p.m. eastern time. .ight bills withor the tsa to come up an x bedded screen ross s for veterans on honor flights. in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. e clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., july 8, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable steve womack 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 imited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. chairman, thank you very much. shortly before the july fourth break, we had three marines from camp lejeune, which is in my district, were killed during combat operations in afghanistan. sergeant davis stewart, lance corporal brandon garbrandt, and lance corporal adam wolf. may i at this time extend my deepest condolences. much attention has been given to the chaos building in iraq. however, we must not forget there is chaos in afghanistan. in june of this year, i visited walter reed medical center in

bethesda, maryland. i met through soldiers from fort bragg who lost one leg each in afghanistan. i met two marines from my district, camp lejeune, one marine, 23 years old, had lost two legs and an arm. his father from louisiana was standing beside his exercise mat which is about three -- three or four feet off the ground. to look in the eyes of the father to see the pain, the sadness and the worry about the future of his 23-year-old son, i cannot describe today on the floor of the house. i don't know the words to describe the pain i saw in the eyes. then, i went to see the second marine from camp lejeune who in february this year stepped on a 40-pound i.e.d., lost both legs . i could only look at him and hoped for the best as he told

me about his wife and his 8-month-old baby girl. mr. speaker, beside me today i have the photograph of -- on his poster of two young ladies whose father was sergeant kevin baldiff, stationed at camp lejeune. he little girls' names are eden and stephanie. they are standing at the grave site of their father. the sergeant baldiff and colonel palmer -- sergeant baldiff was stationed at camp in une and colonel palmer another part of my district. they were sent to afghanistan to train afghans to be police officers. the night before sergeant baldiff and colonel palmer from killed, sergeant baldiff

emailed his wife, amy, and said i don't trust them, i don't trust them, i don't trust any of them. the next day he and colonel palmer were shot and killed by the afghans they were trying to train. mr. speaker, afghanistan is not worth the treasure or the blood that has been spent there over the last 12 years. we have no more business thinking we can change the middle east because history has proven, afghanistan and iraq will never change no matter what. iraq was an unnecessary war. it was manufactured intelligence by the previous administration. it was unnecessary, unjust war where 4,000 americans comprilled, 30,000 were wounded d 100,000 iraqis were killed themselves. mr. speaker, i will close today

by quoting a man who i have great respect because he and i agree on our foreign policies. his name is pat buchanan. and to quote -- and his quote is this, is this not a symptom to be borne from the world so we can defend the world? so we in congress continue to spend money over in afghanistan and now iraq from money that we borrowed from other countries. it makes no sense. so mr. speaker, in closing, i say to stephanie and eden, your father was a hero. he will never be forgotten. i will say to all the families and the children of those who lost loved ones, your loved ones will never be forgotten. they've done so much for this country. may god continue to bless america and may god continue to bless those in the uniform and may god continue to bless

america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, according to a federal judge in texas, our government is, quote, completing the criminal mission of human traffickers who are violating the border security of the united states, and assisting a criminal conspiracy in achieving its illegal goals. here's how i.c.e. is complicit in aiding and abetting human smuggling. a smuggler is paid to bring children into the united states. the smuggler then is apprehended by i.c.e. and prosecuted but the activity delivers the migrant child to the parent who instigated the crime. if the parent is also illegally

in the united states, i.c.e. neither deports the parent nor the child. the federal judge chastised the department of homeland security for not enforcing the law and compares this nonenforcement on the border to taking illegal drugs or weapons it seized from smugglers and then delivering it to the criminals who solicited their illegal importation into the united states. mr. speaker, this administration, with the policy of open borders and blatant refusal to enforce the law, is complicit in the crisis at the southern border. the timing is of -- not a coincidence. the surge of foreign nationals illegally entering the united states all began when the president planted the seed for executive amnesty in a 2012 rose garden speech. in this speech he announced his policy of unilateral administrative amnesty for minors. this was an avoidable crisis created to set the stage

politically for universal amnesty. the president's policy of nonenforcement has effectively encouraged tens of thousands of people to pay smugglers to bring children from central america to the united states. now migrant children just surrender themselves at the border and expect the united states to let them stay, take care of them or reunite them with their parents who may also illegally be in the u.s. why? because the word is out in central america that america does not enforce its laws. the number of unaccompanied minors who are smuggled into the u.s. illegally has grown tremendously under this administration, as this shart shows. now up to -- as this chart shows. now up to 142,000 a year. this is not only a humanitarian crisis but this crisis is affecting the national security, our health and our sovereignty. or porous border allows anyone to enter the united states illegally. the influx of thousands of

migrant cost the tune of billions of dollars, all left to americans to pay for. the we can't even -- we can't ven take care of our veterans. they threaten the health of people who are illegally here and american citizens. and this is not isolated on the border towns. unaccompanied minor children are being sent all over the country. in fact, i just found out last night that health and human services is looking for a school to house unaccompanied minors in houston, texas, my hometown. while the administration acts surprised about the crisis, the paper trail shows they knew it was coming in january. the department of homeland security in january posted online advertising for transportation contractors needed to help deal with this surge of unaccompanied minors coming into the united states. the administration knew about this but rather than enforce the rule of law and increase border security, the

administration planned to accept the migrants and find places to house them. this current chaos is also an insult to people who come to america the legal way. but the white house has put politics over the law and what is best for the american people. so what now? well, deploy the national guard to the southern border to deter future migrants for making the journey to america. it's the first duty to the federal government to appropriate money that is still going for nation building in iraq to fund the national guard on our southern border, surely protecting our boreder is just as important as securing the border of iraq. and if the president won't protect the border, let the state governors do it with the national guard. second, those who have already come here should be safely reunited with their families in their native countries. the law should be changed to expedite their removal. warehousing these children are not compassionate response to this crisis. it will not solve the crisis. it will only grow. the president of the united states should be the first to say to the world, the rule of

law will be forced -- enforced in the united states. do not try to beat the system. come to the united states the legal way or not at all. but the administration is missing in action in this crisis. it is true the president's going to texas this week, but he's going down there to raise money for campaigns. he's not going near the border. maybe it's just too dangerous to go to the texas-mexico border. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx, or five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize a band of raiders that successfully marched on washington last week. the reagan high school marching band came to d.c. from poftown, north carolina, one of only 14 bands chosen to participate in the national independence day

parade. director andrew kraft gives life to the band's philosophy that, quote, we must create strong musicians before we can expect a strong music ensemble, end quote. the band's music statement emphasizes performance excellence and excellence's ever present companion, work ethic. in fewer than 10 years, reagan high school is already recognized as having one of the top school bands in north carolina and the nation. the raiders performed "america the beautiful" for the parade. they're also proud of the reagan high school fight song appropriately titled "the great communicator march." it's an honor to recognize this fine organization today, and i wish them continued success in the future. with their rigorous focus and commitment to excellence, i believe we can count on a

bright future for the band of raiders. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black, for five minutes. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. our crisis at the southern border is the direct result of the president's executive actions that have sent a message to children and families across central america that if they cross our porous border they'll be allowed to stay. in fact, the administration estimates approximately 65,000 unaccompanied alien children will cross our border this year alone. this is a humanitarian crisis of this administration's own creation and a stark reminder of the president's failings when it comes to securing our border. an unsecure border presents many dangers to our national security, and the recent and dramatic rise in unaccompanied

alien children along our southern border indicates an alarming ease at which our border is being crossed illegally. potentially worse than that, despite the administration's apparent surprise by this recent surge in border crossings by these children, on january 19 of this year, the department of homeland security posted a request for information on the federal business opportunities website seeking contractors to provide, and i quote, escort services r immigrations and customs enforcement. the posting specifically calls for a contractor who can transport unaccompanied alien children that have been apprehended by law enforcement -- e u.s. to care department of health and human services. the solicitation from january states that, and i quote, there will be approximately 65,000

unaccompanied children in total, closed quote. the online posting suggests that d.h.s. was expecting a significant increase in the number of unaccompanied alien children that it would need transport this year. . firm, the 65,000 number of closely correspondent especially with the administration's new estimate that 60,000 unaccompanied children will come into the country illegally this year. this leads to the obvious question of how it was that i.c.e. or d.h.s. was able to project such a rise in the border crossing by children this year. because of this, i sent a letter to the d.h.s. secretary, jay johnson, and acting director of i. crrblings e. -- of i.c.e., demanding information as to how their agencies may have anticipated the recent dramatic rise in the number of unaccompanied alien children

that are crossing the southern border into the united states illegally. mr. speaker, this unprecedented humanitarian crisis at our border must be resolved. and i fear that promises of even more unilateral executive actions from this president will only make the problem he has created worse. we must get to the bottom of how this crisis happened, how it can be prevented from happening again, and how we can finally secure our nation's problem of unsecured porous borders. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows, for five minutes. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to really pay tribute to a great country. july 4 was a reminder as the fireworks went off, as we

celebrated the independence day, is that men and women across this country and throughout history have dedicated their lives to freedom, to faith, and their families. we had a wonderful time with the majority of my family, but i was reminded the day following the fourth of july that this is not just about a place where we talk about policy, but it's really about people. i got a call that my sister, who is fighting a different kind of fight, a fight against cancer, and oved to a hospice wing truly as i went down to visit her she reminded me, mr. speaker, it's not about policy. it's about people. and as she fights her final breath, today i wanted to take this opportunity, a personal

opportunity, to tell the few that are gathered here, perhaps this is only for an audience of one, that an older brother is proud of his sister. he's very thankful for the opportunity that he's had these last 52 years to know her. if we start to look at this particular fight against cancer, cancer affects every single family, perhaps every single member that is here. and there's nothing much that we can be thankful for other than the time that it sometimes permits us to say the things that we should have said long ago. so today, mr. speaker, i stand before this body to thank many of the members who have been praying for my sister, but to

mainly just say that it's -- i'm just proud to be her brother and proud to serve in this country gratefully just express our appreciation in a free and unselfish way. i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00

today, president obama will be asking congress for $3.8 billion to confront the influx of minors from central america. the figure also includes extra money for fighting wildfires in the west. the a.p. reports the white house says the money would help increase the detention, care, and transportation of unaccompanied children. we'll hear more about that later on today. just also a reminder, too, we'll be covering a hearing on thursday with homeland security department secretary jay johnson, and health and human services secretary, sylvia

burwell, talking about the administration's request and their initiative on the influx of minors at the southern border. that will be coming up thursday. the senate appropriations committee at 2:30 eastern, again that will be live on c-span3. in education news, education secretary arnie duncan is brushing off a call for his designation from the national education association. the n.e.a. adopt add resolution last week at its representative assembly in denver where the air was, quote, charged with anger, as members buzzed about some frustration at secretary duncan. the reporting here of politico, secretary duncan and president obama yesterday had lunch with a group of teachers. here's some of the president's comments. >> good afternoon, everybody. i am here with some outstanding teachers as well as secretary arne duncan. the reason we are here is with the school year now over, it is a great time for us to focus on

what we need to do to make sure that next year anti-year after that and the year after that continues to improve for our students all across this country. one ingredient we know makes an enormous difference is the great teacher. we have four of the best teachers in the country here, but what we also know is that there are outstanding teachers all across the country. arne, myself, i suspect many of you had wonderful teachers that made all the difference in your lives. and allowed you to be excited about learning and set you on a path for an extraordinary career. unfortunately, there are a lot of kids around the country who are not getting the kind of teaching that they need, not because there aren't a whole lot of great potential teachers out there, but because we are not doing enough to put a lot of our teachers in a position to succeed. they may not be getting the

training they need. they may not be getting the professional development and support that they need. in the classroom. part of our goal since we came into office and arne became secretary of education is, how do we continually improve how teachers can get better each and every year? of particular concern is the fact that typically the least experienced teachers, the ones with the least support, often end up in the poorest schools. so we have a problem in which the kids who need the most skilled teachers are the least likely to get them. and the most talented and skilled teachers oftentimes are teaching the kids who are already the best prepared and have the most resources outside of the school in order to succeed. what we are trying to do today and arne will have more to say about this this afternoon because there are a whole bunch

of other teachers who are here in town, is to highlight what we are calling excellent educators for all. it's going to be a program in which we ask states to take a look at where they are distributing great teachers, what they are doing in order to train and promote and place teachers in some of the toughest environments for children. and what we are also going to be doing is providing technical assistance, highlighting best practices, all with the intention of making sure that wherever a child is, anywhere in the country, they've got that opportunity to have somebody in front of the classroom or beside them, guiding them, mentoring them, helping them work. when i think about my own experience, the only reason aim here in the white house is because hi extraordinary teachers as well as a pretty extraordinary mom and

grandparents. i think everybody sitting around this table probably feels the same way. i suspect that's probably what inspired some of these people to become teachers. we want to make sure every child has that access to excellent teachers. we are very confident that if we can lift up what works, that there are going to be a lot of states that want to adapt it. unfortunately right now they don't necessarily have the information and as i said, if we do nothing, if we don't highlight the problem, then inevitably the kids who probably need the less help get the most and the kids who need the most help are getting the least. that's something we'll need to reverse, not just because it's good for these kids. we know if they have a great teacher, they are more likely to graduate and go to college, more likely to succeed in their career. it's also necessary for our economy. because we've got too many kids who are trapped in situations in which they are not able to realize their full potential. i want to thank all these folks for being here.

i'm really looking forward to listening to them to find out what they think can be most helpful in promoting excellence in teaching. thank you, everybody. >> we spoke this morning to an education week reporter foremore details on the administration's latest education initiative. goo. guest: good morning, thanks for having me. host: could you give us the essentials of the program? guest: sure. so under this new program the administration unveiled they will be required to summit plans ensuring that students in underperforming schools have access to as many great teachers as students in more advantaged schools. it is actually not all that new. this has been a requirement of the no child left behind act, which was signed way back in 2002.

some states have plans on file with the department of education , but many of those have not been updated for years. advocacy groups have found them to be lacking, that states are not following through on their promises. this is an effort to put some teeth in an older requirement. host: is there any reason for states not updating these plans, as you talked about? guest: the department has not really put the pressure on them to do this. also, it is really just a tough thing to do. it is really hard and they have limited authority to make hiring and placement positions, so they are usually made by local districts. but there is only so much states can really do on this. what i think the secretary and the president are trying to do is start a national dialogue and put a lot of focus on this issue, which sometimes gets swept under the rug. ast: according to the paper,

$4 million-plus price tag attached to this. where does the money get spent? guest: it is a really small number, right, in terms of the federal budget, almost a rounding error. it sounds like the department will use that money to provide technical assistance to states, give them some sort of guidance in this area. presumably they will hire advisors and folks like that or -- for that sort of thing that the department. amount of money and this is a huge problem. in order to get those highflying teachers to go to these underperforming schools, districts have offered h teachers bonuses of $10,000, $20,000. it is unlikely it will come out of that tiny $4.2 million pot.

the administration offer specific ideas on how to put teachers in these districts? guest: they haven't really been too specific about what needs to be in these plans. some of the things that have worked in the past ensure that teachers have access to a really good principle, that they have time to plan and collaborate with each other, and they have a chance to work with other colleagues who really believe in the mission of turning around low performing schools. host: what has been the reactions from teachers unions? guest: generally the reaction has been very supportive. that is because the isn't being too specific about what it wants to see in these plans. they're hoping that they can p withith states to come u equity plans that will include some things that teachers want anyway, some of the things i just mentioned, like more time

to collaborate with their peers. klein, tell us why the union wants arne duncan to resign. guest: that is a great question. the secretary has done a lot of things over his tenure that have been controversial. he has been one of the loudest voices in federal policy calling for teachers to be evaluated based on student outcomes. that is something that states and districts are working their way through. a lot of teachers are skeptical and their job to be on the line if the students don't do well on these standardized tests. host: tell us about initiatives we've heard over the years -- common core, race for the top. how have these done since the administration has highlighted these policies? nott: so common core is actually something that the administration came up with but they have certainly been

boosters for it. statesow more than 40 and the district of columbia are using these standards for preparing students for college and careers. some states are beginning to walk away from the standards. oklahoma and south carolina were the most recent states to ditch them. but most states are sticking with the standards. the question is what will happen to common core as the obama administration, which is been julie before it -- which has been a big cheerleader for it, as their time in office comes to an end. the states that originally got the money still have it. there have been improvements in the states but congress is reticent to give the administration any more money for the program. host: what has been the reaction from arne duncan as far as what the nea wants? guest: he has been pretty dismissive -- not dismissive us

in not seeming to care, but like "they are a partner, we have enjoyed working with them." he sort of brushed off the comments. he really downplayed that particular vote. ein withyson kl "education week," talking >> news out of washington from late this morning. the r.n.c. slks committee is recommending cleveland to host he party's 2016 presidential convention. the republican site selection committee reviewed bids from cleveland and dallas. both went into today's session as strong contenders. they say the full 168 r.n.c. membership is expected to ratify the choice next month. as we wait for the house to come back at 2:00 p.m. eastern, a discussion on middle east policy with policy experts saying that the u.s. should be engaged and

has a big role to play in the short and long term israeli-palestinian peace process. at the wilson center yesterday, they heard from a former advisor to the u.s. special envoy for middle east peace and former deputy assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs in the bush administration. >> good afternoon. good afternoon. all right. very good, class. good afternoon, welcome to the wilson center. it is enormously impressive to me, jane harman, the president and c.e.o., that we have this high level crowd on the day after a major federal holiday. congratulations to all of you. it speaks well of the wilson center and very well of our participants and extremely well of you.

at you are here to explore what is incredibly troubling topic. to me someone who watched the middle east very carefully during 17 years in congress and who made 25 trips to the region during that time, there is clearly reason to worry that we could be on the cusp of a third ntifada. that is something we will explore. hopefully, calmer heads will prevail, but what we are watching hourly between the israelis and the palestinians is extremely worrisome. i have heard conversation on some of the talk shows today about the need for special envoys. that is something our moderator was asked earlier today. observers think the egyptians are in the best position to play that role, but my knowledge they are not playing that role.

the conversation today comes at a crucial moment. who are the palestinians, and what government governs all the alestinians, if any? does the integration of the technical side of hamas into the palestinian authority reflect the integration of hamas or not? is the rest of hamas operating separately, and he is that part of hamas contributing to the problem or solution? the wilson center has invested attention to the development in the neighborhood. this year we hosted an israeli minister of intelligence, justice, and the palestinian hief negotiator. close to half of our ground truth briefings, something you know about which are telephonic conversations about hot spots, close to half of our nearly 30 briefings have been devoted to the region. our guests will be introduced by

aron miller. we have hussein ibish, a senior fellow at the wilson center, a close friend of the wilson center, shibley telhami is professor at university of maryland, and rob danin is the former secretary of state on near east affairs. our moderator is aaron iller. our vice president for new initiatives and former nosheyot for six secretaries of state. as they say the show begins right now. >> thank you very much, and for your leadership in the wilson center. i want to acknowledge three people who are not here. hey may be watching.

a wonderful person, who is having cataract surgery today. i know you are watching, and thanks for everything. when i drafted the invitation for this event, it read something like syria-iraq may be dominating the headlines, but the israeli-palestinian issue remains. remains volatile and unpredictable. i had no idea we would become the tragic beneficiaries of what has occurred over the last week or so. none of us who have watched this issue and followed this eriously include my colleagues would reject the idea that violence and terror has been a handmaiden of this process for ver a century. what we are witnessing may or may not be new, but it is a reminder of the costs and implications of no resolution of he conflict. since 1967i would argue you had a different iteration, a sort of perverse dance with its own perverse intimacy between israel

as the occupier and palestinians as the occupied. it took the conflict to a different level. israeli power is strong. palestinian power is weak, which is also terrifyingly formidable in its own right. together this interaction guaranteed and continues to guarantee real dysfunction, tragedy, and of violence in this content. the answer to this, we know what it is, a two-state solution, the least bad option, but that is not happening right now, may not appen in the future. we have chosen to focus on the palestinians and their politics, because i believe the two peoples may be focused in the months to come. in a coming session we'll deal

with the israelis and their politics. i would like and i can influence the research -- to a certain degree my colleagues' presentations -- by arguing they should stay away the peace process. i cannot control your questions. it is not a problem of one hand clapping. reality is influenced by israel, but we want to drill down now on the palestinian dimension. the years i was working, frankly, we didn't. we focused far more on trying to understand the israeli reality. which is necessary but by no means sufficient if we really do want to produce an equitable and durable solution to this conflict. rules here are simple. five minutes each.

one last comment, questions, not station identification. we really do want to get in as much questions as we can. -- is only one way to do that no comments, just questions. make it so much, and thank you for coming. >> thank you. the first thing i think that ought to be noted about what is happening at the moment, in the context of this flareup of tensions to the palestinian polity and what it says about where politics are, is that it is inescapably connected to its roader regional context. what has happened to palestinians and within the palestinian polity and what is going to result is reflective of and dependent on broader changes in the arab world. there's no way to separate the palestinians out from the broader regional context in which they participate.

while we look at this, remember that a whole series of questions are being asked of the arab world, which are not resolved yet, and it is reflected in iraq and syria, lebanon, kuwait, and libya, among other places. i can mention those because they are all experiencing their own crises. i think there are related and analogous questions being asked in all of those crises as ell. in this context, one of the most difficult aspects, not only for palestinians, but also for israelis and others, is nobody is in clear control of the situation partly because of where it is flaring up and partly because most of the entities, including palestinians, are in their own orm of crisis. for one thing, a lot of this has been focused on east jerusalem and other parts of jerusalem as well.

in jerusalem, really, the palestinian security forces cannot maintain order because they do not operate there. they just do not have that -- to do it there or the manpower. president abbas' ability to influence what is happening in erusalem is limited, even that is being greatly undermined, so that is one thing. even further, this is being manifested in arab parts of israel as well, and there i think the ability of traditional palestinian leadership to exercise any kind of control is perhaps even less. and so in a certain sense it is very hard to lay the consequences of things that happen outside of their area of purview at the doorstep of say the plo or the pla because they do not control the situation. and their ability to control what happens in areas that they do have authority in is being

very much undermined. in addition to which, obviously they do not have control over he people in gaza. it is fair to say that hamas is experiencing a very serious identity crisis and leadership risis as well. and the ability of its political wing, particularly the politburo, but even others within the political leadership to control all its factions is ertain the questionable. the extent to which anyone is could in control of the situation as it is unfolding in terms of creating a real break on it or imposing a political solution is quite limited and it is very important. this is particularly the case given the level of anger that has been brooding over the years, that has driven the situation to the point that people can target children, knowingly, deliberately, callously, and call for revenge as a substitute for politics and policy.

and that i think is the fruit of some very seriousness by all parties, and there it is, for all to see. it is driving things. in addition, those calls for revenge only increase the cycle of incitement, and obviously, just behind the scenes, settlers are taking advantage of the situation to create more robust attacks on the ground than before, that are much more robust than that, and it is very orrying. the other thing going on is that realities on the ground have been allowed to slide by a concatenation of certain things of which everybody has the share f the blame. particularly since the state and institution building program that was bringing deliverables to the ordinary palestinian

people, particularly in the west bank, was defunded and allowed to fizzle. we have not had a political afety net to catch that fought -- fall outat all. and no obviously peace process to back it up. so in that context, you have to ask where political momentum for sustaining and unsustainable tatus quo might come from. it has not, and everything that defines the status quo who is in crisis, influx, and may not survive the president's duration. -- the present situation. i am inclined not to prognosticate, although i may be asked to, but to be analytical and rather than prescriptive, i would say you can see all of the different feelings leading up to this current situation in almost with the dark inevitability of greek tragedy, and where it is going to go from here could be

very grim or it could be attenuated, depending on how responsibly people behave in this situation. and it is hard to evaluate how that is going to work out because as i say it is not always clear what the ultimate address is, and with that i will stop because i've used up my five minutes. >> thank you very much. >> i would like to make a couple of points. the first point is that the current situation reminds me of 1987, the advent of the first intifada. i happened to be visiting in jerusalem just as the three young israelis were abducted, and then went to ramallah after the first israeli operation that led to the death of a palestinian and then was shot down while i was there. and my reflection is based on a couple of things. just before the abduction of these israelis, i had met with a prominent israeli journalist who

was frustrated that there was an absence of hope in part because of the absence of urgency, that the israelis live in what appears to be normal lives and there's no sense of urgency, no cost. she was hoping for a follow-up to the european action against settlements as something. obviously, these tragic events created a sense of urgency. when i look at it, i reminded of 1987 for two reasons, and that you can capture in the mood. one reason is when you look at the advent of the first intifada, it was really a marginalization of the palestinian cause internationally. the 1980's were characterized by the iran-iraq war, in that mood is similar now, where it clearly the egyptians, and the saudis and the qataris, everybody is

occupied with their problem and not enough attention is being paid to what is happening in the west bank and gaza, and that is what is the problem for the alestinians. if you look back at 1987, it was in the marginalization of the palestinian leadership from the people. palestinian leadership from the people. what we had seen really beginning with the israeli invasion of lebanon in 1982, was the plo became exiled in tunis and pretty much remote and effective in catering what we had seen really beginning with the israeli invasion of lebanon in 1982, was the plo became exiled in tunis and pretty much remote and effective in catering to the palestinians. the palestinians were left alone. we do not have palestinian eadership in exile, and they are in ramallah and gaza, that you have a sense when you talk to almost everybody, including the moderates who want to work, with the palestinian authority, that they are disconnected from the public. the public does not take it seriously. in fact, one of the reasons why we had that national government

is they both risk being totally irrelevant, and each individually, and they came together to become more relevant. that is the context in which it takes place. add to this the fact that there is a creeping realization that may be the days of the two states are numbered if they are not gone already, and there is the sense of kind of reconciling themselves to a reality that is not happening. it is only a matter of time before you will see something take place. we risk a major intifada because of the circumstance. the second point, when you witness the ugliness of the death we have witnessed, where there have been horrific murders of young people, cold-blooded on both sides, and you would hope and we all have asked that question, and people start sking themselves, is this what i want to become is this what

the conflict is making of me, is this going to lead to applying that breaks on violence? i have the unfortunate feeling that it that it will not. this is not just because of research i've been doing over the past 10 years. i ask israeli and palestinians and other arabs about empathizing with the civilian casualties of the others when they witness them. and the liberals and others will feel empathy and pain, but the majority, unfortunately, will not, and they will feel more resentment and say they brought it upon themselves. the first reaction we get from israelis and arabs is when the witness civilian casualties is they say they brought it upon themselves. that appears to be very much a function of one thing -- their assessment of whether there's oing to be peace or war. when they assess there is going to be war not peace, they don't empathize.

when there is peace, they empathize. when there is a prospect for peace, hope, they empathize. we are at a moment where people are assuming we're headed to conflict and they do not want their hearts to empathize. they want their hearts to harden the bloody war, and that is the reality we face. >> under the time limit. rob? > thank you. as we speak, this afternoon israeli troops are massing on the gaza border and hundreds of rockets have rained down on southern israel. we may be heading for a major confrontation that i would argue neither side really wants, but neither side baby able to avoid. -- side may be able to avoid. i will focus on the israeli side. what we have today is really the utter despair of palestinian olitics. the two major forces are both reacting to events, not leading hem.

neither of them have a strategy for attaining their national goals right now. what it means is they are locked in the politics for urvival. there've been no palestinian elections since 2008. no presidential -- or legislative elections since 006. palian institutions do not meet. and the divisions between the west bank, controlled by the p.a., and gaza, controlled by hamas, are widening. it is against that backdrop that you have to look at the national agreement reached in april between the two sides. they did not agree on any vision, on politics, on how to reconcile their competing services. they set up a mechanism to try to address the absence of legitimacy, and that was elections. it was a response to something

that is popular amongst their populace, the clamor for unity on the ground. now, the problem has been for hamas, controlling gaza did not really produce anything. hey were being squeezed by egypt, and likewise fatah was ot producing anything. all the while abu mazen has been granded a traitor. you saw that spray painted graffiti. this is against the backdrop of the recent violence. against that backdrop, we had the national unity government since april, and it has hurt the palestinians, where 50,000 palestinians have been not receiving their salary payments since the agreement was reached.

hamas is under pressure now by israel at the same time to rein in radicals, but it needs to show it is not passive to srael. what you have now is, i think, neither israel -- neither side within palestinian politics, neither hamas or fattah, want this unity to survive but neither wanting to be blamed for bringing it down. and both having a sense it will atrophy by itself. are we on the verge of a new intifada? i agree that there are real analogies to the situation in 1987 and 2000. what you saw in both cases was popular discontent with the official plo leadership, when they seem to be so removed from hardships on the ground. in that situation you had ousted the leadership catch up with

developments on the ground, not lead them, and that situation is rife today for the similar type of situation, even the absence of leadership within palestinian politics. what we do not know is what is brewing underneath the surface. here've been committees that have come out that are advocating a third intifada. but we do not know yet. what we do know is the leadership is reacting and not leaving. this is not a strategy forward. short of an intifada, there are things that can unravel. tomorrow there was supposed to be a conference. sponsored by the left-leaning israeli newspaperpalestinians pulled out because . they felt under pressure not to go. what this shows is any kind of being seen to be cooperating with israel will break you. that could lead to the breakdown

in security cooperation, the one major attainment we have seen in the last decade between israelis and palestinians, and the third thing is that price now for returning to negotiations is going to go up, not down, and it was already pretty high. with that i will turn it back to aaron. >> i never thought the three of you could be more annoyingly negative than me. you managed. i will post each of you a question. societies and up at some point having to take a long look in he mirror. whether or not we took a long look in the wake of jack kennedy's assassination, i do not know. i'm not sure israelis did in the wake of rabin's murder. is it possible, conveeveable, you seem to suggest you were worried it couldn't happen, that that in effect this tribalization, personalization of this kind of violence, could n any way have aal ue tarry --

salutary or ameliorating effect on the situation? and what would it require from an external party to break a potentially tragic cycle now? >> i know my research is pretty negative on this. when people assume conflict is not on its way toward a resolution, they simply find it hard to empathize or question themselves or question the moral stance. the two things i think that actually works for both israelis and palestinians, having more reflection. one thing is what is happening in the region. people are terrified by anarchy. they know how ugly it can get. it is ugly. we have witnessed the death of several people over the past couple of weeks, horrific, but

when you compare it to what is happening in syria or iraq, people do not want that. you can see the backlash. we can see it in the polling about people rallying behind the state when they see anarchy. there is a mood that does not want to see an explosion. they know it can get a lot bloodier, a lot worse for all of them. the second, i think perhaps on the israeli side, more than any other time there is a real internalization that if the two state solution is going to happen now, it's never going to happen. we have never seen that in the past. there was always a sense that maybe there is more time. i do not think anybody really believes there is any more time. so maybe they have to figure out another way, or they are going to have to come to grips with the reality.

those are the only ones that are providing some restraint at the oment. when you get a netanyahu looking at the moderate right now in the israeli government, to restrain persons in the reaction to this, it gives you a flavor of where things are. i think that is a point. whether that is going to be enough, it does require leadership. i think in the end, events on the ground can preempt leaders, and we see that now. neither hamas nor netanyahu wants and escalation, but they might find themselves on the path that is unavoidable. leaders can make a difference, nd we do not see that. >> history in a way, what came before, might actually be an ally, including what happened in the first and second intifada.

gentlemen, are there any hopeful stands here? hopeful friends, are there any? . . >> you asked about third parties. that is an area for hope. ways inthere are two which you can look along the immediate -- beyond the immediate crisis. -- dave lend themselves to the question of what can be done, by third parties or national, including the united states, for what change can happen. are very dependent

upon the supporters for budget -- otherd others things. they gives regional and national players more of a say in the way that house means see things evolve more than normal in what usually occurs. there has been a great constriction in the event of palestinian in the last few years. the inputs are restricted. there has to be an opening up of palestinian political space. this is actually -- absolutely crucial. third artist can play a big role. the other thing is the frustration that we see on the palestinian side does not only have you with little will -- political frustration that can be explained in the political context, but the shutting down of space in civil society and economic growth. it was there in the institutional and state building.

to veryin, it goes straightforward things like -- that israelis can influence and third parties, in terms of economic growth. there are things that all kinds of funders can do in terms of a large amounts of small projects, small projects that cannot be hijacked. big orrojects it can be little cleans for lots of little projects throughout the territories that can be transformed. i think it is very possible. it has not been tried. i don't see why it should not succeed if people want to did. >> on the question of violence, i think that what we have seen the last few days has been a real convergence of violence in three distinct areas. one is, israel itself with the air communities. the second is the west bank. the third is gaza. i'm more concerned about israel and the violence there. it is in gaza that i see in next

-- and next violence and that -- -- incalate torry minds the absence of violence, would it was hoping to hint at or suggest is that in terms of israeli or politics, i don't think either side will be right in terms of the political movement that will be needed to make clinical progress. -- political progress. >> one lightning round question. that is, a concerns john kerry, and not the broader issue of his comprehensive agreement. what should the u.s. respond to now? in the battle days when there were only two sides to this conflict, and right now there are three. and it used to be air if that and the israeli prime minister -- arafat and the israeli prime

minister and thomas, and we would usually pack our bags now. in september of 96, we ended up spending three months in pursuit of the agreement that we actually got over hipper on -- , but that was actually worth this. should john kerry, and the tiredness of the situation that exists right now, should john ?erry pack his bags >> pack his bags, no. the u.s. has a resulting -- a role to play. it or not, int think this administration believes it has one more shot at trying to get them back at the negotiating table. if i am in their place, i would

say that what we have seen is horrible, but this is an opportunity. there was a sense of urgency before, but now there is an urgency. i can try to turn his urgency into a way to get them back to the negotiating table. that is the way he's going to think. therefore, the real escalation is going to take us way -- away from what will make us lose control. we have to figure out a way to prevent the escalation and how to stop it. and we have a role to play in that. where will the influence come from? where is the leverage? who has the leverage? at the majorack confrontation between israel and hamas and when morsi

was an ally. for, us -- a way the to get a way for government. undoubtedly, it will be a way for the egyptians to figure something out, but in the end, it will be an israeli decision. frankly, i don't think that, us is in the decision. i am just wondering whether there is anything, really, the u.s. can do to stop the israelis from carrying out the attack that they want to. or whether this will be an entirely clinical public opinion . i don't see the u.s. having a real hand in stopping the

israelis from stopping what they want to do in gaza. purex a more limited set of strikes may be the more obvious. set of more limited strikes may be more obvious. >> in may be a good idea to escalate. from the past.s those we part of the mixture. but i do not think the american side of it will be a big rd equation, whether to launch this attack or not. >> i agree. right now, the objectives for american diplomacy have to be conflict management. rather crisis management, not conflict resolution. let's be clear about the goals of american diplomacy, what they can and should be at the time. but we are trapped in thinking that either john kerry does or

does not get it done. diplomats.usands of now is the time, i would argue for active american diplomacy at out,low john kerry to go to be seen, to being gauge, to be small -- to be engaged, to be small anecdotes. in palestine and turkey for that matter, the once it -- the one thing they said to me, where are you guys? you guys are not here. i got a call from the palestinian minister that said, is the u.s. going to say anything? a call for america and the policy that is not there. but at what cost? a few thousand dollars for airplane tickets? i think that is a worthy cost. if israel does not go in, and i don't think it will go in. i think israel has a dilemma about gaza right now, it is not

for thes willingness ground incursion or willingness to sustain casualties. thomas as theo hamass to be the enforcer. it is looking for the political out or some kind of base saving out. right now, it is refusing to be haveecause it wants to gotten something for it. that is a miscalculation. israel's reluctance to go into gaza right now is a fear, not for its own casualties, but rather in the essence -- absence of, scott there will be something even worse.

, which is the absence of a real strategy right now on either side, the israeli or palestinian side. strategic code to set, because there is no way out for reconciled and two sides or ending the political division that exists today. >> i'm not completely convinced that this is only about israeli self-restraint. factionsk there are within, center happy to escalate. -- within hamas that are happy to escalate. there are rockets coming from palestine into israel. you have hamas taking responsibility for the first time in a long time. there are factions that are interested in escalating. with, whore aligned is pushing them forward, i think that is anybody's guess. you could make an informed

guess, but why bother? there is space for several parties to choose about escalation and de-escalation. i would not have secretary kerry pack his bags. i would say that this whole inflagration that we are shows again, how and why the united states should not stop engagement with this issue. you draw them back down to the point where it seems to be a question of benign neglect below the level of conflict management and things tend to happen fairly quickly. and i already explained where i think the opportunities are for serious stuff that can have an days and weeks. >> now to your questions. please, wait for the microphone, which hopefully is coming. presented by yourself and ask her question.

it will be here in a second. >> i am josh rogan and i'm reporting with the daily beast. wondering if you can put a finer point on this question. what exactly is the failure of to this. talks john kerry rather publicly that if the two parties did not reach eight two state solution soon, there could be a problem with in -- intifada. was he right? if so, does this government race mx -- bear some response party for raising expectations for what was the wrong way at the wrong time? >> first, i think the actual

abduction of the israelis and then the palestinians, that could have happened any time, with no regard to the peace process. we have seen it historically. i do not think that it in itself is historically connected. what is connected is the mobilization that we see that is unbelievable. it is resonating. it is generating what we would not have known what happened. match?l light up the match, can light of the but it does not always catch. the environment is ready for it to catch fire. that is, in part, a function of many things, including the collapse of the peace process, of a two state solution. i do not push that to say to raise the expedition to high and therefore, that is what happened. i think the expectations for

incredibly low before. we have seen that. if anything, john kerry succeeded in extending the time of hope for a little bit longer. years ago, three years ago, we were already seeing majorities of israelis and palestinians thinking it was too late for a two-state solution. it was not that this administration is saying, it is coming, and then he collapses. i think that is wrong. he should be committed and for trying. -- commended for trying. is not linear. you could look back to july of 2000. had a full-fledged presidential summit. expectations were at that point running, as my three colleagues note, and interest the high. there was a sense of drifting away from the failure of that summit. even though the united states

followed up to at the best of its capacity. is the the failure absence of monopoly in the forces of violence. clearly, when it comes to the palestinian authority but increasingly i think you see even on the rig -- the israeli side. that goes along way to explain the s is -- s cycle. escalatory cycle. >> i would agree that the minister should be commended rather than not. to the granular level of politics, it was pressure side rather than the big picture negotiations. and the question of reality on in ground got sort of dumped

favor of big picture stuff. there was a certain loss of way. the whole international community, and all of third parties, and there were quite a few of them, combined to drop the ball and let the state and institution building become a --ondary and in dispensable and indispensable project, when it was not at all. if there was any progression that i would draw, there was the collapse to palestinian politics and allowing the politics to constrict like this and allowing hope to dry up on the ground, on the one hand, and the sort of out-of-control situation that we have today. i think there is a much more direct cause and effect between those two factors then -- then i think we have between those two

factors and diplomacy now. one thing to keep in mind is the violence did not come out of nowhere. there had been a significant uptick in what is called price take -- uptick in what is called price tag violence. none of it had come to the point it had come to recently. but the violence is part of the landscape, unfortunately. what we have seen is a village is rendition in diminution and violence. not an absolute wants. but i do not think it is fair to blame john kerry for the violence. but we do have a diplomatic vacuum. what is of concern is the way the violence culminated in april. there was no plan b. there should be some diplomatic fallback short of an all or nothing type of approach. and that is what we are trying to allude to in the previous.

>> but there was no coveted to plan a. -- no alluded to plan a. there was no need for a to go to the rest of plan a. it was a perfect a viable part of plan a and it should have continued to thrive. >> there has been a lot of -- firstn of intifada intifada, second, and third. conditions have changed in a major way. now there is a new focus by the posting in -- by the palestinian leadership on the long struggle of leadership and international

agencies mobilizing supporters to put clinical and economic rusher on israel, specifically through the boycott and the sanction movement. yet while this is happening -- >> we need a question. >> yes, and the u.s. has restricted these new efforts. isn't it time for a new shift? or a more nuanced position on the u.s. -- by the u.s. on these nonviolent oppositionists? >> i think the american position has been consistent. one of the biggest obstacles to progress and why the two-state solution is dying as a solution is opposition to settlement. there have been no teeth in the policy. israelis are frustrated with the

fact that there is no pressure to stop that from happening, even though it is eating up the two state solution every day. you can even argue, and i think probably credibly, that one of the reasons israelis agreed to get back to the negotiating table when john kerry started the negotiating process was this pressure from europe to boycott products from israeli settlements, expanding as we speak. just in the past week, up to 17 european countries have they have warned against dealing with israeli settlements. the administration itself, i think, actually looked at that. and one option on the table was, if they are not going to do it, if they are going to do, clearer allies in europe to do it.

the settlements are something very specific as a poised to board cutting israel. boycotting israel in europe and name the u.s., how do you do this you? you you oppose the policy of israel and support israel at the same time? how do you do it? europe -- ased action as opposed it relates to settlements matters. u.s.or opinion poll in the about american attitudes toward the israeli-american -- israeli-palestinian conflict, i asked people whether they supported -- if a two state solution was no longer a possibility, would they support occupation indefinitely, or israeli annexation of the territories, without full

citizenship? those people who said initially that they would support a two state solution, the majority of aem said they would support one state solution with the full citizenship. americans have a problem with the idea that you have an indefinite occupation or a relationship with -- relationship of inequality. any peace process, then maybe it's going to come. if you do not have a peace process, then you have a resignation and it took like it's not going to happen and you look like you have a permanent situation. people do not want to accept it. including people who care a lot about israel. we see that in the perl -- in the polling. something you see moving in that direction if you have a lot of violence. if you have a lot of violence, violence created completely different environment. it becomes a zero-sum. it's about survival. it's about a narrative. it takes you in a different

direction, and that is what we see potentially happening if there is an escalation. >> next question. >> my name is herbert roseman. i'm a retired judge. thewould you think that state department officials could contribute to a peaceful solution there when you have no credibility with the israeli ?ide the state officials in the state department have always been antagonist and -- toward israel. people inthe working the state department, they have always been anti-israel. you have no credibility there. >> got it.

>> you first. to 56, you are speaking -- 56 -- 50-60 years of state department experience between us. it does not reflect the way the state bar -- state department is today. things have changed. tensiont, there may be between the prime minister stop us an the white house and the high this levels -- highest levels. in the broad-spectrum, u.s.-israel relations, there is a working relationship that is close at all levels. the state department arabists who hate israel, so israel will never listen to us, that does not correlate to the relationship today. yound the counterpart to would stand up here and stay --

say that the problem is the opposite. in the last 30 years, the state department as well as the white house has been consistently, fundamentally, and avowedly pro-israel, to the degree that it tends to look at is really did -- is really requirements as the departure for any american policy. and i would argue that is, frankly, more correct and incorrect. i don't think that is the case. >> i am a research assistant at the eurasia center. with netanyahu coming out next week saying he's in favor of an independent kurdistan, what is your take on him being more pro-settlement and everything? isn't it ironic that he is

pro-kurdish stand that -- but pro-two state solution? back -- dateay back further than the 2003 war. in recent years, they have always the -- obviously built a close relationship with kurdistan. it is a strong autonomous region regardless. from the israeli point of view, it is a strong strategic asset in that region. it is not surprising for me that they would call for that. the problem for them, for the israelis, is that they have a lot of other arabs that don't agree. look at the new egyptian government under sec, for example, who has been asisi, forg -- under

example, who has been cooperating with israel. i think they will have a lot of pushback, a lot of countries that they are trying to get close loop -- close to. they are trying to get close to sunni arabs versus the iranian influx in the region. i don't see that sitting very well, because most sunni arabs are opposed to an independent kurdistan. not a particular meaningful thing, and problematic for the relationship. --i see it as palmetto for as problematic for those who are trying to engineer it for the long run. many israelis have come at it from independence.

it israelis, before the kurds themselves, have made that a public goal. it is entirely unhelpful, frankly. >> we have an overflow room filled with at least 50 people. there are several questions. i will take that and they move go to you. be avery be -- will there peace process between israel and palestine? if religion was taken off the table? >> would there be a peace process? a presumably, would it be dimension? one of it -- one of you take it. for a long time that the minute you start adopting religious language to justify nationalism and conflict, them and it you are in trouble -- that is the minute you are in trouble. because ultimately, you are allowing the most fanatic

religious groups to claim the upper hand. legitimacyave more to speak in the name of the religion and you will as a nationalist. and the israeli-palestinian conflict went to a religion -- revolution over the years because it moved to a nationalist conflict, because people would be satisfied with a nation of their own rather than assuming religious claims. that is undoubtedly the case. inclusion of religious symbols and meanings in the struggle have made it harder to resolve the conflict. undoubtedly. >> fascinating panel. aic, you started this not channel about the two state solution, but about politics. salam fayyad was in aspen last week. the people know he was

prime minister of palestinian authority, and before that finance minister. he still is in the region. he drafted a two-year plan for palestinians to earn statehood. it was enormously half -- popular with the west. was not a lot of street credibility, but he is obviously still interested, very, in palestinian development. outuestion is, could a phi -- fayad comeback make a difference? >> fascinating question. two powers that he is enacted are not his soul position. they could be put into powers -- power by others. the concept of having accountable, responsible government that looks to me the needs of the people as they exist today and to build the

bottom-up- from the up as both the top-down, this can be enacted by anybody. i do not want to link it only to yad, whoout -- mr. faa are respect enormously. enacted with the thrust of a lot of what i've said today, and what i've said has been to suggest that the donor community and other parties have tried to promote that exact kind of thinking. it was a terrible pity that the space for that project was shut down. in a kind of fit of not understanding at all the consequences of international policies on palestinian national life in the aftermath of the unsuccessful -- the first unsuccessful and even other

successful u.s. bids on pf of the palestinians -- on behalf of the palestinians. and even at the cost of the appeal go -- of the plo. the cost of the prime minister to proceed. -- as i talk about lots of little projects through the occupied territories, many of them through the not high jacobousual -- non--high jackable usual bepects, not only will there a future, but in a big way, yes, for that.

collect there has been a backlighting of the bottom up approach, the faith approach. we have seen through palestinian politics a freedom of expression. and part of that is the top-down focus. yad, theerence from fa degree to which his population is still measured. and unfortunately, his father passed away recently and the for populars called demonstration any approach he adopted. that is good news for the approach. the bad news is, there is no mechanism within palestinian transfer- politics to third-party ethics. that is why i have been advocating throughout my comics part of a political -- through

my comments part of a political change. we have talked a lot about the reform through 2006. they just has not happened. and most in the west bank are skeptical that it will ever happen. the good news is, the majority of palestinians are sick of just as -- fatah, they are sick of hamas. tore is still no mechanism translate it. that is part of the reason we have no -- we have violence today. but i have -- >> i have respect ayad and still do. part of the problem and he has is a political one. no one can transform it as far as occupation goes, and there is

no political horizon. it is not something he can deliver. >> i'm from the news network in kurdistan. why is there some much more international support for palestine as opposed to the kurds? is it because they are primarily kurdish people and not arabs, or primarily sunni people as well? >> may be on an emotional level you can find more people interested in the palestinian cause precisely because of the israeli-palestinian conflict and because it is an international issue. inyou look at the the way which the kr g has been steadily independence -- and i say this as unconnected from anyone unconnected to. crossedic was caused --

in a way that it was not before. this is virtually a done deal and it's a question of when, not if. while there are certainly a lot of players in the region i do not want it, the key ones either do or will. of -- iink i didn't ofn't of -- by dint strategic sense and willingness of those who might have opposed this move of kurdish independence, to start to acquiesce, to start cooperate and smile on it in baghdad and elsewhere, you will start to see that. i think the kurds are much closer to their independent then palestinians are. >> unrequited kurdish nationalism may be the largest single group write it

nationalism -- single unrequited nationalism in the world, but location is important. israelis and palestinians walked onto the stage of history at an extraordinary place, a place that is not on the resident -- nant, but-- reso simple. coverage was easy. it was this portion only -- disproportionately covered. and given the ever coverage -- other coverage in the world, all of the focus in one place, the center of the world, so to speak, the kurds did not have that. are a couple of attitudes that are important. the international community has

opposed the integration of state. this particular case, the consequences are not only because you have the kurds. you have a ron, iraq, syria. with the palestinians, it is a completely different conflict. you're talking about territories under occupation and there is a huge difference. >> [inaudible] >> the boundaries are determined by what the u.n. excepts. pts.cce the boundary on borders is what it's excepted and legitimized by the united nations. it is not about history. the history of every question -- every country can be question.

you can look at premodern states in the middle east. you can raise questions about the legitimacy of any state. but that is not the way the international community is set up. it is set up based on a clump that is legitimized through u.n. resolutions that defines what boundaries are. but the question is actually reversed by the palestinians. -- >> the question is actually reversed by the palestinians. >> that in itself is intriguing. this,oubt i would not do but we have one additional file question. from the overflow room. i should not do this, but i will. agree that ititly may be too late for is to take -- 482-state solution -- it might be too late for a to-state solution. briefly, all right.

close your eyes and imagine the worst. if there cannot be a two-state solution, what should be the solution? -- let's differentiate what is likely to happen. if i were to reach the conclusion that two states are impossible, i would support one state with equal citizenship. that is the moral thing to do. that is the only one i could harmony with my moral beliefs and justice. is that likely to happen? probably not. in fact, the probably only thing that is keeping the two state solution is alive -- alive is that the majority of israelis think that a two state solution is no longer possible, they do not think there will be one state. there will be violence for years to come. how do you manage it from exploding?

if you look at it from not a moral point of view or something i would advocate as an individual with moral point of how do you manage the conflict, we are in trouble. no matter what you do, we will have an irruption. equilibriumobvious point. for theibility would be israelis to increasingly control the west bank even more, even though they don't call it annexation, possible annexation. possibly legal annexation, but not gaza. it does not solve the problem of gaza, or the problem of refugees outside. it does not address a lot of the questions that out -- that palestinians would have. that is not a prescription that you would have. it would bring violence for years to come. >> it is a proximity problem in

essence. >> first, i do not think it is too late. least 1937, 8at if not earlier, everyone who has looked at the problem has come isthe same conclusion, which partitioned. in some form or another. third, i do not think there is such a thing as one state solution. there could be a one state outcome, but that is a prescription for continued intricately no -- intra-communal violence at best. best,is one solution at and the approach i could envisage would be palestine and israel within the security council now to enshrine the idea of two states between israel and palestine, but that is a diplomatic answer. the short answer, i do not think there is such a thing as a one state solution. >> i agree with that. there are two real outcomes. it is not a smorgasbord of

fascinating outcomes. it is a short binary. we can have a workable solution that is only one. a two state solution would meet the minimum needs of both parties. it can be done. it can be done in theory. doneroblem is, can it be within the two parties with this asymmetry of power. is it possible for the palestinian to extract the concessions from political leaders and enforce them and take the clinical cost? that is the question. the other outcomes are only that, outcomes. they involve for the conflict. there is a one solution versus a number of other conflicts. therefore, it is not dead. >> i will say, like rock 'n roll, the peace process will never buy -- never die. and there will be a serious

effort in a changed environment. and because the israeli process is a history of transform, think outcomell be a possible on the road for a two state solution perhaps better than the one we see now, but please join hand thanking our turf at -- our trip panel. >> on another foreign policy issue, the hill reported that members of the senate armed services committee today criticized the obama administration as lacking a clear strategy for defeating the sunni insurgencey that is in iraq. two leading critics, senators john mccain and lindsey graham emerged from a closed door briefing dissatisfied from what they heard from defense secretary chuck hagel and general martin dempsey. here's what we heard from senator mccain followed by

senator claire mccaskill as they spoke to reporters. >> it's a classified briefing so i will not tell you details about the briefing. there is no strategy for countering the largest enclafe of terrorism that -- enclave of terrorism in the iraq-syria border. they have no strategy, nor did they articulate a strategy to counter what our intelligence estimates are over time will be a direct threat to the united states of america. >> did they outline any plan? >> no, no strategy whatsoever. >> are they going to change anything about afghanistan? >> i can't give any details. >> any word how the assessments are going?

very l, we got iran active in iraq. at the same time they're active in syria trying to help assad. and it complicates what we the do and can do and problem in iraq is the iraq government and maliki refusing to acknowledge that he must include all of iraq in the government. and until he is willing to do what is necessary it's going to be -- >> do you hear anything like a strategy from the administration to deal with this? >> i think there is strategy. if the american people are looking for some simple sound bite, it would be irresponsible to give one because it's complicated. as i said, we have iran on

different sides. we're talking about neighbors here. so what we got to do is make sure we're working with our allies, that we are continuing to appeal to the moderate sunnis who ultimately will reject a kind of government that will cut off your finger for spoking a cigarette. that's what this extreme organization presents. ultimately their extremism will not help them govern. but i think we have to be and i hink the administration is cautious and careful that there is not one-size-fits-all. >> back on the other side of the capitol, the house gavels in in under 15 minutes, 2:00 p.m. eastern for short speeches. then they'll recess shortly and legislative work beginning 3:30 on eight suspension bills. in the meantime, from this morning's "washington journal," discussion on the increase in

america's oil production. conti. host: our final guest joins us from new york, mark shenk from bloomberg. he reports on energy and oil, and he is here to talk about the united states and oil capability. good morning. guest: good morning. host: the headline says that we have overtaken saudi arabia as an oil producer. why has that happened? guest: well, new technologies. prices rose a few years ago before the great recession. people got minds together and good old american ingenuity came ofwith our refinements fracturing and a new well technology which open up whole new reservoirs, especially in the middle the country, places like the dakotas. host: while it may be familiar to some, what is fracking, and tell us about its role in the

oil resurgence. guest: basically, high-pressure are, you know, put against a rock a steep in the ground -- rock bass deep in the ground and it releases oil, gas, and other things that are trapped. it is old technology. it was developed in the u.s. more than 60 years ago. but it has been refined, and it really has taken off in the last decade. it was first great big for developing natural gas in places like pennsylvania but it was found that a lot of oil came so it has been really revolutionary in places like texas and the dakotas. host: guesstimates about this oil-producing weird doing come from the -- the estimates about this oil-producing we are doing come from bankamerica. how long will this run last? guest: well, we are not at our

peak. the energy information administration in washington. that washington predicts production will grow by one million barrels this year. we are looking for further growth in u.s. production, not only on crude oil, but natural gas. it looks like we will be in this sweet spot, as it were, for i guess another 20 years. host: so the daily output exceeded 11 billion barrels. that happened in the first quarter of 2014. also when it comes to crude oil production, it is the highest volume produced in 24 years. it surpassed all other countries according to information from bloomberg news. and it overtook saudi arabia and russia. our guest is joining us from new york to talk about this change in oil production in the united states. he is mark shenk from bloomberg. if you want to ask questions about what is going on, user chance to do so.

-- here is your chance to do so. host: mr. shenk from bloomberg will take your questions in just a moment. mr. shenk, if we are producing this much more oil, do we expect to see a drop in gasoline and other types of fuels in the united states? guest: well, races here have always been lower than in our competitor ash prices here have always been lower than in our competitors --prices here have always been lower than in our competitors. natural gas especially is a lot cheaper here than it is in our competitors, and it made u.s. industry quite competitive. , iyes, but on the other hand would not say that gasoline prices will fall as a result. will this reduce our dependence on where we get oil from when it comes to other countries? guest: that most definitely is all ready happening.

happening. i believe in december we produced 90% of the energy we consume in the u.s., the highest level since the 1980's. we definitely are more energy independent and we were in the -- than we were in the past. host: as far as what we taken or at least what we are bringing in oil-wise, what about the usage we have in the united states? what is oil and fuel usage like as far as a day-to-day basis? guest: during the recession, energy consumption fell. the economy slowed, used less. but it hasn't returned to prerecession levels. it appears that people's driving habits have changed. new standards for automobiles, energy efficiency standards. the u.s. demand, although is growing a little bit now, is yet

to be anywhere close to where we were and 2008, 2007. that also adds to our energy independence here in the u.s.. host: when it comes to crude oil production, we are the largest oil consumer. 7.5 million barrels of crude as of april 2014. mark shenk talking about u.s. overtaking saudi arabia and other countries as the world's biggest oil producer. tom, republican line. caller: what does the reporter think about the energy companies not having to tell the public what kind of chemicals they are injecting down into the ground? really myt is not area of expertise. i think we are in kind of a blind area. this is all happened so quickly that i don't think there has been a regulatory framework done on a federal level.

what you are left with is state rules. so yes, i think in time this will be remedied. host: next call is from atlanta, georgia. thanks for holding on. caller: how you doing? i would like to ask a question of him. he said the price of oil would remain the same, but how come over there for the countries , gas and stuff cost them like nine cents, $.10 a gallon, and we are paying four dollars a gallon? host: mr. shenk? guest: well, that is the case in some countries, but you know, norway is also a huge exporter of crude oil, and they pay about the highest in the world. it really is decisions made on a local level. in the u.s. we do have taxes but they are relatively low compared to other countries paid in

countries like venezuela, they have $.10 gasoline but the government subsidizes it. the government there is losing money for every gallon of gasoline sold. they have a problem of smuggling in neighboring countries because it is so cheap. yes, it is much cheaper in countries like saudi arabia and venezuela, but that is because the government subsidizes it. tony, sun valley, california, independent line. good morning, everyone. you can see when we look at the crude oil prices per barrel and the bush days, the gas prices spiked over four of gas, one a barrel went up to like $180 a barrel -- i'm sorry, i'm nervous. but you see a trend where the

prices keep on hovering around four dollars, maybe a little bit less come even though the price per barrel has gone down to almost $60 a barrel. so the question i wanted to ask was what is going to happen to the natural gas prices? we are investing so much money in natural gas. what will happen with natural gas prices when the natural gas ports are ready to start export them? guest: well, that is a good question. we really don't know. there is a lot of natural gas crude.ompared to, say, the u.s. is very well supplied with natural gas. there has been a problem with burning it off at some wells and places like north dakota. given the amount that is being invested, yes, the u.s. is already an exporter and it will

increase, but it probably won't be enough to have an effect on domestic prices. host: tim in california, democrats line. caller: hi there. my question is what kind of taxes are currently assessed on oil producers at the well, at the source? similarly, what kinds of tax producerse given to that constitute a subsidy? guest: that is a good question. i'm not sure about all of them. are credits when you make investments in anything, and investment has been skyrocketing. a lot of that can be declared on tax forms. there are taxes on the state level. what -- often based on on hand at the end of the year.

but i can't get into specifics. host: mr. shenk, we have a map of opec countries. how do these countries view our newfound status? guest: probably depends on the country. a country like saudi arabia probably doesn't want to see us go up them up, up, but they don't want to see oil prices rise at such a high level that they destroyed the global economy. so they can live with it. a country like venezuela or iran is probably not so happy about it, because first of all, they have limited supply, they want to have very high prices. so it really depends. y is: pennsylvania, and up next for mark shenk of bloomberg news. caller: hi, guys. so with our production is going down, a very

shortsighted optimism, but if prices are not going out for us, i fail to see how this is getting us and he energy independence -- getting us any energy independence. can you respond to that? guest: well, we are importing a lot less, that is a fact. it has been great for the u.s. trade balance. on the east coast we probably but stateshe impact, like north dakota weren't really impacted at all by the recession. there is really this large part of the country, be it the rocky mountains states, the great plains, even west texas, which are booming as a result of the increase in production. positive -- this is the positive impact of the rise in production. host: mark >> all of this available at c-span.org and "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern.

we back at 3:30 eastern. eight bills under consideration. live coverage of the house now on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as the house reconvenes, we ask your blessing upon deliberations informed by the experiences and interactions of the members with their constituents. we thank you for the time to be together with family and friends as our nation celebrated 235 years of being a marvelous experiment in the self-governance of a people, brought together by ideals and ti