if you go and do an internet search, you can get right to it. >> why do republicans let the democrats say that the republicans are trying to limit women's access to health care. they're trying to limit their access to murdering babies. >> the short answer is we can't dictate what they say. so if your question is why do we let them say it, we have to let them say it.

the better question is why don't we respond. and we do. we tried to make the case last year that we were simply trying to move last year from planned parenthood to the qualified clinics. in fact, they better serve the lower end of the economic spectrum. we tried to have that argument. if the media won't drive that out, we're left to drive that message out. this was not about women's healthcare. we tried to make it very clear that we were not simply taking it away. we were moving it to other places where it could better serve women's health. >> from missouri, democrats, john, good morning, you're next up. >> good morning. yesterday, we had another republican from the south and he was talking about -- i've got to

talk about that. but what he said was if the republican congress could pass some law if the president would just work with him. well, did the president come and work with you on repealing this health care law? or are you just sad that you could do it without the president's help? now, every time we have a discussion about health care and c-span, which is dozens and dozens of them: the only thing ever discussed is the cost of health care insurance. why don't we ever just discuss the cost of what health care actually does. and how he's running all the hospitals, running all of these medical groups are just flat overcharging everybody for everything they do.

i recently went to a hospital three times, three different days, did not stay overnight. was just protesting. and after medicare, my co-pay was $8,000. and this was just for testing. so how in the hell can these medical groups and doctors' groups and hospitals combine with this overcharging. it's the medical groups, the hospitals and the doctors. >> john, thank you for your comments. we'll let our guest respond. >> a couple of different things. back to the original point, i still don't know who my white house liaison is. i was reading a book the other day about the founders of the nation. the very first thing the president did was write a letter to congress, writ, by the way, to john adams.

and congress asked him to write the response. to actually write a letter to himsz. the example is there. but the president sort of works. i don't know if he knows how to do that. i'm not sure if he knows how to work in that building down the hall. he's part of a legislative body. it's what he wanted to do. but things the house could do? yeah, the house passed an amendment two years ago to increase federal funding for the background checks. it's difficulty between the states. they were not communicating very well with each other. if you were adjudicating in north carolina, and north carolina is a specific example, but it applies generally.

so you could drive down across the state line and move and go to buy a gun and wouldn't turn up in our background system. that was broken. i voted for that as many, many republicans did. it died in the democrat controlled senate. the president may have been able to fix that little piece of the puzzle. those types of things don't get done. let me just respond to john in a sense. just because his bill is $8,000 doesn't mean he was overcharged. i have no idea what services were performed. $8,000 might be a great deal for the level of health care that he got. and my fear is that most people just want it to be free. that's the code word here. they think they're entitled to health care as a matter of law. that by virtue of being here,

they're entitled to a certain level of health care. and i think that's a dangerous position for us to take. every time we say we're entitled to something, we have to realize the flip side of that obligation. the flip side is something else is obligated to me. as soon as you say i'm entitled to health departmentcare, what that means is somebody else is obamaly gaited to pay for it for me. i'm not one to go there. >> next call is patty from connecticut. independent line. go ahead, you're on, please. >> thank you. please, don't cut me off. i just want to say that a columnist always said the republicans do this all of the time. they get the bill right up to the limit so that they can say oh, we tried. he gave the store away. he's going to be worse than

obama, the jack kemp boy. they're trying to placate the republicans. that's why donald trump is making headway. now, i'm just sick and tired of it. this health care thing is a ploy. it's doing nothing. just like everything else yous do. i was a republican. no longer. thank you. >> a couple of us actually agree with her more than she realizes. the donald trump phenomenon is real. i've seen him in south carolina, i think he's leading in south carolina. i go and i get that sense of why trump is doing so well. it's real. there's a broad swath of not only the republican party, but simply angry it's real.

we've done a lousy job of over-proemsing and under-delivering. we've done a terrible job of following all of those promises. see all the thing that is we haven't done, haven't everyone tried to do. so that anger is real. i will take issue with patty, at least for the time being as mr. boehner. i don't see that. don't judge him by the omnibus. the bill, to me, still had the

dead hand of john boehner reaching out. most of that deal was cut before paul came into office. you cannot do an omnibus deal in five weeks. judge by 2016. that's what i tell folks. he's done with all of the stuff cleaning up you can judge by what's going to happen now. you can say he's doing the conservative caucus. he's got one year. we'll have a chance to judge him by a year of his own actions. so yesterday's bill is a step in the right direction? >> absolutely. it was a promise kept. people will cry it's meaningless. but we knew that was going to be the case in 2010. everybody knows that.

that shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. especially patty who obviously follows politics. we made a promise, we kept a promise and we're trying to drive a debate. how great would it be if it's a result of what happened yesterday in the house and previously in the senate. and by sending this bill to the president, health care becomes a focal point of the presidential debate. it's all about isis or who hates everybody more. let's have a national debate. we should have had that in 2008. we didn't. we didn't have it in 2012. we need to have it now. we need to have a national debate about health care and what republicans tried to do yesterday, is drive that debate. we'll see both parties take it up. >> thank you very much for taking my call.

i wanted to take it in health care. i do this anonymously. one, you're breaking it up. two, it's not what you're getting. also, the issue is medicare or medicaid internationally. just say you want to do so. you want to charge someone else. if r the the same process is with the democrats in the majority of the house. i just wanted to put that out. it's a very good point. they have rights. someone else won't have to pay for it. you will have to pay for it.

the numbers do not lie. i's continued to grow. first they had medicare and medicaid expansion. see what happens. >> you've put a lot out there for our guest. we' eel let them respond. >> i got this question a lot about using the same process to repeal obama care with the senate and the house used in 2010. that's partially correct just to clarify for the folks who watched the show. clearly much more educated than ordinary folks. that's partially correct. keep in mind that the first pieces of obamacare were actu actually passed when the democrats had 60 votes. so that's why the first part of it went through.

that's one of the reasons that we weren't able to repeal all of obamacare. it's being described as obamacare. but technically, reveals most of obamacare, but not all of it. but the point of working or not working. it's working forsome people. all we've done is move the group of people who were uninsured. it used to be if you were very poor, you could not afford health care. i think the cheapest policy you can buy is $19 a month. if you were working, if you were a little bit up front, a

one-income household with a couple of kids, well, now, you can't. >>. >> woe're talking about the cost of insurance, not the cost of health care. there was a several thousand dollar deduktble. people can't afford to have health care. when they first came out with obamacare, they were eager to take people in the reimbursement rates were pretty good. and then the hospitals ended up

being on the books for a bunch of more unpaid bills. we've not fixed the problem by any stretch of the imagine nation. also a report to state as well as financial support from the government. that's going to start decreasing. south carolina did not expand medicaid. i'm actually very supportive not to do that because i've learned a valuable lesson. i can assure you that when times get tough the first money that we cut up here is the money that we give to states. all of these promises that have been made, if you live very closely, the president's last budget proposal, you'll see that he's already starting to telegraph that he wants to reduce the federal support for those state programs faster than originally promised.

it was a pig and a poke. it was a drug dealer saying here, just take this one for free. but i think states are going to come to rue that decision. >> here's sam from monasis of virginia democrat's line. >>. the man who said he pays $8,000 for co-pay we're not asking that it's going to be free.

you always say that they want it for free. it's so unfortunate. >> i won't use the word and i apologize if i've offended you with my word choice. i think i can make the argument in a different way. question're talking about affordability. i have no idea what service the previous caller had. let's assume for sake of discussion he received a hundred thousand dollars of health care and that's the fair value. you're paying $8,00 for it, that's pretty affordable. that's talent. if you've got a hundred thousand dollars worth, that's pretty affordable. that's the kind of conversation you have to have unless you want to make the argument that it should be free.

we have a way in this country to figure out a way to make things more affordable except health care. and the reason that is is while you paid for that ipad and i paid for that phone, we don't pay for health insurance. we've disconnected the market forces that work every place else. and, as a result, we're seeing this product, health care, react in a way that's different than everything else that we buy. that's my argument on the health care bill. this is sam's argument. again, you're not going to sit here and see me defending the indefensible. i saw the 20, 30, 40% increases in health care.

and i kept waiting for my party to address the problem. all we did was talk about traditional marriage amendment to the constitution. that was wrong. i thought my party had started to start talking about things that weren't important to ordinary americans. i think i'm hopeful that we shall do a better job in 2016 what ideas should be if they put us in charge. they didn't do that the last time they put us in charge. i think it tells us what we would do. speaker ryan, where does he go from here? >> he laid out specifics. >> i'm so excited about paul being excited for speaker of the house.

what has paul done in the past. how do you fix social security? and then we voted on him. tax reform in the same way. we actually voted on some big things. they were hard votes. they drew a lot of political fire. you saw the democrats running adds, mid session, of a guy that looks a lot like paul ryan pushing a lady off the cliff in a wheelchair. >> here's george from north carolina. home of the pickles. >> yes, hello.

it's been four years since i've called in, so, please, let me say my piece. i'm not sure if the american caller listeners know how many tax dollars you're taking for your health care plan. congress has taken over $13,000 per congressperson per year to subsidize their hemtcare. and you are a very part time employer. and then about three years ago, you passed a law that says congress gets it for life. so i want you to tell us how many tax dollars are you taking to subsidize your health care. if you say you don't know, one, you're a liar or two, you don't know because you don't care. you got yours. if he doesn't know, he's got people there in the back room who can make a phone call and get the answer right away. tell us how many times, sir,

have you taken for your health care. but then you have the gall to say sorry, there's not enough of our money to take what you give to yourself. have a great day. bye, bye. >> thank you for the opportunity, pedros. i hear a lot of this on the internet. a lot of folks getting a shamed e-mail from the 28th amendment about here's how you can fix congress. you can make them apply laws to themselves. i'll go down the list because i've done this many, many times before. people think that we get full pension after one year in office. i can assure you, that is absolutely false. i'm a big fan of term limits. give those people full pensions after one year and they'll all leave. but no, we do not get that. we get 1.5% accruing after 5 years or something like that. but it's not full benefits after one year served. people think we don't participate in ssz. that is false.

people think that we don't have to repay student loans. that's false. i am the only class of citizen in the united states of america who is prohibit ed prohiblted b law from participating in the health care system. as a member of congress, i am prohibited from doing that. i have to go on obamacare. and i am on obamacare. we are prohibited by law from participating in our program. i do get an employer of

contribution towards my premium. i think it's 857.92 tlars or something like that. >> can you get a subsidy on top of that? >> no, i get the same thing that other employers get. when i was a member of congress before the obamacare kicked in, i was still paying less for better service. i went to my doctor, the first time i was on obamacare, i went to my doctor. not a large corporation. and i walked in and they said hey, mr. mulvaney, how are you doing? i gave them my card and they said i'm sorry, we can't see you. they wouldn't see me. i said look, can i pay cash and

you can give me the prescription because we all know what it is? they said i'm sorry, we can't do that. it's real. and we live it. there's a bunch of reasons, george, there's a bunch of reasons to not like congress. we're not very good at our job. we're better at talking than we were at doing. but you don't have to make up reasons. >> caller: hello, i wanted to say that either 2008 or 2009, obama did have a summit with all republicans and to see how they can improve obamacare before they passed it. all they did through the whole summit, because i watched the whole thing, kwuz they were debating like they were trying to get into office. they didn't want to do anything.

they didn't even tell'm, no, they wanted to start from scratch. i don't know what scratch is because he gave them all the opportunity to say, okay, if you want to start from scratch, where do we start. all of the sudden, nothing, no issues were coming up. nothing. so i really think it's their fault because it was a debate. so they're misleading the people saying that, no, they're democrats did this, you know, where he actually wanted the republicans get involved with this. so everybody could have a fair share. they did not do that. and don't say it didn't happen. i watched the whole thing. and it's just sad that even now, you don't think it's a right for us to have good health insurance.

and that's a shame because we're losing america. i paid my fair share working. with the company. and, now, it's almost, like, they're taking everything away. they're trying to take social security, medicare, you name it. >> couple different things. i wasn't aware of a summit. i did see this. i saw the debate. by the way, louise, if you were disappointed with no issues being brought up by congress. the democrats were in charge then. don't blame the republicans. the democrats were completely in charge of this place in 2008-2009. to the extent there was no

meaningful debate on health care. the republicans were asked to read the bill and they were denied that opportunity. there was blank pages up at the floor that were not available to be read. if that's how you like the system to run, then you got exactly what you wanted. and if you believe that the end justifies the means, then i guess you got what you wanted. clearly, you got it the way that you wanted. you want it to be free. i would love it to be free, but things aren't free. and it wasn't free way back when, as you mentioned. someone paid for it. i say again, one of the reasons that the health care system is broken, we consume something that we don't pay for. we have no idea what it costs to have a child. think about that. that's the only thing we buy that not only do we not know what it costs, we don't care what it costs. all we know is that someone else

pays for it and if a doctor says we have to have it, we want to have it. i recognize the fact that this comes across as cold and sort of too economic driven, but the fact of the matter is that's the only product or service that we buy that is treated like that. if you want to know why health care is different than anything else, you can look to that.

ask your doctor how he feels about filling out paperwork. 20, 20 people in his office filling out paperwork. that's it. think about how much more affordable health care would be if he actually were just in the business of providing health care and not in the business of pushing paper. here is ralph, hello. >> i'm thinking that as long as a congressman, this discussed for over 20 years. and during that time, you're telling me that no congressman could have staff members working on that so it wouldn't be jamd down your throat? i would have stopped what i was doing and let it. how many times?

over 57? >> the other thing is chad cruz said that he had to get on this affordable health care because his wife lost her job which meant it's my mentor. why is it that he would opt to get on that instead of taking on another insurance policy, which i'm sure he can afford it. thank you, pedro. >> i didn't have the option that ted cruz has. my wife stays -- i have 15-year-old triplets. so the key options about the bill being discussed for 20 year, why didn't you read it? again, very quickly, it wasn't available to read. we voted on the bill before it was available to read. but let's deal with the larger issue of this is a major piece of legislation. that's something that everybody can agree on.

it's probably the largest social piece of legislation that we've dealt with. you go back and look at the civil rights act. why is that? so that it doesn't become devisive. it's exactly what obamacare is. that's one of the reasons i fall to the democrat leadership. for not recognizing what they did. we paint with that very broad brush. when we do the really, really big stuff, we do it on a bipartisan basis.

the last big thing that we did was reagan's tax policy in the '850s. i know it was a democrat house that approved it. when we do the big stuff, pedro, we're supposed to do it as a country so that it does not divide us. and that's exactly what obamacare has done because of the way we passed i. >> we'll take one more call from centerville, massachusetts. good morning, independent line. >> good morning, pedro. >> good morning representative. >> hi. >> obamacare originated here in massachusetts, if i'm not mistaken. it was called romneycare. here, it works. and what they did, the problems that they had with it, they seemed to work them out. now, you're from south carolina. your governor opt out of the

engs change. so if your doctor isn't take you willing you as a patient because he doesn't know which way your state is going, he don't know what to charge you. i know how much it would cost me to get an mri. hoump it cost me to get a cat scan. my premiums don't go down every year. >> enough with how it's working, massachusetts. i understand it was one of the plans calle romney care. one of the reasons that we didn't have this debate in 2012 was having to elect the person who was most singly capable of taking obamacare.

we didn't opt out of the exchange. we chose to opt out. but the ones that i use and not what the objection is there. we did opt out of medicaid, which i happen to agree where because i think it was a formula for the economic failure. >> governor will be giving the state of the union response. the delegation from south carolina, do they get the chance to address it? or how does that work? >> my guess is they worry about it. i found it out about it on the news, just like you did. but i think she'll be fine. unfortunately, i think the downside of giving the speech is probably harder than the upside. she did a really nice job.

marco rubio did a nice job. the downside is a high risk. >> nick mulvaney, south carolina, thanks for your time this morning. >> we need to know how many people are reading us. so if they're coming to us through facebook or through google or twitter or through snap chat, or through any of

these other venues, we should know that. >> sunday night on washington post, talking about the changes of the post since he took over. he also discusses the depiction of his work in the boss ton globe in the movie, spotlight. >> i think it's important to keep in mind that you have to compress in two hours. you had to introduce a lot of introduce the important things with that investigation. >> next, former diplomat and academics discuss the israel-palestinian conflict and the possibility of creating stability in the region.

ladies and gentlemen, we would like to start with please turning off your cell phone. >> my name is yono alexander. i'm the director of the university cent er the universiy studies that are administered by the policy studies as well as

the university center for legal studies at international law institute in cooperation with many academic institutions, universities around the world. specifically i'd like to mention the center for national security of the university of virginia school of law. on behalf of the diplomatic institute, unfortunately, is out of the country, as i understand. at any rate, of course genere,

who is the chairman of the board of regions and the 29th commandant of the marine corps but, at any rate, let me welcome the speakers professor to my left and obviously contributed a great deal, i think, to understand mod rat islam and receivabled as a professor of political science in jerusalem.

and will make a presentation today and, obviously, many of you are familiar with the contribution of his family. we do have the information about the speakers. i won't go into detail. speaker from the israel embassy in washington will also participate and he also is well-known to the audience and participated in a number of our seminars and contributors to our

report on the process and so forth. now, basically, our mission, i think, today, is to deal with the question of jerusalem whether the excavating ascension and violence in recent mons in the last three months can ignite the religious war in the middle east and beyond. and, yet at the time of christmas that the world is celebrate i celebrating peace on earth, the question arises whether the spirt of the second city of

jerusalem, the city that is honored through christianity and islam will encourage building the foundations for domestic piece in the middle east and so on. this and other issues would be included, discussions for example, the historical context background of the political aspect as well as the various issue in the role of religion, for example. so i would like to invite the speakers that will take over in a few minutes, i would like to thank c-span radio and television for bringing the seminar to the attention of a

wider audience in the united states and internationally. in addition to that, as always, we'd like to manage anniversary dates related to violence with some of the negative aspects with the realization of conflicts and trying with justice. so number one, we remember the victims of violence and terrorism. let me mention two, specifically. one, in fact, related to today dates december 21, 1988.

which is the 27th anniversary of the american flight 103 that destroyed 259 passengers who were killed, most of them americans. many of them remember that libya was responsible for that tragedy. and, also, on christmas day, 2009, the nigerian who attempted to detonate plastic explosives on the northwest side of 253 over detroit. of course, it was connected with

al-qaida in the arabian peninsula. clearly, we ask to remember many of the other members in recent time all the way from paris to california ultimately to jell ruse line up and siani and so forth. one footnote as a moderator. . i feel that i feel that for 25 years, i live, studied and worked in jerusalem. they both came in 1921 in their

late 30s. i grew up in the city of tell vooef, but i always consider myself a member of the population of jerusalem. i was involved in teach iing at the university for some 25 years related to war and peace and terrorism. i would like to mention in june, 1967, i had the great privilege and honor to open the campus specifically since we do have a few lawyers here at the law school. and i have a group of students, about 30 stubts, who came from the united states and other countries.

so the first assignment that i gave was not to write a paper, but to clean up the classroom that was not used for about 19 years. because of the separation of the city in jerusalem. and since that time, we, as scholars who came from all over the world to join us and participate in our academic work, including some of the people from paris, we have also clergy, christian, muz rims and others who participated in our

work. i'd just like to mention one particular study related to our topic today, not for publicity purposes, but back in 1973, we had a project at columbia university, school of journalism, in the middle east will produce a book on the role of communications in the middle east. middle east. i'm mentioning this because there is no way that one can discuss the issue of jerusalem separate from the arab palestinian conflict, arab israeli conflict or conflict between the muslim world and the international issue. so let me just begin by reminding all of us, we are

familiar with jerusalem the same way we're familiar with the washington and berlin and elsewhere. but again, just to remind us what are we talking about going back to the oldes thement, the new testament, the temple in jerusalem and the journey will go into some details right here, the church of the holy -- in other words, we're tacki italkit the sacred sights in jerusalem and the status of the sites and the mosque and, of course, the wailing wall, the western wall, the remnants of the temple that

haro herod the great built and the mosque and of course the pilgrimage pope francis of jerusalem, the wailing wall and elsewhere. so again, i think we have a big agenda. and again, the question i think that we're going to discuss today, what are the factors that encourage violence and terrorism and perhaps might trigger a third world war, as some people predict. how can we diffuse some of the negative theological elements from a political conflict related to israel, palestine, and so on and perhaps serve as a

model for of other conflicts around the world. so with this i would like to invite reuven azar to come up and discuss some of the issues. >> thank you, yonah. good morning, everybody. it's really a pleasure for me to appear before the -- here in the potomac institute again. i think that the key for peace, if we want to avid confrontation of war, the key is acceptance. acceptance, it means acceptance of the other. i could speak here for a whole hour, maybe for a whole day regarding the connection between the jewish people and jerusalem and talk about the history of jerusalem, how it was established as the capital of the israeli kingdom by king david 3,000 years ago, and about

the first and second temple and the fact that jews pray three times a day every day, going back to jerusalem to restore jerusalem as the capital and as place in which the temple is restored, et cetera. we mention jerusalem in funerals and weddings. it's part of our -- part and parcel in the life of any jew. but in order to get to peace we have to accept also the other. and the other has to accept us. another thing that we have to do is instead of exploiting religion to radicalize we have to exploit religion to moderate. and that is a very difficult task, especially today with the situation we have in the region because unless we defeat the radic radicals, we won't be able to do it. sometimes i'm hearing in the

last few months here in washington and other places when it comes to isis people say that isis are ignorant. unfortunately they are not. their methods are terrible, but the leaders of isis have an ideology and they are educated. so the problem that we have is that the radicals are educated. and unless we defeat them it will be very difficult to promote the message of the acceptance of the the other and to use religion to promote moderation. one of the problems we have in jerusalem, also in jerusalem, i was raised there, is that religion is being manipulated. in the last spark of violence that we are suffering from now, before that there was a campaign, well organized campaign, actually by the islamic movement in israel, claiming that israel wants to change the status quo of the temple.

now, this is not the first time that religion is being manipulated in that way. it goes back to the beginning of the conflict. even not only before '67 but before '48. in 1929, for example, when terrible massacre happened in jerusalem, hebron, the very old community of hebron was erased from the map, people were killed. it was sparked by initiative of jews in the wailing wall to put a separation between men and women. so this sparked a rumor that the jews are going to take over the temple. and what happened is that before the '20s, it was well-known, including in the publications of the world at that time, i think it was world settler from the washington institute that found

this booklet in the -- actually in the labor of congress or archives that mentioned the -- a publication in 1993 that said that the temple is the same location in which the temple of solomon was built. and actually the term like in hebrew is something that is well-known in actually one of the isis-related organizations. they, you know -- they exist in sinai. so this trying to rejectionist of trying to rewrite history and disconnect the narrative of the jews and their connection to the holy land was part of a nationalistic, anti-nationalistic or anti-zionist movement and it was

there to see what we know today as the palestinian movement, although the first -- those rejectionists are the first ones weren't necessarily defining themselves as palestinians. so how can we deal with rejectionists? that's a very, very difficult challenge because -- and i to followed it when i served in jordan, in ayman, we were dealing on a day-to-day basis trying to settle this problem that we have, that the approach of israel has been very interesting. because when we came to jerusalem back in 1967, after all these years, hundreds of and thousands of years of praying for jerusalem when he came to the temple mound, he sat on the floor, he called for the priest and he gave them the keys for

the temple. the idea of the leaders at that time was that in order for us to solve the conflict what we have to do at the end of the day is to separate between religion and religious rights and to show religious tolerance and not to take over the places are sacred for the others. another very important event was in 1994 when prime minister rabin signed a peace agreement, peace accord with the jordanians because that was the first time that any leader in the world recognized the role of the hashumites on the haram. why israel do that? because israel wanted to maintain and to promote the idea that you can separate and solve religious issues separately from national issues. we have a national conflict, we have to solve it. but if we draw religion into the conflict, we won't be able to solve it so we have to respect

other religions and respect the role and also the religious role of the legitimate religions in the region. it was vst interesting because at that point in time no other arab leader has declared that it respects the role of the family in the haram. in israel was the first one. last year i think or two years ago abu was the second one to recognize the role of the hashumite family and the hashumite kingdom in jerusalem. in the last two years i think we are also having another phenomenon which is worrying for us because has although israel is a democracy and we respect religion and we are being -- although we are being attacked for many years, there is a red callization process in israel

itself as well and we have jewish radicals. of course you cannot compare to what's going on in the region but we have to deal with that and we have seen in the last year or two an increased in the number of victims of jewish terror and we've seen some people in israel that are trying to call for the change in the status quo in the temple mound, in the haram. israel is trying to fight the radicalization. the president, the prime minister, the security is doing as much as they can in order to thwart the radicals, whether it be the hintu or other people trying to promote violence. but also i think the government has come out and said very clearly that israel is not

change the status quo on the temple mount. there is incitement around this, there's propaganda. and people around har rab world are completely sure that the israel wants to take over the mosque, haram al sharif but we're not going to do that because although jerusalem, and that place, the most sacred place for us has a connection to us, we have to respect also the aspirations and the religion of others. so just to wrap it up i would say that if we manage to find partners, that not only we join us in promoting moderation but also we'll recognize our narrative, then we have a chance of negotiating peace.

you know, we have negotiated. even jerusalem in the last few years, when -- under the barack government, the omar government, and suggestions on the table were very, very revolutionary and very ambitious. i think that we can get to that point when we hear from other side, from the leaders of the palestinians and leaders of the arab world that they are willing to recognize the historic connection of the jews to the holy land and to jerusalem, the religious connection, and the national connection. if we manage -- if we hear that, if israelis hear that from the other side i think it will be much more prone to compromise on the -- on the issue of jerusalem. so that's more or less wraps it up. thank you very much. >> we're not going to let you go. i know you have a schedule

conflict here but let me ask you some questions. number one, to provide some clarity, you mentioned the role of jordan in particular. very unique role. and just for transparency invited also the diplomats from the embassy of jordan because of schedule conflict they couldn't make it, but clearly, by the way, i attended that ceremony with jordan and israel. now, the question is related to the status, number one of jerusalem. the whole idea of the internationalization of jerusalem that was initially advanced, 1947 and later on.

secondly, the status of the sacred sites. not only in jerusalem but elsewhere like bethlehem, nazareth, and so forth. in other words, since we do have a number of people here, i thought it would be of great interest. >> thank you. i think we're going to have to separate between national rights and religious rights. we have a conflict with the palestinians. we think that, you know, jerusalem is the capital of israel. because of our connections that i already mentioned with the city. and this is something we have to settle with the palestinians. and there were different stages in which we negotiated such a solution. on the religious side i think that we have to stick to the principle that we are not going

to mix religious rights with national rights. and it's interesting because in our area of the world, unlike in the west, in our moto of democracy we don't separate religion and state. but even though we don't separate religion and state, because of many historical and cultural reasons we can, we can separate them and i think this can help us in getting into the solution. and such solutions, when it comes to control of religious sites, we are already almost there because the holy site is controlled by christians and the haram al sharif is controlled by muslims and the wailing wall is controlled by jews. so we can find -- when it comes to religion, as long as everybody has a right to exercise their religion, we can

find a solution. >> maybe we can go deeper into this issue, the claim of, for example, that israel is trying to change the status quo of the temple mount and so forth, and again, this actually does encourage, i think, more attention and environments. it reminds me very vividly going back to 1969 when i was, again, teaching in jerusalem and there was an australian christian who set fire to the mosque in jerusalem and this inflamed actually not only the people in jerusalem, the palestinians, the

arabs, but muslims all over the world. so my question is, what is basically the israel/palestinian vis-a-vis to preserve the status quo in jerusalem and elsewhere? >> i'll answer it with an example. when i was in jordan i saw that there is something going on in the jordanian press because the jordanian press was translating the protocols of the meetings of the israeli c knesset and they e asking why cannot jews come to the mosques and pray. because it would be their natural right, according to them. so that jordanian opposition was translating that. and that created a sort of series of attacks of the

position in jordan against the jordanian government, against the -- against the king. and it played into the conspiracy theories that the leader of the islamic in israel that corporates with hamas, it played into this game. so it didn't help how many times israel said it's not going to change the status quo and it doesn't matter whether israeli police actually polices the place and every jew that comes to the temple mount or to the haram is being watched by police, so he doesn't open his mouth and pray. okay? this is so delicate. so the government is doing its work but the problem is that there is a lot of people around that they're trying -- that are playing with this, that are playing with this because they want to -- or because they are

zell lets or they want to benefit from this politically. and our challenge is to cope with it. so fortunately we are now engaged with the jordanian government and we are trying to advance this project of putting cameras on the temple mount so people have a chance to look directly live at what's going on. usually what is to happen is that because of the fact that people that are -- that were called linked with the islamic movement, used to go to the mosques, to the mosques, stay there for the night. and then in the morning try to disrupt either jews that coming as tourists to the mount or throw stones at the wailing wall. so before the last jewish feast at the beginning of the year the rules apply, actually to use explosion ive explosives.

that is something that generated this whole series of ensitement and violence, et cetera. so we have a challenge. and as much as we have cooperation from the jordanians and we wish we had cooperation from the palestinian leadership that has to not to promote incitement but to condemn the incitement. if we have that, we can take control of the situation. if we don't, it will continue to be a very serious problem for us. >> reuven, i have actually a question before we open it up to questions from the audience. and this would relate maybe to your experience, again, in ayman and cairo and the peace negotiations, because many people are concerned that you cannot solve the problem of jerusalem without solving the palestinian/israeli conflict with the palestinian authority

and so forth. are you pessimistic or optimistic that that's particular conflict, not only between the palestinian and the israelis but the israelis with some of the other arab countries such as saudi arabia and the muslim world at large can be resolved and thereby you can also resolve the issue of jerusalem? >> i'm optimistic, first of all because i'm an optimistic person. but in addition to that i'm optimistic because first of all, i believe in the power of the jewish people and the state of israel that prevail these attacks. but also i'm optimistic because i think that something very substantial is going on in the region now. and in the world. people understand what are the dangers of militant islam, of radical islam. and people in the region also

understand how undermine they are by this fight of ideologies. and a few years ago when i was -- we were doing our annual research, my previous position i was head of the research, and we -- we identified that there is a phenomenon that ask actually a stabbizer within the destabilized region that we have. and this stabilizer, instead of calling it the grass of the neighbor's always greener, we say the grass of the neighbor is actually darker. for example, arab israelis, look what's going on in the region or when palestinians in the west bank look at what's going on in gaza. and they look what's going on in syria. many people have a sense of how threatened they are by these radical forces. it's not that they are becoming suddenly very in love with

israel, okay, but they understand what is realistic and what is not. they understand that, first of all, for example, as arab israelis they have a chance to fight for equality. jordanians and egyptians understand that israel is a force for stability in the region. and it doesn't generate love for zionism, okay, but it generates a realistic sense that we have to work together to fight extremism, to fight the iranian threat, to fight isis, to fight all the other threats that we have in the region right now. and in that sense i think that we have a chance. we are cooperating much more than we cooperated in the past with the jordanians, with the egyptians, with the palestinian security forces because they know that if we don't cooperate at the end of the day hamas and palestinian islamic jihad and isis and you name it, they will take over.

so if we manage to exacerbate that and to cooperate that and to combine it with strong leadership and a peace process, that includes acceptance, then i think we will be better off. >> okay. reuven, a few minutes, also, ask the audience some questions. if you have a question or comment. yeah? >> hi. my name is ron taylor. i'm a senior fellow with george washington university, center of cyber and homeland security. but i do a lot in counter terrorism. so from the outside, the mideast always looks unstable and stability, unstability are sort of a time -- have a time dependence to them. you know, whether you're stable for a long time, a short period of time is kind of a relative thing.

and i guess my question is, you know, what do you see as the future of, you know, and i just keyed off of your comment about israel being a force for stability. and i can see that in other countries in the region. what do you see as the future for the nation state itself in that area because, you know, that also is an example of -- of a possible degeneration of the nation's state concept. >> right. i think that's a great question. and this is a question i was trying to discuss with my researchers back when i was in jerusalem. and when we're looking at the region, for many years we wering looking at the region and we had mubarak and hassan and hussein and it's like, you know, it wasn't very thrilling. it was very stable. we didn't foresee many changes. and now you have to open every day a new fight for the new organizations and the new people that are becoming active in the region. so at some point i told to my

team, look, let's stop looking at countries. let's start looking at institutions. okay? we try the institutions in the region that you can count on to be influenced, to be of flint. and when it comes to your question what are the institutions that we can embrace and we can bring force in order to cooperate with us. so when you look at the egyptian army, for example, okay, people are not very prone or they don't like in the west egyptian army. i can understand that. when it comes to israel, also it's not very encouraging, you know? there is this famous joke about -- it's not famous. maybe it will be now. about -- about when the muslim brotherhood had broken a cease-fire between israel and hamas so many nationalists in egypt were saying, he's a

zionist, no, he's cooperating with the israelis. when sisi broke the cease-fire between israel and hamas the muslim brother was saying he's a zionist. so if both of them were rightmost of the egyptians will be zionists but unfortunately they're both wrong. this is is situation, these are the institution that we have, whether it's the egyptian army or the muslim brotherhood or any other force, any other institution that takes power we have to look -- if, you know, if it's not completely -- it's not completely doing that because it kills everybody like assad or isis. we have to see how to re-enforce those players and institutions. in jordan you have a strong government, you have a strong intelligence service. so you have structures. you have a strong financial banking system, let's work with those. let's re-enforce those that have the chance to deliver. okay?

the same goes for the palestinian authority. we have a process of 20 years in which we invested. okay. we are not saints. israelis, maybe would have invested if we would invested more we would be better off, but you have an investment of 20 years. that failed. you have palestinian security apparatus at work but they are not capable of falling by hamas, for example. so how can we change that? how can make -- we can make the palestinian security apparatus to deliver for palestinians including against hamas. if we succeed in that maybe we will have a palestinian state. the approach has to be bottom up, is what i think. >> anybody else? >> yes. >> hi. don lawson, thank you for your time here. >> if there's to be negotiated mutual recognition, palestinians would like to raise their flag in jerusalem and at one time

that was no, no, no by israelsy. is it conceivable that the arab sector of jerusalem can become a palestinian capital as well? >> it's going to be up to the leaders at that time to determine. we can be -- we can be in a situation that this is sold some way or the other. and flags is part of the solution. now, it's -- you can imagine anything. and you have to imagine everything if you want to reach a settlement, but the question really is how to get there. because we thought for many years, and you know people are telling us, especially now that you have the arab spring you should have used the -- this for the advantage of promoting peace with the palestinians. but you know one of the most difficult things that -- most difficult chal laelenges that t face here in washington is to sort of give the sense of the israeli psyche.

professor gentleman january an worked on that and tried to pass the psyche of the palestinians i'm failing as an israeli to communicate the psyche of israelis to americans because when you see isis decapitating some heads in syria people here get very mobilized a they want to fight radical islam, right? imagine what happens to israelis in times like this when they see what's going on in the region, how more conservative they become, much risk adverse they become. so of course we don't want to be in a situation right now that we give territory back and you have an isis flag on the other side of the border. so we have to build bottom up in order to secure the region by having a player there that will be pro western, that will be democratic, that will be uncorrupt, that will make the future palestinian state thrive and not as kissinger said, i

think it was two months ago, when he came to a commemoration, not to establish another arab fixed state in our border. we don't want that. >> okay. another question right there? >> hi, my name is hassan. i was born in tehran. jerusalem, as you know, is interest of major religions. and for many years there were struggle between everybody. now we like to know at what point would people of israel feel secure that the conflict can end? so you have some kind of vision what a security can be, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years from

now? because it's been born about six years. so i'd like to hear that. and also, one more question. since most's peace came upon him out of egypt, it's been about, what, 3,000 years, 4,000 years. how many jewish people do we have in the world? >> well, the last question, today the estimation is there are about 18 million jews. you know, the jewish religion is unlike christianity and islam, does not -- is not in the business of getting more -- more converts. and being a jew was very difficult for many centuries, for reasons that you already know, programs, attacks against jews, et cetera. but going back to your question, i think that we are going to feel secure when we have -- we have a situation which we have no more rejection but

acceptance. and that we have security. if you have -- because even the -- not only the israeli right. the israeli extreme right is not in favor of controlling the life of palestinians. so the question is whether we can get into a regime that is strong enough that we maintain security in a way that we can also withdraw from places in which we mutually agree with palestinians that we will be the future palestinian state. that can happen in five years, in ten years, in 100, i don't know. but we have to work on it so it happens. >> thank you very much. mike craft, counter terrorism specialist. my question is about jerusalem myself. i first visited jerusalem as a young reporter in the '67 war. it was a pretty deadly city,

frankly. i've been there since then. a fair amount of integration, you would see arab families in the malls and things of that sort. but since the recent outbreak of violence i understand that barriers have been put up between two sides of jerusalem and the cities are more or less divided. do you foresee that things will go back to, quote, normal or, very quickly, if the violence ends or how do you see the future of jerusalem functioning as a city? >> well, unfortunately we have experience of that and we have seen waves of violence before and as much as the waves were higher, the security measures were also -- were also tighter. what we are trying to do this time, i think what the government is trying to do, is to keep normal life as much as they can. i'll give you one example. there is a movement from palestinian workers to israel. you know, there are about

120,000 palestinian from the west bank that are coming to israel to work every day. and although a very small number of them, one or two, have been involved in stabbings, the israeli government is retaining a lot of pressure from cabinet members and from other people to put a closure on the west bank. now, when it comes to jerusalem itself, you know, we have erected this fence and wall until jerusalem in the second. we didn't want to do that. actually the right wing in israel was against it. the center and left israeli were for it because they wanted to protect themselves from attacks. they wanted to protect life, which is the main right that you have. now, whether we can redo that, i hope that we can. i hope that if we not only see this way of violence wining but we reach a settlement, we can

remove those security measures and we've seen in the past, after the second fatah after the situation was stabilizing we removed many restrictions. >> i know the clock is ticking. do you have a question? okay. one more question. >> hi. daphne, potomac institute. in view of the isis escalation around the world right now, do you foresee any i think cha in the government position now or in the -- in the israeli government positions. >> regarding what? >> regarding peace and regarding security. >> well, i think that prime minister netanyahu said in his last visit to washington that, first of all, we have an opportunity to cooperate with our arab neighbors, arab countries, that are interested, like us, in fighting the radicals, the islamic radicals, in fighting attempt to change,

to subverse their own regimes. and we can maybe, in the right circumstances, create a dialogue, regional dialogue, that will be conducive to the bilateral effort between us and the palestinians. so i think that there is a hope of doing that. having said that, as i said before, we will have to overcome a lot of animosity and fear that is created exactly by this kind of forces. and, you know, i don't have to go far away. what happened after several attacks of isis in this helms steer. how people are reacting in this hemisphere, in this country. so also israelis have to overcome that. the fear fact that you know, people, one of the great traumas of this nation is 9/11. israel has been in 9/11 for the last 67 years. so the possibility to change a psyche and to go from a

situation which you become less risk adverse is going to be an enormous challenge. we have to work together with our neighbors to try to lower those barriers of fear. >> okay. i know you have to leave. i cannot resist but ask you a final question. we focus on the palestinian and some of the arab states. can you comment on the role of iran, of course everyone is looking at the iranian nuclear ratio but how is the link with the issue of jerusalem? in other words, the iranian, non-arab states' view related to the solution of the jerusalem problem. >> well, this is another impediment. you know, the irany raef lugs has create wad we call -- you

have the marches in tehran every year. today the iranian regime wants to challenge not only the legitimacy of israeli control of jerusalem but also the legitimacy of control of the saudis of mecca. it's a march, a much larger conflict and rivalry that you have there. and the other problem is that iranians are much more powerful. decapitation of isis are having intimidating but what happens with countries that assess -- are trying to possess nuclear weapons and they have missile technology and they have forces in the region that are working to assist players like assad and others. that's much more difficult challenge. but i think that we've proven in the past that we can overcome that. when, for example, we did also with the palestinians. yes, the iranians were there in

'94 to try to foil that, to promote hamas, to promote the suicide attack of hamas. we are going to have all the time, the iranians trying to foil any peace that we broker between the palestinians or arabs. we've seen this aversion of iran in jordan, for example. so we have a challenge but it doesn't mean that we cannot continue to thrive for peace. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> for coming. i know you have to leave. we'll continue with professor dajani. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. i'd like to thank yonah alexander and the potomac institute for inviting me. what i'd like to do is explore the status of jerusalem and the hope of offering insights and to

help resolve the problem i'll start with introducing my family association with the city and then talk a little bit about the history of the city and then discuss some potential way of trying to resolve the problem of the city. actually in 1529 sul on the suleman appointed my father to be the custodians of the king david tomb. so it was -- and then the first mayor actually, the empire started the municipalities and the empire by having one in istanbul. the second one was in jerusalem. and abdel dajani was appointed and mayor in 1918.

this is family picture for the family in 1942. this is my father's wedding. and actually in 1948 the dajani family saved martin buber and his family hiding them in the rooms in the arab quarter after the jewish quarter failed and saving people alive from being burned. so that was the family association with the -- there is a lot but i just mentioned it. this is a verse in the koran that actually reflects this talk that i'm going to talk about. and let me just say that god, between people. so that's why what i be focusing and what i'm saying is that the rule over jerusalem has been alternated between the muslim, the christian, and the jew. and so it is basically from the

ancient -- throughout history jerusalem has been the site of glories and a stas tro citifies. a place that has been witness to transition and occupation by a diversity of nations and target of pilgrimage throughout the nations. jews believe that the red sea was opened to to allow the jews to cross safely and then closed to drone pharaoh and his army and spoke to god on mt. sign ney and received from him the ten commandments. jews believe that jesus russer is rekted the dead. and muslims believe the nocturnal journey of mohammed to jerusalem carried by al buraq stead where he met arc angel gabrielle and ascended to heaven and met the prophets and god. to each is his narrative. part of the solution to the conflict is to respect the narrative of the other and not to deny it or to refute it. and 638 muslims conquered

jerusalem and call lich omar ibn arrived in the city on a camel and was taken by patriarch. when it was time for prayer, he was invited to pray in the church. but refused fearing muslims would turn churches into mosques. which some of them did later. he prayed outside and on the side of worship rose the mask of ham mad. if you go to it facing you you would be facing the mosque where reprayed. it has to be taken to the secular from which prophet mohammed ascended to heaven. he built a mosque near it which is called now al axar mosque. omar allowed jews to return and reside in jerusalem after they were being banned from doing so. they later built the dome of the rock mosque on the side of the same rosk where abraham was

prepared to sacrifice his son and it was said that also noah had put -- that the ship of noah also has landed on that rock which is very holy. so basically in 1852 sultan abdul majid issued the status quo declaration which regular nated mutual rights of christian institutions in jerusalem and asserted the status quo in jerusalem should prevail. and actually this status quo has been respected even until this very day. though the turks surrendered the city of jerusalem in november 1917, dajani relayeding in goin the city until 9th of december to coincide with christmas celebrations. austrian troops left the city in 1916. and then actually he dismounted from his horse to enter it on

foot in respect for the city. and it was partly in response to the pompous entry of german kaiser wilhelm on his white horse in 1998 and thus the wall was partly broken. actually here there are two things that the -- both of them -- both visit s harm jerusalem. one is the visit of kaiser where the war wall was actually breached to allow him to go in and this began. so he walked in on foot and then he actually met -- he delivered his victory speech pledging jerusalem to be the city of peace. in november of 1947 the u.n. partition resolution decided to nationalize the city.

basically it was divided and -- and palestinian was divided into an arab state and the jew wish state and jerusalem was supposed to be internationalized including bethlehem. however, the fighting, when the british left, palestine, the general was asked to womhom did you leave palestine. his response was, i left the key under the doormat tre mattress. so after the 1948 war, 85% of jerusalem was captured by jewish forces which became west jerusalem. and 11% of the city including the old city fell under the control of jordan. and 4% of the city was considered no-man's-land in which the u.n. headquarters was established. so on december 13, 1949, declared jerusalem the capital

of israel in violation of the international law and u.n. resolution. on december 19, the u.n. responded by restating the intention of placing jerusalem under a permanent international regime. however, the city remain eddie vided under israeli and jordanian rule. so it was -- in june 1967 israel reunited eastern and west jerusalem but the city remain eddie vided socially and psychologically. in june '67 the israeli knesset extended the israeli jurd to east jerusalem despite the initial law. so here we have -- and this is the crux of the problem because people would say why should israel give up jerusalem or should concede anything in jerusalem. so the question lies here in international law because in 1948 jewish forces captured west jerusalem and later declared it capital of israel.

overriding an 1947 u.n. resolution to nationalize the city. later declared it capital of juda, overriding a u.n. resolution not to change the capital of the city. i will come to that, to the significance of this later. however, israel kept the administration of the al sharif compound and continued to be contained by the jordanian religious sect. the declaration of principle listed jerusalem as one of the issues to be negotiated at a later stage. and the israeli foreign minister at the time, sharon perez, promised that nothing will hamper the activities of palestinian institution on the fulfillment of this important mission is to be encouraged in jerusalem.

in october '94 also the treaty of -- treaty between israel and jordan reaffirmed the status of jordan as the custodian for the holy places. so here we have three initiatives that also focused on jerusalem and granting the palestinian and the israelis equal status in jerusalem which was the road map, the clinton plan, and also the arab peace initiative. also joint initiatives between palestinians and israelis calling for the formation of a palestinian state and having jerusalem serve as the capital for both. city of jerusalem has a special place in the consciousness of the great religions. for centuries it has been vital center of worship for the three world religions, ju dichl,

christianity, and islam. any lasting solution should take into consideration this religious and this historical attachment of the three religions to this city. so here we have two clashing narratives. the palestinian considered jerusalem as the capital of the prospective state of palestine and israel maintains that jerusalem is united as eternal capital but without international recognition. so basically what i'd like to focus on is the present also status. here we have 350,000 palestinians of east jerusalem who have residency rights in jerusalem. they carry a blue identity card. and they can move from jerusalem to the west bank or even from jerusalem to israel without any problem. the hold israeli identity cards that give them the right to work and move freely across the country and the west bank and to

cross-check points and the separation wall built in 2003. 45,000 palestinian residents live outside the jerusalem separation wall, while 195,000 live inside the separation wall. and more than 10,000 palestinians do hold -- who live in jerusalem, do hold israeli citizenship. however, here we want -- it is important to note that the clash in jerusalem between the palestinians, the israeli, focus also on the way things are in the sense that there are a negative side to the israeli policies in israel. although palestinians benefit a lot from being residents of jerusalem from the israelis, particularly in health care. palestinians have a much better health care in jerusalem as

residents of jerusalem than they do in the west bank or in gaza. and even they take the benefit a lot from the health care, israeli health care system. however, they suffered from also the certain policies that are there, which is one the judization of the city within the also ten years have accelerated a lot in which even names of streets have been changed and. in the past israelis used to put three languages, hebrew, english, and arabic. but now the tendency is to put only hebrew or -- hebrew and english. also the threat to strip palestinians from their residency rights. p this is a very serious problem that makes palestinians very insecure and unstable because of this threat that any time that id can be revoked.

so we have poor public services in palestinian compared to the -- in jerusalem compared to west jerusalem. there is a big gap between what we call west jerusalem and east jerusalem. although east jerusalem palestinians comprise 32% of the city's total population. now this percentage is decreasing. they pay 30% of the city's budget, yet receive less than 5% of the municipal budget. now because of a lot of pressure on the municipality this has been improving, that the municipality is paying more attention to east jerusalem, which it was not. so jerusalem, when six times on jewish residents than palestinian residents. you can see that in terms of public services like parks, like children and clinics, like

different facilities within the city. so, for instance, the municipalities in charge of the israeli schools where the students are being provided with a lot of facilities, actually the same -- the same palestinian schools are in very bad conditions. so actually when you are talking about a young kid who takes a knife and goes and commits terrorism, it is also on the education because they are receiving very bad education. he hates to go to school because there are no facilities. and this is also part of the problem that we are having. residential buildings are converted to schools. crammed school classes. the schoolyards are narrow. there are not much sport facilities, no computers, labs, or libraries. no heating in freezing winter. poor lighting. so we are having a lot of problems where students -- this

is why students hate to go to school. we have to make them love to come to school rather than be on the street. and that's also part of the problem. also the whole demolition policy is affecting their psychology. and also that is a lot of despair as a result of the political statement and the frustration from social and economic neglect which has resulted and then explosions as we are -- as we see what is happening today. militant muslims extremists have exploited these degenerating conditions to intensify detentions. so also here we have the problem that there is a lot of donations that arabs and others have made to improve conditions for palestinians in jerusalem yet the money disappears either with the p.a. or with the leaders of the religious leaders of the

community. so the palestinians do not see much of that -- of those donations. so here if we want to seek solutions, we have to seek solution for jerusalem issue. we need to filter out the symbolism, religious overtones, and nationalist rhetoric from the political reality. political reality today is that israel rules the city but without international sovereignty and recognition. so this is where the arab lies in the sense why should israel be able to actually share jerusalem and what will israel get if it does want to share? it is international recognition. that's actually part of what israel may benefit from a deal on jerusalem. so actually if we look at jerusalem, we note as jerusalem

originally is divided into two cities in reality. this is the old city which was divided into four quarters. the jewish quarter, christian, arminian, and muslim. and the vast areas have been annexed to jerusalem. so if you see the old city, it is very small. it is more than 30% of that area has been added, annexed to the city. and so this is where, if we look at jerusalem we see twin cities. this is the holy city which is referred to by religious holy books is in the old city and all -- and this is -- the old city was surrounded by a wall built by the at mans. so basically we have there the three holy places and that's why this is the old city is the holy city. and so this is -- this is the

old city. so basically only the old city and its immediate surroundings constitute the historic what we call jerusalem. jerusalem that's been mentioned in the bible and different holy -- different holy books. it is the old city. but it is the municipal city that has been added and if you notice, it has been added in a very erratic way. why? in order to include areas and then exclude population there. so it is a very odd way. but not as the old city there, it is there. the rest is not jerusalem. when you want to decide on the future of jerusalem you have to make that definition -- that distinction between the old city and the municipal city. the cities that have been enlarged. so reconciliation in midst of

conflict is that we need to agree on such issues as municipal service, day-to-day living problems, status of holy places, and to degree to disagree on issues such as political sovreignty. so the proposed solution is to have the holy old city, to have a special international jewish-christian-muslim custodianship. while the municipal city is a shared local custodianship. this is for the arab jerusalem which is muslim and christian and then the west is the jewish jerusalem which is -- and then the city will be without barriers or restrictions. so basically israel will transfer its responsibility of this sewage, roads, school, child care, health and social services in east jerusalem to the palestinians. but however taxes collected from palestinian residents will be transferred to be used to

improve the living conditions of palestinians in jerusalem neighborhoods. so basically if we have a look at that, it is a win -- whether it is a win/lose situation the way it is now standing, it is ethnically divided, religiously. israeli contends control of the entire city but it is unrecognized by international community. however, it's a win-win situation if we would share the city and then this way to have the city opened to the world, to come and play and particularly to the muslim, christian, and jewish communities. this way it will be recognized by the international community. it will bring in security and stability. so thank you very much. that's actually my take on this -- on this. thank you. >> thank you very much.

mohamm mohammed, your session triggered many, many questions. for the benefit of our young students here and the future leaders, it really reflects the complexity of the issue and the problem we have to look at the -- really approach all of the way from the historical and the soe soesh logical and religious and so on and so forth. let me ask you specifically if i megan to come back to the question of internationalization of jerusalem. we try to deal with that to some extent though before, but as i

recall the u.n. petition resolution that the united h 47 actually recommended that the status of jerusalem can be decided in about ten years. whether the three religions would turn the city into international city, tragically that's the resolution. another resolutions were overcome by realities on the ground, in terms of the conflict, for example, between israel and jordan when jordan controlled in 1948, the east section of jerusalem. so what i'm really trying to say that obviously i think your presentation provides

opportuni opportunities for -- i think some sort of compromise because the art of compromise is more powerful than judgment. and so on. but my question to you in regard to the internationalization of jerusalem, again, since now we are in the spirit of christmas, peace on earth, what do you think the religious communities can do to advance the cause of some sort of solution in jerusalem with the spirit of jerusalem? for example, the pope, when he visited the holy land several years ago and most recently in africa, for example, in south

african republic, when he tried to bring together the muslims and the christians, he had a message of peace, of tolerance. the humanical approach. how do you think in your long experience, and again, a -- you're very distinguished family in jerusalem, how do you think the role of religion can be actuallied actually advancing some of the proposals that you made? >> that's why i'm focusing on two aspects. the religious aspect and political aspect. i'm thinking in terms of -- for the old city to be dealt from the religious point of view. and it's a holy place. and people want to come to pray, whether they are muslim, christians, or jews, or even

non-muslim, non-christian, non-jew and this is a holy place and people might want to come to visit there. that's why i live this religious aspect within the old city to a special custodian ship where actually it should be international, it could be muslim, christian, jew wiish international, special status for the whole city. and outside this city is where we can deal politically because, no matter what we say, what we do, outside the city is a psychologically divided into an arab sector where it is muslim and christian palestinians and then there is the west jerusalem which is the jewish sector. and that is a psychology -- and if you go to -- if you want to pick up a taxi from the israeli side and ask him to take you to

the palestinian side, he will look at you and say, are you crazy? go walk there. and so the areas that are palestinians, israelis do not feel secure to go to. areas now which are israelis, palestinians do not feel secure. in the past, palestinians used to go to the malls. but now, nobody is going to the mall or to the israeli section because they are afraid. there is fear on both communities. so basically what i'm saying is that we have to deal with that fear. and we have one way is to have recognition of each other, rights of each other, history of each other, comfort, each other's attachment of the city. and this way to share the city. so i'm not in favor of having

jerusalem to be capital or jerusalem to be political capitals. i believe they can be religious capitals. and if we can have east jerusalem to be the religious capital of the palestinians instead of palestine, the jerusalem could be the religious capital of israel. and this way, we will be able to disassociate between the politics and the resolution because there are an explosion i mix when they get together. but if we can separate them and i'm trying to do that. i'm trying to separate the political from the religious by thinking in terms of outside the city which is not holy, which has been annexed in the last five decades and when you talk about jerusalem, nobody refers to that area as jerusalem. to defy that particularly between the two parties, the two people, the two communities, not

without -- without wars, without barbed wires, without checkpoints to have it open. this is my vision for the future. >> my question again, century, it seems so -- how would you respond to those jews who claim that if, for example, you establish a muslim regime in east jerusalem, you exclude the jewish connection, let's say, to the temple mount and to the wailing wall and all that.

captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008 captioning performed by vitac