and might be to an agreement. how would you characterize the current status? >> we have alws been honest with each other. i did not waste a minute in my negotiations. i said earlier that we are different. we are not iraq. we're not somalia. we are not better, we're different. what we fail to recognize when we signed the agreement is that the state of mind -- that is what life is all about. it is not a far distance.

trying to that we're make? is it merely a to-state solution? do they trust us? did they recognize us? do we trust them? 17 years of negotiations. only 18 months of negotiations. we did not waste a sgl amendment. this was a mandatory course for palestinians and israelis. today, in 1978, they wrote an article calling for dialogue, rather than violence.

when i ran for election, i got 68% of theote. a major change. 75% of palestinians do believe that the only solution is a two- state solution. that does not mean that they are not angry at me. they know. >> the proverbial bottom line, where are we now? >> i am coming to it. [laughter] we are here. we finished the negotiations. i do not think that palestinian needs -- that palestine needs a negotiator anymore. it is time for a decision.

it is time for an end game. we have turned every possible stone. we know what it takes. we know that -- were the swaps will take place. we know the solution to east jerusalem. and the capital of palestine. and what kind of body should govern the divided city. we know the solution to the refugee problem. we know what kind of security we are going to have. the israelis must learn one thing. the concept of limitations in armaments. there is no such thing as limitations in people's dignity. when the israelis were like that -- realize that, we will have peace.

>> ok. the road in the washington post recently that international law needs to be respected. -- you wrote in the washington post recently. if the israelis do not respect international law, what should the united states do about it? >> look, i will be fair. i will be fair to president obama. and secretary clinton. these people have done a marvelous job. they have done everything in the book and they continued to do so.

have no doubt, americans will not make decisions for us. americans may provide you with elements maximizing the benefits, the decisions are required for palestinians and israelis. you have a president and leadership in palestine that is willing to deliver. do we have someone in israel who is willing to engage in decisions? that is the question. that is the question. if not this year, next year, 10 years time, it is a two-state solution. jews will not go back to christianity.

close your eyes, walk me through the year 2015. -- 2050. you can do it. you have the choice. we are at a defining moment. it is time for decisions and not negotiations. the americans know that. the israelis know that. and i think that mr. netanyahu has choices to make. >> that question is a good one. there are three possibilities with respect to the israeli prime minister. he is serious. he is not serious. or alternatively, there is a certain amount of conflict within itself about his own

decision or commitment. >> there is a fourth option. you have a palestinian authority that was established in 1993. it has had a legal jurisdiction, economic jurisdiction. then he came into office and everything was taken away. no jurisdiction whatsoever. he was the final authority. we have more options. he does the same.

why can we maintain it? keeping security, building institutions. they are building institutions, education, whenever society needs. he believes -- he may believe that he can -- as much as he is weighing his options, we do not want to surprise him. the status quo will not be maintained. >> before we turn to the u.s. role, i have one history

question for you. there is no rewind button, unfortunately. if you ask me what i would have changed in the last 20 years, to produce a different outcome, i would offer the following observation. it's like a change to things, -- if i could change to things, it would be that he was not assassinated, and that george h. w. bush would have defeated bill clinton in november of 1992 and that jim baker would have continued as secretary of state. had those two things applied, it is my view that we would of had won agreement. my question to you is, today is the 15th anniversary of the

assassination, had he lived -- >> i sat with him. to be fair, he was a gentlemen who was concerned with israeli security. he made me realize the difference between someone who is a tough negotiator and someone who does not negotiate. there is a big difference. someone who looks at the 9:00 news that evening. i do not know. i cannot answer this question. >> the next questions all involve the americans. you watched the united states for 30 years -- if you had to identify a consequential strength and weakness in our approach to arab-israeli negotiations, what would those

be? >> number one, in the beginning of the 21st century, your country's borders are no longer with canada and mexico. your borders today are with turkey, iran, china, pakistan, and jordan. you have kids serving in iran and iraq and afghanistan. you need to get them home. when you talk about -- it is the most cardinalmerican national interest. they are being brought home in

coffins and wheelchairs' every day. the function of the roles in the nation and have changed. that is the truth. americans must know that since he died, we had 799 movements. we have a very good religion in islam. we're supposed to go to mosques to worship god, not to use god. the minute we go to moscow to use god, we become like -- to mosques to use, we became like the churches in medieval times. peace between palestinians and israelis. it is a two-state solution.

democracy in the arab world. anyone said to says that arabs are not for democracy, they are a racist. since 1683, the relations have not been defined. their work muslim soldiers in mid europe. ever since that time, you never forgets. the relationship is guided with suspicion, fear, and anyone -- it is time to think about defining these relations.

at the end of the day, -- we have to identify the growth and maturity. i believe the u.s. has followed that policy. they come to israel and they see what the prime minister of israel can do or cannot do. the never asked me, ok? i asked the american administration, with a bigger picture in the middle east, with

what is going on in iraq, lebanon, somalia, yemen, it is not a good picture. all right? should the policy from what is possible to what is needed. >> our greatest strength is our proximity to the region? the urgency that that carries. our greatest weakness is our proximity to the israelis? >> i am not saying that. people in palestine ask me about the impact of the republicans. presidentlinton was the most pro-israeli president. it was president bush who first

realized the to-state solution. you define your interests. i was2 years old when they came to my hometown, jericho. i'm 55 now. you might might doctors. -- you not my daughters. -- met my daughters. i do not want my son to be a suicide bomb. i want the two-state solution. that is what is in it for me. is that too much to ask? i could care less if someone in the congress was for iael or palestine. somebody here needs a wake-up

call. somebody needs to get out of the box. you cannot do anything inside the box. i am suffocating. i will not continue in this box. >> that brings me to my second to last question. what is it -- remember, we have a track record. of doing effective diplomacy. there was a time when america actually did effective diplomacy. when our relationship with the israelis, however special it was, was not transported to one that was exclusive. what is it that you want? >> it is time for the end game. >> what does that mean? does that mean additional pressure on israel? what does that mean exactly?

>> we have the choice of -- people here tell me that -- i have a ph.d. in negotiations. americans tell me, why are you surprised? it is over. it is over. we knoexactly what it takes. we know it. without a fair agreement, nothing gets done. you cannot defeat these forces without an endgame agreement. let me ask you a question.

i am observer of the u.n.. if i were to take an application, i need a number to apply for membership. i make thispplication. >> we would be to adapt. -- we would veto that. you can order them in any way you want. we have invested and believe in the pragmatic value of negotiation. good, bad, naive, simple, nonetheless, it is a fundamental american conception. people have problems, they said

down, they reconcile their differences. that would be essentially a fundamental but trail of america's commitment to negotiations. we would say to you, and you know the talking points, you open the door through this application process to a set of is really counterproposals and measures which would reflect their own interests in response to yours. i am glad that i do not have to do this anymore. finally, there is the reality, a

willful american president- nixon, carter, every time -- will fall president to are smart and capable will trump domestic political interests and lobbyists every time. still, president function within the arena of domestic policies. this one now particularly. with all the headaches that he faces, a jobless recovery, problems of a reduction of the deficit, n congressional math, all kinds of other things. he will choose his fights very carefully. if you were to tell me that president obama, fight for me on

an end game. fight for me on jerusal, on security, on refugees. that i will fight for. but i am not go into fight for a comprehensive freedom zone. but i'm not going to defend your right to become a un member state. i am not going to fight for u.n. conflict resolution which embodies your desire for state. even though i share that aspiration. the art of this process may well lead to what it is you want, but

do not pray for anything that you really do not want. . . you cannot recognize me on the '67 lines.

when i ask you what has been happening in the past year and a half, -- that is fine. go to the security council, no, don't do that. that is good. that is good, iold you i cannot survive with that. the american proposals will not be subject to international agreements. if -- when we speak about --

1945, the u.n. was born. there was a mandate except for palestine. why can't i go against the u.k. or against you? then, if i don't see the authority after 8 years. if i cannot define my borders. that is not mean anything. and i am afraid you are pushing me to the point where we will

very polite to tell mr. netanyahu, your second plan is to resume your occupation and a sure your power as the occupying force. we will never be an agent of the israeli occupation. if he thinks that he can maintain the source of the authority, we will not agree with this. israel has 3000 fighting planes, nuclear weapons. number one is my option, two states, 67, swaps, whatever.

today in the west bank and it in my home town of jericho, 86 kilometers. that is the difference. if they think that they should call my home town and the hebrew name, talk to me about it. in 2010, there are roads in the west bank that i cannot use as a palestinian.

your colleagues here, our scholars. some times the color of your skin is used. ccupation corrupts. the whole region now is going down the drain. they cannot stop settlements, they don't want me to go to the security council, they don't want me to be recognized. they don't want a fair agreement.

i am supposed to be in the box. i'm supposed to be a servant for this occupation. forget it. i did not miss an opportunity. >> i don't work for the administration and i have been gently critical of their policies. i would not prejudge what is that day are or are not prepared to do. you had plenty of times -- time to go to the united nations should your predictions prove to accurate. i would ask you my tent question in the interest of time. if we invite you back and lecturer at this time, will we

be having the same conversation? in the interest of time, your responses were forthright and candid and i really appreciated it. let's go to the questions. can you please identify yourlf? >> we went to get their. when the blue plates could drive into the west in jerusalem. i don't think that sense netanyahu was elected by the extreme right wing, under the current circumstances, he will

not be able to do a settlement freeze. as important as it is from the day after 67, settlements have been intentions about the land. every prepare thisook tells the rest of the world that israel does not intend to give up the land. as a country and an existential issue, none of its leaders have embraced the idea of giving up the land. you have an american president who has a lot of problems, stafng included. we will not go into that. maybe what you need to ask for this year that is in my mind absolutely doable considering what is alady being kept in a safe is a mat.

palestinians know where they will have their state. once there is a map that will be accepted by the entire world, then you can discuss how you can work out all of the other issues. >> during negotiations, they became very very serious in negotiations. what about a map? >> that is what i'm saying, we need to agree on any map. mr. olmert says that he offered a great offer.

i do not deny this. i asked the prime minister olmert, why did the short circuit. this is what i had given to mr. olmert. this is the 1967 map with swaps of 1.9% of land. with formulas to deal with in jerusalem, security, water, refugees. mr. olmert shows to say that he

does not recall being offered this. we came december 18th, 20 to washington. we look at this map along with the mattress opposition. these pple transferred and 11 page file. -- we look at this map along with the opposition. i am asking netanyahu to stop settlements. he knows where the israeli borders are and we know with a palestinian borders are. there cannot be an agreement for me without jerusalem or without refugees. this is a package.

they don't want to do this. they don't want to touch the issues. th don't want to stop settlements. they want to maintain the status quo. they want to keep this authority. this will not be maintained. this will not be maintained. i know president abbas. he is the most decent and courageous person he could never encounter in your life. no palestinian can make such offers. netanyahu has made up his decision that they think that they can maintain the status quo. no, it will not be meant.

>> it is great to see you. >> if i could bring the discussion back to the specifics of this round of negotiations. the palestinians have taken a lot of heat for wasting nine months of the first 10 months of the period of the moratorium. the respective of what you might think about whether the moratorium is serious and what was actually offered. how old you defend against the charge that those nine months were wasted because the plo was not willing to come to the table and there's a corollary question, supposing we get a two-month extension of a moratorium, will the palestinians come back to the table? if you do come back to the table, what do you think you can

do in two months that would be an accomplishment that would go beyond those two months? >> this chart showshe moratorium with our figures and israeli figures. when they reached a moratorium of 10 months, this was meant to increase of almost 17%. they were constructing 3450 under the maritime -- moratorium. they haveonfessed they had made 100 violations in 12 months.

we went through proximity talks. we offered our opposition. the israelis said, no. we cannot discuss anything without direct negotiations. we had that. now since september 26th, and they introduced 312 housing units in east jerusalem. this is air up later. they want to get 6000 housing units which will give them a stand that he has until 2014.

they might come to us and a few weeks say, i agree on the moratorium. i am losing my land to the settlement and i am losing my credibility. i cannot do anything about loosing my men. why should i lose my credibility? in the person in the west bank and jerusalem -- fivefold any time. if he knew business, the prime minister of israe if he is genuine, he cannot stop the settlements for three months or he can stop on the border and then he can build in this country or on the borders or whatever it is. the intention here is not that

he will take the blame. like when he says, the jewish state. i did not know that was the position in 1993. i do not know why they asked me. the embassy says that this is the biblical and historical whatever. and he is looking for things, i told you so, to be blamed. wait a minute, you need to convince the central council. herehe is creating -- on the ground. he will understand very san that maintaining the status quo will

not be sustained, maintained, and is not an option and then he will have to take the israis to plan the. occupation and power in accordance with the geneva convention. they have responsibilities as occupying powers. how would urge mr. netanyahu the start studying them. >> yes, the second row. >> on your question about the two state solution, in terms of being precise and getting some clarity, the u.s. and israel as well as the palestinians want a two-state solution. how you perceive that solution t? a palestinian state? one agreed to by the

composition. the state to ensure the viability and progress of the palestinian minority in that state. can you elaborate on your rationale or feelings? netanyahu indicated that if you recognize us as a jewish state for purposes of ending -- and so forth. if you can expand what you have against what is agreed upon by the majority of observers, nation states, that is where critical to a xenophobic

power such as israel. what happens when they withdraw from areas of conflict. >> israel was going from areas. i went to mr. shah roan's office in 2005. -- i went to mr. sharon's office. i said, don't do it unilateralism. unilateralism doesn't pay. you need to withdraw them. only agreements will pay. like with a drawl -- like with a drawal.

-- like withdrawal. i have a choice. so far, you were able to have the bks for the first-third grade. we began changing our textbooks and we managed to have the palestinian textbooks. as far as the jewish state is concerned --

when israel was declared independent, and since the government has been informed and the jewish state has been proclaimed in palestine, -- has been requested by the provisional government. united states recognizes the provisional government as the defacto authority of the new jewish state. i know thathen israel applied for the u.n., they applied as the state of israel. i was asked to recognize the state of iael. now, they have a choice. there are countries that went to

the security council and asked to change the name. i have exchanged letters of recognition with israel and that is done. september, 1993. as i told you, some people speak about refugees, some people's big about 1.5 million. that is true. the state of israel was recognized by us, and if page. -- end of page. >> i hava quick question. looking back, on what do you think were the opportunities that the palestinians missed in your opinion?

i was wondering whether he would agree with you. >> what were the missed opportunities? >> as critical as i has been at times about the realities that exist on the ground on both sides, i think that there's probably no precedent in modern history for a people negotiating their way out of occupation and trying to create and build institutions at the same time. the conventional response to your question would be camp david, july, 2000. the orthodox ouopinion says that this is what happened.

we never should have gone to any summit. >> as i respond to your point, people tell me why my answer is wrong the last leader to have the capacity and the authority and moral legitimacy to deliver a unified palestinian polity, one gun, one authority, one negotiating group, in my judgment, missed an opportunity that because they refused to accept wasut on the table. no leader could have never accepted that. after all, they negotiated on the same real estate where they had negotiated before.

yasser arafat was thinking more about the fate of saddam. that was not a transgression. the transgression and missed opportunity in my judgment is that the transgression, i will not accept what the americans and the israelis want me to accept. i will offer you on each of the issues and alternative and they come back position and had that happen in a way that was more authoritative and had we not been so frustrated by the palestinian refusal, maybe ju, august, september with a determined american president

who spoke last night at the middle east institute, who cared more about this issue then all of his predecessors, might have been able to create a framework for negotiation which could have preempted what transpired at the end of september. rather than plain good blame game, we might have found ourselves in a different situation. you need to explain to the group why i am wrong. >> i came to see them before camp david. i told them don't do something

and expect white smoke. they did not have anything in mind to make a agreement. i was warning them, asking us to prepare better. everything got out of there and these other words that i used. we went to camp david, we talked in camp david, and they said that an offer was made that cannot be rejected. . half-- mr. barak, can you please show us the offer that was made to us at camp david?

>> you know the answer to th. >> no, the oscar was made to me personally with president clinton and the white house. we were close to the peace more than anyone else in the history of this conflict. and then, you say that arafat was the lasteader with legitimacy, i think that you are wrong. what is going on now is not less legitimate than what arafat was doing. the second mistake that he made is when you say that we missed an opportunity. i remember on the 24th of july, 2000, i was asked by president clinton to come to his office.

we reviewed in camp david. you know what, they asked me to draft a communique and i did. we had serious negotiations, we had made offers and counter offers. i was asked by president clinton and other colleagues to -- then, all of a sudden, i hear president clinton and the posted -- the israeli leaders say that they had the offer and they said no.

why did you say that? why did you say that? you know that in camp david, we did not have an offer. he told me, did not open your mouth, not a single question from you. that is a truce. i came here in january 2nand they said, mr. president, i appreciate your offe and the have -- i appreciate your offer. and then when president bush and olmert, we had an agreement to come january 25th, 2009, to lock

into the agreement. why did the american presidents always want to do this when there is only nine days left i know it. i was there. i am the person who drafted this. for five days, the israeli negotiators refused to open the door to his bedroom. i don't want to score points, i don't want to go more and more. the blame game will not serve anything. now, my offer, we have a president who is ready for the two states solution, the '67

lines, all agreements with what was offered. do we have a partner in this? >> thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] >> it this is the first in dialogue >> so please come back.

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

>> "washington journal" is next with today's news and your calls poured we will be live atop what 30 eastern with a form on the election hosted by th. several live events to tell you about today -- we will have more election analysis of. . that is live on c-span 2 as 6:00 a.m. eastern. at 9:00 a.m. eastern, the world affairs council of america sponsors a day-long conference on the future of u.s. policy. participants include former ambassador to iraq, brian crocker, and a retired general. here on c-span, a forum on the election posted by the weekly standard and washington and examiner. panelists include the weekly standard's bill cristal.

that is at 12:30 p.m. eastern. and we will be joined by phil kirpin to talk about the legislative priorities and the tea party movement. more about the election with political columnist michael kinsley. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning, it is friday, november 5. the president leaves this morning for 10 days in asia and the first up is in the epoch in washington state, the race has been called for patty murray. that means that the final tally in the senate will be 53 democrats to