decisions made for the good of the country, and create a climate in which those hard decisions become easier and easier. >> a few minutes left. talking about our experiences holding these offices, what was maybe your fondest memory? what is your fondest memory of your service? >> somebody once asked me -- i have had many jobs. clearly, being a congressman was the greatest job. my fondest memory was when i could do things for people at

home, when they had problems. one of the things that gets lost -- this is not a game. our jobs -- a lot of people at home do not think we are really in the business of doing that. we are keeping our jobs, money, politics, and all sorts of things. our system was meant to not work very well. they wanted a system where it was almost institutionalized gridlock. they split the congress from the president. they feared the tyranny of congress. one foot is on the proverbial break and one foot is on the proverbial accelerator at all

times. for our system to work, it requires good faith, working together compromise that trent and the other folks engaged in for a long time. when you can get things done and say, i produced results for the people at home, that is the greatest thing you can do. >> it is hard to come up -- i spent all eight years of the bush 43 white house in the white house. i also served in the bush 41 administration. i have had fantastic experiences in all of those. it is hard to pick out a favorite experience. except to say it was an enormous privilege to have a chance to serve. it is very common these days to disparage public service and have people say how awful it is dealing with congress, and so on.

we lose sight that public service is a great privilege. that is something that, as chief of staff, andy card reminded the staff almost every day. in fact, he created rumors that andy was on his way out when, in the first month, he said, we cannot all expect to be here beyond today. tomorrow you may be gone, so make use of today. i was constantly battling rumors that andy card was leaving the white house. but he was making a very important point to the white house staff. remember what a privilege it is to be where you are. take advantage of it. remember you are a custodian of the position. the one moment that sticks in my memory for this was january 20, 2009. basically, the white house aunties out. it is inauguration day.

it is a fabulous day in the recurring cycle of the history of our country. especially if there is a change of parties. up until 11:59, one bunch is in charge of the apparatus of government, and a minute later, it is somebody completely different. and you feel it when you are in the white house. when you are coming or going, you feel it very, very keenly, just by the physical presence. the white house had a couple of days before been bustling and was now almost completely empty. the painters were in. the carpenters were in, redoing it the way the obama folks wanted it. they were going to be showing up in a matter of hours. i wandered down to the oval office to visit with the president for the first time. i said to him, as i said most

mornings, some appreciation of the privilege of serving, to remind myself. he said, it has been the greatest privilege and human being can have. the last exchange i had with president bush in the oval office -- it is something i think all of us ought to keep in mind as we approach public service. >> the constitution is a wonderful document, but it really is an invitation. you accept obligations. it is an invitation to be part of government. the most powerful word in the constitution is the first word, we, and it is all inclusive. to accept the invitation or be given the invitation, which i could accept, is that article to is a phenomenal gift and a great privilege.

the most rewarding activity as chief of staff was to understand how difficult the job is. presidents do not have the luxury of making easy decisions. if they have made an easy decision, the chief of staff did not do his or her job. they may brutally tough decisions. they have to make them with confidence, because you do not want a pessimist making the decision. you do want them -- you do not want them to say, i am making a bad decision right now. they are brutally tough. they are very, very controversial. but there is an expectation it will live up to expectation. i have watched presidents make brutally tough decisions. there are no tougher decisions than to send young men and women into harms way.

there are sacrifices the president would never invite on anyone. it is a brutally tough decision. it was a privilege to witness how those decisions get made. i did not agree with every decision the presidents i served made. i can honestly say i respected how they made the decisions, and i hope comfortable in implementing the decisions they made. >> i had wonderful experiences working for congress. i work for a democrat member of congress for my hometown. he was chairman of the rules committee. 16 years in the rules committee. 19 years in the senate will stop -- in the senate. in the late 1990's, when we were in negotiations on budget and tax policy -- i remember it was a friday afternoon.

he was trying to squeeze me for a little bit more money. i said, we cannot do it. the budget chairman in the senate -- the chairman said, not another nickel for anything. this is it. erskine bowles called. balance the budget while cutting taxes. that is the moment i will always remember the finest. >> there are some gratifications that our intellectual and some that are emotional.

one of the things i will always cherish, that understand -- that underscores the privilege of having been chief of staff, was to go to europe with george herbert walker bush in 1989. the soviet was beginning to public -- to crumble. to see the president catalyzing a more aggressive transition into this new sense of freedom, and to see how artfully and deftly he handled this transition so there was no backlash on gorbachev, who himself was catalyzing the >> to see how artfully and deftly he handled this transition so that there is no backlash on gorbachev.

>> the second panel is going to be moderated by susan page. it is a great panel. we want to encourage everyone to keep sending questions and comments via social media. we will have about a 10 minute break. please join me in thanking this excellent panel for their comments and their service. [applause]

no, don't say screw them. let's hit them with some rhetorical eloquence. my friends, our purple mountains with ram part red glare, white with foam and justice for all fruity demrames galantly streaming from sea to shining sea with a shining city on a shining hill above a shining praire and maybe some

shiny tree and a few slubs, i see a shiny america. >> watch this white house orrespondent's dinner. live saturday night on c-span.

>> this night we take a step, a positive step. and the people watching us on television tonight and reading about their congress tomorrow and seeing that we were able to ct, not perfectly but in a bipartisan fashion to try to take a step towards fiscal

responsibility, fiscal stability, and yes caring for those who most need our help in this country. so i urge my colleagues as the leader of my party in this congress urged us to support this legislation. not as a democrat, not as a republican, but as an american ho understands that our people believe that action is necessary. and i would urge all of us as we close this debate to do so in a way that brings us together not drive us apart. that reaches out to the best in us, not to the partisan in us. mr. speaker, it is time for this congress to come together, address this issue, and act

together. and pass this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. movement. [applause] >> thanks, michael. when it came time for israeli choose a new ambassador to the united states, he selected one

of his closest and most trusted advisers, someone who had a deep understanding of both israel and the united states. someone who has dedicated his life to serving the state of israel and promoting strong u.s. -israeli relations. he was born and raised in miami beach florida, a city where his late father and his brother both served as mayor. co-authored the best-selling book, the case for the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror, which is been translated into 10 languages. serving, he became senior advisor to prime minister netanyahu. in this capacity he was labeled as his brain by tablet magazine.

decemberd his post in 2013 and resides here with his wife and their five children. mr. ambassador, it is our honor to have you here today. [applause] >> thank you. i have to say, that is the strangest texas accent that i have ever heard. [laughter] it is a pleasure to be here today. wide and veryery narrow. it is like the opposite of israel. i suppose the podium should be facing this way. i understand you will be giving an award to bill burns. complement ato person in his presence. that is not something we do in israel. let me say that bill burns

aoves that you can be first-rate diplomat and a first-class mensch. i think it is great that we're awarding him this today. i thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, to use today, particularly today -- as many of you know, today is holocaust remembrance day in israel. on this day, the jewish state remembers the most horrific. in the history of the jewish people. it is a day when we reflect on the past and recommit ourselves to making sure that the phrase "never again" is not merely an empty cliche. is also time to recognize that the condition of the jewish people is fundamentally different than it was 75 years ago on the eve of the holocaust. differention is not because there is no longer hatred towards the jewish people . you see that hatred every day.

use it in the iranian regime's o wipe israel off the map. you see it in genocidal treatment of hamas against israel. you see it in the actions of modern-day nazis in kansas city. the hatred is there. it is there despite the hopes of the founder of modern zionism, theodore hurt so. erzel. he was a man whose vision turned him pretty much into a modern-day prophet. on this point, that hatred for the jewish people would and with the birth of the jewish state, he was mistaken. in fact, history has turned what he thought on its head. 100 years ago, people thought

that by establishing a jewish state, you and hatred towards the jewish people. now there are those who believe that you dismantle the jewish state you will stop hatred towards the jewish people. in the 1920's and 1930's and throughout the first half of the 20th century, with the anti-semites set in europe was that jews should go to palestine. the anti-semites say is jews get out of palestine. this hatred did not change with the birth of the state of israel. the birth of the state of israel enameled the jewish people to fight this hatred. in that sense, israel fundamentally transformed the condition of the jewish people. providing the by jewish people with two things they did not have on the eve of the holocaust. important, is the capacity to defend ourselves. the capacity to defend ourselves.

why israel reason exists today. it is often said that the human created the state of israel. that is false. the newfound army of the jewish state defended israel against attack. all the declarations of united nations would not have helped the jewish people one iota if israel had lost that war of independence or lost any or, for that matter. what is protected to jewish state has been the capability of the jewish people to defend themselves. that has enabled us to build the remarkable country that we have .oday after 66 years we are a global high-tech power, a pioneer in medicine and science, a leader in the world in agriculture, in water. those of you who have been to that we are a place

teeming with innovation and culture and creativity. i tell people i go to israel, i say you better buckle and and get ready for the ride, because israel is the most intense place on the planet. israelis go to manhattan to unwind. [laughter] israel is an exciting place. we built that because we have the capability to defend ourselves. there's a reason why we have been able to navigate israel through some very choppy seas in the last few years, very choppy seas, at a time in the middle east has seen bloodshed and violence everywhere. israel has remained an island of stability and calm. i think that is a credit to the robustness of israel's military strength and also to the prudent leadership of the prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu. along with this capacity for

self defense, we also have something else we did not have 75 years ago on the eve of the holocaust. we have a voice. ,he jewish people have a voice and you hear that voice sometimes when a prime minister of israel speaks at the united nations, or when an israeli ambassador like me or my counterparts at the world of the privilege of speaking in the world's capitals. but in speaking out for israel and for the rights of the jewish people, we are not alone. here is why i come to you, to this organization, the adl. as you heard, i was born and raised in miami beach, florida. my mother was born in pre-state israel. i can't tell you, somehow, all is adl newsletters were strewn all across the house. i would turn over to the latest bulletin and the latest newsletter. iron member reading them a lot. i learned something about the adl. you're talking -- you taught me

something important very early on. you taught me that in defending the rights of the jews, you're defending the rights of everybody else. year, decade after decade, under the remarkable leadership of abe foxman and many others, we are not letting you go. that your swansong last for a few decades, not a few months. and theur leadership leadership of many people in this room, you have raised your voice loudly to defend the rights of the jews and to defend the rights of everybody who is facing discrimination and persecution. i am here today, first and foremost, to say thank you. i couldn't think of a better day to express that thanks than on holocaust memorial day. thank you for giving meaning to by words "never again"

making clear that you will never be silent again. briefly, before i get your questions, about two challenges that israel is facing. first, the need to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons, and secondly, israel's unyielding pursuit of peace. program, whichar is by far the single most important issue facing israel. i know sometimes all these issues are thrown at you. you watch the news cycle and one day something is happening in syria and wendy is egypt and now it is a pact between hamas and the palestinian authority. in israel we have her eyes very focused on the ball. the single greatest challenge israel faces is iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. let me state for a clearly what israel's policy is. our policy is simple. only a peaceful nuclear program and nothing more .

that is israel's policy. the truth is, we all know that iran does not need a peaceful nuclear program. iran is awash in oil and gas. if iran's regime would stop rudely repressing its own people, stop helping assad slaughtered tens of thousands of civilians, stop perpetrating terror attacks across the globe, stop leaving mass chance of , stop calling,a as it does over and over for the annihilation of israel. stop arming terror groups to fire thousands of rockets ethnicities. in short, if iran stops being a rogue, terrorist regime, then they can take advantage of all their wonderful natural resources to their heart's delight. --ll, if the policy demands if diplomacy demands that iran have a peaceful nuclear program, then so be it. there are 17 countries around the world that have peaceful

nuclear energy. they don't enrich uranium on their soil. they don't stockpile enriched uranium, they don't have underground enrichment bunkers. they don't have heavywater facilities. iran needs none of these things, none of them. yet it insists on having them. you know why? because iran is not interested in peaceful nuclear energy. iran wants nuclear weapons. in the p5 plus one, the leading powers and international keepnity must not let iran its nuclear weapons infrastructure. its capability to produce nuclear weapons. deal it should be acceptable to the international community is one which fully dismantles iran's nuclear weapons capability. one more thing that has to be dismantled. a lot of people are not talking about.

iran is developing icbms. the missiles iran has can artie read 12 yard israel. already reach israel. the only reason anyone needs an icbm is to carry a nuclear warhead. cartoons to put tnt on an icbm. in the real world, icbms carry nuclear payloads. if iran wants what it says it wants, a peaceful nuclear program, and it has no need for icbms, no need for them at all. them,n insists on keeping then the jig is up. iran's icbms are not a smoking gun, they're the smoking missile . they tell you everything you want to know and need to know. about is very concerned

the current discussions with the wrong, because all signs point to the p5 plus one accepting a withthat would leave iran a nuclear weapons making capability essentially intact, and not even address iran's ballistic missile program. the deal that is now being considered would leave iran with thousands of centrifuges, thousands of kilos of enriched facilityand heavywater and an advanced missile program. such a deal would effectively leave iran as a threshold nuclear power. at best, a few months away from having the fissile material necessary to build a nuclear weapon. such a deal would be a much worse situation than we have today. because iran is not to three months away from having a material, they are under tremendous pressure because of

the sanctions. after a deal, they would be only marginally further away from getting that fissile material, but the pressures on them would be drastically reduced. to interim deal was supposed have iran take a tiny step back in exchange for what was hoped would be a small reduction of the sanctions. israel appreciates the fact that the obama administration is doing everything it can to try to make sure that the sanctions regime did not unravel. they are working very hard to prevent this from happening, and we appreciate it. but an agreement with the p5 plus one itself would willingly unravel the sanctions regime against iran in return for iran

parking a short distance away from having the fissile material necessary for a nuclear weapon would be a terrible mistake. it would leave iran as a threshold nuclear power and leave the world on the threshold of an abyss. it might prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon today, but it would ensure that iran has a nuclear weapon tomorrow. that must not be allowed to happen. iran's nuclear weapons it ability and long-range missile capability must be fully dismantled. that is israel's position, and it will not change. the prime minister yesterday spoke and was as clear as he could be. i encourage you to read exactly what he said. this nuclear weapons capability must be fully dismantled. let me address in a couple of minutes israel's impasse with the palestinians and explain israel's position regarding the recent pact that president abbas signed with hamas. hamas is an unreformed terrorist organization.

unreformed terrorist organization. it openly calls for israel's destruction, is committed for israel's destruction. it has sent thousands of bombs to our discotheques, our buses. hamas denies the holocaust, and its charter calls for the murder of jews worldwide. calls for the murder of jews worldwide. three years ago hamas condemned the united states for killing osama bin laden, and two weeks ago -- some of you read this -- hamas praised the murder of an israeli who was gunned down with

his car while driving to a seder. that is hamas. it said you make peace with enemies. that is a completely facile statement. you make deals with people who want peace. hamas has not changed. it has now recognize israel's right to exist. it has not abandoned terrorism. if hamas does recognize israel's right to exist, if it renounces terrorism, it would be a different story. then hamas would no longer be hamas. it has not done any of those things. because of that, the palestinian unity is not a unity for peace, it is a unity against peace. israel will not initiate peace with the palestinian government

backed by hamas. it does not matter to israel if the government that is established after this agreement is a technocratic government that will serve as a front that says all the right things. if hamas is in the back office, israel will not be at the negotiating table, period. [applause] we have said for a long time that the problem with the palestinian leadership is half is committed to israel's destruction and the other half is not willing to confront that half.

last week president abbas went from not confronting hamas to breaking hamas. yes to choose peace with israel or a pact with hamas. he chose hamas. if president abbas chooses peace, we can go back to the negotiating table, and israel wants peace. we are committed to it. we want a solution of two states for two peoples. the prime minister is fully committed to it. he has made sacrifices to achieve it, and will continue to make the tough decisions necessary to a dance piece, but we need a partner committed to peace and not one which is making a pact with hamas. israel faces enormous challenges, and there is much concern in this room and other rooms throughout america and throughout the world, how will israel navigate the very rough seas ahead?

on this day, let's keep things in perspective. the parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents of virtually everyone in this room would have done anything to trade their problems with ours. today the jewish people are no longer a powerless people. today we have a jewish state. today we have an army that can defend that state. and israel is not alone. we have the support of so many friends around the world, especially in this great country, the united states. friends who know israel's cause is just. the jewish people have weathered the worst that history can throw at us. we will weather this storm as well. on this holocaust day, as we remember this horrific past, as we recommit ourselves to the fight against anti-semitism, racism, discrimination, all forms of prosecution, we should stand tall and very proud because we are uniquely blessed, a uniquely blessed generation. best the united states of america, the country that has been the greatest force for good in the history.

we are blessed to have the united states as the preeminent power of the world, and we are blessed to have jewish sovereignty in modern time, and with a renewed hope for secure and peaceful jewish future. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. we have a few questions from the audience. first question is, what is the likelihood of numerous other countries obtaining nuclear weapons if iran gains nuclear capability, and how does that play into the strategy for the united states and israel? >> i think it is a huge concern, not something that i mentioned here today, but certainly it would basically turn all the nuclear proliferation efforts -- you would essentially in attempting to stop one country from getting nuclear weapons, by leaving iran as a nuclear power, you would open up a pandora's box.

if you just allowed a country that has violated six u.n. security council resolutions on its nuclear program, to be a threshold nuclear power, to have the right to enrich uranium on its soil, how can you go to any country and tell them you cannot enrich uranium on your soil? every country will demand that right. it is important to understand the idea behind the peaceful spread of nuclear energy was to essentially prevent countries from domestically enriching uranium. there are two paths to building

a nuclear weapon. if iran does not have a heavy water facility, it does not have a plutonium path. there's also a uranium path, and the way you can be sure that iran will not have a nuclear weapon is to not allow it the ability to enrich uranium on its soil. if you cede that to iran, i know the people of iran at a very young age talk about life, liberty, and the right to enrich uranium. if you leave the iranian people with this ability to enrich uranium, you will see many countries throughout the world, certainly in the middle east, that will demand that right, and how are you going to prevent them from having it? what are you going to say to them? you left the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world with the ability to enrich uranium, so you will stop other countries?

i will not name the countries that will do it, but you will see at least three or four in the middle east and you will see a few countries beyond. that is why we are very concerned. i will say one other thing about it. nuclear proliferation is not the most important concern we have, because we have a regime in iran that is openly calling for our destruction. and people put the threat of nuclear proliferation as the number one concern, i am a little puzzled, unsure that they are not fully determined to prevent this threat, because when my neighbor across the street says he is going to kill me, my big concern when that ak-47 is shipped in the mail to him is not that my other neighbors are going to get ak-47's as well. our concern with iran is unique because iran calls for our destruction. the nature of the regime matters. remember this as well. if all of what you had in north korea would move 50 miles to the south, no one would lose any

sleep over it. all nuclear proliferation is bad, but it makes a different whether holland has nuclear weapons or a country like iran has nuclear weapons. [applause] >> a question about domestic issues in israel. what is israel doing to aid and assist its israeli arab citizens? >> to aid and assist? israeli arab citizens are -- i talked about uniquely blessed -- they are uniquely blessed to live in a free country. israeli arabs enjoy the rights that no other arabs in the region enjoy, and they can be full members of israeli society. i think israel should not be embarrassed of what has happened in the last 65 years regarding israeli arabs. we should be proud, because we have built a thriving democracy. it is not perfect. you always have room for improvement. in all societies on earth, you can always improve it.

israel understands something -- israel should not be judged by the standards of dictatorships. you are a democracy and should be judged by those standards. judge israel by the standards of a democracy that is threatened. israel is the most threatened nation on the face of the earth. the fact that we have been able to build this vibrant democracy in the face of all these threats is astounding, and the only way i can explain it in current american terms, remember the feeling in the united states on september 12, the day after the attacks on september 11. remember the concern you had for security, and also where should you draw the line between security and civil liberties, and over time that debate changes. as you feel secure, your demands change. understand something, israel has

been in september 12 for 66 years. for 66 years. not only will i not apologize for israel's record, i am very proud of israel's record and we will continue to work to improve that record. we will continue every day to try to be better, to be a better democracy, as the united states says, to be a more perfect union. the wild allegations against israel are false, should be challenged, should be rejected, and we should be proud of the country we have dealt. -- built. [applause] >> thank you.

the question of settlements and construction in israel he settlements on the west bank has an outside importance in the media. could you comment on the public relations and communications challenges posed by the settlement question? >> it is a big challenge, because if you repeat something over again, it becomes conventional wisdom. there used to be people who would say that the reason why you have problems in the middle east is because israelis and palestinians have not resolve their conflict. you remember that? that was the reason, the core of the problem of the middle east. there were serious people who would stand before podiums like this and make that type of statement. now, since the events of last two years in the middle east, not a single person on the planet -- maybe a few people who believe that, i do not. i have not encountered many of them. i think there are probably still communists sitting in certain departments in some universities somewhere. it is not a serious argument. when it comes to settlements, settlements are something that have to be resolved.

andre him and him him and him >> israel spend the p stocks with him and him and

him building, the jewish people building it in these territories is not a crime. i hear that, and it sort of makes my led oil. that a jew would build an apartment in israel and it was supposed to be some kind of war crime.

we are privileged to have four of washington's most respected thinkers and analysts on u.s. policy in the region. he served under secretary of state clinton as deputy assistant secretary of state, where she was central to organizing the u.s. government's response to the arab spring's. she is the author of -- and editor of "how israelis and palestinians negotiate, a cross troll analysis of the peace process." robert is the director of -- at the washington institute. an expert on arab and islamic apologists as well as u.s. middle east policy, he has written and spoken widely on the arab israeli peace process, and the need to revamp u.s. public diplomacy in the middle east. he is the author and editor of numerous books, including the battle of ideas on the war on terror. elliott abrams, senior federal for middle eastern studies --

senior fellow for middle eastern studies. he held several important positions, including deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser where he supervised u.s. policy in the middle east. he was also an assistant secretary of state in the reagan administration and was the author of four books, including undue process, security and sacrifice, and the bush administration and the israeli-palestinian conflict. jeffrey goldberg has covered the middle east for bloomberg, the atlantic, and a staff writer of the new yorker and new york times magazine. of his coverage has taken him to afghanistan, to pakistan, where he lived for months. the he traveled and other egypt and to israel, gaza, and the west bank. here perhaps -- he has interviewed president obama on policy numerous times. most recently in a widely read

to our interview published on the eve of prime minister netanyahu recent visit to washington. we are also delighted to have the bureau chief of the jewish telegraph agency. ron covers these issues in the halls of government day in and day out. it is a must-read and is important to us in the jewish community. thank you all for being with us today. i turn it over to you. >> thank you. this is working. i appreciate the idea of starting things with a heap rest. -- with a deep breath.

speaking of places that can use a few downward facing dog's, we are going to go to the middle east. the theme of our talks was going to be -- i talked about this with stacy who runs the washington office. why is iran simply working -- why are the talks between u.s. and iran seemingly advancing while talks between u.s. and the palestinians are on the verge of collapse or at least in crisis? i wanted to start with the israeli-palestinian talks with the panelists. of it seems to be there is a pattern. you sought in camp david and in 2008. it becomes clear what agreement is going to look like and that is precisely the moment where the sides retreat from the agreement.

over the past couple of weeks he had these incredible expressions of frustration from all sides. yesterday you had john kerry reportedly saying that israel could be heading towards an apartheid state if it doesn't advance to a two state solution. what structurally is frustrating this process? is it possibly not a solvable crisis. i thought i would start with elliott abrams. it might make sense for him to address it. >> thank you all for inviting me today. there is a structural problem. i will tell you what it is. the palestinians won't sign. of that is the strip drug problem. they got a very significant offer in the days when arafat was a leader. they got a more generous offer at the end of 2008. they can't get to yes.

that is a structural problem. i would say it is not a matter of the details of this agreement. i do not think the president is ever going to sign anything. he is more attentive for other reasons to his internal political situation. we make this joke about being in the 90 or of his four-year term. this is probably the 10th time they have announced elections. the problem is we have continued under three presidents over the last 20 years to go for the great agreement -- the greater

agreement on the white house lawn rather than building palestinian institutions from the ground up. we should stop pushing it so hard and turned to the hard work of building a palestinian state that someday could be worth having. >> you work for a president who thought the palestinians could get to yes.

maybe it wasn't possible at that time. can you get the palestinians to yes? >> thanks for the invitation. it's really a treat to be with you. i think elliott is right to focus on the domestic politics as the obstacle. i think that does not necessarily lead us to the conclusion that they will never sign. we had several failed rounds of negotiation with iran. we worked hard for many years in multiple administrations to shift the incentive structure for iran and ultimately to shift domestic politics in a way that made these negotiations -- i think what we have to look at is how put -- how to mystic politics might shift.

i think a lot of work has been done to build those structures. some of it has suffered in the past year or so. part of the reason it has rolled back is because along with the institutions you need a political horizon. the premise of this institution building paradigm is that it will prepare palestinians for statehood and there will be a political process alongside the institution building. what has happened is we have somehow let palestinian politics be frozen in place. this has all been frozen. if this reconciliation agreement goes forward, it will be a restarting of domestic politics that to some extent will be necessary in order to make israeli-palestinian negotiations more fruitful. >> the reconciliation is also one -- your institute has written a lot about the horizon and a lot about the

institutions. can those two things be reconciled the echo can you have a hamas reconciliation on one hand with the peace process going on the other? >> let me thank everybody here for the work they do with abl. i am an enormous fan of abl. abl does a enormous work here and abroad. congratulations to everybody here. i think jeff and i have been honored by abl in the past. it has really been a privilege. you ask two different questions, first about the reconciliation agreement and second about top-down and bottom-up.

my view on this for many years is there is a choice, israelis make a choice, palestinians make a choice. the choices between unity on one hand or progress on the other. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot have that. and also have progress toward peace. you can have one or the other. look at the israeli example. are pushed forward by one vote. he made a choice, you can like it or don't like it. it was a choice that involves leadership. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot be the leader who leads to peace and the leader who leads to reconciliation. it will never happen. if you look at the 20 years that elliott just spoke about, we never quite got it right. elliott's experience is we did bottom-up very well until the big blip of the hamas election, which was a huge blip. and in the second part of the

second term we decided to go top-down. it was all top-down, no bottom-up. we never quite got this mix right.

the people who suffered for it are the israelis and palestinians. it is never too late to do the right thing. we just have to get the mix right. >> is it possible? ken prime minister benjamin netanyahu defeat his right-wing and can the islamist wing be defeated? how much longer is this administration going to beat up on this? how much longer are they going to put up with the battery they are taking? >> first of all let me not think the abl. enough already. there is obviously a split. the nsc staff blames a couple of things.

one they believe kerry is to conciliatory or accommodating. they also believe there really is no point, not only for the fact the doubt netanyahu possibility or willingness to move forward, there was not a lot of doubt in investing time in the process. of john kerry is the most optimistic man in the world. i started in the traditional and save journalistic posture of the inning very cynical about his efforts. i am still cynical about some of the tactics and ideas but i am not cynical about the mp is doing this.

i can say, without saying, that i know as of this weekend he still believes there are some hurdles you have to get over. it is somewhere in the middle between what the white house thinks and what john kerry thinks. he really wants to let john kerry run with this. this week has been a moment where i think he's getting ready to tell kerry. seriously than for africa tomorrow. that is good from their perspective. very quickly on your two other points, i have heard this inside the u.s. government. he has an effective veto over what netanyahu does.

sharon was in the unilateral engagement. he understood because he could bring a lot of people with him to form a new party that part of him -- i don't think they are under any illusions about who is going to follow him if he actually has to leave his party. although massimo is a very nice man. -- he is a very nice man. i don't see any willingness or desire to do what roberts is talking about. if you want to get on the train, you get on the train, if you want to get off, you get off. he was to retire as the unifier of the malice anime people -- of the palestinian people. >> john kerry does have a bit of a realist and him because he got himself a dog and all these processes were underway in washington.

if you don't have any friends, just get yourself a dog. it is called diploma. >> in that sense, in the absence of -- i am connecting your faithfulness to the government. in a sense of not immediately having horizon, in which you talk about the building from the

bottom up, what can be done the what are the modalities of building from the bottom up. >> i think the most serious near-term challenge of us in dealing with this reconciliation and the depth of the apparent impasse or near death experience is how they keep together the really remarkable security cooperation. slightly less and still economic cooperation between israelis and palestinians when they are fighting in a totally dysfunctional and political relationship. i think we take every that i think everybody in this room takes for granted that by and large, it is five years now -- that by and large it has been five years now since almost no terror in the west bank. we forget what used to be like.

there are three reasons why this is so. one because the idf still operates. let's not forget that. two, because hamas is not in the west bank. and three, israeli-palestinian security cooperation. it's a fact. we shouldn't think everything is black or white. either they are talking or they are working together from the political level down to the street. that is not the way the world works. can they keep us together and find a way to continue to build upon what exists? when will that fall apart? that follow us when that falls apart, that is much bigger. this is serious.

>> i think rob has hit on something very important, which is both israelis and palestinians and americans in the region now have to look at an environment on the ground with no ongoing political process and ask what is going to happen next. security cooperation is essential to tamping down -- we have daily things happening. in numerous provocations, any one of which in an environment without political process might cause further cooperation.

we now have statements back and -- might cause a broader conglagration. we now have statements back and forth. that creates an environment in where it is more difficult to keep the peace in the way laws requiring read i think it is time to take a pause from judgments and statements about what comes next. i think it is a moment in which israelis and palestinians have to look at what their future looks like without a negotiated peace. that is not something we can do for them. i fully expect this upcoming time will be one where palestinian reconciliation or not, this is going to be a. of -- this is going to be a time of ferment and debate. now they really are facing the future.

my colleague did a poll asking in detail what they hoped for and also what they expected we see in poll after poll that it is palestinians by majority still sporting a two state solution. we don't think that is going to happen. they were extremely skeptical. on both sides large majorities expected that if negotiations broke down they would be facing violence. i think this is a moment when it is important to focus on the

nitty-gritty of preventing violence. it is also a moment when these two peoples and their leaders have to think about their alternatives and what they want to do about it. it is a very tough moment. i think this is a moment when things might change a lot. >> there is a market for it anyway. >> there were no negotiations for four years for the obama first term. there was an outbreak of violence. i think violence tends to break down when the palestinian leadership wants them to. it did not come from the ground up. we know this from hamas. i am less afraid of a huge outbreak of violence. nothing can be done in the next few months.

they have done this before. they had an effort of coalition government. it has always failed. i think this will fail to because neither side wants it. it is obvious every pull wants to move to unity. it is not good for hamas. we are also afraid of what an election outcome might be like. they have to get back to some kind of political process. if i am right the political process isn't going anywhere either. i think with the israelis need to think about this year in particular is whether they want to do anything unilateral in the west bank. you had this proposal from michael warren. it takes you back and the sense of what won the election in 2006 -- whether we should make the move to spectator eight, b, c. it really becomes israel setting its order. it could be 50 years. israeli thinks to meet -- is really needs to think really hard about what they want to do. we call them parallel unilateral steps.

they try to make the situation better if you assume, as i do, that a final agreement is beyond reach. >> in the absence of palestinian violence it doesn't seem likely that israel he will be focused enough. much has been pointed out, it has been pretty good in israel due to the absence of terrorism.

it just seems there's no particular impetus and israeli's society to have that conversation that michael warren and others want israelis to have. >> i don't know. those in a pre-arab spring reality.

i don't see many israelis saying now is a good time to find more territory -- to seize more territory. it will inevitably be taken over by the most radical factions. in the new syria, sinai, gaza reality -- >> i don't really

disagree with that. think how different the world there would be it for 20 years united states had not been going for a final status, a comprehensive final status agreement. if instead we had been pushing the israelis to make the situation better. >> i don't think your views are necessarily contradictory. it is problematic. >> the idea of unilateralism is connected to the success or failure of the hamas conciliation. if it succeeds, you're absolutely right. if they can work with the palestinians in the way you implied between unilateral acts, you cut out hamas and work out arrangements, then that is a possibility. it would require two things,

which are regrettably a bit lacking. it would require two things, which are regrettably a bit lacking. creativity and leadership. and i don't say that as throwaway lines. regrettably if you look at israeli and palestinians, both creativity and leadership means taking risks in your own public opinion. we don't have an overabundance. >> i think what is underlying a lot of we have been saying -- a lot of what we have and saying in the last few minutes is parties are negotiating -- parties are focused on a negotiating process. what we have to do is shift and focus tightly on outcomes. ideally the outcome that has been the established goal of the united states since elliott was last in office, which is a two state solution. negotiations are probably the

best in terms of sustainability and so on. if negotiations cannot succeed in this environment, what are other things that could be done to advance the ball? this is important for the united states to think about what are things the two sides might do or others might do that would move it backwards? if the united states can focus and engagement in the parties be focused on that outcome, how do you preserve the possibilities of a two state outcome? and what you do to avoid sending things back? then i think this can be fruitful and we can avoid some of the worst potential consequences.

but if all we're thinking of is how we are going to get everyone back to the table, what is the shape of the table, what is the deadline for the table? then, i think we're going to be in the position elliott was describing. >> it's probably going to change your topic here. in my view, the single most think -- listen to most useful think united states can do is be effective elsewhere in the region. get a really good iran deal, get an end to the syria conflict, the effective, the new leader around the region. that will change the context for this entire discussion in a much more positive way. >> let's go back to the next topic, which is iran. the israeli prime minister said the major powers led by the united states should settle for nothing less than no nuclear enrichment, no uranium enrichment on iranian soil.

i think the conventional wisdom, actually think president obama has said this, there's likely going to be a capacity for enrichment as an outcome of these talks. they talk about a civilian level of enrichment around five percent. how you reconcile what happens if there is such an agreement he

echo does israel remain or was accelerate its aggressive posture towards iran? >> i don't give that question much thought because i don't think this is going anywhere, even though it has the facsimile of progress. i would like to see a situation in which iran is kept perpetually a year or more away from a nuclear breakout. i don't think that is going to happen. there has been any proof that the iranian leadership matters. the supreme leader, not the man he allowed to become president. i don't see any substantial rollback to his plans. if you are the supreme leader of iran he would not rollback. they are feeling a looseness in their economy. not as much as the critics would say that more than the administration would like. i think the six months we are in right now achieved half of president obama's goals.

first goal is to prevent iran from going nuclear and the and the second goal was to prevent israel from attacking iran. there is a link between the peace process in this end a logical sense. he doesn't run into reckless orders with hezbollah or hamas. i have written before the joe biden in particular, but kerry has also said this to him, joe biden does that wonderful way joe biden has.

said to netanyahu once, he was quoting his mother. he said don't nail yourself to a lot of small crosses, nail yourself to a really big cross. it is my understanding that netanyahu viewed that as setting. you have to set up these positions. he is not a big cross kind of guy. you don't see him taking a lot of action. the truth of the matter is obama won the initial round of the contest. netanyahu threatened him and threatened him to attack and he didn't. obama came in with this plan. is it possible netanyahu returns to a more aggressive posture?

yes. but i think the administration and the iranian leadership share a common purpose, which is to get to the end of 2016 or 2017. iran is latent or close to a nuclear site -- nuclear state. there's a chance this with the next president's problem in >> it sounded like a suspected there are tectonic shifts in iranian society. what do you think? >> this is an authoritarian

and let me clarify, because i think that is important. this is not an authoritarian dictatorship. when i say we should did domestic politics, i mean we should did the incentive for the supreme leader so much that he allowed a man to run for president that might not otherwise have allowed. that is significant. it allows this to take face. the discussions have been very suppurative. making lots of life -- nice noises and some that are less encouraging, and we will see where it goes. let me clear about what i think the limits are inside iran. my sense is that the administration and p5 plus 1 have a pretty clear idea of what a deal looks like that is acceptable that will do what jeffrey was describing, that will keep it at least a year away from breaking out. the premise of the negotiated -- negotiation is that would give

them time to respond or would give the u.s. time to respond militarily if necessary. whether that deal is achievable i think is a very open question. as jeffrey said, there is reason to be skeptical about what they are prepared to give up. think about it from the perspective of president obama looking across the middle east at a region that is in turmoil where major allies and partners of the united states that we have relied on for decades in our regional policy like egypt are deeply unstable and relationships are afraid, where regional allies are anxious about us, and our role there, because of the changes.

the end of the war in iraq, the drawdown of afghanistan, the tapering down of historically large american military presence and engagement in the region. growing energy independence. all of these factors are underlying the discussions over the iran issue, and other friends in the gulf over this issue. so it is about the nuclear negotiations, but what will keep the allies feeling stable and secure is not just specific terms in that deal if it is ever achieved. what will keep them feeling comfortable and secure it is manifesting a commitment to stability in the region and putting ourselves at risk. in the region in ways they feel they can rely on. >> two points. first, just maybe right. my general assessment is that as usual, i think jeff is right that president obama articulated a policy in office, which was no bomb on my watch. the iranians obliged. they made a calculus that we can make inroads in syria, win that war, inroads in iraq and do not quite go over the line on the nukes, and that is how we can get through the survivor administration. they would say it is ok because it meets the first principle, no bomb on my watch. everyone in this room should be on guard, because the day after they reach a deal -- rich domains will be in the exact same sentence for the very same people that will try to undermine us and bring us to war

in the middle east and the other leaders in the broader community of people who will say, wait a minute, this deal stinks. this is a deal that gets them enrichment. this is a deal that keeps the facility in the current position. this gives them research and development as far as the eye can see.

a deal that does not stop missile development. people, advocates for the deal will paint critics not as loyal citizens angry at order opposed

to the diplomatic achievement that they feel the administration snuck in, but rather as warmongers. the first sign of which we saw a few months ago. you can decide if you like this deal or do -- or do not like the deal, but if there is a deal, that scenario is coming. be prepared. >> jeffrey. unlike rob, i do not believe the administration will vote for a lousy deal. it just struck me that rob is talking about the long relationship. even more juice internationally. >> i wanted to take this question from the audience. what is the scenario of the talks break down and enhanced international action or retrenchment?

if the talks break down and there is no deal, you will obviously see more sanctions? that is to be expected. the more fateful question is that the talks break down, israel will strike iran. the boxing and jeff spoke about is a boxing in by the diplomatic process in sanctions. if negotiations fail, sanctions failed. after all, meant to force them to sign a deal. if the sanctions fail to do

that, iran continues the nuclear weapons program, you have a very fateful decision and the hands of the nuclear program. i get the percentage chance that israel will strike, a bit higher than i think jeff thinks it is. i think netanyahu came close to ordering this in the summer 2012 but he had american opposition. he also did not have the consensus in the israeli security establishment. it the talks -- if the talks break down, -- iran is making progress in the missile program. making progress on mastering the second generation of centrifuges.

making progress in the various sites. pursuing a plutonium route. it talks break down, i think you will see that consensus row, and indeed, there were public statements this weekend. both of which said we may have to act. they were not viewed as hotheads. they were not in favor a couple of years ago of an israeli strike. so, to me, the problem that is more likely is they do reach a deal. and if it's a crummy deal. i want to say, i think rob is exactly right because we have seen it already. we have heard the word thrown around. you know what you will get. but you will get it much more broadly. you will get it from parts of the jewish immunity, the most disgusting piece of this. if you have american jewish leaders saying this is a really bad deal and a deal that is not

really going to prevent iran from getting closer and closer and closer to being able to turn around and announce a bomb. remember how poor our intelligence record is. on the russian bomb, chinese bomb, pakistani bomb, north korean bomb. remember what the cia discovered about the syrian nuclear reactor. nothing. >> i just was going to say on what if negotiations collapsed? i think it matters very much how they fall apart. enticing parts of the gain for the united states is managing that. if it looks like the negotiations have come to a standstill.

because it is important to maintain sanctions and strengthen sanctions, and we know those most effective are the multilateral sanctions and particularly those that engage countries that deal with iran, so if we have to do that, we need those guys on site and we want them to fail in such a way that it is clear to the party, and that is part of the challenge for the united states as it plays this out.

i think that actually what we have got so far is the u.s. working very hard to keep israel and gulf allies very closely informed for every in stage of my -- every stage of the talks. so i understand the scenario that robin elliott are painted. i also do not think it will be as polarized as american politics. we are facing historically high levels of reluctance by the american public to engage in foreign affairs in any way. that is something we all have to recognize with. as a foreign-policy professional that is something i find troubling. american public opinion is actually outside of that general renaissance or isolationism or whatever you want to call it.

the american politics -- public has been educated they have no warm feelings dating back to the revolution and that there are boards and all of that. i think the american public understands this is a country that not only on the nuclear issue but a range of other issues is a problem for international security. a problem for american security. so i just do not see it playing out quite the way that has been described. it is not serious. it is different. >> jeffrey, you took a hit for suggesting this president would go to a military solution if that is what it came to. do you still think that? >> i do. i think there are two conditions the president would use military force on iran. the first is this we discovered that iran is building secret -- secret nuclear facilities.

again, elliott is one of those people who has given me hit for suggesting it. but i endorse what elliott said is that when the administration said we will know. no we will not. it is only by luck we know anything. so if we discover they are doing something in a subterranean fashion, then i cannot imagine a situation in which the president would not order a strike on the new facility and possibly others. iran is probably too smart to do that and probably too smart to do the other thing that would prompt a strike, which is to go to overt breakout, to pick out -- kick out inspectors after the collapse. to rush toward a bomb. i cannot imagine a situation in which the administration would not respond with military force. this is why, i think both parties, the administration and iranians have a proud interest in perpetuating the talks, because i think they do

understand. does obamas word mean anything into we have determined capability? i think they still believe that is possible, which is why they are engaged in the process in the first place. i think that is why they will be engaged as long as possible. i think if for some reason they miscalculated and did something crazy, then i see no reason why they would hesitate to launch a limited strike on those facilities. i think there is a very serious possibility of it a miscalculation here. a very serious calculation. the general view that people in the middle east have taken or

what happened last summer in syria is the president walked away at the last minute without informing allies. it is subject to the interpretation or others that he will do a drum strike -- drone strike but will not do much more than that and will not attack us because that would be a pretty serious thing. the president has said this many times, so forcefully that it looks as if the iranians are headed for a bomb on his watch he has to stop them, although there is an alternate way of stopping them, which is to say maybe time for the israelis to act. i think it is quite possible the iranians that has what if you about us and what they think of us, you know the ayatollah hates us, it is possible i think that they might draw the conclusion they are safe and can cheat. look at the chlorine gas. what is the american reaction? stop using chemical weapons. what is our reaction? nothing.

i think the chance of miscalculation on the iranian part is really quite serious. >> in terms of a breakdown, what is also interesting and the question asked, enhanced action when the talks started actually means -- meant something quite different because of changes with russia and other geopolitical factors. the obama administration has always said the value taking its time to come to the state and has built an international consensus. does the consensus matter now? >> i do not think we have seen in practical terms the russians often their engagement in the

process or stance within the process. it is clear there are a lot of things we have to reevaluate about russia's foreign-policy and attitudes towards its neighborhoods in toward the world. but i think on this one we have not seen evidence of their reevaluating or evidence of using the nuclear issue as leverage against us on other things. does not mean we should not worry about the possibility. and if indeed that happens, the process will not survive that i think.

but let's work on countries acting in their interest. the issue has been to be a player. they have engage with iranians, nuclear cooperation as we know and that times have pulled back or put constraints on the cooperation. they want to be at the table and bf the player -- table. i do not anticipate they will take themselves out of the process to spite us. >> i will book -- go to questions. bring them up to me when you can. a lot of them were asked to me when the palestinian/israeli part of the talk. we have one question here for each panelist. if it were up to you, and i am presuming this relates to israel/palestine, what is the next actionable step? what does one do next in terms

of advancing the crisis? >> you mean from the american perspective? i mean i prefer to answer from the israeli perspective. i do not have the same phobia of our unilateralism that a lot of people do. i like the ideas about partial unilateralism or taking israel's -- israel is taking their faith into their own hands and not waiting for someone else to tell them. for the u.s., it is an interesting question. is it better to have the peace process or not have the peace process cap go i think it is better to have a level of engagement than to have no engagement. so i worry about president obama's mood on this. he does not feel he can do -- i do not know this because he has said this, i believe it to be so. if he had his druthers, he would use more overt pressure to get him to shut down settlements.

he does not want to spend that kind of a local capital them either before or after november. because of his frustration and an ability to maneuver israelis him at the first time they thought all we have to do is tell them to do x, y, and z and did not do it. i think his tendency we have seen from statements and mainly from inside the white house come the tendency to walk away from this, and i do not think that it's a healthy thing. i would prefer the secretary of state -- i think a set of his ideas are good and a set are little less than fantastical. that is not an insulting thing that has maybe an overly rosy view of a willingness to move ahead.

i would love to see in the absence of progress huge amounts of efforts going into making sure the west bank is as nice a place to live as possible, because bad things were happening. >> we will come back to this topic tomorrow. >> can i take 30 seconds before the time? i sort of made a promise to myself that in front of jewish audiences i would not let it go without at least 30 seconds on the urgency of our community speaking up and speaking more actively and urgently on the need for action for syria. our community tends to look at the conflict as a great warp. -- war. may it last to the last man standing. that is so wrong. today after we have just

recognized not to make any comparisons. today of all days we should recognize there is a path to genocide in syria. and it is being governed by bashar al-assad and as long as he is able to use gas against his citizens, gas against kids, then we do nothing about it, which i regret to say american policy is to feed, clothe and take care of refugees when they get out of the country, but to do very little to actually stop the death inside syria. we of all people have a responsibility to speak up. there are thousands of kids eating parked in syria today. this should not be happening. we actually have the power to stop it. about one single american soldier getting in foul -- involved on the ground in serious. so do not believe the lies about the false choice between an activity or having to send the 82nd airborne in to solve it.

that is wrong. do not believe it. do not sit for it. so we can go on if you would like, but i apologize. we have not talked about. today. [applause] very important. >> can you top that? >> no. when i first started working in this town i was working for congress. we put together -- it is ok. thanks for that. >> kind of a zombie now. >> we put together an incredible coalition of muslims and jews to support american engagement and

-- in the genocide in gaza. it was powerful, and it pushed back on a lot of the same ideas of people killing each other for centuries and nothing we can do about it or it is a slippery slope. so i want to endorse what rob just said. on the israeli-palestinian issue him we talked about unilateralism, and i guess i am more skeptical that it represents something viably within political and in terms of creating a sustainable situation between israelis and palestinians. and i understand the attraction of the idea for israelis of establishing the borders of their states, but i think it would be very painful for israelis as well, because it

would involve uprooting people. that comes at a cost, and we talked a lot about why they are unpalatable. i also think there is a big question about it in terms of the idf and if you are withdrawing, what is being withdrawn? if it is just israeli civilians being withdrawn amid that they will continue to operate freely on both sides of whatever line is strong, then i think you have to ask a lot of questions about whether this could be a positive step in the israeli is -- israeli-palestinian dynamic. i think it is a challenge. i think it is important to note this is not the only alternative to driving for comprehensive

final status agreement. it is possible to think about something less like another interim agreement. i would argue that it's also very difficult. you could look at ad hoc agreements on specific issues where israel and the palestinians do have strong incentives to cooperate on things like water and energy that the -- deeply affect the quality of life for people and the economic viability. i do not think one should exclude any agreement if one gives up on the comprehensive final status agreement. >> i am a little surprised at what he said. it seems to me that the settlements that entangle israel in the lives of palestinians to a greater degree than idf activity on the ground, most of which is designed to protect those isolated settlements.

you have two guys on a hill and a battalion operating in the palestinian areas around it to protect those three guys on the hill. and a tape -- that you could take to disentangle. if you could pull out the settlers, unless the soldiers, we would not have had the rockets. quite the level of entitlement and therefore hatred. -- entanglement. >> the rockets that came out of gaza would be a threat. also, if you pulled the idea the high and security fence. >> i am thing start the process of disentanglement with the billions first. >> elliott has been put on this because he was part of that position. >> the notion that you could

have sensibly withdrawn all israelis from gaza does not make sense. a couple of thousand, 5000 troops protecting nothing, no juice left. what are they doing? the west bank is different. i want to turn to settlements. i think the obama administration has miserably mishandled the settlement issue from the very beginning with george mitchell, who is a disaster. disaster by obsessing over the adult -- issue with settlements. >> bill burns and i are good old friends. >> my dear friends george mitchell is an idiot. >> politically. most israelis, something like 80% thinks that building in jerusalem is obviously going to keep -- a sensible thing to do. and about eight percent of israeli -- 80% have very mixed views or confusing views. if the united states took possession we believe construction should be limited to the major blocks in his -- chilean -- jerusalem, we would have extremely wide support for any prime minister.

to do that, to restrain settlement construction beyond the fence. instead the position we have

taken is that construction is the same. the tiny a settlement in the west banks. there is about an 80% or 90% or 100% unity among israelis that they should be building. a wide consensus. we help the settler movement a great deal. we helped them. that was not what the administration meant to do and did not know what it was doing. i do think that restraining settlement destruction -- beyond the view is -- fence is smart. in my own view i would like to see them pulled back inside the fence. i think it is not possible for this coalition today to do that. it is possible to think of many

coalitions in israeli politics that could do that, and the problem we have created, frankly, we created it. they negotiated when there was lots of settlement construction. we are the people who create a mock underboss -- machmuda boss. so this was a crisis in a sense over settlement construction. it did not need to happen that the government, the american government created. now we have put them in a difficult situation. i have to tell you netanyahu does not want to talk about this. he is restraining settlement construction beyond the fence. there are lots of complaints from people from the settler movement and people living beyond the fence. we want to build a new this and that and cannot get permission. everything is very slow. he is in fact not restraining construction. the government is slowing it down beyond the fence. at is the policy you think is right, i would say to you that is possibly the policy of the israeli government today.

>> perhaps you have beat out john kerry as optimists of the century.

>> that is not going to happen. >> this is a good, broad question. how has turkey and egypt's role changed in the past here? -- year? >> in the past year, egypt was government by mohamed morsi. today on the verge of being governed by a new president. they are extraordinarily different like night and day. so egypt has changed dramatically. the real question -- there are many questions about egypt but in terms of our discussion is will egypt become a constructive regional player? egypt is totally consumed domestically. with its politics, fight against jihadist in the sinai, etc. has not played positively or negatively a role outside in quite a long time. will that change? if it changes for the better, i certainly hope so. i think it would be an enormously positive development of a would play of

constructive regional role. that would be great. turkey has gone the other direction. turkey tried to play a huge regional role and got slapped at every corner, largely because they were led by a megalomaniac. but -- there goes my next the visa. but the all did not like his policy toward serious and do not like the idea that the grand vision involves huge costs internationally for her -- turkey, they wanted them to be closer to the west. yes they want local elections. at enormous cost politically. i expect there to be a regional chance that we will see another round of civil violence in he if we get to a presidential election in which the prime minister tries to become president and exert his authority in a new and more authoritarian way.

>> there is another really good question here. what is the significance of the presidents holocaust? is there a significance to it? >> go ahead. >> you are in the holocaust consult. were you aware of this? >> it is interesting in the context of the agreement. i take it as a kind of sensitivity on his part to his political agreement in the u.s.. useful to be widely denounced in the u.s. for making deals. we suggested you could taste -- say something here that

differentiates you from iranians. he did it. it was a smart thing to do and might even do good in the sense that when the palestinian group recently visited the cash, a lot of negative reaction in the home. we use the word incitement a lot. we talk about this issue. unfortunately has never been a serious matter for the united states. bipartisan

presidents of both parties have always said they should stop. we have never been serious, or pushed hard, or penalized. the glorious him goes on. the sense that you should not talk about the holocaust continues. if this means henceforth an official palestinian textbooks or broadcasting it will have a more intelligent and historically accurate view of the holocaust, that would be a very good ink. i think we need to see whether this is a one-time pop because we think it can do is good in washington this week or a serious change in the way they will address the issue. >> this is not the first time he has made the statement. for the past day and -- he is not a holocaust denier. he has never been a holocaust denier. what he has been, and there is no contradiction, he recognizes the enormity of the holocaust, and he also thinks the sinus to

-- thinks the zionist role played a big part in collaborating with the nazis to make life or goal for the jews so they will come in droves to palestine. it is not holocaust denial. it is a totally skewed view of history. it is sort of grotesque and many things but you cannot label him with achmadinejad. it would be nice if beyond the recognition of the fact that what he is really doing is changing the tenor of discussions about the entire issue and palestinian public life. that we have yet to see. >> i was disappointed they were

so dismissive. one of the underlying issues in the peace process for lack of peace is an unwillingness on the part of many palestinians, if not most leaders to try to understand the basic jewish narrative. i think in this sense israelis have made more process on this issue and in the and palestinians are from there. there are a few leaders will say jews are from this place. it explodes the basic neocolonialists narrative. any attempt by any palestinian leader to say this is jewish history, reality, we will try to understand it, it cannot possibly hurt, especially given the incredible horrible things that are said in much of the discourse. whatever cynical innovation behind it i cannot see is anything but a good thing. >> here is another good question and one that i have been asking. regarding the flyers distributed outside a synagogue in kiev, even with the claims of both sides that it was a hoax, how concerning is that the fact that this statement is being made in the fact of political instability? what do jews have to worry about in terms of being used as a football or raised in this context. >> the worry, and i do think by the way that this is a political moves as you are suggesting, not an effort to drum up huge amounts of activity. what it shows is the jewish question as it were still exists. it is amazing all these years after the holocaust in areas with very few jews, this is a very sensitive issue.

people think when there is a crisis, what can i do here to unsettle things? what can i do to attract attention? what can i do to change the politics of the

region? jews. jews still. 2014. very discouraging and the regions of the world. in crimea there are a lot more russian jews, right? there were thousands of jews in crimea. in other areas that are now under -- that are being fought over.

i do not know when i am supposed to say this, but i will say the jews who are there should not in my view be there. and we should make whatever efforts we can and so should the israelis to help get those people to israel or another place where they will be saved because there is no future for them there. >> i was in ukraine last week and talk to a leader of the jewish community about this and he had a very optimistic view about the burst of anti-semitism pointed out. pointed out that 100 years ago anti-feminism is an overt and -- anti-semitism was an overt and positive political platform on the part of many old in that part of the world. you became popular as a leader by advocating anti-semantic policies. now that both sides are using it to tar the opposite side. another words, don't support the russians because they are

anti-semitic. to not support the ukrainians because they are anti-semantic. so this person saw that as progress in the fight against anti-semitism. >> i wish i could agree with that. what he said i think is exactly right, to tar the other side in washington. i am not so sure it tar is the other side at home. but that might be true. this is why the jews -- the old stereotype that the two cases are coming out of the closet. >> so that begs the question of whether it is more fun to be the stick or the head it is hitting. here is the final question as we wind down. one thing we have talked about and has come up in the questions

here come a we talked about the peace process and next steps for israel. what about next steps for the palestinians? the questioner asks, what happens about siad? tom friedman talks about this. building institutions up on the ground. who comes after abhas? is there an outlook for the palestinians? >> i have a lot of sympathy for him. a lot of empathy is a better word. he looks around him. he sees the palestinian politics is moving not just sideways but backwards. my understanding for the time being he is laying very low. a day will come when he will retire or pass away. there will be a moment of leadership change in the contest for leadership. we are already seeing security around him and the current and old ones. they are back out of the woodwork. they use the head of the soccer federation to pledge mr..

he invited the iranian soccer team to play. why? he knows that gets him -- the israelis all upset. a lovely human being coming out of the woodwork. also camille guys are coming out because they can smell -- all of the old guys are coming out because they can smell the scents of change. is there going to be the alternative party? the party of progress, not the party of conflict and regression. he cannot do it alone. will they stand up? will they do something? will we go back? l.a. it's possible, june 2002 about a clean palestinian government. will we start using the link which? language that has disappeared from public this court's for many years. if we do not say it, they are not going to do it?

we have a role to play, but they have a big role, too. >> i will just say i think we have talked a lot about hamas. within palestinian society both of these parties are on a downward trajectory. neither of them is viewed as having covered themselves in glory in the advancement of goals or future of prosperity of the palestinian people. that begs the question rob asked, where are you candidates and how the might they emerge? i go back to the point i made earlier, palestinian progress has been merged.

it has been more comfortable for all of us. if we want to see the alternatives emerge, there has to be an environment in which they have incentive to do so. that get to the israeli-palestinian level but also to the domestic palestinian level. elections. elections for what? what is in it for me if i get collect did? what am i accountable for and what can i achieve? these are the question political entrepreneurs and people with leadership skills will ask themselves before they decide whether to form an alternative party or put themselves in front of the public. so we have to care about the environment and creating those

incentives. it is not enough for us to just hang back and hope it all works out for the best and hang back and let's see what happens with the reconciliation deal. it matters, the terms of the deal matter for that environment, the creation of alternative and for progressive palestinian politics. this is a time for the united states to be actively engaged in trying to shape what is happening in that positive direction. it is not enough to cross our fingers and hope for the best. >> i agree with that much. you and i have been trying, many other officials, former officials, have been on the american project for years. i would just say that it is part of a broader uprising. you cannot have democracy without democrats and democratic

political parties. is the problem with egypt. you have the mubarak party, the islamic brotherhood, but the centrist democratic forces in society, they certainly exist and have been unable to create political parties throughout egypt. the only places that have seen real progress are tunisia. movement, you have regimes and you have islamic's as a mass movement. what we have not seen is the emergence of a more moderate mass movement that can create political parties, moderate political parties. i wish that we could help. i am not sure that we know how to help very much. >> at least we cannot get in the way. >> two things, we can not get in

the way, absolutely, and one thing that i think we can or should speak up for democracy and human rights. so, when newspaper editors are put in jail, in cairo or ramallah, we should speak out about that. when there is mass corruption -- and again, there is vast corruption, we should speak up about that. some of that is our foreign aid money. i think this question of what comes after? i cannot answer the question of what comes after abbas. it is about what the palestinian people want. but this part of the broader crisis of arab politics, where the bad guys are well organized and the good guys are not? >> jeffrey? person on this

panel already expressed my views. [laughter] no assumptions, please. if we are closing, can i just say the other thing sitting on my heart that i wanted to say? this for 25watching years, as have you. >> what about those first 15 years? >> yes. always struck me that jewish people can sometimes be annoying, sometimes exasperating , but i have never met anyone who has loved the jewish people as much as abe and i want to say thank you. [applause] >> i want to thank the panel. this was an easy panel. [applause]

>> thank you very much. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] be joined by the president and ceo of the president for global policy solutions to talk about the center meeting this week to address the racial wealth gap in the u.s.. kate tamara lowe covers technology issues for "the hill." will take your questions are allowing broadband providers to charge fees for delivery of video and other data. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter.

>> several live events to tell you about today. the treasury secretary will testify before the house appropriations subcommittee about the budget requests for next year and u.s. sanctions against russia on c-span three at 10 a.m. eastern. also on c-span three, members of two house foreign affairs subcommittees who hear from representatives of the state department about u.s. russia nuclear negotiations in light of the situation in ukraine. kerryary of state john speaks to the atlantic council about transatlantic argot ships, commander -- commemorating the anniversary of nato. c-span two that on at 1:30 p.m. eastern. >> the newest c-span book, sundays at 8:00, a collection of interviews with some of the

nation's top storytellers. >> the normal trajectory of escape stories or concentration camp stories, where you have someone who comes from a sophisticated, civilized family, they are taken to the camp, all of their other relatives are killed. any have to behave in inhuman way to survive. and then they come out and they tell their story about the descent into hell and survival. this story is completely different. he was born in how and thought it was home. >> blaine harden, one of 41 unique force -- voices from our footnotes and q&a conversations. sundays at 8:00, published at -- published by public affairs books. >> c-span is please to prevent the winning entries -- present the winning entries in the student cam competition.

encouraging middle school and high school students to think about issues, students were asked to create their documentaries based on the question -- what is the most important issue that the u.s. congress should consider in 2014? our grand prize winner is from long beach, california. , larson, michaela katz, and that highducheck leave regulating drilling is the most important issue for 2014. >> looking into dangerous posed to these water sources used for hydraulic fracturing. study wasnounced a delayed. can we really wait that long, congress?

city, longto our beach, california. population 460 5000 people. with our coastline and tourism, you would not leave that hydraulic fracturing takes place anita our streets. >> have you ever heard of fracking? hydraulic fracking? >> fracturing. >> what? of longthe director beach gas and oil. we did about 132 new oil wells in long beach. of those, we did eight percent, about 10 of the wells, for fracking. >> to truly understand what fracking is, we took a trip to occidental petroleum to talk with geologist donald clark. was the layer going down, down, one-mile deep. the next thing we want to do is

we want to open a factory. a the company shoots down mixture of water, sand, and chemicals. the high pressure of the fluids break apart the rocks and allow andgas and oil to escape flow to the surface. >> hydraulic fracturing is kickstarting the energy industry. us to accesswing previously un-accessed reserves. >> the u.s. just past russia is number two. we are going to be number one. >> there is so much interest in the master production. so many jobs are being created. i think they going out of work and senator high cap's state. i am not sure we can build the roads fast enough to help get this production underway. it is revitalizing the manufacturing base of america.

>> i am a registered investment advisor investing in oil and gas pumps for our clients. what are the benefits of fracking? it is going to save america's youth from the burden of debt buildup by their parents and grandparents. fracking and the energy industries are going to create an additional 2.5 million jobs by 2020. >> but it is not that simple. there are many real concerns on the impact of hydraulic fracturing on our environment need to be addressed. >> ♪ one day i lit a match in the water, fire i thought about a lawsuit and stumbled on the fact that fracking is exempted from the clean water act ♪ working ins hydraulic fracturing are exempt.

normally under the clean water act, this would be required. >> i think there are 1260 something chemicals that could be added. >> i never had these problems. all my cows in 2008, i had eight live, 10 dead. of them were blind, one had a cleft palette and that is when they drink the water. the mother did not even cleaned it off. company says there is nothing wrong with the waters. the cattle andl kill the people, next. >> there are other real issues. report published in 2013 shows that fracking wells uses 2

million to $5 million of fresh water. the scary part is that 90% of the water underground never returns to the surface or is permanently removed from the water cycle. fracking requires millions and millions and millions of gallons of water per well. >> there also seems to be a strong correlation between hydraulic fracturing and seismic activities. >> a good example would be where they ohio is pushed more and more pressure and it created a magnitude four earthquake. >> it is proving to be more flammable than traditional forms of oil. >> a baseline oil pump in north they are explosive,

volatile. coming from in these the earth. >> techniques need to be regulated. we need to do them responsibly. we need to understand the chemicals being utilized here. sure that water supplies are protected. >> dear congress. >> dear congress. >> dear congress. >> hydraulic fracturing has been fortunate for the growth of our economy, but it needs to critical support of the american people, something we can change. we need to investigate the impact of hydraulic fracturing on seismic activities and using recycled water instead of freshwater. you need to mandate the testing of water near the site. most importantly, the

halliburton loophole needs to be closed and you need to require public disclosure of hydraulic flat -- hydraulic fracturing fluids. >> they don't care. they got their gas. the winningall videos and see more of the >> in a few moments, a look at today's headlines, plus your calls, live on "washington

journal." legislative business at noon. today's agenda includes a bill that would exempt teachers health care plans from the individual and employee health care mandates required under law. in about 45 minutes, we will be joined by republican senator ron johnson of wisconsin to discuss his lawsuit against the obama thenistration, challenging legality of federal contributions to the health care plans of members of congress and congressional staffers. will talk with president and ceo of the center for global policy solutions about the centers meeting this week to address the central wealth gap and the u.s.. the proposed fcc regulation

-- d allow broadband host: congress is back in session this week after a two-week recess. lawmakers will hear from treasury secretary liu. duncany secretary ernie will speak about his department's budget needs for 2015. look for coverage on c-span.org. we will begin with president obama's foreign-policy. the obamaed about doctrine yesterday in the philippines as he wrapped his trip to asia. he took on his ccs

minister benjamin netanyahu to