new wave of social conservative leaders. his name is professor robert george and he teaches at princeton. in fact, the chair he holds at princeton is a chair that was created for woodrow wilson back in the 19th century. so i don't know of anybody in the conservative movement who has more stats than that, but robbie is part of aew look of geration leaders who i think of the social conservatives will succeed the clergymen tv preachers who founded the movement. he is often made the point that if you believe the words, all men are treated equal, not as a metaphor, not as a kind of sentimentality but as a true and factual statement more likely than not all will certainly you are a social conrvative. you don't believe those words literally and think they are a fine sentiment, then you probably are not.

in other words, the big thing that the tea party and the social conservatives have in common is their commitment to american exceptnalism centered onhe idea that people are born with equal freedoms and that's the basis of our society. of course, if you believe that is not just about america, it's a particularism, it's an exceptionalism which happens to be universal. and the power of those sentiments an unpected power, i don't think of any people who predicted the rise of the tea party that it was start happening a month after barack obama was inaugurated, but it has arisen and i think it underlines the power of our founding, the ideas of our founders and how much of a factor they still are 230 years after this country was founded. i do think that if the tea party is able to hang around and

become not a situational but ideological, it will be seen by those historians decades from now as along with social conservatism the most politically powerful set of events of the last several decades. thank you. >> [applause] >> thanks,eff, we have a bit of time and we will continue as long as we can in the room. marquez to depart, but we are now open for questions. if you'd like to ask any of the members with the entire panel a qution. clear in the back. >> [inaudible] >> maybe we should wait until you get a microphone. >> sure. >> so the nation can hear you. >> my question is something from mark would say but i would love feedback from everyone. he said something about the grassroots validity of the tea

party and obviously there is the sustained activity of the tea party movement that goes to show there is validity there but in the interest of clarity i think well of the tea party is effectively using traditional grassroots methods, that it begi in the classical sense of grass roots as a sort of a neighbor to neighbor wellspring in that way. and they were handed perhaps the spoon fed infrastructure and the funding to achieve a clear objective spiritoso the remark about the mainstream media not being aware of or being on where of reporting on the validity of the grass-roots movement, i think is a little bit disingenuous when you look at i guess a of a classical understaing of what grassroots is and how it really begins as two stepping into something and then using those methods.

so that's my question if that makes sense. >> david? >> i tried to tou on that in my remarks. i don't think -- i think liberal spend a lot of time trying to thread the movement by pointing that out and conservative spend time trying to utterly deny it and neither of them is right because like i was saying, these organizations have been around for years and they were set up to do something like this. freedom works set up because they figure at some point millions of americans would to be willing to spend their time marching in d.c. or marching in activities during this. but that was essential. that's the reason why this develod in a way that liberals didn't develop when they were opposing bush or even conservatives when clinton was president didn't have this coherence to their opposition.

so i think that's important but it doesn't mean it's not grassroots. you probably read or should read the article on david coke in the new yorker that came out -- yes. he has been spending money on a libertarian organizations for a long time and ran for vice president in 1980, their big industrial billionaires'. it had produced a groundswell. kato is a good organization, i know people there and they produce good work but it hasn't been singing to activists and getting people to be on the halls of congress out toupport this stuff. of freedom works and the citizens for a sound economy from of the mid-1980s through now, it didn't really matter until 2009. actually they rode a draft, about how the tea party candidates in 2007 could and did it publish because no and took

them seriously. the i think this was a real grassroots movement. the understanding or thesedeas came from is a partner especially when the bills co back, but i think jeff will probably talk about this and this succeeds because the americans more than other people andround the world have a history of self-reliance and independence and skepticism of government. once in awhile 30 or 40 years you're able to get a progressive reform through and is hard to rollback with this country is more libertarian an independent minded. adjusted and hurts. it'smportant that they made it possible. >> i would agree with that and let me give one illustration of why this thing is so unexpected and a curveball. the the town meetings among the congressman had back in their home districts where they put an auditorium and people were supposed to come out of the have a question, they have been going onor many decades to a

reaction of stupefying boredom. if you've ever attended one of those there are absolutely, you just couldn't stick around for more than 15 minutes if there was anything on television back home. they were stupefying. now all of a sudden in august of 2009 they became a cauldron, they became i don't know quite how to summon up, a micro scott could do of politics. just absolutely anything to happen. people were chased away, is also on the stage, signs were happening, people kept interrupting other people and all the sudden one of the most of boring people -- boring things in politics became the most interesting and wild. nobody plan that, absolutely nobody. certain of our fine conservative groups in washington. they were as surprised as

anybody when it ricks and tally did his thing and all of a sudden everybody started doing theirs. >> another question? the gentleman in the aisle. >> in my local tea party movement, it's very religious. ey talk lot about god and religion and so did the recent washington rally with glenn beck. is this strong ties to religion as we move toward going to be a hindrance? people back off of it? or a help? >> i will take a shot back. it goes to my point about the surprising relationship between the social conservatives and the tea party. i don't think is going to wind up being sectarian. glenn beck ran out of the way to say that i am a mormon and a lot of the people at the rally don't even think i'm a christian. what i do think it is is about

the role of god in the founding because were a country that says the only things that are cited as authority withholding from great britain and the declaration our nature and nature's god. no other authority is mentioned. in the declaration. and all men are critical was put into the pledge of allegiance and michael dukakis vetoed it in the 1950's as recently as that. so there is a nonsectarian sense of gods founding of the country that exists and it's on a bipartisan basis. i don't think that one is just conservative. there's still a lot of resonance about the god-given and rights that we have among all people although i do think the liberal belief in the july operion is professor george said, more predictive of being a social conservative. i think it is an asset on

balance. >> i will quickly add, i was at the glenn beck rally and it was covered as a nonpolitical event because people were expecting him as he does on his show talk about socialism or a man jones, but i think it captured really well how that sort of religion is essential tohe political mission of the tea party because what they want america to do is walk back from everything we've done since 1933 -- since 1913. you are used to this progress of reform and the new deal and welfare state, but what you need to get used to is getting rid of that and getting back to a more charitable society where we can on each other instead of the government, where taxes are lower because we trust businesses to do the right thing, and it was a very and possibly political speech and he needed to make that because this is the way democrats are still fiting this election. if you vote for tea party candidates they will take away the benefits that your use and

as social security, cut medicare. what glenn beck was trying to do is saying if we get back to christian values that the founders have we don't need that because they found that this withouthat. they expected us not to go along because we help each other act. libertarianism played a bigger role than in other movements but it is an aspect of the republican base and it is religious so it will remain a religious. >> the gentleman in the middle of. >> when i heard them seem to claim is that in this is a major historic moment and that what we're gog to see is almost a permanent national commitment towards limited government. i am skeptical and i would like you to perhaps review what you

think, mr. bell, what you think is the key evidence that proves that a corner has been turned and the reason why i am asking and the reason i'm skeptical is that you could look at two sherrif in judases basis i think it was around 2005 when predicting it from a progressive majority. you can look ahead to some articles in 2003 after the first bush midterm election arguing that there is a prominent republican majority. did you can go back all the way to 1912 when taft drove out the progressives from theepublican party and see that thero limited government, pro state activist government have been going added all this time for almost a huned years now.

it seems that one side periodically gains the upper hand and the other side. deplete gains the upper hand in each side when they periodically gained the upper hand is claiming a permanent victory. you can see these claims often. th they go down in flames. so i am just wondering why this sort of -- why you think at this time the conservative limited government movement as one after a hundred years of this and the progressive state activists side has lost? >> it hasn't won anything is the short answer. there are too big test -- one is i mentioned in my talk which is is this going to persist even when the democrats are presiding over a better economy than we have now. my guess is that it will but that's only a guess because that

is an untested basis. barack obama has not had an economy to write home about so far and once he does then whether this is a values based movement rather than just situational based movement will have been told. the other big variable is one i didn't mention the one that one mark diluted to in his closing statement which is, i don't think either one of us, can speak for dave come is convinced the republican leadership in congress isn't all capable of following through on the type of mandate they might have. the playing around with army going to have a contract, libya's platform or a few ideas, and that was supposed to come out by now and hasn't come out because the republican party has figured out that they are going to make a huge comeback in congress now matter what they say or what they do. they'll really have to say

anything and they know that. their posters are all telling them that. but i agree with mark's point one i think the basic point was that they're going to win a lot of seats but the real test is going to be, right after the election. what is the first piece of legislion, mr. speaker, that you're going to send up and put on the president's desk for his signing or his veto? what is it going to be? i don't think they know. because they don't know, they've always been nervous about this movement, the tea party candidates -- tea party movement. they have disowned it off the record put a number of times and still have reservations as recently as late this year recently. but they don't know what two make of it and they say it is just business as usual, the usual thing of reagan and abolishing the education department but we know he really won't, they're banking amid

mistake and it is really screwed up. >> look at what they've said. >> well, i think they have given some indication of what they want to do in january and republicans from congress and john painter dash john boehner, mike pence promise there are going to have a bill keeping the bush tax cuts and other republicans promised a health care repeal bl quote first. i don't think we know quite yet which of those are going to be most popular cause the repuicans when they will have a mandate to fix the economy. people don't have jobs and i would like to have jobs and go for republicans because they think theyill do better job than democrats and getting an appointed back down. it's not clear everything else in the agenda. i think there is more space for this po because democrats have been frankly really surprised, talking about things set off their a record. on the record republican said

that if they pass health care and would become popular because the sinking was in times of great economic distress government can pass something that binds people together that will cut costs if we sacrifice a bit more and get. that's what happened if the great society didn't work out well. it didn't happen so there's a possibility we are in a time when people feel like they deserve more independence and make more choices on their own about their health care or about how much they had to hire in their business or car to drive and the republicans will have a political will is there to do this stuff. we don't know yet. the fact is if unemployment were 4% there would be no reaction to socialism and all the rest if the economy was not ron. we don't know. >> [inaudible] you are more skeptical of the major shift but

what i did hear you say mr. bell and and this is historic in the sense had sent the people have shifted, that hearts and minds of the people have shifted. what congress does or does not do in the near-term is irrelevant. i am just extrapolating from what i heard you to say and that you believe that the hearts and minds of the people havehifted in that progressivism is going in the dust of history. >> that's a very shrewd point. i guess i would have to say that i do believe that these people are not going away if the republicans take basically a status quo, we're going to spend less than obama and if that is what their take onhat the mandate is. i don't think these voters are going away.

a lot of the senators who are running in the primaries and the establishment candidates did their best to assure tea party in their states that i have gotten the message, i am different, they threw them out anyway or did much better against them than anybody would have predicted. i think there's going to be a lot of anchor and the thing is going to take unexpected directions. it could be a non republican direction. if the republican party wins the house of representatives and in the middle of the year basically nothing has happened and, i think there is a good chance and independence could be in the lead for the presidential race one year from today. i honestly believe that. >> one just to add to this, in my book i talk about regime, there has been the new deal may shame kind of american welfare state. progressive sort of expect that

to us if we turn a corner and that his or click goes on and on, but within 70 or 80 years now the regime, the new deal and all that goes with it seems to be have troue developing consent, support for itself, seems to be headed toward fiscal crisis in which congress can spend money but can't get people to pay for it. in that sense it is having problems. it may be very possible that this is a regime that has entered a crisis stage in which it will become different and the tea party is what is at this point but we may see it as the front end of the beginning of a fourth time in american history that historians and political scientist talk about. certainly there are deep political and fiscal problems with the welfare state. if we have time for one more question, the gentleman down

front. >> thanks to the panel. i was to ask about this attempt to read ideolocal uniformity into the tea party. i am worried about it and one reason i'm worried is because their opinions, from when i take to be majority of opinionson't fit together in an obvious way especially in the idea of human equality. so you have a commitment to markets, on the one hand, and it looks like you can understand that in terms of equality although libertarians' almost never use that language and, on the other hand, if you look at the attitudes that many tea partiers to have to immigration andhe cordova center or moscow, that doesn't look like a conservative human equality in the least but looks like the polar opposite from what i can tell. there doesn't seem ideological uniformity but an identity uniformity so you alluded to

this when you said what unites tea partiers is a certain vision the american founded so it's not an ideological. thesthings go together. there's a certain pitcher they have of what we were in a lump whole list of issues together i think historically and accurately but i don't think that's ideological uniformity. they have an historical picture that somehow dra them together but not in any principled way. ..

they are for limited government. they think washington is trying do to many things. i think they would be very open to a decentralization approach. sending programs and revenue sources back to the states. there's been a lot of talk about that at the grass roots and that's for dune the road. they have the economy to deal with. the republican congress or whatever republicans are in congress as their first order of busins. but i do think there's something new in terms of a very strong commitment to a reduction in spending and real estate duction in the role of -- reduction in the role of washington in our lives. >> i think that was insightful comment. the word i guess most often

used to describe what you're talk about is tribal. tribal identity i and not ideological identity and i think of this movement more the way we think of the really angry populist of the 1890s and early 1900s it wasn't just that they hand economic agenda. it's that they identified people in the country who were trying to take away, take away everything they stood for. those people were i think comparable to this. and the language that we hear today. thatakes this clear language that sarah palin used in 2008 and still uses when she talked about real american towns or real america. they're saying there are parts of the country not just -- it's not a section ideology. it's a part of the country more american than everyone else. where does that come from?

been spelled out by glenn beck and everyone else in the last two years. it's a small government vision that is just validated and validated to the point where the conversation can stop because they agree with the founders and people who do disagree with them don't apre with the mounders -- dpri with the founders. did the system always work? they're not even interested in that disssion. it's just that urban elitists people who have read marks. all these sort of things that get tossed around in politics it's self-ef accident that that's not real -- self-evident that that's not really aerican and what they stand for is. it's not purely ideological i do i any it is the kind of at tuesday and tribe that rises again in american politics. it is being steered this a smarter direction in a lot of ways by ideological actors like the think tanks i keep mentioning and like maybe radio hosts aren't the best at steger it but the radio hosts will have on people who have done lots of research why this economic

model doesn't work or this one doe are making it a bit smarter than just what we're used to talk about one part of america being better than the other or about using some quote out of context in revolution and saying well, that ends the debate. the founders wanted this so we don't even have to talk about whether it is right or not. it is tribal. i'm optimistic about it because of these 40 years of research by lib tear jans some academics too but mostly people in think tanks people who have been inside of politics and then came out and said okay, this sounds great. this doesn't work. i'm going to go beyond the argument that the founders wouldn't have liked this and point out spending this money does not actually increases unemployment instead of -- i'm thinking of ideas and all these ideas. i'm optimistic that the people who might have gotten into this because of tribal reasons are going to end up making more, possible smart researched change that is more ideological. i hope -- agree with your

point that a lot of it is ju this isn't my america. this isn't -- this isn't president isn't like the kind of people i like but poe tern -- potential to do lite gofd stuff instead of focus on the negative reasons. >> off you're out there still listening to us on c-span you're a part of the tea party and want some idea goes to cato.org. that's what dave was talking about, that's what dave and our panel have been taking about approach yalt your participation here and at home on c-span we will see what happens and maybe perhaps sometime late in 2011 we can return and find out if in fact the republican leadership has failed once again or succeeded surprisingly and the tea rty has changed america. thank you very much. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [general chatter]

>> in a few moments, a briefing by special envoy george mitchell. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 eastern. >> our coverage of campaign 2010 continue tonight with a look at races around the country and three debates. first, a look at house, senate, and governor races with charlie cook at 8:00 p.m. eastern. at 9:00, a debate between the senate candidates in california. barbara boxer and republican challenger carly feel reno.

--fiorina. after that, the gubernatorial race in arizona. that is at 10:00 eastern. at 11:00 p.m. eastern, a debate between the candidates for governor in nevada. >> there is nothing about finance that is rocket science. this is probably the most frustrating thing for me about how you think about ponzi schemes -- the biggest ponzi scheme for wall street is telling someone who has worked really hard to earn a buck that they are not smart enough to

understand how that book will be invested. >> in 2007, analyst meredith whitney was the first to predict major losses for citigroup. she is our guest sunday night on cspan's "q &a." >> tonight, book-tv looks to the stars. that is prime time tonight on c- span 2. >> israeli and palestinian leaders yesterday met for the first time in nearly two years. afterwards, special middle east envoy george mitchell said israelis and palestinians believe they can conclude peace talks within one year. he spoke to reporters shortly after a meeting with prime minister netanyahu, president

abbas, and calorie content. this is half an hour. >> good afternoon and welcome to the department of state in washington, d.c. today, we have successfully re- launched direct negotiations between the -- among the united states, israel, and the palestinian authority in pursuit of a final agreement, a final settlement and a just peace, two states living side by side. george mitchell will give a statement and answer a few of your questions, but we still have meetings going on with the parties and will have -- he'll have to return upstairs rather rapidly to rejoin the negotiations. but here's senator mitchell. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

the parties have just concluded the first round of trilateral talks. the meeting lasted about an hour and a half. it began with a plenary session involving the full u.s., israeli, and palestinian delegations on the eighth floor of the state department and then broke to a smaller meeting in the secretary of state's personal office involving prime minister netanyahu, president abbas, secretary clinton, and myself. prime minister netanyahu and president abbas then went into a separate meeting for a direct discussion. that meeting is still going on right now. in the trilateral meeting, there was a long and productive discussion on a range of issues.

president abbas and prime minister netanyahu expressed their intent to approach these negotiations in good faith and with a seriousness of purpose. they also agreed that for these negotiations to succeed, they must be kept private and treated with the utmost sensitivity. so what i and they are able to disclose to you today and in the future will be limited, but i will now describe some of the key items that were addressed in the trilateral meeting. both prime minister netanyahu and president abbas condemned all forms of violence that target innocent civilians and pledged to work together to maintain security.

they reiterated their common goal of two states for two peoples and to a solution to the conflict that resolves all issues, ends all claims, and establishes a viable state of palestine alongside a secure state of israel. president abbas and prime minister netanyahu agreed that these negotiations can be completed within one year and that the aim of the negotiations is to resolve all core issues. the parties agreed that a logical next step would be to begin working on achieving a framework agreement for permanent status. the purpose of a framework agreement will be to establish the fundamental compromises necessary to enable them to flesh out and complete a comprehensive treaty that will

end the conflict and establish a lasting peace between israel and the palestinians. the parties agreed that in their actions and statements they will work to create an atmosphere of trust that will be conducive to reaching a final agreement. they agreed to meet again on september 14 and 15 in the region and roughly two weeks thereafter -- every two weeks thereafter. of course, continued interactions at other levels between the parties and also yet others involving the united states will take place between those meetings. in fact, a preparatory trilateral meeting to plan for that second meeting in the region has already begun at

another location in this building and will continue here and in the region between now and september 14th, as is necessary. as both president obama and secretary of state clinton have said, the united states pledges its full support to the parties in these talks. we will be an active and sustained partner throughout. we will put our full weight behind these negotiations and will stand by the parties as they make the difficult decisions necessary to secure a better future for their citizens. as we saw this week, there are those who will use violence to try to derail these talks. there are going to be difficult days and many obstacles along the way. we recognize that this is not an easy task.

but as the president told the leaders, we expect to continue until our job is complete and successful. pleased that, i'll be to take some of your questions. >> senator, i'm jeff napshin with cctv news out of asia. i would like to know what was their personal relationship. at times when you saw them next to each other, it seemed like they were kind of distant. did they seem to interact? did they seem to develop any kind of bond or relationship together? >> the relationship was cordial. as you know, these men have known each other for a long time. this is not the first meeting between them. they are not in any way strangers politically or personally. and i felt that it was a very constructive and positive mood, both in terms of their personal interaction and in terms of the nature of the discussion that occurred.

>> thank you. nadia bilbassy with mbc television. senator, president obama yesterday talked about some progress when asked, and i appreciate the fact that you do not want to divulge too many details, but today, prime minister netanyahu talk about the jewishness of the state, which is considered nonstarter issue for the palestinian. just generally, do you think that these issues can be -- can you bridge the gap considering there is obviously so many difficulties? but since re-launching the negotiation today, do you think this is -- could be an issue that could be an explosive for the whole issue -- for the peace process? >> first, i believe very strongly, deeply, and personally that this conflict can be resolved and that these negotiations can produce a final agreement that enables the establishment of a

palestinian state and peace and security for both peoples. secondly, it is, of course, self-evident that the reason for a negotiation is that there are differences. the differences are many, they are deep, they are serious, and it will take serious, good- faith negotiations, sincerity on both sides, a willingness to make difficult concessions on both sides if that agreement is to be reached. but i do not think that any human problem can be solved if one begins by viewing the problems as insurmountable, as suggesting that the mountains

are too high and the rivers are too wide, so let's not undertake the journey. there has to be a sincerity and a seriousness of purpose combined with a realistic appraisal and understanding of the difficulties, but a determination to overcome them. i believe that exists. i believe these two leaders, president abbas and prime minister netanyahu, are committed to doing what it takes to achieve the right result. >> major. >> hello, senator mitchell. major garrett, fox news. you remember well from your life on capitol hill the phrase, whenever a tough negotiation was going on, "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to." will that be the operative approach, you believe, for this process? and as a result, will you be reluctant to talk about anything that's agreed upon until everything is agreed upon? that's one process question.

the second one is you discussed the framework, is the deadline for the framework one year? or is the framework something we're likely to see much earlier and the one year still governs the entire solution to all remaining issues? >> in terms of process, that and other questions will be resolved by the parties. you cannot separate process from substance in these discussions. there is an interaction that affects both and we've made it clear that these issues are to be determined by the parties. we have had extensive discussions with them on that and many other issues, and those will continue. our goal is to resolve all of the frame -- all of the core issues within one year. and the parties themselves have suggested and agreed that the logical way to proceed, to tackle them is to try to reach a framework agreement first.

and as i said -- and i think this ought to be made clear because there has been a good bit of misunderstanding or not a full meeting of minds publicly regarding a framework agreement -- a framework agreement is not an interim agreement. it's more detailed than a declaration of principles, but is less than a full-fledged treaty. its purpose is to establish the fundamental compromises necessary to enable the parties to then flesh out and complete a comprehensive agreement that will end the conflict and establish a lasting peace. >> charlie. >> thank you. charlie wolfson with cbs news. you mentioned that a number of

issues were talked about today, but can you mention specifically that settlements was among them? and do you plan to be in the region for the talks that will take place on the 14th and 15th and at the table as well? though you said the u.s. would be a part of the talks, take an active role, do you plan to be there for those talks, and can you tell us where they're going to be? >> as i said at the outset, what i will be able to disclose to you, that the parties will disclose will be limited. and so you've given me the first opportunity to invoke that principle with respect to the first part of your question, for which i thank you. secondly, both secretary clinton and i will be at the meeting in the region on september 14th and 15th, and one of the subjects now being discussed in the trilateral preparatory meeting that's ongoing in another room in this

building, to which i must go in a few moments, is that subject. so a determination has not yet been made. that will be made, i believe, obviously in the near future and well in advance of the meeting. >> kirit, and then we'll go there and then come back. >> kirit radia with abc news. i would like to take another crack at it after charlie. i understand and appreciate that you can't get into specifics about what was talked today, but i'm curious whether you could say -- could speak about the scope of today's talks, whether they did involve any substantive discussions on any of the core issues or whether this was strictly to lay out the plan for the coming year. thanks. >> as i mentioned in my response to major's questions, i do not think one can neatly characterize process and substance as though they're two

separate things in these matters. they do interact and relate. you can't discuss a process issue in any meaningful way without some relations to the substance that's being discussed. and so as i appreciate you said you're taking another crack at charlie's question, and that gives me the chance to say for the second time that i'm not going to be able to get into the substance. but yes, there were discussions that touched on subject -- on substance, although i do not want to suggest to you that the meeting was such that there was a detailed and extended discussion or debate on a specific substantive issue. >> we'll move over here and then we'll wrap up. >> ron kampeas from jta. it appears from this morning that obviously there weren't any substantive concessions. there have been rhetorical concessions.

president abbas talked about security, which is something that netanyahu has wanted him to talk about, and netanyahu yesterday at the dinner talked about recognizing the palestinian claim that they're -- that the palestinians live there. is that something that you've noticed? is that something that the americans have been encouraging? have you played a role in asking the leaders to get out those statements? >> we have encouraged the parties to be positive in their outlook, in their words, and in their actions. any realistic appraisal of the situation, including the recent history -- by which i mean the last two decades -- makes clear that there are very serious differences between the parties, that there are many difficulties which lay ahead

both in terms of the substance of the issues, the impact on their domestic politics, the needs and interests of their societies. we have not, of course, attempted to prescribe what they can or should say about any issue. these are independent and extremely able leaders representing the interests of their societies. what we have sought to convey in innumerable conversations that i have had personally with both leaders over many, many months is president obama's conviction that despite all of the difficulties -- near term, long term, political, substantive, personal, and otherwise -- the paramount goal

of making the lives of their citizens more safe, more secure, more prosperous, more full can best be achieved by a meaningful and lasting peace between the parties and in the region, that the alternative to that poses difficulties and dangers far greater to the individuals, to the leaders, to their societies, than those risks which they run in an effort to reach an agreement that brings about their lasting peace, that any realistic evaluation of the self-interest of the people of israel and the palestinian

people must, in our judgment, conclude that they are far better off living side by side in two states in peace and security than in a continuation of the current situation. >> two last questions here [inaudible]. >> yeah. mohamed ouasi of france 24 washington. senator, prime minister netanyahu mentioned iran this morning. wouldn't that be making things more difficult for you to close the gap between the two parties? >> in every aspect of human life, including your personal life and mine, the world is much different today than it was 10 years ago and vastly different than it was 20 years ago. and that is certainly true of the middle east. it is an area of rapid change, of many conflicting currents

that historians and analysts have described far better than i could in any exchange we have here. but obviously, the actions and policies of the current government of iran have an effect in the region and in the wider world, and they influence what is occurring here. and in my judgment, they add another argument to those which i've already made and which many others have made as to why this conflict should be resolved. it is in the interests of the people involved, and in this respect, the word "comprehensive peace" is directly relevant. please recall that when president obama announced my

appointment two days after taking office, he specifically identified comprehensive peace as the objective of u.s. policy in the region -- israel and the palestinians, israel and syria, israel and lebanon, israel at peace with all of its neighbors in normal relations. and obviously, one of the factors that makes that desirable, in my judgment necessary, for all of these parties is, in part, the actions and policies that have been and are being taken by the government of iran. yes, so it is a factor. even if it didn't exist, there would be a compelling reason for peace between israelis and palestinians, but that's an additional factor.

>> last question. >> senator, laurie ure, cnn. peace negotiations between the parties have taken place, obviously, several times in the past. what is secretary clinton doing differently than her predecessors, including president clinton? >> although my comment on that is not constrained by the agreement which i earlier described -- [laughter] there are other constraining factors which come into play that somehow come right into my head as you completed the question. since i was not a part of the immediately preceding administration, although i did serve at the request of president clinton and the then prime minister of israel and the president of the palestinian authority as chairman of an international commission in 2000 and 2001

following the eruption of the second intifada, i'll tell you my own belief. first, we can't be deterred by the fact that previous efforts didn't succeed. the cause of peace is so important, so just, indeed -- i'm not trying to use hyperbole -- so noble, that it must continue notwithstanding prior efforts at failure. indeed, an argument can be made to the reverse that the prior failures create an even more compelling imperative to proceed now. secondly, with respect to past efforts, as i said previously, not today but at an earlier briefing, we think that the best approach is to carefully review them, as we have done, and to try to draw the best lessons out of each one, not be bound by any particular practice

or process or procedure, and always trying to keep in mind the dynamic changes in the region that have occurred in what is, in historical terms, a very short period of time. so we do not -- i've been asked often, "is this a continuation of annapolis? is it a continuation of some other process?" our view is this is an effort that will try to learn from the lessons of the past, take the best and bring them forward, but not be bound by any label or category or previous process. everything should be judged on the basis of what it will do to advance -- help us advance to achieve the ultimate goal of peace in the region. now, one obvious difference is that president obama is the only president in recent times, to my knowledge, to have

established this as a high priority immediately upon taking office and to have acted immediately at that time. there have been many very well- written books on the history of the past 20 years. i think i've read most of them. and it's very clear that at least in a couple of instances, time ran out. indeed, the authors of several of these books used exactly those words to describe the problem -- they ran out of time at the end. well, this president, i believe, will succeed. but as he said yesterday, neither success nor failure is predetermined or guaranteed, but it isn't going to be because time ran out at the end. so that's a vast difference. i have a high opinion of the men and women who served in

these tasks in the past. i know most of them personally, and i do not think you can attribute inability to achieve a result to their individual or collective failures. they are the product of the difficulty and what many regard as the intractability of the problems and issues. but we believe that there are dynamic changes that occur. there are the more obvious difficulties that lie ahead for both sides if they do not reach agreement that may be even more obvious than they were five or eight or 12 years ago. you have to remember that these leaders must weigh two things.

they must weigh the difficulties they face in getting agreement and they must weigh the difficulties they will face if they do not get an agreement. and we believe it's a very powerful argument that if you subject these to careful, reasoned, and rational analysis, to conclude that the latter difficulties, if they do not get an agreement, will be much greater and have a much more profound impact on their societies than those they face in trying to get an agreement. thank you all very much. been a pleasure to see you and i look forward to reporting to you on a regular basis.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] headlines and phone calls next on "washington journal." our coverage on the 2010 election continues tonight. we will have the debate between the senate candidates in california with the incumbent and republican challenger at 9:00 p.m. eastern. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, the first debate between candidates running for governor in arizona. the republican incumbent and the democratic in about 45 minutes will focus on issues facing u.s. cities with wild loveridge, president of the national league of cities.