up to the audience for questions. in order to ask a question, please fill out a comment cards. you can see ajc staff there which will give it to you or you can tweet your question to at ajc global using the hash tag and that is for those following us online and on c-span today. if you don't understand what i just said at ajc global and if you are here you can fill out the sheet or ask somebody

younger working on their phone right now. [ laughter ] >> at the conclusion, each debater will have three minutes to give some concluding remarks. finally, as i said this follows in the great tradition at ajc. we value the notion of bringing different sides to express their views. both individuals have tremendous respect for each other and we have tremendous respect for them. i would ask the audience to do the same. please hold the applause despite the temptation until the end and the debaters know although they will strike hard blows, they will strike fair one. we have agreeari will go first and we'll start with your opening statement. >> thank you so much. let me begin before we start with three personal remarks. i hope they'll be taken be taken off my time. first of all thank you so much.

i'm so privileged and i think we are both to be here with the ajc. we want to thank david harris the remarkable david harris. for me i've learned to admire the american jewish community in the last year. an organization like yours is so needed so i'm so grateful for you being here and for us having this discussion here. the second personal remark is that i really hope while we should have a serious sometimes furious debate we should have a respected one. with all of the challenges facing us, i think we should have a spirit of halfatis well and [ speaking in a foreign language ] . and caroline, let me shake your hand. [ applause ] >> i think that if we manage to prove that we can have a

respectful civilized debate among us, we'll be doing something for our people. >> so i'll just interrupt you and say i agree. >> the third personal remark is just about myself, before we address the issue. i'm a zionist. apart from my beloved wife children, dear family friends there is nothing more sacred in my life than the jewish democratic state. so whatever i believe in and whatever my approach is is because of that. because i think it is so essential to preserve and save this miraculous state of israel that we've managed to establish and sustain. [ applause ] >> now i shall begin. before we address the two state

solution, i think we must address the alternative. the one-state solution. and i have two or three things to stay about that. one, i wonder how is it that i go around american campuses fighting medias which promote a one state solution and then i go back home and find that half of the minneapoliss in my government support a one-state solution. our enemies and caroline rightly is encouraged about our enemies, they are not encouraging us to pull out. our enemies want a one-state solution and they know why. the second point. when i go to these campuses, the one reason i used the debate regarding these enemies of ours, i say i have one answer to the

one-state option and the one word answer is syria. we tried the one state solution in the middle east. we put sunnis andalo whites and drews in one country. what happened? as long as there was a strong dictator is somehow works, the moment he got weak, we are seeing the worst human catastrophe in our region and the worst human catastrophe as we speak and the world is helpless. so if this is what happens to sunnis andalo whys in syria, what would happen to jus and arabs in israel with all of the terrible conflict we went through, with all of the differences and the multi dimensional differences? the third argument is that in my mind this endangers the zionist

project. what is zionism all about? having a massive jewish majority so we will have jewish sovereighty within a democratic context. throughout the years we were minorities. even in this great country we are a minority. we wanted one place where we would be so clear we are a massive majority. with sovereighty and a massive context. in my mind, the one state option endangers in the most dramatic way the zionist vision. but i'm not a [ inaudible ]. i knew and i wrote about it for 20 years, that many of the attempts to bring a quick final status solution are flawed. we failed in 1993, it failed in 2000, it failed in 2008, it

failed in 2014. so i ask my friends on the left to learn from this experience. you run into the wall once, you one into the wall twice, after five times you run into the wall, it is time to understand there is a wall there. but that does not mean we have to put a million more settlers in judia. that doesn't mean we have to kill the option, the hope. so what is my vision? i think we need a new creative approach. weez reallies are about thinking outside of the box. what i believe in, because i know there isn't a two-state solution that can be implemented tomorrow, we need a two-state vision, two-state option and two-state dynamics. vision, because throughout our history, we were stronger, not only more just when we were moderate and generous. we accepted the partition

planning 37 and that is why we won the terrible civil war of the '30s. and we accepted the partition in 47 and that is why we went the legitimacy and unity to win against the suicide bombing. we need the three. the vision, the two state vision the two state option to keep that open. and we need the two state dynamic. what do i talk about when i talk about the two state option? that's why settlements building beyond the barrier is so dangerous. because it kills the possibility of doing anything in a box. i am not naive. i understand the danger. i want security, security, security. i think the settlement building beyond the blocks weakens israel. doesn't strengthen israel.

so if we try a settlement free beyond the barrier beyond the blocks, in my mind we are not endangering ourselves in any way but we are keeping the two state option there. >> thank you. >> i still have -- >> even with your extra time. >> the two state dynamics, let's have a marshal plan for gaza. let's have it in the west bank. let's work with those constructive palestinians for giving future to our neighbors while controlling our destiny and maintaining our security. thank you. [ applause ] >> caroline you have seven minutes and 52 seconds to respond. >> that's including the person note? >> and one interruption by you. so good morning everybody. thank you so much for hosting us

in this important debate. thank you, ari for being a very esteemed debating partner. or opponent. it's a pleasure and an interesting challenge, really, to debate you, ari. i think he's the example shining example of what's best on the left. from a policy prescription, he remains entirely true to his tribe. but he represents the best of that tribe. because from time to time, he can make room for facts that are uncomfortable to his tribe. for instance, a very important article he wrote in 1997 he describe r described the original bdf. the bb derangement syndrome of the pathological hatred the left harbored for prime minister netanyahu. he showed that hatred is tribal.

just as the policy is tribal. that the left wishes to advance in israel for israel. and i think you know, as for policies and how we're supposed to look at the two state solution and its continued viability or lack thereof i think it's important for us to understand the nature of the debate on this policy today in israel. on the one hand, 20 years ago, the left won the ideological debate in israel. today and really for the past 20 years or so you've had about a 3/5 majority consistent popular support among israelis for the establishment of a palestinian state under certain conditions. on the other hand, the left cannot win an election. they cannot win an election as leftists at least. when the left goes to elections

indeed it seeks to hide the fact that it's left. and the question is what explains this seeming contradiction? how can you have one, the ideological vein and yet you fail to win elections. the reason that the left fails to win elections, is because most israelis have come to understand on our backs, through our horrific experience over the past 22 years since israel embraced and adopted the two state solution as the core of its national strategy. we have come to understand that these conditions, the certain conditions under which we would support the establishment of a palestinian state will never ever be met. and that it is silly to argue about how to make this happen. it is silly, it is a waste of time. indeed, it is irrational to argue about how to make this

happen. this is mainly because the palestinians do not know and never have wanted primarily to establish a palestinian state west of the jordan river. it is irrational to continue to discuss how to discuss the two state solution. the two state solution is founded on the premise that the palestinian conflict with israel is about land. and it is not about land. the palestinian conflict with israel is about their failure and the greater arab and islamic failure to come to terms and accept the justice of the continued existence of the state of the jewish people, the jewish state, the state of israel. that is the core and the cause of the conflict. that is why it's enduring. that is why we will never reach a two state solution in our lifetimes. so partitioning or questioning

how to partition and under what conditions we should partition the land of israel west of the jordan river is similarly irrational. the real question that we ask in israel and that i think should become the question that guides our discussion about how to contend with the palestinian conflict with israel, is given. to take as a given, to understand it is given that israel will be at odds with the palestinians for the foreseeable future. the question the policy question that we should be considering at all levels of our societies, is how should we manage the situation? how should we manage the situation? that we cannot resolve through a peace accord based upon the partition of land based on the assumption that the way to reach peace is to give away land. in my book, i make the case4t& for matching our democracy with our

security requirements by extending israel's democratic rule of law, our liberal legal code to judaya and samara. i argue this not because it will bring peace, i argue this because it is just and it is right. it reflects the rights of the jewish people to the land of israel and the justice of our state. by extending our democracy throughout samaria it also shows that our democratic values go hand in hand with our security concerns. moreover and finally, it answers the existential question of how israel is to handle the palestinian security threat that will not disappear in our lifetimes. and because you took extra time, and i'm a woman, i will take less time.

i am done. thank you. [ applause ] >> before allowing you to respond, i want to remind the crowd to fill out your cue cards and hand them to staff so we have questions. ali, response? >> i totally rugree with caroline that the reason israelis don't go for the moderate option is that the israeli left and the international community have failed in producing a realistic peace concept that addresses the failure of the previous attempts and the careless all around us. i promote a new kind of approach that will be much more realistic going for the two state vision, creating a two state dynamic and keeping the two state options knowing there is no solution. there is no two state solution. and not the one state solution in the coming years. no with fixes, no mesyannic

solutions. it's a complicated difficult situation. we have to deal with the complexity. if i may i'd like to challenge the option that caroline is promoting promoting. i have mainly two concerns. one is, that if we go on for the one state solution, or option, we are endangering ourselves as jews twice. once we are endangering the jewish majority, there is great demographic controversy i don't want to get into it. caroline writes about it. i don't want to get into the west bank demographics. let me speak about where we know the numbers. israel itself. sovereign israel. right now we are already down to a 75% jewish majority in israel. in 2025 we are talking about 70%. if you are to add even a

million, i think there are three million, even if you add a million arabs into that formula we will either stop being jewish or we will stop being democratic. if we will not give full rights to all these palestinians. we will not be democratic. and if we do, we will go down to levels of a jewish majority that is so fragile. if we insist within that context on our right to live they'll want to live there. they'll build all around my hometown. where does this lead us? either we commit suicide as a national home or we go back to old alabama of the early gifts50's. the second problem is my fear for the impact of this on your

younger generation here. this kind of attitude will endanger the ability of young american jews to stand by israel and identify with israel. the only way to win jewish minds and hearts is to prove that israel is a benign israel. that it's fully democratic. that it's america's small endangered sister. that we are frontier democracy supported by your great democracy. if we endanger that, we endanger everything. [ applause ] [ applause ] >> all right. so first of all as a product of the american jewish community i think that you are vastly underestimating the ability of this community to understand what is good and right. i do not believe not even for a

moment that the way to win the hearts and minds of young american jews to say that we're sorry and we're desperate and pathetic and we need you that is not exactly an inspiring message. it is certainly not true. it is not true that israel is pathetic. it is not true that israel is a poor weak democracy that is an absolute need of the american jewish community in order to continue to exist. with all due respect to our partners in the american jewish community, that is not the kind of message that people need to hear anywhere. not only in the united states, not in israel, not in france, not in bellumentgiumbelgium south america no where. we are not a pathetic basketication ofbasket case of a nation. we are just, right we are creative exciting and we believe in who we are and what we do in this world.

now, you know, the whole idea that i'm not going to discuss demographics. i wish we could not discuss demographics. i am not a numbers person. the numbers you gave quite frankly are correct. israel has a 78% majority. moreover our fertility rates are higher than the arabs we surpassed them in 2012. when you add to aaliyah, you understand that what you're saying is simply untrue. as to the whole issue of whether or not extending israeli democracy to judea or samara is going to be an option or not. i set out all my options involved in this plan there are many and mighty. and they are intimidating. what they are, are problems that can be solved when bright

people, when committed people when people who love as much as you and i do and as the vast overwhelming 99.9% of israelis do and the vast majority of american jews do then we can solve these issues. what we cannot solve, what we cannot contend with, is the challenge that the two state solution presents to israel. because the real demographic threat, ari and the real demographic threat my friends, is the threat of a palestinian state. everybody talks about this idea that there can't be a so-called right of return of the children to the great great grandchildren of arabs who left israel between 1947 and '49. everybody says they can move to palestine, but they can't. as we look at the borders at what is happening in the arab

world surrounding us we understand the true demographic threat to israel would be the establishment of that palestinian state which would be overwhelmed by millions of people that would be come only -- not only the refugees but the jihadist who would be marching on palestinian. we would have someone killed. they would meet the same fate at kadafi. we could see a jihadist enclave the likes of which we never imagined on the out skirts of jerusalem and in parts of jerusalem that would be partitioned under the two state formula. with all due respect to the heinous problems that a one state formula so-called presents to israel, it is a responsibility. on the other hand a two state solution is a recipe for disaster as we have seen over the past 22 years.

thank you. [ applause ] >> so first question and before this debate began we heard prime minister netanyahu speak about his belief in a two state solution. reaffirming that belief. we did not include the speak of him speaking before the election. ari, do you believe that the prime minister does support a two state solution. if he doesn't is that a possibility? >> netanyahu enigma for 20 years. i've been following it closely myself. and i don't have a clear solution there. first of all, i really appreciated what prime minister netanyahu did in his speech and in the fact that he agreed afterwards. he does not get enough credit for both acts. it's not trivial for the heads

of the israeli right to accept the two state idea in his own berger. and to go for settlement three, something that was not done previous. netanyahu did head his contribution, again, to do what i talk about which is to capture the moral high ground, zionism succeeded because we had a combination of realism and morality. we always understood we are a small, lonely people. and many people hate us. we are not china, we can not do tea bags. we are not russia we cannot do the ukraine. we have to act in a very sophisticated way. on the one hand being tough. being strong. we will not survive in that region for a day if we are not very powerful. but our powerful and power has to be combined with morality. what netanyahu understood is if he has to do that and capture

the moral high ground i think he wasn't committed enough. again, i don't think it was a possibility to reach. i think it was a mistake in going for the final status option. when secretary of state kerry came and i admired his commitment, i said this won't work. i can't saying i hope, i pray there is a secret team in the secret state department cellar that is planning plan b. because it was so obvious that what's happened is a decent american comes into town and the israelis sing him the peace song he wants to hear. i thought that the kind of practical approach would have been much more successful. i wish netanyahu would have gone for that. i don't think that we're end the leadership we have and the circumstance we have, we can have any new peace deals signed on the white house lawn. there will not be nobel prizes. but we have to go for the

alternative approach. if rather than go to the democratic peace we will try to bringer to god. it will combine israel's water technology with saudi money under american leadership. so we may prevent a catastrophe. think how that will change the dynamic. we will be offering something positive. water in the desert in the middle east. if we go to build this amazing city, this is something to work with. if we're going to work in such products so that palestinians go on a very long and gradual process of nation building, very slow it will take a long time. we have to be cautious. it's trial and error all the time. we have to learn from the mistakes in the past including gaza. to leave things as they are with no israeli initiative. with no hope, with not

projecting anything positive this endangers our unity. if god forbid we will have to use force again and we might we don't have enough legitimacy in the world. because settlements have caused such damage to our fight, our just fight against centrifuges. it took so much energy out of the room. so much bad blood. if we go back to this spirit we talk about which is to know where we are, to understand the conflict won't end. but to understand we are jews. we are jews. we must have the real commitment to democracy. and the search for peace even when peace is not there. that kind of attitude will make a stronger, will make us more just and will guarantee our future. [ applause ] >> caroline it would be the same question, you work for the prime minister. if i could ask you to -- has he

read your book? does he agree with your sentiments? >> you know, in all fairness to prime minister netanyahu he made very clear that the position of his government is that it continues to support the establishment of a palestinian state. and that is not the position that i argue in my book. and that's fine. ari supports it as well. i respect his right to do so. i personally think it's very dangerous. that doesn't mean it isn't a reasonable and perfectly position to have either for an individual or for the government of israel. i do think that it's important. you praise netanyahu for coming out and he did. he made significant statements and significant concessions in order to convince mainly president obama, of the seriousness in moving forward in negotiations. and we see that he got nothing. you see not only did he get

nothing, obama pocketed that concession and asked for more and demanded more. when israel didn't give more, israel was condemned. it doesn't matter for the first nine and a half months of that vaunted settlement freeze, when jews were denied a right to property in an unbelievable flight and trampling, in fact of our democratic rule of law civil rights of jews, property rights of jews because we're jewish, were denied because we're jewish in jerusalem. because we did that, we were supposed to be supported. we were supposed to show the entire international community first and foremost the united states of america the truth and sincerity of our intentions and our desire for peace. and what did we get? nine months of the ten months of freeze. abbas refuse today sit down and negotiate. when he finally came to the

table was to try to squeeze additional concessions. which concessions does he consistently demand? that we release bloody offensive monstrous terrorists from prison. terrorists who murdered our children. terrorists who murdered our parents. terrorists who murdered our husbands and wives from prison because they were murdered because they are jews. that is what he demanded. he demanded that from us. and, unfortunately, the obama administration supported that demand. and then they blamed israel for not being sincere in our desire to make peace, because we said, finally, enough is enough. and we will not go through with the third trench of prisoner releases of israeli citizens of arab ethnicity who murdered us because we are jewubss, this we will not do.

we would have done it, but we didn't do it because abbas refused to negotiate with us. he refused to make one concession. still today we see, we make concession after concession after concession things that harm us. things that endanger the lives of israeli citizens. releasing terrorists from prison causes the murder of additional jews. and we know this. we have statistical data to show it. the recitivism rate from terrorists we release from prison at the behest of the u.s. government with demands from our supposed negotiating partners the moderate palestinian leadership, jews have been killed. what is a jewish life worth? enough is enough. we never get credibility for showing our sin sirty for peace. we get killed for showing our

sincerity to peace. [ applause ] i just want to add i don't think, i don't believe and i don't believe it as a jew, i do not believe it is the responsibility of the jewish people to be the only true christians in the world and to constantly be giving our other cheek. i don't. i don't think that that is our responsibility. our responsibility to our people and our responsibility to our future is to not give the other cheek. it is to say, excuse me, but you cheated me once, shame on you. you cheat me twice, shame on me. i have a responsibility. i have a responsibility to my people. my responsibility is to my people is to secure our lives first and foremost and then we can move out and see whether we can talk. but the entire two state formula is based upon this notion that

israel is culpable. that israel is guilty. that it's our fault there's no peace when we're looking at people who are preaching to their children that they should murder ours. that they should murder our children. this is what they are preaching to their children. this is what they are teaching their children. everywhere. and yet we are the ones who are supposed to be making concessions. i say no. prime minister netanyahu has also said no. because the guiding concept of his two state formula is reciprocity. you want us to make concessions to you you show good faith. you make concessions to us. stop the incitement to genocide. stop the glorification of the murders of our people. when you do that, we can sit down and chat. so far, 22 years of this nonsense and nobody has told the palestinian people that israel is just.

that jews are just. that they should make peace with us. [ applause ] >> ari, caroline if i could -- >> thank you. >> ari i believe you might have a response in mind? >> i hope i have some time as well. is. >> as well. >> sorry, i get a little worked up. [ laughter ] >> ten more seconds for you, ari, sir. >> i totally share your feeling about the jews. and the fact that we are a people. a country that has given so much to humanity and was treated so badly by large parts of humanity

throughout the years. i definitely see anti-semitism and unfair approaches to israel. i do my best to fight. by the way i'm in the front line. because sadly, your message, your line is totally ineffective when it comes to the front line. when we lose -- [ applause ] >> and here let me say something serious about our community. we have to be very cautious. we live in this jewish bubble. the bubble is very strong because of this extraordinary success. the american jewish community. but once you go out of the bubble, and you talk to young people, america is changing. the demography is changing. people's minds are changing.

as passionate as i am about my truth as a jew, i have to go out and convince people. it's not enough to have all this great feeling of oh, they hate us and we are just. we have to go out and this is what it's about to go out at political warfare. with this kind of sense of we are just right and everybody hates us, we will lose that battle. because we don't understand what's really going on. again, what was zionism all about? it was it's time not to sit anymore in the ghetto and shout. yes, many are going to hate us. it is our responsibility to go out and work in the real world. we cannot be different than any other country in the democratic world. we cannot do that. that's suicidal. it's suicidal.

so getting it so nice to get into these feelings of how just we are, we are just. but we have to be smart again as well. just being just is not enough. specifically, these terrorists that were talked about, why were they released? netanyahu had two options. terrorists releases or settlement freeze. and the duty would not let him fork over the settlement freeze which he wanted. these terrorists you were talking about they were released because you're not willing to freeze one settlement. >> it's my fault. >> this is the main problem. that we get because of our history. because of our fundamental justice, because we are in danger, we sometimes go into kind of pattern that becomes dangerous. when i talked about zionism that's what i mean. listen, i'll say that. we are now 48 years to the '67

war. the '67 war was our greatest victory. never before and never since were we so strong. that was from the '67 line. when we were -- we had less space, less of the land but we had more unity more determination, and we were able to defend ourselves in such a victorious way. six years later we had our worst failure. we had so much land. but we were weaker. land is important. but land is not the only component in national security. [ applause ] >> and the problem with this approach is when you try to grab it allb you lose it all. that was what it was all about. you try to grab it all you lose it all. we need land and we have every right for the land. but we have to understand there are other people. we have to find a way to

accommodate them to respect them. if we don't respect them and find a way a reasonable realistic way, we are endangering ourselves in every way possible. and i'll say this again the major fight now is how israel is perceived amongst us and in the world. [ applause ] we are a david. i have no doubt for a minute. we are a david. but we have to speak like a david. think like a david. and act like a david. rather than be perceived as a goliath. it's unjustified. this is the way we feed the worst feelings against us. we have to go back to being this fit strong realistic and just david that we were. when i go around campuses i say to people, don't forget. fundamentally, historically, we are the underdog.

we are an underdog on steroids. this is our great success. but we have -- if we try if we ignore the fact that there are millions and millions of others if we will jeopardize their rights, if it will not accept the fact that they need their own rights and liberties, we will endanger our own liberty, survival and existence. thank you. [ applause ] >> caroline we're close to running out of time. i do want to allow you to respond. if i could ask you to confine it to two or three minutes and we'll go to a close. >> i think it's very important. i'll make it brief. there is one aspect of what you're saying that i want to discuss. and that is the issue of how we are among the nations of the world. how they perceive us, that we can't stand alone among the nations of the world. i think this goes to the heart of anti-semitism and what

anti-semitism is really about. it was professor wiesz who positive -- and i think correctly the notion that the ability of a democracy to with stand the tests of time, to retain its democratic character is in many ways measured by the tolerance and the understanding and the acceptance of that democratic society has for jews. that really the litmus test of whether or not a country's democratic rule of law is going to be able to survive is a function of how that society contends with their jews. how that society looks at jews. because we really are the most vulnerable people and have been for thousands of years. and so the issue of whether or not a democracy is vibrant is rely dalectly correlated with a level of anti-semitism in that society -- or inversely

directed. but we can not -- and a second point on anti-semitism. i remember i had the privilege of interviews ellie wezell after i joined the jerusalem post in 2002. it was around the time of defensive shields. my first column was the first week of that operation. and i interviewed him in jerusalem. and there was -- anti-semitic riots the likes of which we hadn't seen throughout europe and the united states. and they were very frightening. and said to ellie, i said what do you say to the jews oramerica that are for the first time in their lives having to deal with the fact that they're hated because they're jewish. they never experienced this as children. i was blessed to grow up in a time when anti-semitism was still unacceptable outside of the back rooms in this country.

and i said what do you tell them? they're scared they're confused. they don't know what to think. and he responded to me, he said, they have to insure the post important thing in fighting anti-semitism is not to allow the anti-semites to define us. we the jewish people have always defined ourselves from the time we received the ten commandments. we have defined ourselves as the children of abraham and isaac and jacob. because the moment we give that right to define who we are and what we believe to our haters they harm us. they weaken us. they make us less able to maintain and to continue on as jews. and so the most important thing he said when we're dealing with this kind of internalized hatred

of israel and of jews is for us to keep clear about who we are, what we stand for and what we believe, and not to think that we have to change the way we do things in order to make the haters happy. because we can't. we cannot reason people out of something that they weren't reasoned into. anti-semitism is fundamentally irrational because it describes to us positions and statements and israel's case actions that we never undertook. we are not persecuting the palestinians. we are not denying them their rights. since 1994, 98% of the palestinians have lived under palestinian control not under israeli control. when we say to ourselves that we are guilty of the projected guilt that they place on us when in fact that guilt is in the hands of the palestinian authorities, the bloody authoritarian rule of law destroying palestinian authority, we are in fact allowing anti-semites to describe us and to tell us who we are. i truly believe that that's

dangerous and it's wrong. >> caroline -- >> it's wrong to try and put together a policy for contending with it. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> you have three minutes for your sum up and concluding remarks. >> well, i think that for ourselves, for our own soul, for our own security, and of our own future, we must find a wise way to change the present condition. again, we should never be named. we have to address the sailors of what was tried before. we need a kind of third way approach that will lead us to somewhere that is somewhere somewhat better. i am deeply worried by the fact

that the dynamics within israel and sometimes even within the community here, are taking us further and further away from the west. we are here in this conference with this amazing organization. the great success of zionism throughout the years was based on this combination of we are just, but we must be realistic and we must know in what world we live. we already destroyed ourselves in our history because of zealts. we had the gene in us. we have to be so cautious about that. mesyannism and the approach is so dangerous. i'm so passionate when i think about the founding fathers and mothers of zionism. i shiver. they did not only have a

brilliant diagnosis, they saw what was coming and try today prevent it. they struck a balance. they were no flower children. we knew we live in a cruel world. but they understood we have to find a sophisticated approach. and had two leading principles. one was always to have a super power on our side. first it was the british then the french and then this great alliance with the united states of america for which i'm so full of gratitude. and when i heard the way some people talked about the secretary the other day, one of israel's greatest friends this kind of dangerous approach among our community, not having enough gratitude, not having enough respect, we cannot survive a day

without america. with all due respect to our hair heritage heritage. america is a democracy and their life is based on shared values. if we risk that, if we approach this respectful approach that we saw the other day and first of all, i so feel embarrassed as an israeli and as a jew that this has happened to us. we should -- when we have differences we should express it. i write a lot about mistakes being done in this thing. but are respect, with gratitude. if we endorse a kind of approach as if there are no other people, no palestinians, no progressive americans, no afro americans, no latino americans no younger americans, there is nothing no

dangerous. we will deal with all the threats of the middle east. we will deal with that. but if we erode this eliance with the west that has to do with other principles, was it always capture the moral high ground. he was tough as nail when he went to war. but he always understood we must have the credit. we much reach out to peace even when peace is not there. if we will go the other way, and we will find ourselves on the wrong side of history, we are endangering this amazing achievement of putting ourselves in history again. so let's remember who we are. let's remember how dangerous it is out there. let's remember our values our legacy. the universal pride i mentioned. we are not just about narrow

minded nationalism. we have a mission in this world. and in a proud way, in a jewish way, lets both guarantee our soul, our values, our democratic identity and our security and our existence. they all go hand in hand. if israel will not be jewish it will not be democratic. and if it will be seemed to be not enough democratic, it will not be jewish. >> thank you. >> so let's -- [ applause ] >> before it's too late, let us save ourselves build ourselves, and guarantee ourselves the glorious future we should and can have. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> caroline final word.

>> thank you. now, i think we've been told i think you've said it in your way and we're told oftentimes that the only way that israel can have a successful foreign policy, the only way that we can get along in this world is by continuing to maintain our commitment to the two state solution. the real question though is how can we have a successful foreign policy, how can we win the hearts and minds of the people of this country, the people of europe, and, of course, beyond in asia and else where if we're maintaining our loyalty to a foreign policy that is based on a lie? that is based on a lie that the plo, that hamas that the arab world is a partner in peace and that there is a peace process today. that is a lie.

the palestinians are not partners. the plo is not a partner in peace. abbas is not a moderate. you know this. you have -- >> we're in agreement. >> we're in agreement, complete agreement. this man has never accepted any compromise with israel. has never agreed to any compromise and will never agree to any compromise. he is not a partner in peace. and yet the entire two state solution formula for policy making is based upon the lie that he is. the whole notion that we have a peace process is based upon the lie that we have a partner. we have no partner. and as a result, our foreign policy is based on the lie. now, what is the basic assumption of this lie? it is the assumption of israeli guilt. it is the assumption of israeli culpability for the absence of peace. that is the basis of the two state solution. land for peace. you get peace if you give up land. you won't get peace so long as you hold on to it.

it's your fault. you're greedy jews. >> you won't give up jerusalem. until you do we'll continue to blame you. we'll continue to say that you didn't freeze jewish property rights. that you didn't abrogate jewish property rights and civil rights. you didn't let palestinian murderers out of prison. it's all your fault because the reason there is no peace is you have too much land. this is a lie. the longer we maintain our support and loyalty for this basically anti-semitic paradigm, we cannot go forward in the world and explain ourselves to anybody. because we're accepting as the basic assumption of a foreign policy an anti-semitic idea. we're responsible for everything, we're guilty for everything. you know what? we confuse then as a result people's ignorance with values

right? secretary of state john kerry made several comments over the past year that when his attempts to draw water from a rock and make peace with somebody who has no interest in peace with israel, he said israelis are too wealthy. we're too successful. we don't have a sense of urgency about the peace process. we had martin indyke telling us on israeli television that you the israeli people are irrational. because we don't move forward with peace. and really what we see here, and even comments by ari today by our need to show our morality and willingness to compromise in order to win hearts and minds. this is one of the terrible things the left has done. that they try to repackage to their audiences the audiences' ignorance of facts with some sort of moral failure on the part of the israeli people. we don't want peace enough. you know, when we say that the palestinians are our peace

partners. when we say that mahmoud abbas is not a moderate and he's not interested in making peace with israel. we're not saying it because we don't want peace. we're saying it because we're making a factual observation. we are observing facts. and we live in reality in israel. we live in reality and we die by reality. and we have to deal with it. it's an insult it's an insult to us to the israeli people to present this observation of fact, this observation of reality as a moral failure. as if we don't want peace. >> caroline -- >> true morality -- let me just finish this. true morality is to live by the highest values, to live by the highest values in the world that exists. and israelis demonstrate our loyalty to the highest moral values every single day in the world in which we live. [ applause ]

>> thank you. thank you both for your passion. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you for your courtesy. thank you. [ applause ] here are some of our featured programs this weekend on the c span networks. on book tv on c span 2, saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern. kirsten powers says although they were once its champions liberals are against tolerance and free speech. sunday night at lev. michael morale on the successes

and failures of the agency's war of terror. saturday night at 9:15 conserven mcmahon on the strategy behind president nixon's supreme court appointees. sunday at 6:00 we visit the national museum of national history to view the newly restored mureles from talladega murals. and the founding of talladega college. get our complete schedule at cspan.org. director of clinical cardiology at women's hospital in boston. dr. patrick oguerra on the advances in heart surgery and the understanding of heart health. >> this actually is a valve that

has been crimped on to this catheter that's being now positioned into the diseased valve. it will be deployed here in just a second with the balloon being inflated. a new valve will be inserted inside the old calcified stenotic volve stenotic valve. the delivery system is being withdrawn and then the wire will be withdrawn. and what we've just seen in this little pictorial display is replacement of a diseased aortic valve in a manner that does not require open heart surgery. we're trying to become smarter about predicting who will get disease, we're trying to become smarter as to identifying the most effective means to prevent or attenoutiate the disease. so we're currently in an era where we're trying to harness

the promise of the human gegnome research projects that been in existence for more than a decade. with all of the inform attics that can be driven by the giants of the industries like google for example. and information about socialology, geography. what you're likelihood to get diabetes on the basis of your educational background. and what's your likelihood of developing something like diabetes or hypertension if you live in a certain part of a city where you have less access to the right kind of food or even the right kinds of instructions about sodium consumption. little things like that that could have enormous impacts on population health. >> sunday night at 8:00 and pacific on c span's q&a. senator ben carden ran a round table last week on

rebuilding and recovery efforts after the proefrtstests and riots. senator carden met with business owners community leaders and activists. this event was health at the matthew a. henson elementary school. and it's an hour 15 minutes. >> let me -- we're going to get started. first let me thank dr. cheatham for his leadership in our community. weave been friends for a long time. doc comes from the community and we appreciate that. he has had many community leadership positions over the years. i thank you very much for that. it's great to be here. at the matthew a. henson elementary school, neighborhood association. we thank you all.

we are, of course, in the neighborhood in which the tragic episodes concerning freddie gray occurred. so let me just start, if i might, to let you know that our federal delegation, which includes senator barbara mccull ski, my teammate and captain of our team in the united states senate, along with our three members of the house, elijah cummings who did an incredible job to calm the community, john sarbane and josh rupertberger, we have been strategizing. as to wlaut what we can do to solve the problems in baltimore. we love baltimore. we love our city. i've lived my life in baltimore. i'm proud of this city. what happened in baltimore, could have happened in other cities. we know that. but it happened in our city. we want to make sure that we take the right steps. so there are two areas that we are trying to deal with in regards to what happened in baltimore.

one is to restore the confidence of the community that the police are on their side, that the police in the community are we have problems there. i have introduced some legislation to deal with it. we have to end profiling in this country and in our community and anywhere in america. i've introduced legislation that helps people who have had problems. there's not a single person here and there's not a single person in the united states senate who hasn't had a second chance. so we got to recognize that our criminal justice system has not treated everyone fairly. we got to give people a helping hand. this past week i was at second chance in baltimore, which is incredible what they do to help people who have finished their prison sentences. they also do a great job on a commercial venture of taking old material from buildings and recycling them into new products

that are good marketplace for. we have to do a better job in dealing with the policing so that you have confidence, accountability, justice and safety in our community. the second area is that we have to deal with the rebuilding of our city. that's, yes, rebuilding businesses. many businesses were very badly damaged, destroyed by what happened. so we have to rebuild the businesses. but we also have to provide opportunity for people. and that means looking at what we're doing with our young people. do they have recreational facilities? that are first rate so they can do what young people do. and that is they like to do things. they don't like to sit around. do we have summer jobs? do we have opportunity? so that's a huge part of what we're trying to do. i want to thank president obama. president obama convened a meeting in the white house for our federal congressional delegation with his team. and he had representatives from

most of the federal agencies. we had the secretary of hud there, housing, because we know we have a housing problem. we know we have a housing problem in this community and in many communities in baltimore. we had the secretary of education, because it starts with good schools. we want good schools and opportunity for all of our children. we had the small business administration represented and the administrator has been in baltimore. you know there's a center open not too far from here to help businesses get the help from the small business administration. they were there. department of justice was there. we questioned the department of justice on second chance opportunities and getting some of those funds here in baltimore. so they were very actively engaged. the department of health was there, because one of the key things for a neighborhood to be able to be a place where you want to live, you have to make sure you have access to healthcare. we also want to make sure that

you are not a food desert. we will make sure you have opportunities for healthy food choices in your community. all that are important areas to have a healthy community and neighborhood. you know what came out the most that i heard? this is the reason i wanted to be here. i thank reverend stephens for making the arrangements. what i heard more and more is that most of us in government and that can make a difference, are we really listening to the community when we make our policy decisions? whether it's the mayor of baltimore or the united states senator. are we really engaging the community? you know there's not endless amount of funds available. you are realistic about that. but are we making sure that we put those resources where the community wants it to be? that's one of the points that i just want to make sure that we reach out and talk to the people in the community and understand

your priorities so that as we go forward, we are in sync. that we are together and that we are using every opportunity we have to give hope and opportunity to people of our community. and that's why i wanted to be here to listen to your concerns. i can assure you, i will take it back to our team. not only our federal team. we are working close with the mayor of baltimore. we're working closely with our state team. we're all trying to work together. faith community is working with us. we're trying to put everybody together. we have the one baltimore campaign that the mayor started with mike cryer at the head of it. the information that you share today will go into that equation so that we can try to move our city forward in the most progressive way possible. in the last couple weeks, i have walked the streets. i went into businesses. i saw what happened. i have been around here. i know that people have an

incredible amount of energy in this community. but there's a lot of frustration. and we want to know how we can work together so we all have a bright future. with that, let me turn if over to don. >> senator first it's an honor to have you here. we won't share with anyone how long we've known each other and how many different groups we worked with. it's an honor to you have here in the neighborhood of matthew henson neighborhood association. some of us have lived here so long, we remember these were houses before the school was built. many of us go back quite a ways. matthew henson is in a neighborhood called winchester. we are abutting to fan town. one of the biggest challenges we have had in the last few weeks since the civil unrest or riot, depending upon what you want to call it, is that a significant number of our faith leaders, a significant number of our elected officials really weren't cognizant of this area we are in.

many of them have gone to northern pennsylvania. they've gone to fulton. we don't begin until fulton. we had 14 businesses damaged during the riots in our neighborhood. we actually had more businesses in our neighborhood ruined than sand town did. because the largest damage was done was done in sand town, most everyone felt when they got to fulton and we have one of the owners of one of the properties here that the rest of the community had not been hit. we actually had 14 businesses. what made our situation a little bit different -- i guess a little more damaging is we have no food market here. we have not had a food market since october. one of the small convenience stores -- it wasn't a food market. didn't have fresh food, vegetables, doesn't have chicken, fish. but it did have milk, orange juice, bread. that is one of the stores that

also got hit. so what we found and ironic enough, one of my longtime friends sitting here, one of our officers of matthew henson, the day after the riots, he came down the street and had a very perplexing look on his face. i've known him all my life. i'm 64. he is 63. we have known each other all our lives. i could tell by his face, something was terribly wrong. and he said, don, things are so bad, we don't even have a place to buy toilet paper. that's how desperate it got. the few stores that we had were gone. now, we have -- we have a good owner here. we have a protect plethora of liquor stores. we have 15. only two parts of baltimore city have more than we do. other than that, we have a plethera of liquor stores. no food stores. we have candy stores. what we found was two days after the riots, we didn't know where

do we go, what do we do. one of the greatest things that has happened is matthew henson elementary school. not only because they are educating children, but they have for almost two years been feeding people out of their food pantry. the lady sitting on your other side is the one who does this day in, day out, month in, month out. how does she do it? i don't know. she need to quadruple her salary. hopefully somebody on north very hears this. when we looked at it we said, how do we get services, food, necessities, toothpaste, toilet paper, diapers for children when we have no place here to get it? none. and what we were seeing was that everybody was at north and pennsylvania but we had not seen anyone here. it's not that we are pointing fingers or angry or upset. we just had to tell it like we saw it. we didn't see any of the elected

officials. when we began to call the officials, we have been in your neighborhood. i said, you have seen this store or that store? no, we haven't seen these stores. things have been real tough for us, because we didn't have a food market in the beginning. then it was compounded by the riots. then -- >> what food store was here that closed? >> stop, shop and save closed. it was one of eight stores. stop, shop and save we have is on monroe and pressman. matter of fact, if we get an opportunity to walk today you won't even know that a store was even there. the owner, which is pete flan i began and sons, which has been a good community partner for us, acquired the property. we could not find any food market to come in and replace stop, shop and save. that's just a vacant land right now. >> where is the closest supermarket? >> mcdur mott.

it's a little more than a mile. we are if a food desert. what makes it challenging is just the bare necessities. a few small stores we have run out so fast because there's so many people trying to get to them. one of the biggest challenges is mcdermott $7.50 one way. $15 two ways whether you use a cab or whether you use a hack. we have a significant number of hacks. in some cases, that's the only way our neighbors get anywhere. >> is to hire someone. >> what the neighbors are sitting $15 may be a night's meal for their family. we basically have been challenged to make certain neighbor goes with each other to the food market, be careful not to ride with someone you don't know. but the rides -- created more problems. additional problems are began because we're in the western police district. our homicide rate in march of

this year put us back in number one. for being the most violent district in the city of baltimore. that got compounded -- we are now in i think day 24. we're close to day 24 where we have seven blocks within our neighborhood, within walking distance, that have not had street lights. we have actually had one shooting in one of the blocks during this 24-day period of time. what we have had is -- i won't say excuses, but that's probably the best word i could use. the city blaming exolon. we don't care who is responsible, even today, 24 days later, we have had police lights -- portable police lights sitting in the blocks never been on. >> that's not good. >> never been on. we even to this day don't have all of those lights on. compounded that two days ago we had four row houses totally burned up. neighbors living in all four. it's like one tragedy after

another. what we were able to discern -- we have scheduled a meeting for sand town, winchester and harlem park. these are the three communities that the baltimore city health department has written two significant reports, one in 2008 and one in 2011. what they did was a health profile of these three communities. we have, in fact, set up a meeting for august 1 to bring all of these communities together. but the data is really, really scary. 57% of the homes in our community make less than $25,000. >> say that again. >> 55.7% median house income, less than $25,000. compared to baltimore city, 33%. unemployment, 21% of 16 years of age or older compared to 11% in the city.

as i go through some of these statistics, we're almost double sand town, winchester and harlem park, to what the negatives are in the rest of the city. 30% of the families here live in poverty. compared to 15% in baltimore city. 36.9% of our households are headed up by single parents where 26% are in the rest of the city. 43% of our residents, 16 years of age or 64 -- between 16 and 64 are not in the labor force at all. 43%. that's almost half of our neighborhoods. education, 75% of our residents, 25 years or older, have a high school degree or less. high school degree or less compared to 52% of education in baltimore city. we look at just about every issue, alcohol density, 8.1 compared to 4.6 in the city.

it's just one data after another. this is the report done by johns hopkins and the city of baltimore health department. as a result of the data that we have and the list goes on and on. it talks about the death rate. our death rate compared to the rest of the city, 64.3% is your life expectancy in this neighborhood. where in baltimore city it's 71 .8. avertible death, 50% of the death in our neighborhood are avertible, 36 in baltimore city. we are dying of things that could be handled. i don't want to bore you with all the data. >> this is important. >> if the data substantiate how devastating health and life expectancy is in this community. and then when you add on things like no food markets, increases in liquor stores, we have had a significant increase in stores selling lucys.

those are cigarettes that you sell individually. you can't go to too many stores where you can't buy them. of course, who is buying them are our young people. we want to hit on a couple issues we feel matthew henson neighborhood association -- we are one of the larger associations. we have a little more than 3,000 residents. we cover a little more than 52 blocks. most of our blocks are row houses, which means you have anywhere between 40 to 50 houses in a block. the most important thing to matthew henson neighborhood association is matthew henson elementary school. >> amen. >> and our children. that is our most important priority. we're so happy to have our illustrious vice principal here and on your right side the lady who handles the food pantry and literally we had five tractor trailers full of food. we had just about every member of the ravens here and had they not been here, we may still be try to unload those tractor-trailers.