that is not a jobs plan. go to my website and look at our home town tax credit. see how we can treat $11,000 for the commonwealth of kentucky. >> part of your job as >> part of your job as attorney general is to intervene on behalf of kentucky citizens when the utility companies ask for rate increases. you were also accepting contributions from people tied to some of these same utilities. the executive branch ethics commission cleared of charges, but some still argue that it was not smart politically to do this and it does not pass the smell test. how can voters be sure that you will be representing them and not the utilities? >> the proof is in the pudding, joe. since i have become attorney general, i have saved the ratepayers of the state over $100 million and opposed the recent increases.

so i stood up for the ratepayers of kentucky and i stood up for electricity in this country. cap and trade is now dead in the united states congress. i filed a lawsuit against the epa to make sure they would not do that. the ethics commission did take a look at this issue. they dismissed it. these were scoreless in charges brought up by karl rove and these special interest money trying to attack my character. i have an outstanding record as attorney general that i am very proud of. >> actually, it was lt. governor who brought up the issue charges, your fellow democrat, and he thought there were serious.

they said they did not have jurisdiction of the charges. there is a clearer conflict of interest. i think he has not completely explain himself on this. >> dr. paul, your supporters gravitated to you because you were seen as a straight shooter, not a typical politician. yet you have been accused during this campaign of backtracking from comments you made about deductible. what do you say to those who believe you have changed to get elected? read in the newspaper. [laughter] a lot of my vision is having characterized and should be taken with a grain of salt. i believe the bank bailout was a mistake. i think that our problem is a spending problem, not a revenue

problem. i have said repeatedly that i favor many different tax reforms that would simplify the tax code as long as they lower the rate on everyone. but i have also said that priority needs to be given to balancing the budget. on any of this. my position on drugs was mischaracterized from the very beginning. i said that, where drug funding comes from was not an issue, but i never said that drugs was not a pressing issue. i am a physician, the father of three teenage boys. i am very concerned. i have gone around the state and talk with sheriff's about it as well as drug rehab group's. >> rand paul has had to backtrack on his position on civil rights, the 3% national sales tax. whether or not he has taxpayers united, the $2,000 deductible for medicare, whether drugs are pressing issue, and two hundred

34 supposedly dead agricultural recipients that he just made up in florida. you do not have the guts to stand by your positions. when to put them out there and realize you cannot sell them and get elected on them, you stand back. you tell me to stand up and be a man. have the guts to stand by your position. >> mr. conroy, if elected, what specifically will you do in your first 100 days in office to jump-start the economy by creating jobs in kentucky? >> i think jobs are the number- one issue in the commonwealth right now. we are at 10% unemployment. families are literally being ripped apart. they're losing their jobs. they are afraid they cannot educate their kids. it is callous what my opponent says that sometimes workers need to take lower wages and have a little tough love. that is not a jobs plan. i actually have a jobs plan. go to our website and look at the home town tax credit. for small and medium-sized businesses who want to create new jobs, they can take a 20%

tax credit. it will not solve our problems, but it will create 11,000 jobs. i also want to get small and community banks to lend again to small businesses. they bailed out a bunch of big banks on wall street. then the regulators came down really hard on our small and community banks. two hundred thousand dollars loan is sometimes a lifeline for jobs creation. we have lost 100,000 manufacturing jobs in the state in the last decade. >> the government does not create jobs. entrepreneurs and businessmen and women create jobs. unless you understand that, you can begin to debate. the next thing you have to say is let's keep more money in kentucky. let's send money to washington. the next thing you have to do is have less regulation.

regulation costs business $1 trillion. we cannot compete overseas because we over rivulet, overtax, overburden. president obama and his cronies are adding more regulation and burdens. >> what are your plans to improve the quality of higher education in kentucky? dr. paul, your first. >> i think the way we improve overall education in kentucky is we need more control of education in kentucky. one of the things, when you talk with school superintendents or presidents of college, that they washington that they cannot make decisions in the state about had to make education better. sometimes, it differs

university-by-university. i want more autonomy for presidents of universities and all the way down the line when we talk about secondary education and primary education. let's have more the decision- making process here in the state and less mandates or unfunded mandates coming from the fedele government. >> mark, as you know, this is an issue i know very well. i work for the higher education for when i worked for the governor's office in frankfurt. what rand paul did not tell you is that he is for eliminating the department of education. i want to keep students in it slowly over time with a small percentage of their wages, that will work. that will keep students from having to drop out of college because they cannot afford to pay for college. that. by doing away with the department of education, that may sound easy, but it will have a really bad result. we need to stand up for higherwe need to get more people in our

community into a system of higher education and we need to keep them in that system. >> right out of the gate and that, you brought up the commercial that you approved the questions that dr. paul face. they ask for questions why? i presume there is an answer to are you alleging that dr. paul is not a christian or is not a good christian? >> that is not the issue of the ad. [laughter] >> the issue of the ad is why did rand paul, knowing that the president of baylor university and this group for being join a group that mocked people of faith? when is it appropriate to tie up a woman and have her kneel before a false idol that you referred to as aqua buddha? those are fundamental questions. story this week talking about him right into the student paper and asking when our two people ever people? well i think the creator made a sequel. why should women havethere is a direct line between what he was writing about in college and the

positions he has taken on faith- based programs. >> jack once to know when did you quit beating your wife? [laughter] you accuse me of these crimes. why did you commit these crimes that you just made up, jack? do you know nothing about the fact that, when you attack someone's character, you do not just do that. you do not just make up stuff that you attack someone's character. you really should be ashamed of yourself.

run on the issues of the day. do not make up stuff about me from college that you think you have read on the internet blogs, ok? >> yes. blogs. it was on cbs news. it was on politico. and the woman who you tied up said it was weird. she said she and her friendship with you because of it. i do not think anyone should ever tie up a woman and ask her to kneel before a false idol. >> how do you argue with someone who has no logic and makes no logical sense? who makes up stuff to accuse me of from 30 years ago in college? i mean, it is absolutely absurd. you demean the state of kentucky. you embarrass yourself to bring

up stuff from 30 years ago that is untrue, unsubstantiated, that you read on a blog. [applause] >> no applause. no applause, folks. mr. paul supporters, we told you before hand that there are no -- there is no applause during the debate. >> do you think he is a christian auric good christian? -- or a good christian? what is your conclusion? >> i know that his wife is a deacon in the church. i do not think that is the issue. this issue is why did he join a group that mocks people of faith? they do not join a group that mocks people of faith? >> how can you respond to anonymous accusations from a guy that wants to make of stuff about me in college?

do you want to have a debate? let's have a debate tonight about national issues. if you want to discuss with your high school buddies what happened in college, go ahead. all you do is make upthat shows such a dearth of knowledge and such a dearth of position that really disqualifies you from holding office. [applause] >> dr. paul, from the past three debates, mr. connally does not believe you think is that social security is constitutional. do you believe it is? >> i have never said that it is not constitutional. i have questioned the constitutionality of obamacare. 70% of kentuckians challenge and believe we should challenge the constitutionality of obamacare. the attorney general will not a

sign on to that. we ask him to sign-on to the constitutionality of obamacare. the day. this would get into some of the discussion of the issues. jack misunderstands the constitution. he thinks it has to list their right that you not have insurance. he does not think that the constitution gives certain powers to the government. but it says that those rights not listed are not to be disparaged. the ninth amendment and the 10th amendment are very clear. he needs to join the lawsuit against obamacare. he needs to do the will of the people. over 70% of kentuckians do believe that obamacare is a mistake. >> i am always amused to get a lecture on constitutional law from self-certified ophthalmologists. [laughter]

[applause] >> i will not waste the resources of the taxpayers of kentucky playing pee party politics. if you want to file these lawsuits, you challenge well settled law that says social security and medicare is constitutional. if you listen to his answer very carefully, he did not say that he thinks that social security is constitutional. he does not think it is, i am telling you. >> yes or no? is it constitutional or not. >> i have never challenged and i do not challenge it. it has been decided losses the 1930's. it is hard to argue with him because he makes up my position and then i have to have a debate with a made up position. even "the lexington herald" said that his ads are false. how do debate with a guy who makes up your positions. >> i am not making any positions. they are on the internet. they are in e-mails in your press releases.

if you want to talk about as being declared false, "the lexington herald" said the and you are running against me is false. when you are debating around paul, he is written on this. he does not think federal mine safety laws are constitutional. >> "the lexington herald" in sponsoring you today said that you are -- turning away from those who have a record in congress. what do you say? general, i have been taking on the oil companies for challenges at the pump.

balancing the budget next year and he does not talk about how to do it this year. but you're looking at a fiscally responsible democrat. i have taken 86,000 child pornography sites of the internet. because i understand drugs are a pressing issue, i built the state's first prescription bill task force. abuse-neglect prosecutions are up in the state. i think that is a public record in the public trust. >> i think this is and will be the year of the outsider. i think people are ready for some non-career politicians. i think people are ready for term limits. i think people are ready for a balanced budget amendment. i think they are ready for people who do not see things in terms of having their career

and staying there forever. they say, you know what? we have serious problems in our country. we have a $2 trillion deficit. they want to send somebody up there who is not part of the system. >> dr. paul, should employers be held accountable for hiring illegal immigrants or undocumented workers? >> yes. i think illegal immigration is a big problem in our country. i think we need to have security along the southern border. we have not done a very good job about it. i think security is what we have to do first. many, like my opponent, want amnesty and security, they say. we tried that in the past. whenever they said, we will give you an amnesty and security at some point in time, it does not happen. i think it is a real national security problem to have an open border. i agree with milton friedman

who said you cannot have open borders in the welfare state. arizonas try to do something because the federal government is not stepping up. he opposes the arizona law. i am for the arizona law. i think the states will have to do something. somethey are the ones spending money on education and health benefits for people breaking the law. you cannot allow people to willy-nilly break the law, come into the law by millions and millions in favor of -- millions. immigration. >> i am not for amnesty. but i am also not for his plan were u.s. to electrify the entire southern border of the united states of america and create an underground electric fence. as attorney general of kentucky, we advise law

enforcement agencies about immigration. but there are not enough ages. the federal government has abrogated its responsibility in this area. >> do you favor a temporary guest worker program? >> yes, i do. i think it temporary worker program is a good program. i think should be done legal. it should be documented. when you talk to those in the farming community, they will tell you that they do need migrant workers to work on the farms. >> i do think a temporary worker program, if done properly with conjunction with tough border security and system that is safe and fair, does make sense. in certain instances like farmers, i do support it. >> there is much controversy on health care reform bill. we do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater because there are a lot of good benefits in the bill.

what would you do away with and what would to replace them with a? >> thank you very much for the question. i will tell you what is not the answer for health care, the two thousand dollars deductible for health care. rand paul says he wanted to thousand dollars deductible. our seniors cannot afford it. he also thinks we should take all breast cancer research down to the local level. that is where the university of louisville gets millions of dollars. here is what we need. we need to fix the health care law. rand paul wants to repeal it. i have a friend who had a kidney transplant. ofhe has headed for 18 years. he told me on numerous occasions how hard it is to get coverage because he has a pre- existing condition. we have 19,000 kids in this state who would be kept on their parents' plan longer. there are some good things in the law. we need to step up in medicare

and let medicare to negotiate for lower drug parties. they need someone to take on the pharmaceutical industry to do that. >> i would get rid of the individual mandate. i would get rid of the fines. i would get rid of the 1099 provisions. interestingly, what we have talked about, the deductible that someone has, obamacare has already raised that deductible. i talked about in the future, a jacket is already in favor of the deductible. so is obama. medicare advantage has people paying nearly $1,000 more in out-of-pocket costs and deductibles will rise under obamacare. do not be fooled. >> jack, i will let you respond. but the viewer asked what specifically would you do away with the health care bill. after that and then you can respond. -- answer that and then you can respond. >> he came up with an argument the other day that somehow the deductible is already being raised. it was the but pretty thoroughly this week. here's what i would do away with.

i would say the special- interest provision where medicare cannot negotiate for lower drug prices, which is $200 billion in savings. i think they should be allowed to negotiate lower prices the way medicaid does. >> 30 seconds. >> in his article, he quotes richard foster to say that, under obama care, deductibles will go up. you are absolutely incorrect on this. >> mr. paul, as you know, kentucky is the net in porter federal dollars. you argue for a separate taxation system. you want more money kept at home. but let's say you win and you

are able to convince everyone in the senate and the conference of your plan. the net -- will the net result for kentucky be a lesser percentage of the federal pie? >> actually, if you take out those active military salaries and what we give to our bases, our numbers are disproportionately high because of having two big military bases. they have -- we have a lot of active duty salaries. washington is a net loser for us. we need to say -- we need to figure out how to fix the deficit. we will have to look at every program and say how do we balances? soldiers should be taken out of the equation.

>> rand paul came out for a 23% national sales tax. that would be on top of our regular sales tax. the wants to do away with the 16th amendment and put in a 23% national sales tax. so when you buy groceries or buy supplies, you're adding a 23% national sales tax. it will cut down disproportionately hard on our seniors. they are the salmon to get the $2,000 rand paul medical deductible. they cannot afford his plan. >> i have said repeatedly that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. we need to cut spending before we do anything to taxes. we need to simplify the tax code. it is 17,000 pages long. we need to make it shorter. i support many different approaches to reform the tax code as long as it reduces the overall burden for all taxpayers. >> he has been for the national

sales tax repeatedly and said he was for it again. his campaign managers got into an argument about this week. in national sales tax would hurt our seniors in addition to the two thousand dollars deductible. >> in the past nine years, 1300 americans have died in afghanistan. conditions on the ground there seem to be, at times, deteriorating. do you believe this is a winnable war? how would you define it as a winnable war? under what circumstances should we leave? >> that is a very good question. thank you for that. our men and women in uniform are serving so bravely over there. i think it is the right thing to go in and break up the taliban. but i question the surge in afghanistan. i did so because i am sick of hearing politicians gang up on the wood and say "win the war! when the war! " what does it mean to win in afghanistan? the reason i question to the surge is because i did not hear them much about pakistan. it is a deadly combination of loose nuclear material and terror. we need to handle this issue of nuclear proliferation.

that is why i am especially troubled that he has said that it is not a national security nuclear weapon. >> i told people that, if i am elected to the senate, the most important vote i will ever take will be going to war. i think america should go to war reluctantly.

and when we go to war, we should declare war as the constitution intended. i do not think we have done that. as a consequence, we have not been unified as a nation. i do think we need to begin asking questions about when can we come home, when can the afghans step up and do more to patrol the streets in their country.

if not or if so, how do we get out? >> i think we can meet those two criteria i put forth, leaving the country more stable than we us feel well. the solution will be a political one where countries like stepped up and are un partners and nato partners step up so solution that will meet political ends that will allow us to get out in the future. troops start to come home sometime next year. >> i think that we are very good at fighting war, but we are not very good at nation-building. i think we need to ask the questions about that. there needs to be a national debate, in the senate and in the halls of the media as well. we need to have a debate about when we should come home. >> dr. paul, you have expressed dollars. but considering the corruption rampant in parts of eastern mistaken from the very learned none. there is a continuum between

local funding and federal funding. if you talk to a sheriff in any county and ask them what percentage of your money is state and what percentage is local and what is federal, it is well over 90% in every community for state and local funding. i am not proposing some dramatic change in what we do. the vast majority of the funding is state and local. >> i do not know what kentucky needs. i was interested to see in the paper this morning saying that rodgers was disappointed when paul rand can do funding unite. congressman would field has brought funding on the floor and is not locally funded. i can assure you that the that i met with in central kentucky the sheriff -- the sheriff's that i met with in central kentucky believe that the drug problem is a pressing problem. >> they are 100% federally funded. if you take the federal money in the county and you add of the local money in canada, it is

less than 10% of the money. -- in the county, is less than 10% of the money. i want more autonomy with local drug courts because i want to make reasonable decisions. i do not think we should lock up a teenager for 10 years for possession of drugs. i think we need to have a more reasoned and reasonable approach to the drug problem. >> this is an issue that i've understand -- that i understand. i have literally traveled to eastern kentucky. parents have cried on my shoulder because their children have overdosed on oxycontin. you said you would not seek federal assistance. i think that is callous. i think that is problematic for the people of eastern kentucky, including the partnership that we have. this is an all hands on debt situation. >> as a way to attack the deficit, you can either cut programs and save money or raise taxes to generate income. as far as content is concerned,

-- this is an all hands on that such a way and. >> as a way to attack the deficit, you can either cut programs and save money or raise taxes to generate income. as far as content is concerned, what is your view on downsizing for knox and fort campbell as a part of saving money. >> i am for that. they have a plan moving forward for fort knox that is very exciting. they will actually triple the number of officers. there is incredible investment down there. people in and around fort knox are cited for their future. they are also standing by fort campbell. i am a fiscally responsible

democrat. i balance my budget eight times. if you get to my website, you can see we have specific proposals on how we can trim about $1 trillion in spending. there is about $100 billion in medicare fraud we could get if we had medicare fraud unit in each and every state. if we were to shut down the offshore tax loopholes and tax havens that my opponents of course, there's about $400 billion in savings. we need a bipartisan debt commission to give its recommendations. >> i am not for cutting funds for fort knox or fort campbell. both of them are ranked in the top 20 bases. i think we have a very good chance at fort knox and fort campbell will stay in kentucky. with regard to what we do, it is a spending problem in washington. you need series people to go up there and look at every program

across the board and say, "can we downsizes? can we make it smaller? can we privatize some programs?" but we have to be serious about this. it will take sears people to balance the budget. >> where do you stand on location for the new va hospital in louisville. >> i think we should take into account what the veterans have. they are for keeping it in a similar location where it is. there is another medical community that would be more convenient downtown. but this is an area where i would say to make the decisions locally. let's have the folks in lieu will make the decision. let's not ship off and -- folks in the louisville make the decision. let's not ship off this decision to washington. >> let's listen to the veterans

community and local officials. i want to talk about the commander of the army and see where he thinks it should be. in addition to that, and talking with my good friend john sterner, the north-central part of the state is underserved when it comes to be a nursing homes. i would like to see a veterans nursing home at an affordable cost so we can serve that underserved part of our veterans. >> john conway, you have said that your support of the employee free choice act is part of your thinking that the majority of workers in the workplace want to organize, they should be able to do that. i'm curious about another facet in that bill which would force federal binding arbitration on businesses and unions, it essentially a takeover of the contract process by the federal government.

do you agree with that facet to? >> thank you for the question. first of all, i have always said that is the fundamental right of the american worker to sit down with his or her employer and talk about the terms and conditions of their employment. if 50% of people want to form a union, they ought to form a union. -- they ought to be able to form a union. if they go through years where no agreement is reached on a contract, there should be a mediation process. we need a jobs plan. brand paul has no jobs plan. we have 10% unemployment and his plan is to say that workers will decide to take lower wages and they need a little tough luck. that is no jobs plan.

again, i want people to go to my website. it will not solve our problems, but it will print about 11,000 jobs in the commonwealth of kentucky. a lot of people are afraid that the government is growing and that jobs are not being treated. we need to provide incentives to the private sector to create jobs in the future. >> let me interpret for you. he is for forced the employee -- big mistake for kentucky. it will cause the loss of jobs, not creation of jobs. the preventing waged in kentucky has caused our schools to be more expensive. be very clear what his position is. he is for the bill. >> you said some sort of mediation. the bill, as written, is federally enforced binding arbitration. would you specifically supports that? >> i want to see some sort of mediation process to ask them to sit down and arrive at a contract in a reasonable of the time. >> to put a simple, he will vote for the bill. i am against the bill.

[laughter] >> you have attacked conway for going outside of the state to raise money. will you promise now, if elected, you will return to federal government or gift to a charity when you were campaigning outside of kentucky either for yourself or for your father? >> if skipping votes, yes. he has gone over half of september in california with nancy pelosi raising money. the thing is that we want him to do his job here. he wants to blame the drug problem on the small town position. i am not responsible for the drug problem. he is the chief law enforcer in the state. meth labs have doubled in the state. he is the one in charge, for

goodness sakes. >> as of our latest question and answer board, more than 70% of my money was in state and more than 70% of his men was out of state. he thinks -- he does not think the rules apply to him. look at kentucky taxpayers united. he made up 1000 dues-paying members. there has been numerous stories this week that shows the organization did not even exist. what was he doing there? >> dr. paul, you said you would return money for missing votes. do you see your job as senator as being more than voting?

>> he should return his money because he is not doing his job. all of his jobs are getting worse. he spent half of september, traveling, trying to troll for cash in california. so yes, i think he's a return is. >> i was not in california for half of september trolling for cash. i have been working attorney general. look at my history. i have taken on special interests. i have taken shot from recites off the internet. we have brought the state further in the area of cyber crimes than any other state in the country. i'm proud of that. >> you have called your opponent a constitutional minimalist with radical views. how can you claim that he will this mental social security, medicare, the minimum-wage, etc.? do his use go too far? how can you defend that?

you have gone all the way to say that he will dismantle those programs. >> rand paul is on record saying that the federal defense record will be much smaller, but he wanted to be 80% or more of the budget. he is on record as saying that we have to follow the constitution in this country since 1937. he said we need to go back to a pre-world war ii system of health care where doctors negotiate directly with patients. in 1937, the supreme court upheld social security. in 1936, the supreme court decided that the commerce clause was broad enough to regulate coal mine safety. i am glad they did. we're losing 1500 colt -- we were losing 1500 coal miners a year back in the 1930's. then they bluecross and/blue shield system arose. brand paul does not like that. he calls himself a

constitutional conservative and not a libertarian. he would take us back to not having mine safety laws. >> i think you have hit the nail on the head. he makes up positions and then we argue the made up positions. i am not eliminating social security, medicare, or mine safety regulations. so why do not stop and have an intelligent debate? we have to look at which regulations work and which do not work. we have to figure out how to fund medicare and social to tree for the baby boomers. they are living longer and there are more retired people. >> i will give you 30 seconds. >> i have outlined a couple of provisions. medicare fraud units allow for $100 billion in savings. he puts forward all of the stuff that social security is a ponzi scheme and it should be privatized.

i want to tell the seniors of kentucky tonight that i will never balance the budget on their backs. >> he said he will never balance the budget on their backs? [laughter] never going to balance the budget. [laughter] we have to figure out how to fund social security and medicare. we have 42 million people returned now. we're getting ready to have 77 million people retired. people and wealthier people. if you do not believe that and you're not willing to have an adult discussion about it, then we get nowhere towards fixing it. the lower we put it off, the worse the problem gets. >> there has been discussion at the federal level about creating less dependence on non- renewable energy sources.

do you favor such a move? if you do, how do explain that to people working in kentucky's coal industry? >> if elected, i will probably be the biggest offender of a local industry and the colt workers and the coal miners revenue united states. it is a big kentucky industry. but i am not opposed to other forms of energy. i think we should keep developing other forms of energy. i'm in favor of nuclear. i am in favor of wind. i am in favor of hydroelectric. you name it. i am in favor of it. 300 million people in america get to vote every day. it is called democratic capitalism. we vote on whether wal-mart succeeds or target succeed. we vote on whether we will use coal or nuclear. what we have is a market place that determines these. that maximizes the ability of the individual to get what they want. we will continue to burn coal.

>> i think i just heard him say that he wants to be one of the strongest advocates for minors, yet he is on record saying that he would take federal miner's safety protections. we were losing 1500-a year in the 1930's. he also has said that coal is the least the desirable form of energy. i am against cap and trade. i went against the epa when they tried to force it on us. i also think we need to explore the new energy economy. the jobs of the future will be created in the renewable energies. >> thank you mark and thank you to the university of louisville. in about 16 days, the voters of kentucky have an important force to make. elections are about truces. we have one year -- elections

are about choices. as attorney general, i have gone after the scourge of drugs. rand paul has said that they are not pressing issue. i have gone after crimes. i understand the sometimes non- mile of actions are a crime. i also will stand up and protect our seniors. i will stand up for medicare. rand paul wanted to thousand dollars deductible for medicare. he calls social security a ponzi scheme that ought to be privatized. our seniors cannot afford that. rand paul has spoken out against the americans with disabilities act. what will he say to them? i will always stand up for workplace safety protections. i hardly ask for your vote on nov. 2nd. >> thank you. [cheers and applause]

>> dr. paul, one minute. >> you will notice that i will not be shaking his hand tonight. i will not shake hands with someone who attacks my religion and attacks my christian beliefs. these are something very personal to me, my wife, my kids. we take it very personally. and i will not be associated with someone who will attack my religion. this election will be about the future of america, who has the best vision. we will try to keep the debate on a higher tone. i hope you will leave my church, my family, and my religion out of it. but who has the best vision for america? few believe america has always answered? do you believe in the individual entrepreneur?

i believe in the individual. i believe in capitalism. i believe we, as the greatest nation ever known to man, we are the most humanitarian nation known to man. thank you very much for coming this evening. thank you for your support. [cheers and applause] >> we would like to thank both of the canada's for putting yourselves out there for public service. we thank all of you watching at home. go vote on election day. you have compared them head-to- head. you can go home and make your vote on election day. go vote on election day.

thank you very much for joining us. [applause] >> according to a new federal election committee report, republican way and paul has

raised $1 million more than his challenger over the past four months. he has about $4,000 more than his opponent in cash on hand. our political coverage continues with the debate between senator patty murray and republican challenger dino rossi. tonight is the second and final debate. this race is rated a toss up. this is hosted by komo television studios in seattle. >> who will best represent your interests in washington d.c. and the incumbent says she is on the right path to republican challengers. the race is tight, these -- the stakes are high. tonight, we hear from the candidates from our studios in seattle, this debate is

broadcast on tv stations. now, you're moderators, dan lewis and era johnson. >> could evening, and welcome toyou hear the views of u.s. and canada for the people of washington state. >> our goal is to dig deeper into the important issues so you will be informed when you cast your vote on november 2. dan and i will ask questions that have been compiled. >> i will ask questions from you, the voters. we want to welcome each candidate, a u.s. senator patty murray and former state senator dino rossi. welcome, and thank you for being here tonight. >> before we began, we want to explain how this debate will work. can this will have 90 seconds for opening remarks and in 90 seconds to answer questions. at the end of the debate, we will have 90 seconds each for

closing remarks. >> the opening was predetermined by a coin toss. mr. rossi, you begin with 90 seconds. >> america is in trouble. if we do not have a correction in this election, we will wake of 24 months from now in a country we don't recognize. someone told you that the federal government was want to own or control card companies, banks, insurance companies, student loans, health care, on and on, you would have called them a conspiracy nut. it has all happened in 20 months. we are wishing -- we are witnessing the reaffirmation of america and we cannot let that happen. -- the preformation of america and we cannot let that happen. i have four beautiful children,

a 19 -- year-old daughter and a 16 year-old son and a 14 year- old son and a nine year-old daughter. if someone to run for the united states senate, i understand how campaigns work. my wife puts things on a different level. she says that she appreciates that i worry about them, but i have to think about this on a different level. what kind of country do you want our children growing up then? she said i was in a position to do something about this. she was willing to sort for -- to support 100 percent. i am running against an 18 year incumbent that has an 18 year record of growing government. hopefully you will see clear choices between the two candidates. i want to take washington state in a different direction than senator murray has been taking us. i hope to have your support by the end of the evening. >> thank you, mr. rossi. miss bausch senator murray, you have 90 seconds. >> thank you for joining us tonight. families in our state are

struggling. they have lost their jobs and their homes and their pensions. not because of anything they did because of mismanagement on wall street. this state is my family. my family is hurting. that is why i am working with local leaders to provide investments to create jobs. i will take on anyone, even the most powerful, to make sure that you have a seat at the table when those important decisions are made. i grew up in a small town. i learned the values of main street at my dad's store. hard work and fighting for what you believe them. those are the values that i take to work every day to make sure you have decisions that

work for you and your community. i believe that by working together, we can find solutions to the big challenges that will fix this country. >> thank you senator murray. it is clear from what we are hearing on the campaign trail of the candidates have two different views about representing us in the u.s. senate three want to set up our first question was something that the mice is that true >> the candidates have spent millions of dollars telling us what their opponents have or have not done. voters have been inundated with this. >> wind dino rossi was asked if workers should have a level playing field, he said no. we just cannot afford six more years of patty murray. she is part of the problem. >> massive debt. >> banking and real-estate.

the big banks and wall street. >> 18 years, 18 years. >> i am patty murray, and i it sponsor this and. >> those ads have confused people, have frustrated others and anchored some. i cannot tell you how many people come up to me and ask why they do not tell us what they're going to do for me. the challenge you tonight, without mentioning your opponent in your answers, if elected, what will you do for the people of washington state? >> senator marie, your first. >> the first thing i will do is work to be your voice in the very difficult decisions. i come home and on to community leaders about what they need in their community to create jobs and build a future for the families in their community. that is why i work with leaders to bring home investments to make sure we create jobs.

it is what i did when the dam was damaged in the storm. i talk to leaders about the dangers that were going to happen. they talked to me about what i needed to do to help them repair that down and i went to bat for them. with the small business lending bill, businesses will keep their doors open. jobs are the number one focus for all of us. i am going to make sure that we do not forget our veterans. i have come home and talk to veterans to find out what they need. i believe that when we send our men and women to fight, we have to be there for them when they

come home. i want to make sure that when we balance the federal budget, we do it responsibly and make those tough decisions and pay for them. that what what i want to continue to do for you. >> mr. rossi, you now have 90 seconds. >> we are on a fiscal plan. when our own bankers tell you that you are spending too much money, it is clear you are on a fiscal cliff. as a state senator, i was in charge of the senate ways and means committee. i have a one-vote republican majority in the senate and democrats controlled the house. i worked across party lines to balance the biggest deficit in history. i also received the first award from the freedom foundation for being the most fiscally conservative. i received six this sort of words in the disabled community. -- all words and the disabled community. those are the skills of balancing budgets that i plan to bring to the united states

senate because there is so much partisanship going on there that nothing is getting done. on top of that, i have been traveling the state. we put enough miles on the car to go to new york and back five times. i went from town to town to town. we have a 17.4% functional unemployment rate in this state. eyesyou look in people's that have been the -- unemployed for some time, when the to help small businesses be successful. it is the only with it will get back to work for it is not with the health care plan. it has to be but small businesses being successful -- be through small businesses being successful. >> center murray, your rebuttal. >> we need to work with small businesses to make sure that they have the credit they need.

we need to make the right investments in our community so that we can create jobs and make sure that we provide tax cuts for middle income families, extended the -- your kids and your community will have a strong feature. >> and now, mr. rossi, you have 30 seconds. >> we have to reauthorize the 2001 -- 2003 tax cuts. how much higher do we need to have unemployment? we need to reauthorize all of the tax cuts, including the ones that will hurt small business owners. i know that my opponent does not want to reauthorize the ones that will -- that business owners rely on, but it will kill more jobs. >> now, let's talk about the one thing that affects voters. the economy. according to a poll, the majority of those who responded, 27% said that fixing the economy is the most

employment right now. on employment is at 10%. people are not spending and tax revenue is down, forcing cuts to programs and john's. here is the question. tell us three things that you would do to get us out of this economic mess. mr. rossi, you have 90 seconds. . .

this runs an hour. >> it is a great pleasure for me. two? welcome to the third annul richard and elizabeth dubin distinguished lecture series, which is presented by the joe seven, gilded horn for israel studies for a wonderful location is that are near and dear we're very fortunate at the university of maryland to enjoy a strong spirit of interdisciplinary collaboration, collegiality and open dialogue among the wide range of departments and centers that focus on middle east studies such as the gilded horn institute, the meier off center for jewish studies, the rochon center for persian studies and in worse about for peace to name a few. the dubin lecture is just one example of a public event designed to foster a greater

understanding of the middle east. later this month, just for example, the rochon fire for persian studies will present a conference on human rights and democracy in iran which is very timely today. the net result of these relationships and i'd give it these is a vital campuswide middle east studies initiatives that hurts the university of maryland and sets it apart at the top and put sensitive apart from many of the spirit to two shins. it's now my privilege to introduce our guest of honor, ambassador michael oren as our featured speaker for the 2010 dubin lecture. she is a graduate of princeton and columbia universities. dr. oren has received numerous scholarships and studied at harvard, yale and georgetown. he is the vice israel's delegation to the united nations, has testified before the united states congress and has briefed the white house on

middle eastern affairs. he is an award-winning writer, ambassadors oren. in "the new york times" and the new york public radio is a contributing editor. after his speech, ambassador oren has agreed to take a few questions. and professor yuan perry will play a little bit about him. professor yuan. with the director director of the institute, the golden arches do for israel studies and at and at the same time the adrian s. and jack care of israel studies and comes to us from a series of very interesting backgrounds ranging from being an advisor to get soccer being politically and editor as well as an academic in nature institute at tel aviv will be handling questions than answers. at the conclusion -- at the conclusion, please proceed to the upper lobby outside to the left of this room for a public reception. thank you very much and now, it

ambassador oren. [applause] >> shalom, unc. hello. of the gilded horn institute for israel studies, the director of professor peary. i am especially pleased to be here with dean harris. thank you personally for making just a warm home for the gilded heart institute for israel studies to the university of maryland, which in addition to promoting israel and its campus and beyond of the world leaders, the nation leaders in the study of israel is also home to one of the nation's leading jewish studies department. grady, schmitt. a special thanks to professor paul cham for doing so much for organizing this event and making it possible.

and i want to give a very special thank you and acknowledgment to great friends of my wife, sally, who is here with me today and my thoughts at almodovar and were not only france, but friends of the state and people of israel. being students, you could probably not get through four years of study at any university without being told i sound wise and old gentleman to go out and realize your dreams. have you heard that already? just wait for your commencement address. you'll hear it. so in a rare possibility that you have not heard back yet, here it comes. go realize your dreams. my dream since i was what was then called junior high school and is now called middle-school, i wanted to serve as israel's ambassador to the united states of america. no kidding. i grew up in northern new jersey. somebody may know that. i spend more time defending

features the than i do defending the state of israel. [laughter] and for some reason, growing up in new jersey i always there is going to live in israel. i don't have an explanation for it. i know is going to live in israel and i were not at 50 years old arch on the cubits, learned how to cultivate off also. i came back, joined a zionist youth movement and he was there as a member of the zionist youth movement i came to our annual convention here in washington d.c. and the heights, the apogee of this experience has been in washington d.c. with saturday night and came israel's ambassador to the united states. we stood up and applauded teller hands were numb. we screamed, we sang at the lush i thought that's what i want to be when i grow up. now some of you have studied in

the institute for israel studies may have read about your hurtful and know that the founder of the zionist movement famously said, a few willett, it it is no dream. yet every time i hear that aphorism, you think of a kind of feel to it that was coined by the great irish poet, william butler yeats. gates said in dreams begin responsibilities. and i'm always -- i've always defined zionism to which responsibility. in israel we take responsibility for self as. we take responsibly for lampposts, for the sewer systems or if we take responsibility for our successes and we take responsibility for setbacks. and when i move to israel finally a forgotten man i learned by responsibility. i served in the israeli army in several wars, acted as a liaison with american forces in the region. i learned about the responsibilities that come with

defending my country, defending my people. and i went to work for the government in the early 1890's. and in the fall of may 295, you learned about that responsibility, too. how on earth that could be when demand so inspired me so much as they use, yitzhak rabin was assassinated. so to come in living out my dream and for filling my responsibility to serve as a bridge between the land of my birth in my ancestral homeland, i learned the responsibility of studying that particular relationship. and after i finish up my political work in the 90's, i spent some decade or so studying the united states israel relationship. and what i've learned in embarking on a journey of study was that relationship between

the united states and israel is intensely deep and it goes back not just 62 years to israel's birth, but in many cases nearly 400 years to the origin of this country, the origins of america. keep in mind to what people who founded this country which like him in the who came and the people who have suffered religious discrimination have fashioned themselves as the new israel. that's why they call their kids jacob and i second benjamin and sir and rebecca. and when they fled the country of their affliction, which they likened to egypt and came to this new world, they likened it to the new promised land and they gave some 1000 heber names to their towns. some view may come from jericho or bethlehem or ceylon. and they made hebrew a major language at the universities. some of you may know james madison was a hebrew major at princeton and he failed.

very hard language. in many of these early colonial americans felt that as good christians and later as good americans, it was their divinely ordained duty to help the old to them they felt a certain kinship giveback to the old promised land, then known as palestine. restoration is. and very prominent americans, by john adams, the second president in the united states said it was his fondest vision to send a jewish army would march back into judeo and claim it as a jewish kingdom. abraham lincoln in 1863 said it was his fondest dream that after you restore the union he would work to restore the jewish people to statehood and their ancient homeland. you've got woodrow wilson, a person who in many ways was responsible for the issuance of the balfour declaration, for

which the british said that they would help restore to their ancient kingdom. woodrow wilson said they guide the son of presbyterian ministers that she was the son and grandson of presbyterian ministers that i would help restore the jewish people to their ancient homeland with the greatest accomplishment i could make. now that same sort of restoration estate via had a tremendous impact on subsequent american presidents, entremed, nixon, reagan, george bush, johnson, president clinton. remember your president clinton was in the israeli government told the story with tears running down inside, was baptist minister helped raise him as a kid had contracted cancer and was dying and on his deathbed he told clinton to come to him and made him promise with his dying wish that he would always stand by the state of israel. condoleezza rice, former secretary of state went back and forth to his israel 26 times.

someone unless why are you invested so much time in the terms of middle east peace. condoleezza rice said it because i am the granddaughter and and a daughter of presbyterian ministers, just like woodrow wilson. in bringing peace to the holy land i regard as the greatest thing i can do. now the united states is one of the most religiously observant modernized countries in the world. more people attend a house of worship of one type or another in this country every week than most industrialized countries. and that spiritual connection may account for the great deal of support, which israel enjoys among the israeli public. regularly there are polls taken how popular is israel among the american public click the most recent poll showed a very, very high number. about 71%, 72% would find

themselves as pro-israel, but that goes up to 82% among americans who at 10 church weekly. you cannot look at the u.s.-israel relationship without looking at the religious spiritual component. that spiritual component of the mentioned earlier deeply influenced harry truman, was a straight up to spirit between two of memory survival page 14. and it spurred him against the advice against all of his senior advisers to recognize the state of israel 11 minutes after its creation on may 14, 1948 he asked why he did that, truman said because i'm cyrus. and cyrus. i was even ancient persian king who re-created the jewish kingdom. but after the birth of the jewish state in 1948, and its emergence in a democracy, a democracy that protected individual rights, respect for pluralism, the rule of law.

another layer to the u.s. is real relationship was added. it wasn't just a spiritual connection now, but a sense of affinity and kinship between the american democracy, modeled roughly on the old roman sort of style republic and israel as a democracy in which every person is a potential prime minister. here was a country in the heart of the middle east, where the rights of free speech and free assembly were strictly observed, where minority served in the knesset and on israel's supreme court were surrounding arab regimes that threatened with execution could find shelter acid muslim refugees from darfur were in bosnia. here's a country that absorbed hundreds of thousands of jewish refugees from arab countries, from the former soviet bloc. a country that was the only

largely white nation in the world that airlifted adamant expense in entire community from africa, the ethiopians and offered them a home. but there was as yet no strategic alliance. in 1967, there was a war -- a six-day war. israel fought that war, defeated a number of arab armies. israel fought that war without american armaments. but in the aftermath of the work on the president on the president of the united states, lyndon johnson, woke up and said whoa, there is this major powerhouse in the middle east. it opposes the soviets in the cold war. we should be aligned with that country. and so, the alliance was born. and israel stood by the united states throughout the cold war. and then after the fall of the soviet union, israel stood by america in the fight against the perpetrators of terror.

the result was the emergence of one of, if not the most multifaceted, deepest alliances in this country, the united states has known with any foreign nation in his post-world war ii period. the non-alliance has many, many different faces. there is the area of intelligence sharing and policy coordination, which in itself is fast. there's weapons development. united states is involved -- deeply involved and committed to the development of israel's anti-ballistic missile system, the era three, aero two, david slaying, iron dome systems. we have joint treating and maneuvers this year we have a major tournament ever, juniper juniper cobra which over a thousand american service women and men participated in a defense operation with the united states, a trial operation

was fantastically successful. israeli tactics and technologies have saved untold american lives in iraq and afghanistan. there was a single couplet that northern northern israel that is produced the armor for upwards of 9000 american vehicles in serving in iraq and afghanistan and enabling them to resist the greatest discourages these two wars of improvised explosive devices. all of this from one could and israel. that much of this information i knew before coming into office as ambassador to the united states from israel. i thought having spent a decade and a half study in this relationship, i knew a great deal about it. and then i got into this office and founder was greatly humbled by the fact i knew relatively little. i learned very quickly that the relationship between the united states and israel is far faster

and deeper than anything i ever anticipated or imagine. for example, there are commercial ties. get this, israel is america's 20th largest customer in the world. his relatives or business with the united states than does argentina or russia or even saudi arabia. we have extensive cooperation. israel is the second most representative country after the united states on the nasdaq exchange. if you take it your cell phones or your computers then you look at the crystal screen there, the lcd screens, 70% of those screens are made from the state of israel. we are cooperating in the search for alternative energy in the arts and culture. we may be the only two countries in the world that have major streets named after one another's greatest leaders. come down to jerusalem the family gives street, a

washington street, a martin luther king memorial in downtown jerusalem. and in new york, there are so this is a special relationship in every sense of the word. now, does this mean we agree on everything? no, it does not. we do not agree on everything. we do not agree, for example, on the status of jerusalem. now in principle, the united states still adheres to u.n. resolution 181 of november 1947. it was the resolution that partition palestine into jewish and arab states. but it also envisioned a jerusalem that would remain under some type of international regime. and for that reason, the united states did not recognize the jordanian annexation of east jerusalem from 1948 to 1967 or israel's annexation after 1967.

ideally the united states wants to maintain the status quo and to respond until a final status agreement is worked out as part of a general peace treaty. israel, for its part. we regard jerusalem not only is the sovereign capital of the state of israel and the spiritual capital worldwide. israel uphold the right for all of its citizens, air and and jews to build anywhere in the city illegally, just as they have the right to build anywhere in any american city, including washington d.c. and under israeli law, jerusalem has exactly the same status as this tel aviv and haifa and the prime minister has no more right to tell any israeli, arab or jew they cannot build anywhere. the president of the united states has the right to tell anybody they can build anywhere in pittsburgh or cleveland. the current israeli government, but every israeli government

going back to 1967, whether it be a labor government. with that, this israeli government understands that the palestinians have their own position on jerusalem and they understand the palestinians will bring that position to the negotiating table and that we will discuss it. the united states and israel have often had a disagreement over the issue of settlements. the united states has long asked israel to refrain from building communities in the areas captured by israel from jordan and in 18676 day war. and for many years the united states hoped that those areas would be the basis of a peace treaty with jordan. and since the signing of the 1993 oslo accords between israel and the plo, that help that area would serve as the gambit for resolving the palestinian question. israel's position has always been that the areas we call judaica and samaria by the

ancient hebrew names of the ancient homeland of the jewish people. if you look at your bible, haifa is not in there. look in there. but for tel aviv. it's in there, but at the time of babylonia. the areas in the bible, jericho, bethlehem, have brought our native lands. this is the cradle of our civilization to which the vast majority of people have been spiritually loyal for the last 3000 years. and we hold the right of a jews to live in their homeland. we also hold pre-1967 borders which left israel at its most populous of the border eight miles wide, with our face the mountains of the back disease was not defensible border. and the sentence of large matters were created to provide israel with that type of repton security. with all that, the current israeli government has committed to refrain from building any new settlements. we understand the sensitivity.

we've undertaken to refrain from expanding the settlements outward or even incentivizing israelis to move to the communities. ever taken the unprecedented step of freezing new buildings for 10 months and are to encourage the palestinians to return to the negotiating table, israel has still committed itself to limit building in these areas and has assured palestinians that any construction or will not impact the future peace not. and the israeli government recognizes that another people, the palestinians regard these areas as their homeland and we are willing to share with them. we recognize that people. the palestinians are a people in that day as a people have an inalienable right to self-determination and what they regard as their homeland. and now we ask is that the palestinians to the same thing for us and recognize that the

jews are a people indigenous and that they also possess the unassailable right to self-government in our homeland. mutual and reciprocal recognition is the very building block, the dna of peace. israel shares president obama's vision of a viable palestinian state, living side by side with israel in permanent and legitimate use. quite apart from any disagreements we may have come of this administration or the previous administration we share this vision. in fact, the agreements between the united states and israel on the peace process greatly outweigh any differences between us. we agree that any peace agreement should include defensible borders for israel and security guarantees for israel to the west bank will not become another gaza or lebanon, areas be evacuated in an attempt to generate conditions conducive for peace and we didn't get peace.

we got thousands and thousands of rockets. we don't want to see that happen again. the united states and israel agree on the need to resume immediately and work on a resolution almost writhing to increase, to enhance the palestinian economy and palestinian security in the west bank. and perhaps the greatest source of agreement to renounce and one on which we could have diverged quite significantly is over the issue of iran. the united states and israel together recognize that a nuclear armed iran represents a danger, not only to israel and to the entire middle east, but to the world including the united states. we agree that an iran that possesses nuclear military capabilities can pass those nuclear capabilities onto terrorist organizations. hamas and hezbollah, which are service proxies for iran. we together agree that a nuclear armed iran will trigger a nuclear arms race in the middle

east, that will transform this entire already unstable area into a nuclear tinderbox. can we agree. the united states and israel, that the international community must act to stop iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by applying effect of sanctions against this iranian regime. i'm happy to report that the sanctions are succeeding beyond what any of us, americans and israelis alike, had hoped banks, businesses, shipping companies worldwide are breaking off their ties with iran. the iranian economy is in a tailspin in the arabian regime appears ready to negotiate. and we'll see whether it will in fact meet the demands of both the united states and israel, very specific here at the iranians have to cease enriching uranium on their soils. true, even the friends can disagree.

i've learned that. a year and half in this position as ambassador, but the true litmus test of any alliance is not whether you agree on everything. the true litmus test is how you get beyond your disagreement, how you maintain open channels, dialogue and understanding. and i've seen over the course of the last year and a half exactly how this alliance works. i've seen its depth and breadth and complexity. together the united states and israel are committed to reaching our common goals. we share a dream of a prosperous peaceful middle east in which israelis and palestinians, indeed all peoples of the region can interact freely and fruitfully. we share a dream of an unbreakable american friendship that keeps expanding into the frontier fields of medicine and in a science and in the search for alternatives to fossil fuels. we have that dream. dreams of israel and the united

states together our two peoples. and we accept the responsibilities of realizing those dreams for a better future for both of us. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much for your beautiful words and very interesting the vacation. i do it wants you to read on some of the issues of the fascinating and very good op-ed piece. now is the time for questions and answers and we have two microphones on both sides of the hall. so please introduce yourselves. and -- was the first one. the braves went. there are many questions. you have to go to the microphone, please. for the next one should be ready

to go to the other microphone. there is one on each side instead of having a very long line there. the year-ago last may he met with president obama in the oval office. happened to be there in the course of this meeting and the

prime minister commit himself to fall when the president's lead on the iranian issue and i am to stand up that process would go through several stages. there'd be an outreach to reduce them to diplomacy to cease enriching uranium to give up the nuclear program at least subjected to international scrutiny. we understood that if failing that, if the iranians rejected that outstretched hand there would be an attempt to go from a compromise package if they rejected that and we move toward sanctions and this is precisely what happened. israel stuck by the united states completely on this. i mentioned this disagreements we had about jerusalem and settlements. use all no disagreement whatsoever between israel and the united states on the iranian issue and there wasn't outreach, there was a compromise package iranians reject it, we went to sanctions, the sanctions took a longer than we anticipated and we thought would be up on

february and they were up and running in the summer but there are profound as i mentioned earlier successful than we anticipated and we see the beginning of the impact, the impact is beginning to squirm and we will see whether the iranians what we anticipate to be the next round of talks will agree to cease enriching uranium on their soil. the president i am thoroughly convinced and not just myself, is determined to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and that's virtual quote, that is what he said, the president is determined, and we are continued to cooperate on this. the policy of the u.s. government and the government of israel is all options remain on the table. but this does not mean that if sanctions don't prove effective, if they continue to develop nuclear capabilities you go immediately to the military activity. there are other options and we are in discussion about those

options, and that is all i am going to say. thank you. >> thank you. yes, please. time a resolution comes before the geneva convention or mentioned or 242 or to seize the occupational stop pressuring war crimes the only countries are the u.s. and israel? >> of the resolution 181, resolution 181 was accepted by this i ennis leadership and the arabs, they went to war against it and lost and they were in violation of 241, one of the arrears cases where a country a series of country not only rejected the resolution in name but tried to destroy it indeed and rendered in all and avoid. resolution 242 israel accepted

resolution 242 and is still operating as one of the building blocks of the peace, territory for peace no one actually says the resolution, that is the meaning of 242 and we accept and abide by it. i think the fact that the united states and israel stand together in the u.n. where the cards are basically stacked against us for all sorts of reasons, many of them economic oil interest showed the depth of the relationship between the united states and israel and that this alliance is so frequently demonstrated sadly in the u.n.. i think it reinforces the case i was making for you today that this is an unbreakable alliance, one of if not the strongest ally in this country has had since the post world war ii period. >> thank you. the next one. >> my name is sarah. i was wondering if you have had to publicly defend policies of

israel the privately disagree with and how you deal with that? >> anybody who serves his or her country whether in uniform or in public office by definition has to leave their private opinions at home now in israel with a lot of practice we serve in the army and we do a lot of reserve duty. when i was in the army in the research 30 years every time i put on my uniform to serve i left my political ideas behind. i don't think i ever had a political discussion with my army buddies they just didn't come and the same is true when you serve your country in this capacity and diplomatic capacity and the same is true of my opposites, my counterparts in the u.s. government. many people with whom my opposite review my serving contract buy deily basis are for my previous academic life when they were in academia as well and i knew that they had different opinions but i also know the minute that they chose

to serve their country, when they were called to the flag and it's a great privilege and an honor that they left this opinions behind. so my personal opinions are irrelevant here. i represent -- i represent the government of israel, the state of israel, the people of israel, and it's the greatest single privilege and honor of my life. every day a week up and literally pinch myself about it and i know that people who serve in the administration feel the same way. so, is that an answer? >> if i could add to that question the american system is different because we have a presidential system so is one leader and everybody else is following him. in our case, we have a coalition government and you have different positions within the coalition. [laughter] >> as i mentioned before the united states has a roman republican style of democracy. ours is an indian style of

democracy, and yes it's true we have a coalition government and now have 30 minutes, many of the ministers have different opinions on some core issues and they make those opinions known and we have a very simple response. i, my staff of the embassy, we represent the government of the state of israel as a collective on the decisions that are reached through consensus among these ministers, and we represent that government on to the leadership of the prime minister benjamin netanyahu and those are the positions that i represent and i represent them again with great pride. >> im john. why is the israeli government not receive a direct military arms from the united states and instead insist on buying from the u.s. military contractors? ensuring you sell to the contractors making money or do phenomenon self-conscious complex among the leaders that they want to appear internationally self-reliant and

the american tax dollars are funding the arsenal in this year israel. >> okay, israel receives $3.2 billion in military aid but are guaranteed that are voted in by the congress. they have been guaranteed by the presidents of the united states but previous and current president. so it is a decision made through the american space system at the highest level possible. the vast majority of that money, the bulk of the money spent in the united states and providing false sense of jobs for american workers and ensuring in the process is very close strategic and military relationship in the united states. the fact or soldiers carry american weapons, pilots fly american planes is part of our alliance between the two we and we contribute as well because american technologies are involved and are incorporated into the american weapons systems and deserves to safeguard the united states as

well. this is the arrangement we've had and so we are using government allocated money to purchase american weaponry in the same way that the united states military does. it's nothing israel is doing this military doesn't do. >> my name is [inaudible] and my question is last which benjamin netanyahu said, and i quote, i know what america easily. move in the right direction they won't get in the way. my question is how do you explain benjamin netanyahu's remarks, and doesn't reflect how israel think of the united states? his comments like that have on u.s. foreign policy especially middle east peace process? >> have you seen the problem?

>> i've seen the video and was posted on al jazeera and different websites. >> i'm sorry i haven't seen it but i will tell you that primm and mr. netanyahu knows america very well. he spent much of his childhood here playing soccer for high school outside of philadelphia, speaks english without an accent and will probably correct your paper if you give it to him as an editor because he knows he does it to mind. [laughter] and he's sorry about and is remarkably well and seems completely out of character to him. he has profound respect for the american political system and profound respect for the way america choose its leaders and for the president of the united states and on a very personal level whenever it comes to washington and we have close discussions about what is happening here politically he is intensely interested and a great regard. we go to the white house together and he has a sense of destiny. here i am meeting the man who's been chosen by the people of the

united states and that alone has deep meaning for him, deep meaning for him pbr can think of nobody in the israeli political establishment will understands and reduce the american political system more than benjamin netanyahu. >> thank you. yes please. >> i am tracie. thank you for being here. i want to ask about the recent law we passed in israel implementing the loyalty oath and you can possibly address why it is only implemented for non-shoes, and if it will have an affect on the peace process. >> okay. >> that question that plank in our last meeting. >> for six of the law it is a proposal and it has to go through several stages before it becomes law and there are many counterproposals that may change that law and my guess is even if the law were to be passed would be challenged in the supreme court which is active on these issues. but having said that, israel is the nation's state of the jewish people, not a theocracy, it's the nation state of the jewish appeal and has a large jewish

minority. the guarantee that minority equal space rights. we struggle against discrimination, the situation similar to many countries in the world including this country. israel is a work in progress i always say. but we also cannot ignore the fact is realism a rather hostile neighborhood. and its public which has taken tremendous risk for peace is a withdrawal from lebanon and from gaza making statehood to have been rejected and rejected the violence and subject to intense missile crisis, the public is rather nervous about these things. and i think that this law reflects the nervousness and skepticism. the law many countries in the world specially the nation states have loyalty. we want to become a citizen of the united states you have to take a loyalty oath so there is nothing unusual about that and there are many nation states of

the world, is not affect the united states is an exception. most our nation states and many of the world, germany, bulgaria, have laws of return where the citizen of the people of german have to take that oath, so israel was not unusual about this. it should not in any way impact the peace process, your respective whether it passes, implemented, not implemented, it will not impact -- again i want to reiterate what i said earlier. we won the palestinians to recognize us as the nation state of the jewish people we will recognize the state as the nation, the national home of the palestinian people and that will be the building block of peace. >> tracie, this phrase, the work in process is a wonderful one using your next paper. [laughter] >> philosophically we are all works in progress. >> thank you, and those of your and dr. perry and the gildenhorn

to read something that speaks to my heart if i could ask you to switch from a politician to a jewish leader because i heard you speak at the apec conference a few weeks before you became the investor, was announced ambassador the challenge of the jewish identity and values that israel, the crisis you were facing in israel and how we as a people and kind of the inherent value and crisis of identity in israel speaks as americans as well because return to israel for the diet for a light, from the jewish passion and connection i wonder how you can enlighten us from a non-will biblical sense in terms of how we continue to view israel from a positive sense of what to teach us here as americans there are 6500 jews here on this campus and return to israel for a center of our homeland for an identity perspective if you can help us because you felt focused on that -- >> that's like another hour lecture. some guy and a rabbi at a

sermon, so -- [laughter] >> israel is the greatest challenge to our morality to reduce challenge. in the bible, the jews did it after the only cease being slaves because as a free person do you truly have to make a moral choices. that is the essence of freedom and there is no place in the world today where jews have greater freedom as jews than in the state of israel, which is why when we are confronted with hard moral choices, for example, whether to maintain a maritime blockade of casa domingo it's going to make us very unpopular in the world but also knowing that if we don't maintain the maritime blockade thousands of rockets will be raining down on the israeli citizens. it is a terrible but difficult moral choice. but we make it and accept the

responsibility. what i was talking about earlier as jews. israel is the great flood mess of our morality as a people, and to be succeed of time? we don't succeed all the time. that's what i talk about taking a responsible way. the essence of freedom is responsibility. and the jewish students in the room, those who are activists, what i would ask is to get israel and see these issues from our perspective and look at the great moral challenges we grapple with every day. note that on one hand we want to enhance the palestinian, the growth of the palestinian economy in the west bank and to do that we have to remove roadblocks and checkpoints. every roadblock and check point we move will facilitate the palestinian dominican and economic growth but every roadblock we move will endanger jewish lives. today the prime minister arrived to months ago for the beginning

of peace talks before israeli citizens were killed, two couples, when a pregnant woman. there were killed on a road a road block had been removed. the prime minister then estimate the decision whether to restore the road block and perhaps save jewish lives or restore that we've the roadblock open and indeed the palestinian diplomat. that is a deep and moral choice. that is the responsibility that we assume in the state of israel. it is a very weighty responsibility, but we assume it with a great sense of pride and a great sense of jewish mission, and my answer to you and think of us in that way. >> thank you. yes please. >> thank you for coming my name is alana. what is your prediction for the already established jewish communities in the areas of the judean samaria? >> one of the things coming to

i only have to predict the past. [laughter] and when we have a reputation for prophecy, but i am not in that field. as i said earlier, we recognize we do not in any way and you in the right of the jews to live in their ancient homeland on the contrary we appalled at and it's with great pain the sense of deep sacrifice that we recognize there is some other people that shares this land but also regards the homeland as their homeland and we have to share its but having gone through the trauma of the evacuation from gaza, but a from is also committed to never again having to reject anybody from their homes or other arabs or jews, and as part of the peace process. we will do our work at most to a poll that -- uphold that.

>> his please. >> my name is emily. could you comment on how mahmoud ahmadinejad's visit to lebanon view on the middle east peace process if it will do anything at all? >> the view of the middle east peace process shows and externals bread of the iranian and tristan iranian hegemony all aspirations for the middle east, the fact that he is referring to southern lebanon as iran i think is rather revealing, and he's basically recognizing reality that already exists, that hezbollah is now the dominant force in hezbollah. hezbollah takes its orders directly from tehran and has become an large extent a satellite of iran through hezbollah. hizbollah now has four times as many rockets in the arsenal as it did in 2006 about 12,000 in 2006 and now about 45,000 they

are much better and this is all under the control of hezbollah and taking its orders directly from tehran. well iran sit back and let israel and palestinians make peace? i think maybe perhaps with your getting at is there is the connection, and there has always been this fury of linkage that making peace between israelis and the arabs will enable the world to better stand up to the iranian. we see that the opposite way that unless the world meets the iranian threat, there can never be true peace because they will interfere in the block violently any real peace process and we've seen them do a before and through hamas which is an eye iranian process they can blow things up and start a war and stop peace in its tracks therefore we see the international effort led by the united states to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear

capabilities as an act not just for the sake of security but also a very crucial path to peace. >> isn't one way to weaken iran to disassociate syria by negotiating -- >> it would be one way and our position is we are ready and eager to negotiate with the syrians directly without preconditions, not tomorrow but today. >> yes please. >> thanks for coming. do you think that israel has as a jewish state can stay as a democracy without ratifying the constitution or put their lives down as a second-class citizen? because they are growing as a population and could turn out to be a majority built differently in the jewish state. >> right now roughly one-fifth of the population is arab and that has been a stable ratio for a very long time. as to the constitution israel as

a capricious dial government and not a constitution. we found that system suits us. >> yes please. >> negative joseph, thank you for coming. we live in a very modern and technologically advanced time and for such a modern state like israel it seems to have a pretty terrible puerto rico program especially in america. [laughter] for such strong ties which we just went over, especially on the major news networks israel is constantly portrayed pretty negatively with one sided stories, so i was wondering if israel ever has a plan to revamp the puerto rico program or if the plants are taken to portray, obviously there's a lot of ammunition we can use to portray the image in america but it just is not there. >> is in the new investor the best [inaudible] thank you. >> i would disagree the u.s. media portrays israel on a

one-sided and one-dimensional way. it's not true. i've seen over the course of being involved in this issue for many years great improvements in the way that israel was covered and the middle east in general. america has become familiar with the middle east for better or worse has become very intimate with middle eastern politics and rare is the case where i will open a newspaper and say something is flatly unfair or one-sided, not all the news coverage i like. that's not true to open "the new york times" to have an op-ed today. "the new york times" gave me this platform as ambassador why we need recognition as a jewish state, very important platform. having said all that we have a puerto pr problem that occupies us constantly. we are always looking for ways to improve it. the foreign ministry has embarked on a major program to address these issues. the prime minister as someone

who has worked in what we call the pr field for a long time, public relations is acutely aware and established a unit in his office for dealing with it. that, too, is a work in progress and we have a way to go but we have come a long way and we understand the problem. >> yes please. >> thank you for speaking, doctor. my name is julie. my question is in your speech you mentioned sharing the west bank with the palestinians. but if they share the west bank with the palestinians it risks its jewish majority. how do you think that israel will negotiate its jewish and democratic identity if it loses its majority? >> i am at a loss on the question. the reason for the historic peace is not sending demographic patterns.

we want to reach the peace first fall because the piece is just, the current situation is not sustainable and we recognize the palestinians have a right to a state and we want to live side by side. it's not because we begin the morning and think there is going to be an arab, it's not the reason, and having said that we understand that we have hundreds of thousands of our citizens from fellow citizens living in these areas, and we have to regard their safety and well-being as well and their rights. so we are juggling a lot and if peace were easy to attain we would have obtained a long time ago. keep in mind that as they say in academic campuses, the other side has agency as well. the palestinians are not all what we do, they have to make decisions just as we have to make decisions, and the palestinians made decisions in the past to reject the peace offer made in 2000 to reject a peace offer made in 2008 by ehud

olmert. we had the opportunity can be achieved quickly. the pin minister talked about achieving and obtaining a framework peace agreement within a year and is very serious about we have the last two questions. yes please. present assassination we try to make a peace in the area. what do you think in the future now is going to be peace because the rate is getting high. >> the piece is not making peace is not a peaceful occupation and in our area of the world's not a guarantee for longevity as you mentioned. and it takes risks. i wrote a book a while ago on the six-day war. i can't plug it but it's

available for fabulously reduced prices. [laughter] and there was an interesting revelation looking for the archives. 1967 the summer of 1967 right after the great victory these leaders turned to palestinian leaders on the west bank and ask if they would like to have an independent state and this is the summer of 1967 before the settlement was ever built and they can best out the palestinian leaders and palestinian leaders and i read the response and there were remarkably uniform. they said we would love to have independence but if we sign on a peace treaty with you, the radicals will kill us. and the radical a mention by name is a gentleman by the name of yasser arafat. flip forward some years to the summer of 2000 the cat david peace summit, barak, they offer a state on the west bank and clinton presents it to yasser arafat and he says if a sign on the dotted line the radicals are going to kill me.

dangerous business. to make peace requires not just a vision, not just physical stamina, it requires courage, great courage and anwar sadat had the courage. i assure you that benjamin netanyahu has the courage and we hope that mahmoud abbas has the courage as well. it will not be easy. they will be in passes and stopgaps and hurdles to pass and even if we get to the level of the signing a peace treaty, some of the greatest difficulties will leave before implementing the peace treaty. and there are no shortage of factors and factors in at least who will do their utmost to block us from making peace. i mentioned before, iran as the sponsor of hamas and hezbollah. believe me they are not going to sit quietly and let arabs make peace with his release. they will not.

with that, i remain in my heart very optimistic. i have a perspective that helps to the history and coming to this position. you look back where we were 30, 40 years ago and thought of the peace pro-israel and egypt was utterly unimaginable. of peace between israel and jordan unimaginable. the fact that i can sit with my palestinian counterparts in this city and have open and warm candid conversations was unthinkable. nobody was thinking about a palestinian state back in. nobody was. so the middle east is not static. the middle east is dynamic, and dynamic often in the way of a great progress and improvement. when in doubt, keep the historical perspective. last question. >> the last question. >> thank you -- >> elizabeth?

maryland. the meredith of the west indian nationalism and what do you make of the idea that palestinian nationalism is a kind of negative response to zionism? >> question as someone who study to middle east history 30 years, i came to understand the palestinian narrative from the inside. you might say i can look out through the world palestinian eyes and understand this does not mean i agree with the narrative or accept nor do i expect the palestinians scholar to accept my narrative, but he can understand my narrative. and i believe as i mentioned before that the mutual recognition of israel as a jewish state and palestinian state is the home of the palestinian people is the

building blocks of peace so to some day we are going to have to acknowledge one another's narrative's and learn to live with them. does this mean these narratives can never merge into a single narrative? i would be very doubtful about that. but coexistence between people also has to deal with co existence between people's historical memories. and it will be a challenge for us to do that. i mean, challenge for palestinians and israelis alike because they are very despair narrative's. what was the last part of the question? >> about the idea that the palestinian national identity was formed as a negative response to zionism. spreading there are many sources of identity but certainly been the response to the zionism is a major source of their identity. i think i mentioned as much in "the new york times" article today, and i think the palestinians will continue to develop sources of identity that are not related to the conflict

or to their opposition of zionism. a positive identity and that will be a positive and welcome to development from our perspective. only by recognizing -- again i don't want to harp this on the reckless is crucial. the situation of the two families living in the same house, both families to the whole house and if one family decides the other family deserves have the house of the of the family doesn't recognize the same for the first family is the conflict over the house ever going to end? it's not. it's great to keep going. we have one house, we have to share it and recognize one another's histories and aspirations and rights to self-determination. that's how we end the conflict, oñoçñç?ç>w>[?g?c>g>g?q>w?o?g>