but mr. but a couple of the events read the beginning of your tenure as on boy. -- as in boy. -- as envoy. start with annapolis. condoleezza rice recently suggested that the obama administration missed an opportunity, that the previous prime minister of israel had put a remarkably expensive offer on the table before the palestinians. and that the obama administration could have built on that but instead the obama administration reset the clock, erased the past, in essence, and demanded a settlement freeze. what happened? why did annapolis fall away? why did that offer fall away? >> it is a manner of -- is a matter of well-established public record. i went to the region a few days after my appointment. it was in the midst of the

israeli election campaign which was held on february 10, 2009. about two weeks before the election, omert made public the details of the offer that he had made during the annapolis process in his discussions with abbas. immediately, the major candidates to succeed ohlmert, prime minister netanyahu and the previous foreign minister rejected the proposal. prime minister netanyahu said publicly several times and privately that he did not agree with ohlmert's proposals, was not bound by them, rejected them completely, and would not accept

them as the basis for further discussion. he told me that personally, directly. he said it publicly. numerous newspaper articles in that period reported that. you can agree or disagree with the prime minister's decision but there can be no dispute about the fact that he has been totally consistent publicly and privately in that position and that remains the position of his government to this day. . the suggestion, the statement made not just by the former secretary of state rice but many others like columnists and others that somehow obama simply ignored this great opportunity is incorrect. i discussed it with him.

it was rejected. it is a matter of public record. it was not possible to pursue and pick up the negotiations were left off because prime minister netanyahu said he would not do so. >> let me talk about the settlement freeze. that is one of the most perplexing episodes in the last three years. a demand was made to freeze settlements but there did not seem to be a plan in place for the moment when netanyahu rejected the demand. there was a temporary moratorium but the israelis never met to the u.s. demand. you, at one point, hinted that there would be or could conceivably be punishment for not adhering to that demand. you brought up the issue of loan guarantees but the state department backtracked from that and said you are talking about historical context. why did the administration go in publicly with a demand without having a plan b when not to --

when netanyahu could not fill that? why did the administration go ahead without understanding the limitations? >> there are several questions there. [laughter] let me respectfully correct your comment about my statement. the only statement i ever made on that was on the charlie rose show. charlie rose asked me if there were any actions the united states could take legal in this circumstance, and i describe what those actions were, and then i said i do not favor such a course of action. >> the state department can back and said he really did not favor that course of action. >> no, i don't recall any correction by the state department was not necessary. my position was that i did -- that i do not favor that.

trying hard to respond early -- ernest to a journalist's question, i answered about the state of law and i made clear that i did not support it. let me go back to your central question. first, a settlement freeze -- every american administration that has been in office since 1967, president, secretary of state, administration, as opposed the policy and actions of the government of israel with respect to settlements. without exception. there were republican administrations and democratic administrations. in the roadmap proposed by president bush, there is an explicit reference to a full settlement freeze. president obama proposing a settlement freeze was not proposing anything new.

it was a position taken by every prior american president, democrat or republican, over the preceding 43 years. secondly, the real mistake that we made and for which we bear responsibility is that we did not make clear that the proposal was one in isolation to the israelis as opposed to in the context of requests made of all three relevant parties which were made at the same time. the israelis, the palestinians, and the other arab states. secondly, we did not make clear as we should have that none of those were preconditions to negotiations but were, in fact, an effort to establish a context

within which negotiations could occur and have a reasonable chance for success. recall, if you will, as i said in my remarks, the gauze the conflict had just ended and the motions were extraordinarily high. i travel throughout the region several times before prime minister netanyahu took office. i met with the leaders of 14 arab countries and almost without exception, their singular demand made right at the outset with great emphasis was that there has to be a settlement freeze before there can be any consideration of discussions. think about if you will the reaction would have been had obama become the first american president not to favor a settlement freeze. let me finish my answer. we proposed this.

we made demands of the arabs. the president said the arabs were proud of the arab peace initiative and he mentioned it in his remarks when i was appointed. it provides that at the end of this series of events, there would be full normal relations between israel and arab states and what the president asked was that the arab states take steps not to agree to fully normalise but to take limited initial states in that direction at the same time the israelis were freezing and the palestinians were acting in a way we felt they should to make the negotiations more conducive. there was not a positive response from either side. and we did not get a result we wanted. we did get a 10-month -- i don't want to call a phrase -- a 10- month moratorium on new housing

construction starts on the west bank which was less than what we ask for, less than what the palestinians wanted, but was more than any government of israel had ever done on that subject and it was a significant action which i believe the palestinians should have responded to by getting into the negotiations earlier. >> i am still confused -- it was said it was obama who suggested a full settlement freeze. after that, he came down and remove the latter and said john 3 tons. -- and said jump three times. why has he reacted the way he has? >> a statement was made in 2011 and it was an inaccurate description of what occurred in 2009.

it was a mistaken recollection of what occurred. when i went over to the region in january, february, and march of 2009, and met president abbas, his team, and all the arab countries and they said we need a settlement freeze because we before we can consider going back to negotiations. that is the record. >> do you think settlements are the root cause of the conflict? >> there is no one recalls. >> do you think they are an important >> they are an important part of the problem. >> describe the various routes. routes if you can. there in the video. there is disagreement of territory. jerusalem is an emotional issue on both sides. more than any other complicated

issue, borders and refugees and settlements are of palestinian issues. jerusalem is a muslim issue. it doesn't just take the consent of the palestinians to make an agreement on jerusalem. it takes the consent and approval of many others in the world of islam. it is a highly emotional issue. i think it is a profound error to say this one is number one and that one is number two or three. they're all important. they'll have to be resolved. with respect to settlements, let me make a point, i negotiated with the israelis. the they would not fully freeze all settlement construction. they did agree to halt new housing construction sites for a period of 10 months.

that was significant. demand for the first time in 40 years when a building was finished, a wooden start. -- a new one wouldn't start. there would have come a point or there would have been no construction. every building would have been completed. when we negotiated that agreement and announced it, and the palestinians rejected it. and they described it as "worse than useless." that was the phrase they used. nine months later when they finally enter negotiations, and they said extension of the moratorium is indispensable. in the nine months, what was

described as worse than useless was transformed into an indispensable item for continuation. the real loss was that we did not get a full 10 months. we did not yet nine months. we got one month. we got less than one month. it was not enough time to gain traction and to have the parties interested in continuing the process. >> let me ask you about this. you talked at some length about the demographic challenge. he did not invoke the apartheid word. do you believe drew some of the road to becoming an apartheid state? de believe in the west bank, apartheid-like conditions prevail? >> the issue is complex enough without the use of inflammatory

words and phrases. the only result is to create aggravation and hostility. if you can say something two ways and one way is bound to antagonize your opponent and the other get your point across without antagonizing your opponent, why do you choose the inflammatory way if you really do want to accommodate the concerns? you do not settle conflicts by trying to figure out ways uncomplicated words to do it. i mean no offense to you. did they like controversy. they like sensationalism. >> when i was a senate majority leader, we were negotiating a very tough bill. i spent months negotiating with

republicans on the bill. we're on the cusp of getting it done. the washington post ran a very tough story which focused on the 8% that we have not done. when i complained to reporters, the reporter said "you have never seen a newspaper headline that reads '2 million commuters made it safely to work today' but you have read many that said 'six people were killed' " i described the situation in the way i found accurate and not arouse hostility. we all need to think about that. >> do you believe that in certain parts of the west bank on certain days a system of institutionalized discrimination against a certain ethnic group prevails?

a want to know how far down the road you think israel has gone on this question. how reversible is what you have seen on the west bank? >> that is the point. i think it is reversible. i do not believe that borders are the most difficult issues to solve. that has been my please. they keep saying they want a freeze. the united states disagrees. -- the united states agrees. they made that clear. president bush explicitly called for a freeze. it is not forthcoming. the way to deal with it i thought sensibly was to persuade the israelis to start new housing.

during that time, use it to reach an agreement on borders which would say here is israel enters palestine. the israelis can build what they want. the palestinians can build what they want in palestine. then you do not have this issue. i believe it can be resolved. >> if it is the u.s. position that settlements are either counterproductive or illegal, why do they not simply say to the israelis "we have assessed that you have spent $250 million this year on infrastructure for settlement so we will doctor that"? if you had that two years ago, do you think he would have gotten somewhere? >> we do have that ability under the law that exists. president bush was the last one to impose the application of that law. it created a deduction from the amount available to ensure israeli guarantees for the

house. the israelis had not needed to make a claim on it. it has lost its potency. it is symbolic now. it has no substantial effect. i do not believe it would have had any significant effect and altering the israeli activity. and all the time i was in the region, for many arabs, there is a simple solution. the united states cut off all funding. they will have to do what we want. for the israelis, it is also an easy solution. in relative terms, as many israelis have noted, the palestinians are much more dependent than israelis. the public perception is the contrary. in my view, i do not think that works.

i do not think it works when you're dealing with this. you need a more positive case of appealing to self-interest. i think self interest can be identified an appeal to a positive way. we did not succeed. let's face it. we have 10 presidents. i think it can be done and i think it will be done at some point hopefully in the near future. >> let me ask you to a final questions. want to get iran also. i am going to in both speaker gingrich in this. -- invoke a speaker gingrich in this. believe that the israelis have a natural right to that part of palestine they currently possess?

i read the palestinian press all the time. there is an overwhelming message that the israelis have no legitimate right. how important, we understand what settlements due to the palestinian psychology, houle important is the jewish national quality to making peace? >> there were many others. -- discussions with many others. i can tell you this. i believe they understand and accept it. they may not like it, but i

think they accept the reality that israel is there. it is going to stay there. it is not going anywhere. we want to have been over for dinner. -- the only alternative is some sort of reconciliation. in terms of less live in peace, you there be here. >> if you are a palestinian, would you accept 22% as your final permanent deal? >> the answer can only from palestinians. there are other issues that are so important. it must come from israelis. i was always conscious of the

fact i spent four -- five years and on could northern ireland and to in the middle east. i was always conscious of the fact that when it was over i am going home and they are staying here. they have to make those decisions. what we have to do is to help create the context in which to make those decisions. i believe that no other entity than the united states. it will help them accomplish at that task. >> as president obama like israel? >> i think he does. it implies more than the words themselves.

let me respond intelligence cooperation is the best it has ever been. they announced the largest ever exercise is focused on missile defense. that is the root problem. it can and a more rapid development of deployment. i have a very good relationship with israeli leaders.

quite scary quickly if you can, if you have gotten to know the lead -- >> very quickly if you can, you've got to know the leaders. describe the most likable characteristic of netanyahu. >> prime minister netanyahu is strong. he is consistent. he told me is very sincere about this. many many times when i met with prime minister netanyahu he said "i am sincere. i want peace." i believed him. president of boss -- abbas ask me the same thing. are we done? i think they're both the serious. that is not the question. everybody wants peace on their

terms. the difficulty is achieving peace on terms that can be acceptable to the other side. that is the political problem. if you said to be israelis, here are the israeli terms approval? it be said to the palestinians and you want peace, people would say of course. the public is they're just like the public is here. they're able to hold and convey contradictory views at the same time. they say that we want peace. we wanted on our terms. the challenge and the task of leadership is to reconcile those two conflicting demands. we can do it in a way that can make it possible for the other

side to accept it. can i tell one more story c. debate. when i was senate majority leader, the first president bush was in office. the budget. we spent months and even went to the air force base and isolated ourselves in the hope that isolation went into is compromise. it did not. i used to go back to maine every weekend. there is a large crowd. i did not give speeches. i just a questions. the first guy got up andhe delivered a scathing

denunciation of me, saying how there's they were at my behavior. it was too much fighting. settle it with him? the crowd reacted with a huge thunderous ovation endorsing his repudiation of me? about? medicare funding was one of the big issues. he we get up and say you represent us. we are telling you you go back and don't give them into medicare. the crowd got up and i got a double thunder's round of applause. peace. this satisfy both. >> but we're talking about the way to go forward, on the question of settlements, it was a traumatic experiment. will this be sustainable?

which he bought 80,000 settlers. you have done some of the best reporting on it. what situation would have to obtain israelis to countenance political that is difficult. >> the figure that you cited is based upon an assumed percentage of exchanges. it might be higher. it might be lower. it depends on what the negotiated ingredient is. i am not an expert on the subject.

there are many of them in israel. as numerous studies made of the principal motivation that has brought different types of sellers to different places, it was a unilateral decision. there was no consultation or agreement with the palestinians with respect to it. there was no overarching agreement which the government of israel could point to and say here is what we got out of this. we do have to endorse some pain but there are significant benefits. there is nothing comparable then. i am not certain that it is really the kind of apples and oranges comparison.

i do not think -- certainly i said nothing. i do not think any responsible person would suggest that this would somehow be easy or anything other than extremely difficult with careful planning and and with a lot of assistance being provided by the united states and other supporters of israel. i don't think that the gaza or lebanon example are relevant. in both of those cases, their unilateral without consultation. there is not in a demonstrable benefit i can tell you from my own experience elsewhere if you're going to ask a government in a very vibrant democratic society where everybody speaks in public if

you're going to ask people to undertake a very painful course of action, it is far more difficult to do it in the absence of an overarching program in which you can say we have to do a be. we're getting xyz in return. he have some give and take. >> this is really change in the last several years. you have a foreign minister that is your cannot dispatch to washington is no one will meet him. you have in the settlements of much of the officer that lives there. i want to press you on this. you are not talking about the israel 20 are 30 years ago. you're talking about asking an

army to evacuate their own parents. it is hard. you did deal with the army. it seems very hard to reverse this. >> i met with them many times. my view is that we have the right to choose our officials. they have a right to choose their officials. we are going to talk to whoever it is that they have. you say the israeli society is changing. of course it is changing. every society in every area changes.

with someone that came to the united states not say is that american politics changing? they decided to be static. the plo started as a secular society. it is, it has made some genes because of the dynamic changes. yes, it is more difficult. that is not a reason not to do things. if they are the right things to do it and if they provide an overall benefit to the society. that is the important part. it is truly moving.

israel in the 60 years is remarkable. if you believe in the security, you have to accept the reality that one in the more important things that you can do to ensure that security is to make peace with the palestinians. there are other issues in the region that he said he will get to. i am saying that it would be difficult but if the reward or sufficient, if the justification more enough to persuade the people that it was worth doing it, yet the possibility of getting it done. >> we apologize. we have time for two more questions.

idyll many of you that i would give you a question for dick -- i told many of you you get a question so i will let him pick them and you can blame him. what i would just negotiate this. -- >> i will just negotiate this. >> i do not recall that my newspaper has denied the system said israel. -- the existence of israeli was there when you came in of august 2010. it was by september 2011. does mr. obama white the like palestinians that he spoke very eloquently. he did not mention the palestinians.

>> my answer is yes, i believe that the president is fully committed at a palestinian state. yes said that many times. president bush said the same thing many times. i believe it is the united states policy. i do not accept the argument made by many in the region that the united states is incapable of serving as an arbiter our mediator for the intervening party. it is so biased. its history that the united states and israel are close. we are committed in to israel's security and existence behind secure borders.

it is precisely because we believe that is real security will be enhanced by an agreement that we think that there ought to be a palestinian state along with the belief that the palestinian people are entitled to self governance as are people everywhere, as our declaration of independence states. the united states or did i cannot speak for the president's -- i believe that he is fully committed to a palestinian state. >> looking ahead to the coming year, there are macro issues.

can anything be done by the palestinians, israelis, and us to stabilize the situation? i believe it is a possibility. >> i do believe that there can be steps taken. the party have been. -- there already have been. it is a remarkable achievements. you look at what has gone on in the previous 30 years. the organizing and the funding and the training of the palestinian security forces, which has resulted and the establishment of stability and security where it did not exist, it has produced a secondary economic results in terms of the growth of the economy.

it has encouraged many of us to provide assistance to those are reluctant to do so. i think there are intermediate steps which could be taken which we proposed. not to get to complicated, as you know, the palestinian territories are divided and authority between areas that are administered entirely by the palestinians and those other entirely by israelis and those of mixed authority. one of the ones we have noticed is a capacity for self governance to extend palestinian authority in two areas --into areas b and c, particularly to the extent it can exist and economic growth

and development. economic factors is very presence. -- the economic factor is quite present there. i think there is quite a bit more that can be done. there are numerous steps that can be taken to help prevent the outbreak that we very do not one want to have them. >> correct me if i am wrong, has netanyahu ever put down a proposal on the borders and security and anything? hour of pressure is that the palestinians have been quite forthcoming. if that is the case, why is that the case?

will there ever be an american bridging proposal that they will say is reasonable? >> mr. netanyahu did in fact make a substantive proposal on security. he did not make proposals on the other issues that seem mentioned. he assumes and anticipated this. it was my intention to encourage discussion on other agenda items that palestinians have prevented their views on.

because of the failure to extend it. -- those talks ended. >> bridging proposals? >> we did not make any because there is not significant engagement. >> you have to have two pieces of land. >> there's the thing to bridge at the time. -- there was nothing to bridge at that time. i just want to say we made it very clear to both sides that if it continues that we will be prepared when necessary and appropriate. it did not reach that stage for reasons i said earlier. >> you mentioned yourself that you spent five years of northern ireland's.

you are clearly invested in this and even more. was it a lack of support from the obama administration? >> you got caught off. >> i said to the president and secretary of state when they ask me to take this position, that i was willing and able to go. precisely because i have been there for five years. i said to the president i cannot do five years here. i cannot commit to you to even a full presidential term. he said what will you do? i committed to two years.

and i stayed 2.5 years. >> we're going to do something unusual. we are right at the end. if you have a 32nd comment, the go over i turn up the microphone. -- you have a 32 second comments and if you go over a turn off the microphone. as rapidly as you can, then we will finish. the last big question is about iran. we will see if it works. >> i am actually lived in tel aviv and my concern is the shift in democratic values. there are a number of increasing bills. one of the biggest limitations and progressing are those that prevent a prime minister from taking a significant lead. are you concerned?

>> when i was in the state department, there were 20,000 israeli settlers. people back then in cia and state department were writing the annexation that no good could come of this. the senior levels did not want to hear about it. it was a political bargaining chip. now have over five and a thousand settlers. -- 500,000 settlers. the road map came from the main parts. palestinians did the security part. and then the settlement activity on the part of the israelis. my comment is why do we think anybody is going to trust us in future? >> do you expect me to answer this question and 30 seconds? >> you touch quickly on is really isolation.

-- israel isolationcan you put this in a bigger range of? is a complicated? is it a priority? most of the leaders are no longer there. >> why should anybody trust the process and democracy and israel? >> you have 43 seconds. >> you get more time. >> thank you. >> you can instantly and in 30 seconds. -- intimidate me in 30 seconds. the first known as the arab spring initiative. initiative. it is human nature when there is turbulence and uncertainty and anxiety to pause, hesitates

hunker down and not take any dramatic steps. it is very clear that both the government of israel and the palestinian authority have been affected by that. it is a pillar of both of their policies with the government. -- was their relationship with the government of egypt and president mubarak. that is gone. it is natural that they will want to pull back. it would be on natural otherwise. we have to understand that even as we encourage them to take steps, with respect to the arab spring, here are a few points. it takes a long time. i know all the press operates under a deadline. resolutions deny. -- resolutions do not. in our own country, eight years

elapsed. it was a much less complicated time than the current situation in the middle east. secondly, there's almost an night and day in thinking. --we said something has to do better. history is full of examples of very bad government. governments. let's not hold the arabs and air springs to standards that no one else has met. we hope it turns out the right way. i think it will take a long time. there will be successes revolutions. it can follow up less severe. it i think some will turn out well. some will turn out not well. in terms of our policy.

, it will be a huge test for us. >> in fairness, i depose the question. palestinians did there. they did it on the west bank. they have not done that in gaza. the israelis would dispute the premise of your question. they would say they don't have security and still the people in the gaza strip and they are firing rockets at us. i am not disagreeing with the. -- with you. we're not been able to get it to change. this deals with the issue. that is the way to get it done. i think it can be done. i do believe sincerely. i had a whole staff of proposed maps. -- stackup proposed maps.

you're one of the few that did not send me. i wish you would. at the complete my collection. it is what the border should be. it can be done. i leave that to the israelis. it is a very difficult issue. i try very hard not to interpose myself into what our internal matters. let him have is a. >> [inaudible] >> let him have his say. >> what about a better designed in a democracy? >> i believe in democracy. i support democracy. i also think that the right to self-government means what it says. self-government. people decide their futures. this goes back to the arab spring. that is what is most powerful, and that it is entirely indigenous.

a came from with in. -- it came from within. it demonstrated a longing and capacity that many thought and not exist or had been suppressed. it is not for the united states to tell the people of israel how to run their affairs. it is not for the united states to do this. we should encourage them. we should particularly praised democracy because they believe and it. -- we believe in it. in the end, they have to decide. >> no. let you go to dinner. -- we will let you go to dinner when you discuss iran. >> thank you. >> just addressed to sides of the same question. what are the consequences for the middle east and for the peace process in particular of a nuclear arms enron? -- iran? what you think the results are of a pre-emptive strike of the

israel or united states to delay them from developing nuclear weapons that strikes and answer them in reverse order. -- weapons? >> i will enter them in reverse order. there's no benefit to taking them off the table. i do not think anyone here is a proponent of a pre-emptive strike has so far made a sufficient case to justify it at this time. i think there are too many imponderables in terms of uncertainty about a sad is that they are in. -- the status that they are inor what the effect would be. secretary of defense gates who is respected in and out of the u.s. has said emphatically that we could not a share -- assure the full termination of their program. the best we could do is set it back.

what about the next day? one thing we have found that it is hard to get out of wars. you have to ask yourself what will happen on the second day? iran now possesses rockets. they have gone from liquid steel to solid fuel that can reach israel from iran. if you think that they are unstable enough to launch a possible first nuclear strike on israel, you certainly have to believe that they will launch a massive missile attack if they themselves were attack in -- or attacked retaliation, not nuclear but on mass. they could do tremendous damage. i do not think the cases were made. the one issue which you did not ask which i think it's also a sufficient importance and danger is if i rank it in nuclear- -- if iran gets a

newweapons not only will it be a clear huge destabilizing force in region and be a setback for the peace project, it will make a difficult task harder. it causes disintegration of the non-proliferation regime. there are now nine countries with nuclear weapons. they're trying to make it 10. there are many more in number with the capacity to do it. they have refrained from doing so. the break in the dam could be them getting weapons. -- could be iran getting weapons. what would egypt or turkey or saudi arabia andwhat did they do? do? what would saudia arabia do? once that happened, it is not difficult to conceive, you discussed hal societies change. their societies where it has

been inconceivable that they would develop nuclear weapons even though they have the capacity that a movement would emerge on the grounds of we have to get our weapons. one of the things about nuclear- weapons is that in the countries that have nuclear weapons, most of the people think their country should have them. they just don't think other should. most americans think the united states should have them. did you ask questions of chinese are french or british, you get pretty much the same answer. it would be a matter of time. we would confront far more dangerous things than exist today. >> what a happy note. >> before i think senator

mitchell and the others, i want to encourage all of you who are watching on c-span and the c- span viewers for being with us to go to the web site at theatlantic.com. we all owe thanks to the designer of the project. i do not know where you are. thank you so much. you're here somewhere. i look forward to meeting you. i look forward to the team that brought this together. a big round of applause for senator mitchell. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> coming up on c-span 2 this morning, an all-day forum on the u.s. economy and jobs. we will hear from the ceo of the dow chemical co. and commerce secretary john bryson and former secretary robert rubin. live coverage gets under way from the brookings institution in about 90 minutes. [unintelligible] >> should the government be

responsible for policing the broadcast airwaves for profanity and nudity? tonight at 8:00, we will clear the oral argument before the supreme court on current federal communication rules. you can find other perspectives on line on our cspan video library. >> we sort of thought we knew what the commission rules would be. the commission changes. now we have no idea what the new commission -- >> the and decency regulations have a safe harbor for programming before 8:00 p.m. and after 6:00 p.m.. >> search the archives at c- span.org/video library.

>> name moment, a look at the day's news and your phone calls and e-mails live on "washington journal." tensions continue in pakistan and we will get an update from the hudson institute this morning. republican presidential candidates continue with campaign stops throughout south carolina today. mitt romney will be joined by senator mccain in hilton head for an event with veterans at 5:00 eastern. at 6:20 eastern on the other side of the state, local republicans in greenville and spartanburg counties will hold a presidential candidate forum and we will have live coverage from duncan, south carolina. the u.s. supreme court took up a texas redistricted case this week. we will talk about some of the possible political implications. 22 states have