early morning and drought research programs. the other would condemn the violence in the ukraine. no votes until 6:30 eastern. confirmed that the house gop is having a 5:30 meeting on the debt ceiling today. we're getting confirmation of this from robert costa, a journalist on the hill. boehner will go over debt limit options. this is important because the treasury department's spending authority runs out on february 22. live now to the floor of the u.s. house. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., february 10, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable luke messer to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner,

speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip but in to five minutes, no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, for five minutes. mr. speaker, over the last several weeks i've come to the house floor on numerous times to talk about the interim nuclear agreement this administration is negotiating with iran. i've come here to discuss

exactly what that administration is or more importantly isn't negotiating and what that means for our national security and the stability of the region as a whole. and while there can be no question that we need to continue having that discussion about whether -- about whatever else the regime in tehran decides to do, like send war ships off of our eastern coast, we also need to take some time to discuss what exactly the real power brokers in iran are doing when they aren't talking about destroying israel or attacking america. many of my colleagues have been down on this very floor before to discuss the oppressive nature of the iranian regime and it's important that we remind people just how tyrannical those in power there really are. so just what exactly have we seen since the election of the self-described moderate president in iran? we have largely seen the continuation of the same human

rights abuses we have seen for years in iran. we've seen the grip of tehran's media and internet censors since mr. rouhani came to power. mobile phone applications have also been blocked. there have also been reports of numerous newspapers and blogs being shut down altogether, and the reporters and editors being arrested. now, what do they all have in common, mr. speaker? well, they have in common -- what they have in common is these people advocate for reform and are critical of the regime in tehran. we've seen the number of iran's executions occur at alarming rates since mr. rouhani took office. there are many theories as to why this is happening but the fact remains that upwards of 60 people are being executed each month in iran and that some of these executions are being carried out in public with those in charge intentionally leaving the bodies to hang from

construction cranes in public areas. we've seen the persecution of religious minorities continue. we should all support freedom of religion and the regime's persistent crackdowns of christians, baha'is and other religious minorities should trouble everyone. and mr. speaker, as i have talked about before, iran continues to prop up hezbollah across the middle east. their involvement across the region is widely noted, but of particular concern should be their connection to syria iran , separate murderers families and cause millions to flee their country. sadly, this is not even a comprehensive list of what goes on inside of iran. we could discuss their appalling human rights trafficking record or their full record of sponsoring terrorism. in addition to what we've already discussed. so why is all of this important when we're talking about the administration's pursuit of a nuclear deal with iran? two reasons. first, it should serve as a

stark reminder of just who exactly the obama administration is really negotiating with. and secondly, it shows the true intentions and belief of those that are really in power in iran. it shows the disconnect between the rhetoric of the self-described moderate president and what really is borders. nside iran's and the power is in the supreme leader of iran. not addressing what happens domestically will be a failure plain and simple and one which will continue to cost innocent lives. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. e speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to bring attention to and highlight bread for the

world's annual hunger report. this year's report is entitled "ending hunger in america," and frankly it couldn't be more appropriate and timely. mr. speaker, over 49 million americans go hungry every year, and we in the federal government, we in this congress are not doing nearly enough to fight and end hunger in this country. in fact, over the past six months, congress stood by and let an $11 billion cut to the premiere anti-hunger safety net program, snap, take effect. and to make matters worse, congress followed up by enacting another $8 billion cut to snap as part of the farm bill. we should all be ashamed. the fact is congress continues to make it harder and harder for the hungry in america to make ends meet and put food on their table. and although the obama administration came into office under the most difficult economic conditions in nearly a century, they also came in with a lot of promise. in fact, president obama came in with, among other things, a pledge to end childhood hunger

in america by 2015. and that goal was achievable. unfortunately we have gone backwards over the past five years. and while i still believe there's time for the obama administration to turn this around and make some real headway in the fight to end hunger in america, the sad reality is we are not going to end child hunger in america by 2015 and may not even make a significant dent in hunger by the end of this administration. but just because the president will not meet his stated goal doesn't mean we should give up and that's why i'm encouraged by this report from bread for the world. first and foremost, it's refreshing that this report is honest and blunt. it rightfully states that hunger is a subset of poverty and we can't truly end hunger without addressing poverty. just look at a few of the statistics listed in the report. the average incomes of the top of households rose by 19.6% in 2012 while the incomes of

the other 99% grew by just 1%. nearly 2/3 of snap recipients are children, elderly or disabled. among snap households with children and at least one working age nondisabled adult, 62% work while receiving snap, and 87% work in the prior or subsequent year which hopefully should put to rest this distortion that somehow people on snap don't want to work. and another statistic here is that while children make up roughly 24% of our total population, they comprise 1/3 of the nation's poor. mr. speaker, it is clear that poverty must be addressed because that is the root cause of hunger, but bread for the world lays out achievable and timely goals, goals that are not high in the sky but actually doable. they call for an end to hunger in america by 2030, and they do so in a four-point plan. one, a jobs agenda. two, a stronger safety net. three, human capital development, and four,

public-private partnerships to support innovative community-led initiatives against hunger. they call for achievable goals of a 25% reduction in hunger by 2017, a 50% reduction by 2023 and completely ending hunger by 2030. now, we can do this if we make the political decision to focus on and commit to ending hunger and i fully support this plan. i only want to move quicker to hieve the goal of ending hunger. ending hunger will require leadership not only at the federal level but also the state and local levels as well, end quote. we already have governors and mayors working to end hunger. the governor of massachusetts and arkansas are committed. the former mayor of boston was a leader. and i now that the new mayor of new york and boston are just as committed. and they are aren't the only ones. but we need more help and

commitment. the white house should convene a commitment on food and nutrition and build on the recommendations in the bread for the world report and have a comprehensive holistic plan to end hunger in america. hunger is a political condition. we know how to end it. we have the food and the resources to end hunger once and for all. we just don't have the political will to do so. bread for the world, through this annual report and through their everyday actions, is trying to build the political will to end hunger in america. i know we can do it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. seeing no further requests, pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house approximately 2:00 p.m. today.

>> the house will reconvene at 2:00. two bills on the agenda today, including when dealing with drought mapping. any requested votes will be held after 6:30 eastern. house republicans will hold a meeting tonight to discuss the way forward on a plan to address the debt ceiling. that is scheduled for 5:30 tonight. the treasury department's spending authority runs out on february 22. if there are remarks after that meeting, we plan to bring those to you on the c-span networks. we will have more live house coverage when the gavel comes down here on c-span. have a facebook question today about congress and term limits. we want to know what you think about term limits. scott says absolutely not. term limits for the president should be done away with. term limits create amateur governments.

log onto facebook.com/c-span and you can leave your thoughts there. we have other live programming coming up -- the heritage foundation is hosting a daylong conservative policy summit including speakers tend -- ted cruz, mike lee and jeb hensarling. president of that organization. you can watch live all day until .bout 6:00 eastern on c-span3 tomorrow, janet yellen will deliver first monitoring policy report before the house committee. you can see that tomorrow on c-span3. >> i think it is an evolutionary process. you grow into this world. my sense is you never get comfortable if you are always pushing for change and growth, not just in yourself but the

issues you care about. done, so there's never a point in time when you feel like you are there. wayi can do this the same all the time. it is always changing. >> first lady michelle obama, tonight live on c-span and , also on c-span radio and c-span.org. we bring public affairs offense to washington directly to you, putting you directly in the room at congressional hearings, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel to gavel publice all as a service. c-span -- created by the cable industry 35 years ago and funded by your local provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. deputy chief u.s. of mission in israel says

current efforts to resolve the conflict are the most serious he has seen since the carter administration. comments came during comments at the release institute on friday. he and two other ambassadors recently returned from the region. this is just over one hour. the trip was sponsored by the foundation for released piece which was established in 1979 to promote a just solution to the israeli-palestinian conflict. the wilcox led the trip and it whouded two board members between them have decades and decades of experience working on this very thorny issue of the arab-israeli crisis. we are hoping to hear some profound revelations today.

the trip to the region comes at an especially interesting time, corresponding as it does with secretary kerry's very dogged efforts to keep the peace process going. aile on their trip, they got better sense of where things are, the progress that has been made in the obstacles that remain and we look forward to hearing their observations. very briefly, because their bios are in your handouts, mr. elliott he served as secretary of state to middle eastern affair and ambassador to egypt, jordan and tel aviv. mr. hughes served as ambassador to yemen and was later director general of the egypt international forces observer. toassador bill wilcox served -- served as deputy ambassador to jerusalem and many other positions. their time is short and i've invited another foundation for middle east peace, and arab

arael a expert who edits the bimonthly report on israeli settlers -- israeli settlements in the occupied territory to respond to our speakers and pose a few trenchant questions. think you for your time. it's a privilege to have you here. he for we get started, i want to acknowledge another significant person coming soon -- george salem, a board member who has been very active in washington circles promoting better understanding of the palestinian cause and advocating a solution to the conflict through his foundation. he has made it possible for us to program these panels on this topic. this is our sixth panel in the series and we look forward to many more. without further ado, i would -- i would invite like to invite the ambassador to the podium. >> thank you, kate. looking at some of my friends in

that weence reminds me have been involved in this piece ins us since columnar 101 september of 1973. it doesn't get any easier. context of the kerry initiative, we believe this would be a good time to visit the area and try to understand the situation on the ground. i will give a brief overview. we spent four days in jerusalem, two days in tel aviv, during which we met with a variety of americans, israelis, and palestinians. for the most part, nonofficial but very knowledgeable. the off the record personal attack by the israeli defense minister on secretary of state kerry provided the medium act ground for those first few days

and we visited ramallah for talks with the plo and palestinian authority professionals, members of the faculty of he brought in university. we met one-on-one and with groups and it was a fascinating, intensive week. part of theirst week, there was a dearth of details or even informed speculation of what specifically john kerry had in mind. his staff and his israeli and palestinian interlocutory's -- interlocutory's request that they keep the discussion secret. however, there was a general assumption that his ultimate be based on the so-called clinton parameters.

the general view of our interlocutory's was that kerry would fail, netanyahu would not risk his position in the likud and his government by putting forward compromised proposals, abu moslem was too weak. official wasr plo openly frustrated and only abu moslem and one other new what was going on. nevertheless, this person was sure john kerry would fail and was pushing a palestinian plan b , go back to the u.n.. in the contest of ignorance of concrete details, much attention was paid to speculation on john kerry's personality. would he stay the course? him? obama support etc..

later the week, several things happen that impacted on the nature of our discussions in tel aviv with the israelis will stop tom friedman wrote his op-ed in the new york times reporting to reveal the kerry framework. this intensified the public discussion and debate armies issues. in telannual meeting aviv of an important think tank. then, netanyahu and michael bennett, the settlor rep in the cabinet had a very public and bitter spat over the future of settlers in a palestinian state. seems to have blinked a bit. ecowas quotedand as saying the bulk of the

settlers would remain in israel in any settlement. one result of this combination of factors is some israelis began to wonder if perhaps netanyahu might be willing to take some political risks. we did not have the opportunity to discuss these events with palestinian's will stop near the the boycott byt, the boycott by that you byproducts produced in settlements, remember the famous sodastream international in the super bowl for you football fans? and reports of dutch and danish disinvestment in banks operating in settlements was having an impact on the israeli public and on the body politic. abouts warning in munich

the potential for israeli isolation helped bring this pot to a boil. tom friedman, reporting from ramallah, devoted his latest column to the subject. of germanoming visit leader angela merkel, who is considered israel's best friend important.will be what she says and how she says it. for the millions of israeli jews who live in the sharon plan and near the sea, this is the bustling part of the israeli economy. range of potential serious problems. they cannot be solved by a wall. a quick word about the broader -- israel's treaties with israel and jordan are

holding firm. tears over theo demise of morsi and the muslim brothers. they appreciate the efforts to control the islamic militants roaming through the sinai. and cairo's tough line on hamas and gaza, which seemed to be missing or at least they are invisible factors in the current peace initiative of the equation. interests an obvious in many proposals for security along the jordan river. any proposals for resolution of the palestinian refugee problem and jerusalem, which has its own special set of problems. the treaties with jordan and egypt are in good shape. israel is far stronger politically and militarily than ever. a giant.

looks like a good time to make peace from a position of incomparable strength. phil? us thek you for bringing news today. i have not exactly been a beacon solving thisbout terrible 100-year-old conflict. but i have to admit that this week, i sense array of hope. it is because of kerry's diplomacy, which coincides with other trends that may lead to a way out of this tragedy. elites arecular and beng to speak out more conscious of the threats

facing the state of israel. for the first time, to begin to do something about it. coincides with what looks like a revival of the liberal pragmatic political system in israel. the leaders of these parties from reluctance to orn mention the peace issue the future of israel's security, but they are doing so now. kerry has certainly energized a discussion of the israeli center and left at his very encouraging because in recent years, israel's right wing which i do not think represents the majority of israeli citizens has taken lead and seized the initiative in spite of their

minority status. of the american -- of the israeli people and palestinian people still want a two state peace. the problem is they do not believe it's possible. kerry's extraordinary diplomacy is beginning to arouse hopes for peace. more on the israeli side and the palestinian side. is --lestinians died palestinians died is still in -- the palestinian side is still in deep despair. the palestinian president, in his public rhetoric is far more moderate and conciliatory than even netanyahu and his colleagues. the threat of sanctions,

especially the european union's sanction on all european union private and public flows to settlements have had a real effect. that has shocked the business community who are now beginning to mobilize and have created a called breaking the impasse. there's another group with the israeli peace initiative. businessmenli realize they are the future of the economy, if not the state of israel is at stake. that's an important development. they have been satisfied to remain in tel aviv and haifa and make money. debate, which is especially important, no less

important than the debate in israel and palestine, is beginning to open up will stop you will read today in the new york times, our illustrious correspondent like tom friedman on saying things they would not say a few years ago. the mainstream media is beginning to discuss this problem more candidly and frankly whereas for years they shied away from doing so. the non-mainstream media has been important in this breakthrough toward a more candid public dialogue in this country. the organized american jewish christian american communities are also speaking out and there is a profound change, i believe, and the politics of those communities will stop for years, it was a pack that was seen as the preeminent american interest group that supported the

policies of the government of israel. hasecent months, aipac suffered two serious to feet and the congress. the bill on making war in syria and the bill which would have imposed conditional sanctions on iraq. that's a historic development because it has not been since the battle in ronald reagan's era that an american administration has decisively defeated and aipac initiative. we have seen the rise of a more organized, liberal, moderate jewish community. aipac, the work of americans for peace now, churches for middle east these and many others is making a difference.

did i say aipac? and are making an impact the doors are increasingly open to them in the white house. ,hat's a sign of a change especially the young american jewish community is staunchly supportive of israel and is also very critical of israeli policy and they are mobilizing. congress may be the last to become peacemakers. the israeli security elite are speaking out. security chiefs and prominent retired generals, people of the highest prestige in israeli society, they are

beginning to tell the truth about this conflict and that's a real sign of change in israel. perhaps most important of all has been kerry's initiative. he has been determined that he has allowed a process of bilateral negotiations to go forward. i think an effort to give the parties one last chance to do it by themselves. it has failed and now he has engaged in what i think is the next phase and that is an american framework -- i have to caution against too much optimism because we haven't seen it, but it looks like an american peace plan. whether it is detailed, significant or vague, i don't know when we shall see. i hope it is more specific. debate toransfer the

an american proposal which would be i believe evenhanded, reflecting the fundamental interests of israel and palestine, and that is galvanizing debate already. that is a good thing. seen such activism by any secretary of state days of jim baker. we have not seen an american peace plan in the united states for some years now. unlikely to discuss things like settlements and refugees. that has, i think, weakened our influence in a way to shape events in our national security interests and theirs as well. so it is a good thing. there will be no quick solution. this conflict is an ancient one.

the old four-year project of settlement expansion is deeply embedded. to remove it would be to transform the state of israel in many ways, but it is possible sense ofnse that possibility in talking to many israelis. palestinians are optimistic that withare resilient all, very impressive human resources. i am can and if there is an active dynamic process led by the united states, both sides will regain hope soon. the hope they so desperately lacked now. this could lead the way over energy,th u.s. persistence and leadership to a breakthrough in this terrible conflict. reinforcement of american interests, american

leadership, which is in trouble in that region, and to rescue these two parties from a terrible future. thank you. [applause] >> thank you all for coming today. heardmade our rounds, you -- we heard very often our interlocutory say as i told martin last week when he was here, we knew we were talking to the right people than because we were following martin around and what yousay tell us said, but what did he say to you and they would say not much. he was asking questions. which is also a good sign. in fact, i should mention i think this is the most serious u.s. effort since the first camp david when jimmy carter was president.

the most serious, the best prepared, the most atellectually strong, and, the risk of offending some of my friends who were at the second camp david and elsewhere, i think it is absolutely true that this is the most serious effort and maybe for a good while, seen as the last best chance. this is the sense we got in the palestinian territories, the last best chance. i want to give you my impressions and try to tie them together a little bit and give you a sense and then specific things we can address in the question and answers. the impact of what kerry is doing has shaken up the situation incredibly. this comes after a time when the israeli left was dispirited and disorganized and thinking about other things. you are member the last israeli

election was not on peace issues at all. the israeli right had a free time -- had a free ride. even though they represented a minority, there is some loss to look dude as we all know. the settlement expansion continued, the population of israeli jews east of the green line continues. the barrier had its result in reducing terrorism almost to nil. the netanyahu government and others were able to this our president, which irritated me. ther the failed attempt in first term, there were signs in israel, we defeated the president of the united states, which i felt was bad for israel and bad for the united states.

but now the kerry initiative has shaken things up and people are being forced and pressed and they know that kerry is not going to give up. the presidents conclusion is a short paragraph with senator schumer taking credit for it, by is important and what's even more important is what the president said yesterday at the prayer breakfast, which i found out in the israeli press interestingly enough -- he praised john kerry by name for his diplomacy and his passion to proceed. will help dispel further any cynical notion that was current when we were out there that the president was holding back and waiting to see if there was success. have many fathers and failure, he can disappear on. what i believe that from do and discussions i had with

the team. i think what he said yesterday will absolutely dispel that notion. that israeli and palestinian leadership will be pressed to make some decisions. the words that we heard very often when we were out there work urgent guts. whether courage and guts will come into play i frankly don't know because as isaac herzog said in an interview the other require basic decisions that will change things remarkably in israel and a new state of palestine. at the right, disarray, they don't quite know how to act. they are bickering amount -- occurring amongst each other where you may have noticed

netanyahu basically told the cabinet to cool it where it very israeli fashion, they ignored it. i enjoyed it when i lived there for three years and then when i fiveoing about four or times a year when i was director general of the peacekeeping, i enjoyed it very much. it's a little bit like madeline and carville. i had very close israel he friends and i could get the whole scope i going to dinner with the two of them because they would cover both sides of the argument. merri couplehe would argue left in 1-wood argue right, so i didn't have to spend a lot of time going around talking to other people. there's anyk indication he would use it, but there's another option. were 75 orset, there

they wouldll stop deals.n to palestinian the new leader of the labor party says he has 59 in a lease knesset now. the palestinian side, a lot of sayimism -- we heard people only mock would abbas really knows what's going on, they're not telling others what is happening. i think they are being very cautious because they know if there's much being said publicly about where they might go on these issues, they will take -- they will face very serious difficulties because there is no on the palestinian perspective on the right of return.

i still mentioned that president abbas is being very statesmanlike and constructive. the long interview in the times he played the role of a statesman. expected,said what he and i think that is what he believes as well from what i know from being out there. and arafat -- he was given the role of being the heavy. so where now? i do not think we are at the moment of truth yet. i'm not sure what secretary kerry is going to put on the table with regard to framework, but my own view, and i'm not sure of my colleagues agree with

me, that there will be enough space in the framework that it was hard for either side to want to disengage. takeneither side wants to blame for the collapse of this effort. domestic reasons and for the u.s. reasons. netanyahu has a different position. after having won the first round, he has not won this round. it's not only the elements in israel that feel referred to. i saw i referenced this morning that aipac issued a statement yesterday that now is not the time to pursue additional sanctions on iran. chairman and then does issued a statement and there is some

indication they were coordinated and that would not surprise me. but the dynamics have changed and he's going to have to be very much more careful than he has in the past and that is all to the good. as a merit -- as an american who believes a two state solution is the best possible outcome, i think that's all to the good as well. two quick things -- one on security. i spent a lot of time dealing with security not only when i was at the fence where israel was my main client, and then as the director general appointed by egypt, thought a lot about the fence and what they could do in the context of a two state solution. understand they came up with is a workable solution that would provide israel with the required security for them to enter into an agreement which would remove

the idea from the jordan valley after a transition time. they talked about five, president abbas has talked about five in his interview, but one thing that has not been talked about much in the press and that's the nature of the peacekeeping operation. this is not one that would be responsible for monitoring and verification but would need a very robust mandate that would allow them to interject, intercept or suppress a really tough mandate. states and united nato forces could accept that kind of mandate and do a good job. in what isinvolved known as the canadian initiative , it produced a deeply considered and well thought out city of ahe old

special regime. but one created by how stein, one that would not be imposed or one of the old discredited ideas. if anyone wants to blow up the rupture,cause a real it would be to do something on the temple maha sharif. i'm sure the parties are keeping a very careful eye on that. where are we now? the parties are being challenged. they will have to make decisions because i am convinced secretary kerry and the president are not going to back away from this and as i said, we heard a words current and guts when we were out there. whether we are going to see it, i don't know. but i feel better now having been there then i felt before we went about the prospects so thank you very much.

[applause] >> thank you, gentlemen, for an interesting and well informed overview of current events in that part of the world. ,e have about a half hour now which i will open for questions in just one minute. to make ant like observation here i hope will stimulate a response from one of you. talks, we annapolis know there was serious engagement on a bilateral basis between palestinian negotiators. dialogue the energy for which was on both sides will it seems from the outside

in contrast that the discussions over the last nine months have been essentially bilateral betweenons between one -- rather than between the parties themselves. the principal parties has been most interested to win the u.s. over to its view to things rather than negotiate among themselves to try to find points of agreement. observations, at what stage would you see the beginning of a truly bilateral engagement? perhaps along the lines most recently expressed in the and apple is era or even before -- the annapolis era or even before.

discussionsg between the u.s. and egypt hardy without interaction between the parties, and enhanced view of proximity talks if you will. up. i will open it i think you want us to stand up here, is that right? you will be speaking into these mics. >> i will stand aside. >> nations generally make peace when they believe they have a shared interest in peace. persuaded that the current israeli coalition under benjamin netanyahu believes they have a common interest with the palestinians in making peace will stop i believe their

in dominating and controlling permanently a land that some of them feel his sacred jewish land, which others want to dominate or ideological reasons. i think parties will continue to try to negotiate with the united states instead of each other all until there is a change in the israeli government. the change would not necessarily mean the overthrow of -- benjamin netanyahu. he is a man who has a long ideologically -- long ideological history and he's known as a politician who will grasp at opportunities to enhance his own leadership. that is talk in israel now there are well over 61 mandates in the knesset that would support a comprehensive peace it is not outt --

of the question that it might would be at there shakeup in the current coalition, a shedding of one of the most dedicated and extremist local parties and to bring in the labour party by the other party or both to create a very different, moderate, centrist peace-minded government. i thinkwere the case, the israeli government and the palestinian government would take a lot more interest in negotiating between themselves. middleious important east negotiations, there has been that commonality of interest. there isn't right now, but there could be. that's the way i see it.

>> i think once the kerry framework is made public, the that the palestinians and israelis would engage bilaterally. i also believe that would break down rather quickly, at least in the initial stages, and it would ,equire an american presence bridging proposals, what have you. i do not think we are going to see americans backing out, nor should we. >> it is often said they cannot do it themselves, but they say americansest when the get out. they refer to oslo, for example. but i don't tank they can do it

themselves. there are certain things they have to do themselves what it comes to the fine points of negotiations, but the u.s. has got to be there. yes? you have a microphone coming to you. perhaps you could stand up and make it easier for everyone. >> thank you. about meeting with the palestinians and shop -- saw it as a shift in israel and the united states. is major stumbling block hamas in gaza. did you ever have a chance to [inaudible] rockets over my brother's head. whether that is the major stumbling block? what hamas tell you attitudes are.

but what we have been told by palestinians on the west bank, the people in gaza are rather disillusioned. strongly that the attitudes of the public in gaza would be reflective of the general attitude in the west bank. referendumyou have a gazansace plan that the would reflect the views of the west bankers. you have to understand these people are living in an open-air prison. i don't know how you can describe it any other way. maybe that is a hopeful and unrealistic feeling, but that is what they have told us.

of palestinian attitudes expressed in a referendum, i think people are goodnably certain that a majority of palestinians would support a two state solution as negotiated by their leaders. but that does not necessarily in clued the refugees who live outside the west bank. are they going to be included? pretty hard to see how the people in your mock could be included, but nevertheless, these are things they are going to have to work out. right now, what you have is a west bank first negotiation. my personal view is we should have been trying to do this some years ago and, with something good enough to attract the gazan

s. i hope that's what happens this time. >> i don't think a permanent, possible,ce could be nor could a viable state come coming fromf it is the mediterranean sea. hamas is a political party. if there is an emerging peace agreement supported by the palestinian authority and people of the west bank, i am certain hamas would have no choice. they would have to support it for fear of losing whatever constituency they have retained. there considered -- their constituency today is winning. hamas is in deed an obstacle. .hey will make trouble

if kerry's initiative proceeds, but in the end, they will have to yield because they are in the minority and would not stand in the way of the rescue of the palestinian people. and the emergence of the palestinian state. ingiven what has happened egypt, it is hard to see hamas would have any realistic options under a circumstance in which there was real progress toward a palestinian state. >> could i get you all to discuss a little bit what you have been seeing with what is happening in the united states and so forth on it ran, syria and egypt?

the whole big picture. obama mightthink pushing hardby against what has been openly on nuclearsomething with a rand must have the highest priority? >> i don't think the administration is ignoring iran. my personal view is they've done a very good job. syria, i egypt and guess if i were back in government, i would first ask the question what can i easily promote freedom of expression, for example? journalists who are being

crimes of for various disagreeing with the military in egypt. -- can i do anything else but feed and divide relief to the hundreds of thousands who are suffering? conclude there's not all that much i can do except in the humanitarian field and syria. in palestine and israel, there is something i can do. therefore, i really applaud the kerry initiative and i hope the president carries out. it doesn't mean they are going to ignore the rest of the world out there, but there's only so much you can do.

here, you can have a major impact. have a majorcan impact if they walked back from the nuclear program. with nick that the u.s. has a vastly closer relationship with the israelis and palestinians and a much larger capacity to use american diplomacy to solve the conflict. we lack that knowledge, that ability in egypt and syria. a resolution of the iranian nuclear issue would lift the burden of fear from the israeli public. i think the israeli public does support a negotiated solution and not a new war. mostinteresting that the prestigious and retired military people, retired mossad officers,

say a war between israel and syria would be crazy and a war between the u.s. and syria would iran and the united states would bring nothing but further grief. yes, we are capable given our past history, being helpful with israel and palestine. we have shown that in the last 60 years of conflict, if we have a policy that reflects the needs, if we persevere, if we are strong and patient, we can prevail. we need to have a little more confidence in our own country to do this.