so powerful to see jane on the openings age yesterday. present toeaker to you tonight is an amazing person. he is founder of a consultancy in his name. he submitted to us that he loves apple product. i think there is much more to this amazingly courageous person , and you are about to meet him right now. >> when i was growing up i wanted to be either a lawyer or an actor. admissionen i got into the university to this cover theater arts, -- to arts, it was ar

dream come true. it was everything i wanted to be -- tall, handsome, intelligent, witty. a very good sense of humor. such was the relationship that he had such an impact of .nfluence on my life so it was. after my first year holiday and when i went back school i got a call. brian would like to see me. he's in the half ago. i rushed to see him. the moment i walked into the ward i saw my best friend. he was lying on the red. through hishis rib skin. cancer all over his skin.

his skin was dark. his eyes were big and popping out of his goal. his skin wrinkle. i couldn't help myself. i broke down. said,e looked at me and come on. at this particular time, he still had a sense of humor. hand, and he weak held me and said, i have got aids. the doctor said i have only got a few days to live. i would like to talk to you. eyese looked right into my and said, out of all my friends, you are the only one that can

about hivssage across , and i want you to promise you will do this. i was young. i have no idea what he wanted me to do. i came across an organization in s,ght. called alliance right which was working with gay men. i started to volunteer with them. given the opportunity to become the program director. that came with the responsibility of lobbying the nigerian government to start an hiv framework that would include sexwho have sex with men, workers, and drug users. in nigeria, public health was

defined i religion. it was hard. every day i tried. i hit my head against the wall. then in 2004 i was invited to give a talk alongside representation, and then i told the story. then the health minister said, it's time for you to join us in the fight against hiv. it was like i was dreaming. i wasn't expecting for this to happen. a few weeks later i got an e-mail inviting him to the committee. that would change the framework in nigeria.

in 2014,10 years later president goodluck jonathan find a deal into law the prescribed 14 years imprisonment for known perceived homosexuality. prisonribed 10 years in for anyone that provide -- prescribed services for known homosexuality is. that means the hiv work in nigeria had to.. ofs not just that, but 17% gay men would not have access to treatment. in my frustration the pic sure came back to me, and i realized, no matter what happened i had to keep his memories alive because there is also much work to be done.

thank you. >> our primetime programming tomorrow night focuses on the relationship between the government and the press with a discussion that includes the new york times executive editor and .euters news active here is some of that event. method used to be the government would say if you publish this story about national security somebody will get killed. at not good enough for me. i want to hear who. i want to hear the pacific. i don't need them -- the specifics.

i don't need them to tell me how they will get killed, but you mean a case officer in tehran? tell me how. tolways demand a request hold something back comes from very high in the government. if a press person asked for it i won't even take the call. it has got to come from someone in the white house. it has got to come from the head of the cia . it can't come from the press person. if you say that, half of all requests go away. quite willing to ratchet it up that high. i always insist they ratchet it up that high and offer very specific proof. i would say most of the time we go with the story. are there stories we have held over the years that met that

dander? yes. >> that discussion hosted the association of black journalists is tomorrow night at eight eastern. in a few moments a white house update on the situation in iraq. minutes more about the israeli-palestinian conflict foundationted by the for the defense of democracies. after that robert mcdonald speaks to the 70th annual convention in memphis. events to tell you about tomorrow including a forum on religion and diplomacy. is judethe hud and looks at national security and theposed by iran terrorist group isis.

you will also see a discussion of strategy in iraq. that is at 2 p.m. eastern. >> here are some of the highlights for this weekend. i history to looking at the civil war. saturday the communicators visit the technology fair on capitol hill. sunday the political commentator pat buchanan. clinton, barack obama, and edwards snowden. daniel hauber and sunday morning we tour the literary sites of cap or, wyoming. league's kansas city monarchs. the depiction of slavery and movies. on sunday an interview with president herbert hoover.

let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us or e-mail us. join the c-span conversation. like a font face. -- like us on facebook. hello us on twitter. as tuesday's white house briefing began with then roads the additionalrs military personnel would report back soon with recommendations on how to rescue the iraqis trapped in the mountains by isis militants. the briefing was in martha's vineyard. this is 20 minutes. thanks, everybody. let me give you an update on the president's morning. he was briefed this morning. with primeone call minister netanyahu.

on the ongoinged effort to get a sustainable cease-fire in place. i will take questions. on theyou update us president's thinking in terms of using u.s. troops to do some kind of rescue mission? and even though that wouldn't be combat troops on the ground in a traditional sense, wouldn't that put americans at risk in a similar way? >> well, again, first of all, we have a very specific objective with respect to then humanitarian situation, that is to get food, water and emergency supplies to the population on this mountain, and also, as necessary, to take air strikes against isil as they threaten the people on that mountain and to date, i believe we've taken in the range of seven air strikes associated with that mission.

at the same time, there needs to be a lasting solution that gets that population to a safe space where they can receive more permanent assistance. so what the president has done is authorized the deployment of 130, roughly, u.s. military personnel who will assess the situation on the mountain and in northern iraq. they are there on a temporary basis to make assessment. this would be a humanitarian effort to get them to a safe raise. -- space. we haven't made decisions because we want to get a readout first. i think relatively quickly in a matter of days. we don't believe it is sustainable to have herman

at airdrop. some of them have been able to escape, but we want to get options to move them to us a for place. -- a safer place. there are ways to do that. withoal is to work international partners so these people can get to a safer place. we don't believe that involves entering a combat role in iraq. it involves difficult challenge of moving folks who are in danger on the mountain to a safer position. >> there would be some danger to u.s. personnel that would be involved in a mission like that. pilot flyinge have over iraq. it aalways carries with

danger. there are always dangers involved. i think the key point is the role of u.s. forces is not one of reentering combat on the ground. it is how to provide humanitarian assistance to this effect did population. in terms of kinetic those are in the form of airstrikes. >> if it is launched, it would e in combat. >> at the bottom line force protection is the bottom line. we have already reinforced our ourssy in baghdad and facility with military personnel who are there with the purpose facilities.g those any u.s. military personnel has the ability to protect them selves. the mission is not to engage in combat.

make an assessment on how we move that population into a safe place. >> when you think that isis does pose a problem to the united states? >> the president has ordered this village terry action to iraq because of the threat they wee. by definition absolutely believe it poses a threat. we are focused with dealing with .hat threat the airstrikes we have launched have given space to engage. we are always monitoring not peopler facilities and but also monitoring potential against the united states.

are they providing a safe corridor or refugees to get off that mountain? >> we have a range of options and we will rely on what the teams report back. you look at core doors, airlifts, different ways to move people who are in a very dangerous place on that mountain to a safer position, and that is exactly what our team is doing now on the ground in iraq. >> is he willing to consider the option of sending a certain number of troops in there for the purpose of establishing something like, you know, a force protection, like you are saying? >>.c-span.org www.c-span.org

we have not made that decision at this point. we want to see what the circumstances are, see what options are available for moving those people who are trapped on the mountain. we obviously have not just u.s. personnel who could potentially be engaged in that type of effort -- we have kurdish forces who are engaged in the area with isil. we have international partners who also want to support the provision of humanitarian assistance, so we will look at what the best way and the safest way is to get those people off that mountain, and the president will be making decisions after he hears back from the military about what they found on the ground in iraq. >> the president said over and over again, no combat troops, no ground troops in iraq. does that statement extend to the idea of a state court or? i think i hear you saying that

the president has not ruled out sending in additional troops to establish a safe corridor for the refugees to get off that mountain. >> again, he has not received a recommendation to establish a core door at this point -- to establish a corridor at this point, but there are a variety of ways in which we can support the safe removal of those people from the mountain. frankly, we already have people on the ground working with kurdish forces in a joint operation center, so there are ways in which we can coordinate with iraqi forces on the ground and seeking to combat the threat from isil and to bring people to a safe space, but again, as we make decisions about what the best course of action is bringing those people to safety, we will be very transparent about that. we are using u.s. military personnel to assess what the best way is to bring people to safety and with the best way is to provide them with humanitarian assistance. but again, always, force protection is a mission for u.s.

personnel wherever they are in the world. that is certainly true of the reinforcements that are protecting our facility in baghdad. >> what information does the u.s. have on people who still are stranded on the mountain and where exactly they are? >> there have been a broad range of estimates to date that go into the tens of thousands. we believe that some number of thousands of people have been able to escape from the mountain, but not in a safe enough way and to a safe enough space that we are confident that the remaining people who are trapped there can get off. part of what these teams can do working with kurdish forces is try to get an understanding of the scope of the challenge on the mountain as well as the routes to remove people. to date, we have also again provided 100 thousand meals, some 27,000 gallons of water. we will continue those airdrops. the british have done a number of air drops, and we continue to do that. we've had offers of assistance from france, canada, australia. we are getting aid to the people who are on the mountain while also trying to determine the best means to bring them to a safe place.

>> malik he is showing resistance -- maliki is showing resistance. does the u.s. have a message? >> the message to all of iraq's leaders as there is a peaceful process in place to get a new government for iraq. there is a new president, a new speaker of parliament, and an alliance of different political blocs has put forward a candidate for prime minister, and now the president has asked him to form a government. in our view, he is clearly the prime minister designate in iraq. the process dates to go forward for him to put together a government and submitted to parliament, but that is the process in place that all iraqis have to ask -- have to inspect. any efforts to derail that

process, any efforts to use violence instead of working peacefully through the process will be rejected not just by the united states, but by iraqis themselves, but by the international community. we want to see a peaceful context for this process to conclude. there's an enormous opportunity to get a government that all the different factions can buy into, can support, and turn energy where it needs to be, which is combating the threat from isil. >> [inaudible] >> to date, the process has moved forward. he is still there. there is a 30-day period now that he has been designated for the next prime minister for him to form his government, present it to parliament. that is the step that needs to take place for this to be formalized. that is an ongoing process, but i think our message to prime minister maliki and all our iraqi leaders is that this is the one process that is

consistent with iraqi constitution that will lead to new government, and he needs to respect that process, let it go forward. frankly, this is not being imposed on anybody from outside of iraq. this is what the iraqis themselves have decided to do, including, importantly, not just the kurdish president and speaker, but the different shia political factions that put forward their candidate for prime minister. >> [inaudible] >> the white house will be very glad to see a new government in place. we believe it is necessary, frankly, to bring the country together. what has happened in the course of the last several years, if you did not have iraq is working together across different sectarian and communal lines, you had a sunni population that became disaffected.

that led to a loss of confidence in certain parts of iraq and the iraqi security forces. often, we are asked the long-term strategy for dealing with isil. i think it's very clear -- you get a new government in place. that provides the basis for all of iraq's communities to support the government in baghdad and turn the focus to where it needs to be. we will be providing training and equipping security assistance and advice to iraqi and kurdish forces, and then we can begin to squeeze the space where isil is operating at start to push them back, but that demands the cooperation of all iraqis, and that's the opportunity we have with this new government. >> does that extend to getting the refugees off the mountain either through a quarter -- corridor or airlift, and also, do we need personnel up there to help distribute the aid? >> in the first instance, iraqis and kurdish forces in particular have been engaged.

they have a presence on the mountain, and they will certainly be cooperating with us in this effort. the brits have been the most forward leaning of all of our allies in terms of doing humanitarian airdrops. prime minister cameron today indicated that they want to work with us as we work to get that population to a safe place, so the united kingdom has been fully in coordination with us in the provision of humanitarian assistance. again, we have offers of support from a number of allies like france, australia, canada. we will be in discussions with them about what they can do, both as it relates to helping the yazidi population has been trapped on the mountain but also more broadly helping bring relief to the displaced persons in northern iraq, which includes not just yazidis but an enormous number of iraqi christians and others who have been driven from their homes by isil. >> are you concerned about the

chaos that would be cause by just dropping supplies in there and letting the people sorted out? >> again, we have done several airdrops. i think every night. we have good fidelity on where the food and water is dropping, and we are watching how that reaches the population, and we are able to make sure we are trying to drop food and water in places where we believe people are concentrated. we have done these types of humanitarian airdrops in other instances, so again, we have an ability to focus on where we believe people are most impacted, but part of what these assessment teams will do, who are going to northern iraq, is get a better understanding of the situation on the mountain, where folks are, so that can help inform, again, but how we move them off the mountain but also how we are providing that humanitarian assistance.

>> if it is not being equitably distributed, does that suggest an american presence on the mountain? >> when you talk about 100 thousand meals, 27,000 gallons of water, that is not including the british support -- there's clearly a lot of food and water and other support that is reaching the mountain and the people on the mountain, but he would be the first to acknowledge that is not a permanent solution. just dropping food and water in perpetuity from the air. that is what we are turning our focus to right now. >> i think you can appreciate the specificity of this question -- when the president asks military advisers for recommendations, he spells out his own limits. has the president told his military advisers, "don't bring the recommendation including u.s. military personnel on the ground as part of a corridor to remove the yazidis or anyone else?" is that off the table as far as what the president is asking for as far as actionable decisions, or has he said that if there's a way that u.s. troops can expedite that, he's open to that? >> i say two things -- first is we have a range of ways that we

can support this type of effort. the president's one limiting factor he has communicated repeatedly in public and to the military is we do not want to be reintroducing u.s. forces into a combat role on the ground. what i'm saying is he is open to recommendations in which the united states is helping to facilitate the removal of these people from the mountain, which we believe is separate from saying u.s. forces will be redeployed in iraq in a combat role but take the fight to isil. the people on the ground fighting isil are the kurdish forces in iraq and security forces. we are taking action from the

air on the objective of protecting our people and providing humanitarian space for the yazidis, in particular on the mountain. if there are additional things we can do, he will certainly review those options. >> defining it as a humanitarian mission does not mean it is not dangerous and does not mean it could not turn into a combat situation. >> absolutely, there are dangers involved with any military situation. we would absolutely acknowledge that. there's dangers when pilots are flying. there's dangers when you are in a difficult situation as we are in iraq, but he is confident that we can have a limited military objective. when people talk about whether or not the united states is going to be drawn more into another war in iraq on the

ground, i think what they need to know is we have laid out with the objectives are for our military, which are protecting our people and carry out the humanitarian mission. the broader effort to take the fight to isil on the ground is being carried out by iraqi and kurdish forces with our training, arming, advice, but again, they are the ones engaged in combat, not just around the perimeter, but around other parts of iraq. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> on the next washington journal we will talk with robert of the foreign policy initiative. by the also be joined investigative reporter for the washington examiner to focus on a recent series of articles on congressional incumbency and proposals for term limits.

washington journal is live every day at the been amd's are in. -- every day on c-span. >> issue a spotlight with irs oversight and campus assault. our history to her showing sights and sounds. let us know what you think about the program you are watching. call us or e-mail us. join the conversation. faith but. -- face.

-- on facebook. foundationext the for defense of democracy. this is an hour and a half. >> welcome, everyone. i am the vice president for research. i welcome you to our panel discussion today on gaza, what what has been lost. i am honored to be joined by some analysts. to my right is hussein english

of the american -- hussein ibbish of the american institute, who has had insight into the broader middle east. offar right is erin miller the wilson center who has advised secretary of states both democratic and republican and is the author of a book "the end of greatness." it for my introduction other than to ask you to change silent. phones to >> i want to dive right into it and take advantage of the great panel. let's start with what just happened. i would like to go panelist by panelist. you, what start with was the motivation in this last

hamas, israel, palestinian authority, and finally diplomacy from the u.s.? ?> the motivation for conflict problem wasrategic that the modus mendy between israel and hamas is episodic. as much as the two may need one , the reality is they have a strategic problem with one another. hamas's calculations were born of desperation. financially bankrupt, politically isolated with israel and egypt controlling the gate

of gaza, they reached the gazausion that governing in a functional and productive manner was no longer possible. enough capacity in terms of use of hydrogen or he weapons and tunnel to risk ature military confrontation. out or they thought it not is another matter. it will take a long time to the tick tock that led to this conflict, but we are in it. what's high trajectory weapons early in the conflict, once it became clear the military wing had become very busy since 2009 in creating a tunnelve and offensive

capacity, i think the israelis made their own calculations that this had to be an effort at a and a gradeeter hamas's military capacity. the third to destroy the lexicon is another matter. i would urge people to keep in mind time is a relative factor. want to rush things. we need to know outcomes. need to be certain about things. that's not the way life works in the region. victors andand vanquished are determined over time. i think that essentially explains the motives of the main

combatants. the question now seems to me how do bothy parties see their future? what are their objectives and what are their goals? there are three primary parties to the conflict. egypt and the united states. i put the u.s. as a primary parties somewhat reluctantly. sketching out the motivations of , the u.s. andu.s. the palestinian authority in particular, which are peripheral but you could argue are critical to the resolution. we can talk about egypt. the mosta situation of

powerful, most influential arab inte being in a position which the official criticism of palestinians and hamas in particular and acquiescence in the destruction in gaza are quite stunning. the uae and saudi's this conflict generally is no longer a localized shepherds war. it is part of a broader filter through which the parties see the region. if you ask me right now what the single greatest threat was facing the middle east it certainly would not be perpetuation of israeli-palestinian conflict. would in essence be what is happening in iraq. point to broaden

the lens and the filter because everyone else in the region is doing it. it would be a fundamental error of analysis to somehow conclude this problem is somehow any longer the fulcrum of either western civilization or the main the parties inf this region. it is not. toaching up on that, i want ask you the following question. there are some from the right who are trying to make the point that hamas is part of an connectedl movement to isis, al qaeda, and the broader jihadist movement. analysts have talked about hamas in terms of

localized grievances with israeli occupation. do you parse that, and can you talk about that particular issue? is hamas part of a broader movement, or is it part of the extreme militant and of the nationalist movement? >> it is both the extreme end, although there are some smaller groups and also the extreme militant and of the muslim .rotherhood i think the efforts to conflate ares with these groups fundamentally misguided, although armed islamist groups share something in common. you already put your finger on the biggest differences. of absurdly -- sort

to see them comparing it. ultimately the goal is palestinian goals. this has led them to be severely in thezed by al qaeda past and by isis and its leaders now. or even those who took to burning palestinian flags online. do with israel, which they regard as a distraction. this is the isis position. there is a big difference between a global transnational agenda that cannot be and isally satisfied outside the bounds of any rational system versus an

extreme militant wing of two movements that are not universalist and their aspirations and are not fundamentally nationalistic. there is a big difference. i would say the answer is definitely the second, especially if you fold in the brotherhood angle. >> now i want to get into the initial sequence of the war. i want to get your sense. do you think hamas started this , or did the israeli reaction to the kidnapping start this war? >> the answer is yes. the way this unfolded, and a number of my colleagues and i were in the region as tensions began to rise.

tensions began with the kidnapping of these three te ens in the west bank. insist. continued to they went around house to house looking for the culprit and some 50 hamas officers. this certainly invoke the ire of to carry outbegan rocket attacks. this is nothing new for hamas. the tensions began to rise. the kidnapping of this young palestinian. i actually visited on the day of the funeral. intifada typee

activities were the local population burned the light rail system. they were throwing molotov cocktails. hamas'ss a sense on part where they could perhaps fan the flames, which was a third intifada. in begin to see the uptake violence. ultimately, that led to the firing of longer-range rockets on tel aviv, jerusalem, etc. you had this deterioration. the one thing we talked about was this notion of whether hamas was definitely involved. there has been a debate. at one point it was put to rest. we heard from the brother of this one operative in the west bank that has basically indicated hamas knew of this kidnapping, they knew of the

attack. they knew of it from the west abroad. also operatives presumably that means an operative based in turkey whom , so youbeen following get a sense this was known from all angles. one final note is that hamas is not in my view a homogenous organization. i believe there are at least for power centers. there is the west bank. there is the toll it bureau and the brigades -- the politburo and the brigades. i think it is impossible to tell who's kidnapping this was and who drove it. it does appear at least two or powerwere aware of this

system in advance of this taking place. come back to you. you have built with netanyahu. he was very clear. hamas is firing rockets from civilian areas in order to get his own side killed to demonize israel. -- oblige applauds the pr strategy? >> the primary responsibility -- i am not here representing the government of israel, but it is democratically elected and acts with coherence -- is the protection of its population, not just for security, but of security,nse which is extremely important, which is why destruction is not fundamentally changed the high , it is stillapons

altered. netanyahu had a commitment to go had to be this art. -- discharge. there are a number of mind.erations to keep in the uppermost is achieving military objections to deter and ultimately destroy moral mysiderations and in judgment inform israel's policy. i wouldn't argue to anyone israel's policy in gaza is immoral. i don't think there is a willful effort to target civilians or a , but i do notrd believe it is the central element which guides israeli policy anymore than it was the central element in the way we

operated in afghanistan or iraq or the way we operate with predator drone's. netanyahu in my judgment is a very risk-averse israeli prime minister. not ariel sharon. uncertainty,ike which essentially means that his rhetoric goes beyond his willingness our determination to actually act on what he is articulating. he watches and knows full well what happens when they over extend their reach. you can identify two in particular. lebanon in 1982

for whom there was resurrection. relativelyfeels satisfied he has achieved them, but i will go back to where i started. the endgame will be defined and solidified by who comes out of this strategically better , and that has yet to be decided in the tick rock that is currently going on in cairo and elsewhere. >> i want to get this from the palestinian perspective. from your perspective. fair enough. we just saw the human rights council name a new head of a commission that is going to investigate actions in this war. there has been an effort to try to become members of the

criminal court. there have been lawsuits for prior wars. how much of this political thetegy is part of palestinian nationalist strategy larger than hamas? >> i differ somewhat on his conclusions about israel's induct in the sense that think there are moments in the current round of hostilities we are seeing ebbing or not. where reckless is the least word you can use for a given action. i think that certainly does happen. having put that on the table, i would say there are always moments when there are diminishing returns.

certainly israel is plugged into the international community and whose relationship with the rest importantld is very to it. certainly by the time you had the seven strike on the sixth h unin school -- sixt school, you had a political problem. ki-moon andst ban the you in speaking harshly. the u.s.ers in government using words like alarming and horrifying. a territoryered in where political difficulty is being encountered. the point of view of the plo and the palestinian

nationalist movement, this is a potential avenue more than one being engaged in right now. is something being explored. it is a place they can go. certainly there have been an initial moves to get the you in nonmember observer state up e into the parties. that may explain the icc jurisdiction -- let me explain the icc jurisdiction can come in three ways. one of the country as a member of the assembly of parties. israel is not. the second is if there is a sovereign power in the territory in which those people are operating which can bring the complaint.

sudan is not a signatory to the icc. was investigated and indicted. what is open is the second route for nonmember observer states to proceed and become part of that. it is not as simple as people think. the intent to talk about this as if it were small claims court. in a few weeks you get before a judge. the way it goes. after the palestinians incurred the backlash, which holds them , this comes with a fairly

you have to weigh the costs and benefits. is this going to bring us anything? benefits does that have? you have to do a valuation of that. that is a little trickier than people might hope.

prosecutors in any system don't like to bring charges. it certainly could take years. finally, there's the problem of retroactivity. in all of these cases, we are talking about things that have already happened. there are a couple of ways in which the statute can be applied retroactively. it is even trickier. every state we are talking about becomes more and more difficult. other sort of diplomatic gestures that really get the attention of different parties, and a case of the icc is israel and in the case of the unite is ages other multilateral agencies like the international atomic energy agency or the intellectual property organization that the united states under law would be bound

to defund or lose its voting. that gets the attention of america even more. these are options for the palestinians. their age register and determination. is a potential being thought about more than a program that is being implemented. >> that is a good answer. to talk about this idea that there are these wars now. they don't really move the ball that much. the objective for netanyahu was not to destroy thomas -- hamas. there are these sort of peace processes. politicsthe american at this point? it seems the u.s. has been doing this now for a quarter-century. --has been trying to vote

broker a peace process. these wars don't make much sense to most americans i talked to. that leads toink to a political perspective going forward? tol it be viable politically -- to try to put back this peace process? >> i want to respond to one thing on the icc front. thell say with regard to palestinian authority/plo calculus, in some sense, we have been hearing the palestinian akened.ty is horribly weeken it's effectively irrelevant. i would argue it is in the

interest of the plo to see a weeakened hamas. to retake the gaza strip or its borders. them anas given opportunity to go to the icc beyond what they had been considering already. they had been talking about settlements. something that looks closer to a war crime than settlements. in some ways, it has been a gift. but this laid right into his hand. he still looks like amanda has kept to his nonviolent bows. is seen by every actor on the world stage right now as the answer. i don't believe he is. i think he is autocratic. but he looks terrific relative

thomas. will he be able to capitalize on it? i'm not sure the icc is the way to do it. as for your question, the episodic wars, we have seen this over time. hamas suicide bombings began that the gets rockets which begets a ground war. who knows what happens next? cycle whereof a every couple of years, this pops up. the bottom line is that there is an intractable conflict. i don't believe is between the palestinians and israelis. we have actually seen something of a thaw. at least the israelis are working with the moderate arab states. sense that as long as thomas continues to have

this foothold, we are going to go back and go back again. that is why i think we are beginning to see some of this. a real effort right now in cairo to try to figure out a way forward. a lot of what we are hearing is if you can establish a seaport. i saw a report last night of the u.s. built seaport. affiliated paper. a seaport built by the u.s. that everything that went to the seaport would have to go through cyprus first to be cleared and brought into the gaza strip. this is the sort of thinking we are hearing right now because this is the sense we have reached the end of our rope. can't continue under siege and under blockade. as long as they maintain that dedicated,d maintain model where there is a

government structure, you're still going to have a terrorist organization that is out of the reach of the central government. that is not a solution. a quick response on the u.s. policy. i would have to say this. we are seeing this in the press whether it is politico or foreign policy. there is a delusion of critiques critiques that we are hapless in the middle east. i have to say i agree. iranian nuclear crisis to go on, to ignore the so-called red lines in syria, saying we are going to finish in nine months and be done with it way, the messaging

that we are looking to pivot out of the middle east. while you have this massive upheaval going on, we have messaged in such a horrible way that we lost the confidence of just about every actor, every ally in the middle east. the idea that we can somehow get back in there and relaunch a new peace process seems to me very unlikely. we are going to do some rebuilding of trust in the region and it is going to take quite some time. writing off the u.s. senate think it is a very dangerous thing. there was a detail last week that the latest cease-fire being negotiated, the state department learned about it on twitter. there was no twitter when you were doing it. >> i have done my fair share of

the critiquing of the obama administration's foreign-policy. i think there is a broader problem here that we need to wake up to. i may be proven wrong at some point but over the last decade, my own mainly negative analysis has produced a frame of reference which i have become quite attached to. it has nothing to do with politics. it has nothing to do with ideology. it has to do with one simple proposition. we, as a people, this republic, is stuck in the middle of a region which we cannot leave because we have interests, allies, and enemies. but we cannot transform this conundrum. if you cannot extricate yourself and you cannot transform, let's

be clear. i challenge anybody in this room to identify one issue that has a definitive, comprehensive solution. in real time in a reasonable time. if you cannot transform, then you do the only other logical thing. you transact. you decide what is vital from what is discretionary. you decide what is doable from what isn't and you go about stripping down your interests to their core. you determine what is vital. in which weerest are prepared to sacrifice our people, our treasure, and our credibility. that is what vital means. discretionary, waging a

decade-long effort. it was not when we could win but when we could leave. a cruel and unforgiving assessment of what is in america's interest. it concedes their capacity to deliver. you should say what you mean and mean what you say. i would go a step further and talk about the past. last time we had an effective foreign-policy, you would have to go back beyond obama, the on george w. bush, beyond bill clinton. go back to that four-year run and times were different. the world was less cruel and unforgiving place in 1989. means and ends of lined -- a

ligned. people do not talk to you permission. that is the thing that we need to wrestle with. and we are not. net is a shared point at the end. there is nothing new in the situation. when was the u.s. in a position to do anything? >> there were three or four moments, a brief time during the 70's. and even at the end of the reagan administration. it's thelly speaking, way you described and that is normal. i don't disagree except for this.

it is not that difficult for the united states to restore confidence. it is not that difficult to resume the attenuated leadership role. reachust not beyond because there is still a hunger, i think, in the region. loves thee anybody united states or once the united states above all others. there isn't another country that can deliver, even in a limited way. maybe that is the same thing. but the point is, it's not courselt to write to the if there is a drift. >> you talk about clear policies and clear goals.

i think we need some clarity on who qualifies as allies and enemies. i'm not even clear on that right now which is added to the confusion. the traditional u.s. allies right now are pulling their hair out. whether it is the israelis or the jordanians. they are going crazy. they're going nuts right now. the enemies of the united states have essentially been invited in to become orders in their own disarmament. you have the iranians, you have the syrians. they are probably tickled pink at this moment. and you have this love of middle . where they the turks understand being an ally of the united states is not all it's cracked up to be. off into some interesting new directions where there supporting some actors

that are antithetical to u.s. interests. it has created this playing field that no one knows what team they are on any longer. i think it has made itself very apparent in this most recent conflict. enterprise, contradictions and anomalies and hypocrisy mix quite seamlessly. thatis another thing bothers me, this notion of consistency. people demand consistency and a set of principles for american policy. we intervene in libya and not in syria. we support and arab spring in egypt but not saudi arabia. i wouldn't even consider, and am just reporting here, not recommending, any sort of engagement with thomas or hezbollah. -- hamas or hezbollah.

betweener sitting here non-predatory neighbors to our north and south and fished our east and west has a margin of error that no other great power has. we have demonstrated that we can play fast and loose with this. we just sold $10 million. we have a strange relationship with egypt now. i think i put them in the good guy category. there are people in this town that would arguably want to hold them accountable for standards of democratization, gender equality, and political pluralism. sinceve 22 democracies 1950 in this world and have

maintained their democratic character continuously. the indians and the turks are not on the list because they basically suspended the democratic process during various periods in that in terval. it's a very small club. we just need a much more sensible -- back tot to go something you said about the vital first discretionary interest to the united date. being intimately involved in brokering a two state solution a vital or discretionary interest at this point? >> i can answer that question very clearly. i would put it in the discretionary category. not because it is unimportant. capacity toour produce a conflict ending agreement and i choose my words

very carefully -- the conflict ending agreement in which peace and reconciliation may be a ways but an israeli prime minister and palestinian president stan before their respective parliaments and say the following. it's over. no more claims to be adjudicated, no more to be pursued. the conflict is over. i see almost no possibility. i see almost no possibility in the near-term that i could hear such a statement. it belongs in the discretionary balks because we can't achieve it. >> if you judge by that, you would never assert that an interest is vital if it can't be achieved in the immediate term. i don't think that is a proper

calculation. you might have to do things in stages. i think there have been many instances where that has been the case. you couldn't get from a to be instantaneously but you decided be is where you needed to go and you make sure that you got there. because the united states, the middle east is still viable to the united states. this issue has become bound up with all the others and it is not driving the daily agenda the way that the war in syria, the war in iraq, the rise of isis is . but in the end, there is still nothing more important than this in my view. there is nothing more connected to other things. has proven the pivot to be a chimera.

it was always a pipe dream and only exist rhetorically. why? because the middle east is not avoidable for the united states. i think resolving this issue is a vital interest. >> [indiscernible] >> it depends on who you're talking to. >> from a u.s. perspective? from the u.s. perspective, i'm not sure how to answer that question, to be honest. i think ultimately what has happened maybe the last couple of years is it has basically problemsear that the we're seeing in the middle east are not linked to the arab-israeli conflict. everything tied back to the growth of the settlement or the blockade around the gaza strip or the plight of the

palestinians or the inability for them to get along. these are not necessarily tied. and of them are not tied that does raise questions about what is crucial to u.s. interests. to survive and is going to need to have some sort of agreement with its neighbors. whether it includes gaza, the don't know the answer to that. but i think it has become far it islear that solving somehow going to bring an end to our involvement in the middle east. seriously. that is a pipe dream. seriousheard anyone make it. it is a fundamentally nonserious -- >> [talking over each other]

>> it was never that it was a panacea but nothing that we can that would have been more beneficial. i think that is true over the long haul. >> i think that we have a distinguished audience today, many diplomats, journalists, analysts. but get right to it. >> [inaudible] >> i do recall whether after the gulf war and people saw missiles , i believe windows

it was george bush that made a speech about the new world order. they stopped the bosnian war in the beginning. except that: powell -- colin , the realist, insisted that if you go in you have to go in with overwhelming force and it turned out not to be true. affirmative action by the plo. i would like to ask you about the human rights council referring the issue with a recommendation to the security council. after thethey did goldstone report and it was not

successful. to get ninet able affirmative votes in the security council. i think it was nigeria at the time that signaled they are not going to vote affirmatively. do you think that if that scenario was repeated, you have different actors. do you think that scenario would play out again? the backstop of the u.s. veto? >> you are right on bosnia. no administration in a four or eight year run is going to have a perfect policy. ruben was a perfect strategist and he had a lot better success in europe than in asia or korea. council is arights very difficult one.

i think it wasn't just the united states but also russia and china and france, not in the security council but in the human rights council that they didn't really want to see the goldstone report go further. they had their own reasons for that. want a goldstone report or about your own troops circulating around. >> it never seems to happen that way. >> if you are the chinese government, this is something you really want to sign off on beyond the human rights council? i think that was pretty clear. i don't think it is a winning strategy because in the end, it is easy for palestinians to that is why they

theyder the cost benefit could not get to the requisite number of votes. if they did manage to overcome it, there is the u.s. veto. >> there is a tendency to want to take a look at the human rights council, the icc as the goal. i don't think that is the goal. useful tool to talk about how the palestinian cause needs to be elevated at the u.n. which when you look at sincehey have been doing

2005, the palestine 194 platform to make the palestinians 194th country of the united nations. they were denied by the security council and there was a famous photo at the general assembly that did not afford them statehood status but they continue to pursue this under abbas's leadership. ofould like to see the state palestine on other platforms along the way. in other words, it's a means to a different and. that is i will describe what will likely happen leading up to september and perhaps the year after. >> there are two tracks going simultaneously. what captures the population , the idea that this is a nonviolent means of pressuring israel.

what means are available to you to put pressure on israel that don't backfire? there are people out there that measures can prove that. reckless as violence, but it doesn't add up in the end. >> two questions to jonathan and aaron. there will be major reconstruction and big money coming into gaza and there is a that i think is a good thing. would you think about corruption and the potential corruption if this were to transpire?

given the current conflict, some our traditional allies. how would you recommend the u.s., how should we approach and navigate this as we try to deal with the cease-fire. >> a good question. ist we have to look at here that this will be exploited. it has the potential to be exploited on two levels. thee is no question palestinian authority has a track record that is rather of skimming off of the top. where official taxes are levied and, of course, what is taken.

these things cannot happen when you talk about gaza right now with the needs that it has and looking more broadly. if we keep holding out the palestinian authority. i disagree that it's as cut and dry as that. but if you do that, you have to make sure the funds actually get through. there needs to be a significant amount of oversight. i talked to some of the potential folks that talk about lifestream cameras, added measures of oversight. up toat is done should be usaid and other actors. i think there needs to be many players. there will be some no matter what. and really make it clear that we should not trust the palestinian authority as it is constructed right now. we don't have that kind of

oversight. is thatr thing also they have played a very controversial role in this conflict, to say the least. the fact that there is at least one booby-trapped tunnel underneath the facilities. it very politicized role. we are hearing it today from senators on capitol hill. andatter what the role has, has this strenuous oversight of the palestinian authority will have. it does not allow us to go back to where we were. in terms of the tunnels, rockets, and the way that the age structure works inside the gaza strip. >> there is no reason to have oversight of iran, there is oversight. the politicization by the two

been a use of facilities. i think that the demonization in ahe political football way that instrument allies is an agency that is absolutely essential. a necessary agency that needs to be supported even if you call for greater oversight. it is indispensable. that, inis no question terms of the services that it provides to the palestinians and

the gaza strip, it is undeniable that it is absolutely needed. the spokesman has become a central player during this conflict. possibly -- that is totally unfair. >> it has always had a very uncontroversial role. >> they have never been able to teach things are be able to pay

themselves. >> they were not all original refugees. >> every other refugee problem, you know this. they never perpetuated the problem to the extent you had the original hundred thousand or so refugees. over time, many of them have died over the years. roughly 30,000 or 35,000 left according to the best figures we have. theproblem is that you have children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. refugee status has been distilled upon the descendents to the point that you have 5 million refugees. it is impossible to solve this.

like status inis judaism that you pass on from father to son. >> how does that help solve anything? we agree that they provide services that are needed. they still end up in gaza, the same exact problem. to your responding point that this has been politicized by others. they have done a terrific job of politicizing itself. >> [inaudible] [laughter]

>> this is off of what aaron said about a negotiated agreement not being availed in the new future. that aout the idea government official, when he talked about -- do you think this is something that could work? >> i don't even know how to respond. they tried reaching a framework agreement.

they are ill-prepared. after all this time, i am that the politics and the substance and the absence of ofders that are masters their political houses and their own ideology. it is no coincidence that every time there has been a breakthrough in this conflict, without exception, it has been preceded by trauma or alternatively an act of heroic .tatesmanship and leaders that were prepared to risk -- they were not risk-averse.

the left in israel has never and will never dominate the so-called peace process. the only prime minister ever to concede, however tiny it was. it has transformed. benjamin netanyahu arguably falls into the basket, potentially, of such a transformed talk. i think he lacks the confidence and authority of the others to make these moves. on the palestinian side, i think abbas is a good man. i think he is a prisoner of many things. and palestine, despite the unity agreement still, to this day, resembles noah's ark.

there are two of everything. constitutions, security services, sets of donors, and different visions of where palestine is. the answer you're to your question, my judgment is no. coordinated unilateralism is going to be no more successful from an interim agreement that a permanent solution from anything else that has been tried. >> i don't know about coordinated. there are lots of things both sides could do or should do or shouldn't do and would better not do. they can help the situation at least get past diplomatic way. it becomes anwhen effort to unilaterally impose the new reality.

it doesn't work out very well. .ontrast that with agreement those work. the reality has to be neutral. if it is about behaving better or not behaving as badly as both sides that done, why not? >> i am puzzled by the centrality of these talks, this disarmament. that it will become a decommissioned military zone. andeems totally unrealistic maybe a comment about if ihh is going to send another flotilla and that could see some really bad fireworks between israel and turkey.

>> as far as israel is concerned, calling for a demilitarized gaza was an overreach on the part of the netanyahu government. we continue to hear about it from those making a big move in the israeli political spectrum as well. i think this is essentially asking thomas to willingly destroy itself. i can't imagine it would be in a position where they're willing to do so. i think it is important we talk about this as an ultimate goal but it would only happen after in thelusion of hamas plo and that means renouncing its charter. we are a long ways away from that. it's good to set that as a horizon goal but i think that is about where we have to leave it for now. the last flotilla went so well that they decided to reconsider it. turkey, i have been

tracking it for a while now. is one of the strongest proponents of thomas. there have been reports of financial assistance, material assistance. there is this individual who is the founder of the brigades in the west bank who is based -- yet the flotilla activity in the past. not to mention the rhetoric we have heard which has just been absolutely toxic and harmful. has been ale malignant one throughout this process. it continues to surprise me that the u.s. has not taken this up in a more serious manner. it is one thing to be a proponent of the palestinians and another thing to take the side of hamas. there are three ways of

reading disarmament. one is with the two of you have said, that this is a rhetorical gesture that is essentially political. israeli public would like to hear and that's about it. there are two other ways of reading it. it is a demand that is known up front to be unacceptable unless they are broken as an organization. that is when they will disarm, when they are broken. create a demand that the world would see is absolutely reasonable and rational that you know the other side is not going wantcept to say that they except reasonable demand and we don't have an agreement. another which is even more nuanced is disarmament in this context, in the context of some adjustment to the closure from the egyptian side and the israeli side, and in the context of a reconstruction program

which is virtually inevitable, it can be code for a greatly intensified regime of inspections and monitoring, dual use goods which is almost everything like cement, steal, and anything except food and medicine. it might be a way for israeli leaders preparing everyone for demands that probably the egyptians would share for much more intensified inspections and monitoring including inside of gaza. is 100% rights that this is a purposeful effort and quite clever on the part of the israelis to introduce and normative standard that the international community and americans are thinking seriously about. there's decommissioning, taking away one third of the high trajectory weapons.

to 25,000g the 15,000 units of the palestinian army that hamas has actually created. which i think is beyond possibility. the flow ofch and high trajectory weapons and the other is tunneling. the over under problem. with.an be dealt if you can contain slavery within the states where it already existed, and would fundamentally died. -- it would fundamentally died. . staunch the delivery of weapons components and on the other, you try to create some monitoring regime to deal with the issue of tunnels. israelis will develop their own underground technology. it may take quite a while. the same sorts of techniques people use to explore for oil and gas to basically address the

under problem. i think they have actually succeeded in some respects of changing the frame of reference with demilitarization but i do not believe it is designed to take guns away. >> i just want to thank jonathan, eli, and the other panelists. i have a question basically about the linking or delinking with the isis phenomenon which is global. ofyou look at the report digging technology from to isis, thatamas is one instance. might be brussels or if you look at the flags in the demonstration in the hague recently, or look at mumbai guys,the outside aligned

terrorist attack that house. or you look at the leader anding about israel, gaza, india and kashmir. this leaves the need to believe and i just want to ask your views on that. whether the gaza situation fuels the global al qaeda phenomenon or the al qaeda situation giving the timing and synchronization of timing, does the global isis phenomenon also influence hamas 's actions. >> you're asking a question that i think we have seen answered over and over again that absolutely what happens in the palestinian israeli conflict the sort of hatred and ideology that feeds right isis.l qaeda or

,his question of militant islam becoming a term that we don't use a lot right now. david ross, the ceo of foreign policy talking about how we lack in global policy dealing with militant or radical islam. i think what we're seeing right now has refocused. there is a sense maybe over the last six years and this is been one of the critiques i have had, we weren't calling this phenomenon what it was. we were talking about violent extremism and trying to define the definition down of what it was we were fighting. think it is become a little difficult to deny that we are fighting an islamist threat when the main group we are fighting is called the islamic state. it makes it difficult to deny this.

but certainly it is part of a broader phenomenon, the idea that al qaeda and hamas or isis are one and the same, no. they are very different. each has their own local grievances that are married to the broader ideology. i should note that there have been links over time. and also the same goes for hamas links to iran and some of it acts as well. we are still dealing with his broader phenomenon and it has been written us an surged in the 1990's. we tried to deal with it in the gulf and iraq war era. failed, we tried to pretend it wasn't there but the phenomenon still exist. that withting a sense the amount of critique i am nowng, we need to refocus on the islamist threat.

question did a fantastic job of virtually every scrap, globally, that could possibly be used to weave these together. i think there are two registers. are linked in a reinforcing way. you asked in what direction does it reinforce. but there is also a non-reinforcing way. all islam and there there is aslamists core at the base and you can even expand it and say there is ultimately a connection of nonviolent islamists. what that means is ultimately, the idea that brotherhood parties are the proper

corrective is the wrong idea. on the other hand, there is an extent to which the thomas relationship is very problematic. if they are vulnerable on the ground, it's probably to a threat from their religious rights. it would be people flying the banner that might bring them down more easily than anyone else. and they have confronted small groups like that and have reacted in a very violent manner. the just wipe them out because they know very well that this is a potential threat. and certainly when you see any group that used to represent the religious right moving to the center or becoming the center by virtue of ruling, it opens up space even further. that is what has happened here and in other places. >> i would add that in the case of isis, they are being fought right now by an iraqi army

supported by iran and in syria they are fought by the iranians and on and off. they have recently been thanked for being provided with the advanced rocket technology they use. it's an important distinction and iran itself is an islamist state in many ways on the shia side. >> and the muslim brotherhood jihads, other lesser arrests that are not on good terms with isis. >> and those in iraq that fought against the al qaeda lunatics. >> i would add one more thing. about a yearense ago after the fall of mohamed is extremelymas vulnerable and could potentially even be defeated you are financially or militarily, politically, that this was a

devastating blow. and if you talk to the israeli leadership, there is a debate about what would happen and the way it shook out was there was a real fear of doing anything. they would rather keep they itbled hamas then destroy and send the lessons of the rest of the islamist groups in the region that they can destroy israel. theys an accurate that thought it was somewhat predictable and they wanted it weakened. and they did not want a vacuum that could create some of these jihadi groups that are running around in the gaza strip. >> good afternoon. it's a pleasure to be here. in terms of the u.s. leadership,

we have never heard an american president speak almost daily about the u.s. can't do. i thought i would share that with you. focused on the palestinian and unity government, something that was skirted around. thomas that the finance minister made today who basically said -- awe fear or any and -- what has happened here? the israeli cabinet voted off talksy to break because of the reconciliation agreement. iny voted with the cabinet

that regard. what is your view on the palestinian unity government now? >> i don't think there is a consensus view at the wilson center. he made a compelling point that the israeli government is not at all certain that when the palestinian authority back in gaza for one primary reason. that is because there is a fear hamas'smas --hama objective, knowing that they need some measure of palestinian authority and support that the game is to deliver benefits. it however retains control of gaza and its repository of weapons. it is in some respects the

hezbollah model. it preserves its ideology, coherence, and the veto power. realistic not that is , the reality is the peace and focus of this has been driven by a bunch of guys living 20 or 25 meters below ground in bunkers. .ou may be right it seems to me that those that have the military initiative are essentially controlling the fight here. can and undermine hamas as an organization? and yet to degrade and the terror.

>> there is a good bit of disagreement if this was at technocratic government. it was clear that the government was formed based on an agreement with the maas -- with hamas. to say it was merely , they did not want to be friars or suckers. it is well known on the subject. excuse me. i think the other problem was this hezbollah model that we discussed, that it would be able to be this state within a state and it was not going to address that problem.

the implication was that hamas would be able to take part again and you have 2006 revisited. it leads to another political crisis and we never actually answer the question whether hamas should or can be involved in the next round of elections. we have kicked that can down the road. the more important thing i would think about now, there has been a shift in israeli thinking. you will hear some people say that we haven't come around to this. but there is a shift in thinking with most of the israeli figures i have talked to saying we are now ready for this, ready for abbas to take over. is in the drivers seat, that's fine. let's do this. this is something i have talked colleagues and we have had discussions here as well. this idea that it is either abbas or hamas, making these

for theare horrible palestinians. there needs to be a political reform process that lends itself to having different choices and having different leaders. he is now 80 years old, nine years into a four-year term. this is not the guy that will be delivering the gaza strip let alone the palestinian people. perspectiveisraeli right now is shortsighted much in the same way the international community is. if you're not looking at the long-term horizon for political participation and trying to figure out how to make a , wernment really function are going to go right back to where you are. >> it is essential and a medium-term project. you're asking about the immediate aftermath, really. to the sameing back question of is hamas weakened or not?

it depends not on the relationship with israel but its relationship with the tla and plo.plo -- pla and the that is where the wins and losses get tallied. concerned,hat is what happens and what doesn't happen. how does the aftermath, the cease-fire process, and the winding down of this wave of hostilities play out politically among palestinians? does hamas have a case to make? why did you keep fighting for 28 days after the egyptians offered you -- you basically took that .ore or less later on, what did you accomplish? right now, they don't have a very good answer but they might at the end of the day. even if they are politically

damaged him a if the palestinian authority is not in position either because they have not been put in that position internationally or they have not been able to take advantage for opportunities that were created for them, you can have a wash in which hamas comes out better because they seem more dynamic. equalarties emerge with credibility. we have no idea. that's why the terms and conditions under which this ends, either through agreement or de facto, becomes absolutely decisive. in determining how this plays out. that is when you will know the answer. is hamas weaker or stronger? stay tuned. first of all, thank you all.

i would like to follow up a bit on previous points. the issue of public opinion. high.e been talking very i want to go down to public opinion. you brought up the issue of public opinion among the palestinians. whether hamas will answer well is up for grabs. on the israeli side, as you said, this was about security and the perception of security. what we are seeing now is israelis are talking about feeling less secure, both in the north and south. the change in the israeli position on security. the iron dome was a changer. you are talking about something that will sense tunnels.

it a defensive measure where been to gotrine has in and fight it on their territory. the best defense is an offense. you see that changing anyway? -- in any way? sense that they brought nothing to the israelis and left people feeling less secure? to riskis a tough one, generalizing for a society that has different currents and his different political streams. my sense was the israelis were looking for something more than a tie. 2006could not be 2012 or in lebanon. the reality is -- sharon broke the back of the second info todd

a -- ifitada. his objective was to create the authority that sharon developed. beyond hisim perceived transactions -- transgressions in lebanon. but netanyahu is to risk -- is t oo risk aver in the end,se. you are left with an this is and will -- you have two choices. where a transformation fundamental crisis literally leads to a shifting of the tectonic plates in some regards. calculations.ders a new dynamic is created.

sorry, i don't see any single factor emerging out of this equation that would lead to such an outcome. back to the-- default positions. the way itome out usually comes out. some transactional agreement. which is probably better than 2012. it will have to be better than 2012. what then create as much time -- will it then create as much time as 2008-2009 created? that is my take because i cannot divine the transformative it -- information's transformative and -- transformative implications of this. it is localized with some interesting tales, if they can be connected. this on thedd

israeli public opinion front. israelid a ton of the tv during the conflict. there was a clear sense the israelis rallied around this conflict. there was a strong sense of national interest, national pride. --re was a specifically specifically pride in the id f. this is a redemption of the idf after the hezbollah conflict. problems on the ground. the ground troops proved able, relatively speaking. there is pride in the defensive technology. the idea that the startup nation is all blending in -- is now blending in with the defense needs of the country. there's a frustration. part of it had to do with the way that israeli leadership frame the conflict. hamas was going to get defeated.

it got a hard strike. that was the term that was used over and over again by military leaders. it it is unclear whether that was in fact the case. no question that, on a military level, it was overwhelming force. what the end result was remains a question. driving this debate now in israel is going to be the southern community without question. they are far further to the they then way -- than were before. they are unhappy that hamas was not destroyed. youink there's a sense -- can't meet hamas halfway in terms of israel's existence. to negotiateay with hamas. there may not be a way to fully

defeat it if you are going to operate as a moral or ethical army. if you got the casualties were bad from this last month, imagine if israel went all the way in and did what it did that the south wanted them to do. it is impossible. it is hardsense now, to make addictions but you see a sense that guys have a little bit more prominence right now. the center can use this as perhaps an opportunity to talk about working with epa. -- with the pa. that me be where the discussion is heading. >> i want to thank our panelists and audience. i think this was a useful discussion. the meeting is now adjourned. [applause] >> thank you very much committed him and -- thank you very much, gentlemen. >> we were right on time.

all right. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] are primetime programming tomorrow night focuses on the relationship between the government and press. with the discussion that includes the new york times executive editor. here are some of the event. -- here is some of the event. >> it used to be the government thed say, if you publish story, it violates national security and somebody will get killed. that is not good enough for me. i want to hear who. i want to hear the specifics. obviously, i don't mean tell me how they are going to get killed. i just mean, tell me what you mean.

do you mean a case officer in toronto -- tehran? a request tond hold something -- that the request to hold something that comes from the highest levels. it,he press person asks for i will not take the call. it has to come from somebody in the white house. the head of the cia. the head of the nsa. it can come from a press person. usually when you say that, half of all requests go away. the are not quite willing to ratchet it up that high. i insist they ratchet it up that high off of very specific proof. i would say still, most of the time, we go with the story. but are their stories we have held over the years? stories that met that standard? yes.

>> the discussion on the relationship between the government and the press hosted by the association of black journalists is tomorrow night on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. in a few moments, veterans affairs secretary robert mcdonald speaks to the convention in memphis. it in a half hour, a forum with detectives. after that, health-care professionals in developing countries including technology to diagnose infectious diseases. events to tell you about tomorrow here on c-span. eastding a middle institute forum on religion and diplomacy. that was at -- is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. the hudson institute looks at the national security threats

posed by the terrorist group isis. also a discussion on u.s. treasury in iraq. that is at 2:00 p.m. eastern. she was a great read to add to your summer reading list -- here is a great read to add to your summer reading list. >> i always knew there was a risk in the bohemian lifestyle. i decided to take it because whether it is an illusion or not, it helped my concentration. it stopped me being bored. it stopped other people from being boring. theould prolong conversation, and hence the moment. -- enhance the moment. i would do it if again, the answer is probably yes. . would have quit easier

it sounds irresponsible. that againuld do all to you. it would be hypocritical of me to say no, i would not have touched the stuff if i had known. i did know. everyone knows. >> the soviet system contains the seeds of its own destruction. many of the problems began at the beginning. i spoke about the attempts to control all institutions and all parts of the economy. one of the problems is when you do that, when you try to control everything, you create opposition and dissidents. artists they have to paint the same way, and somebody else wants to do something else, you have made him into a dissident. >> if you want to subsidize and thein the country, populace agrees it is something

we should subsidize, put it on the ballot sheet and make it clear and evident. how much it is costing. when you deliver it through third-party enterprises, fannie mae and freddie mac, when you deliver the subsidy through a public company with private shareholders and executives who can extract that subsidy, that is not a good way of subsidizing homeownership. is onestopher hitchens of the few engaging stories in eight" nowundays at available at your favorite seller. >> the convention heard from va secretary robert mcdonald. he spoke in memphis. [applause] >> thank you.

please, bc did. please, bc said -- e seated. andk you for your strong independent and great support for our veterans. good afternoon. it is an honor and privilege to join you in memphis, tennessee. as i was preparing for my senate confirmation hearing to read is my first chance to speak directly to the quarter million members of your organization and discuss the concerns we all share. and what we are going to do about them. let me say right off. i appreciate your contribution reform.reform -- to va amvetsme counsel from

and other organizations. you are and deep devotion to veterans is not lost on me. i value your insights. i thank you very much and encourage you to keep them coming. national commander john mitchell, thank you for that kind introduction. to both you, linda, and commander mitchell, congratulations on your work this last year. a difficult one, to be sure. i look forward to working with amvets new leadership. thanks for extending the invitation to help kick off your 70th annual convention. it was good to talk to you last week. time, support,ur encouragement, and recommendations. .

thanks as well for your important collaboration in the transformation. your transformations -- your contributions in the digits two digits initiative will keep paying dividends to veterans for a long time to come. let me recognize as well were delegation from taiwan. taiwan.delegation from congratulations on your 23 years of partnership and sharing with amvets. i spent a decade of my life in asia with my family. we lived both in the philippines for four years in japan for six years. we traveled throughout that part of the world for the proctor and gamble company. i love the people and cultures in asia.

it was one of the most formative times in my business career. i learned important lessons. one is important as we begin changing va into a more veteran centric organization. it is about relevant and ovation. the response the customers need. which is inspired by fundamental human truths. we have to understand the need of those we serve. our customers, our veterans. no one understands those needs better than the frontline staff and the veterans receiving the care that we can provide. over these next several months, i am traveling extensively. i am directly from employees from veterans and others. from congressional members and local community leaders, volunteers, and other stakeholders. my first stop on the road is --

was at the v.a. medical center in phoenix. the next day, i visited the center in las vegas. we have good people. many veterans. they are passionate about serving veterans. they are working hard to fix our system so we can provide superior service. we are on our team and they have our support. we are counting on those people on the ground, closest to the veterans, to share their innovative solutions that will help solve our problems in serving veterans. this afternoon, i am honored to visit our fallen veterans and those who keep watch over them at the national cemetery in memphis. tomorrow, i look forward to hearing from employees and phis vas at the mem medical center. and the memphis that's said --

vet's center. i'm sitting down with employees, nurses, physicians -- are frontline staff. and talking to the veterans we serve. i am getting you, some unvarnished truth about how things work. some good, some bad, some mixed. i am learning what we need to keep doing and what we need to do better. when i visited the medical center in phoenix, i kept hearing an unfortunate nickname read the sender. -- nickname. epicenter. that is a bad reputation to have and it will take time to change it. soon ican tell so far -- will have been secretary exactly two weeks.

from what i can tell so far, everything is not a disaster. phoenix really is not an epicenter. the problems we discovered in phoenix were systemic extending beyond the that one location and moment in time. the phoenix door is about more than a crisis in veteran access -- story is about more than a crisis in veteran access. it is a story of failed leadership. it is also the story of dedicated people who stood up to help us serve veterans better.my thanks goes to them . coming face to face with reality, there are some -- is not disaster. i went to hear your stories. i want to know when you are not being served well. i have to know so we can make things better. all of this is a tremendous opportunity. gibsonsecretary sloan

put it like this when he was testifying to congress. we can turn these challenges into the greatest opportunity for improvement in the history of the v.a. department. theformer department of institute of medicine took that notion one step further. he said, because of this crisis, va can encompass things it could have never accomplished before -. that is what we are going to do. with the continued support of president obama, congress, and the strong support of amvet and other organizations, we are going to do what never could have been done otherwise. it is a great opportunity and a rare opportunity. his opportunity that we cannot miss nor underestimate. my confirmation hearing,

i consulted and talked with a lot of leaders. i spent time with leaders of other service organizations and many members of congress. ask me,d again, people why do you want to be the secretary of veterans affairs? here's what i told him. i believe in this very strongly. to me, there is no other higher calling. this is a chance to make a difference in the lives of the veterans whom i care so deeply about. and i come from military families. was awler -- father tailgunner during a be 24 in world war ii. tailgunner in a b-24 in world war ii. he was shot down and survived as a prisoner of war. airborne was a 101

division screaming angle -- e agle in vietnam. he was sprayed with agent orange and receives care from va. my nephew is a pilot in the air force and serving and flying missions in the middle east. veterans are special people to meet. special people to my family. it is not just about me. it's about my family and all of us as a larger family. from the u.s. military academy in 1975. air deputy of secretary sloan gibson was one of my classmates. has been a great friend for many years. . my time at west point and has a airborne ranger instilled in me a sense of duty to our country and strong values.

four decades later, the words of the cadet prayer guide me. it encourages us to live our lives, choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong. yearsortunate for my 33 experience at procter & gamble. where i learned the importance of effective management, strong leadership, and being responsive to the needs of customers. successfullyd and to improve the lives of our customers all over the world. i hope the same lessons to help bring change to v.a. to better serve the rents. -- veterans. success ofge the individual and collective efforts against e single metric. veteran outcomes. plan makes that

clear. v.a. is a customer service orientation. we serve veterans. if we fail to serve veterans, we fail. we have a lot of work to do. those values and leadership experiences are what and for my ations and decisions as secretary of veterans affairs, just as i promised to be president they would. and as i am promising all of you this afternoon. the lessons from the army and procter & gamble translate, whether you are an entry-level employee or head of an organization. here are a few of the lessons. first, have a clear purpose. us 150nt lincoln charges years ago to care for those who have borne the battle and their family. providing veterans

with effective and efficient high-quality health care and the benefits you have earned. this is unconditional. you have earned these benefits. there is nothing more you need to do to earn them. we are obligated and honored to serve you. [applause] the second lesson is people want to succeed. it is my job to make sure employees at bea --va have that opportunity. the biggest barriers to success nn any organization are a ineffective culture, strategies and systems. va has strong institutional values. advocacy, respect, and excellence. acronym. they are an icare. what better acronym could there

be? if we live and work by the cannot go wrong. i asked all employees to reaffirm the commitment to these values and our mission. under directed secretaries to take the same step and reaffirm our mission and values with their people. that is a first up and beginning to rear and your trust and the trust of the american people. plan. a good strategic we just have to make sure we are working together to execute the plan and become bush goals -- accomplish goals -- our goals. we have an effective strategy. but there have been failures. somewhere along the way, someone lost track of the mission. end of the core values.

here are the -- how those systemic failures have manifested themselves. you are familiar with these. veterans are waiting too long for care. performance metrics became an and in and of themselves rather than a way to measure outcome. widespreade were attempts to game the system and height problems. making veterans wait longer for care. those who identify problems were sometimes punished for doing so. we do not held accountable the managers who held poor performance or retaliated against whistleblowers. r integrated scheduling

system is cumbersome and outdated. we can tackle these issues without unprecedented accountability. consider this for a moment. john talked about this. from president obama's nomination of a new secretary to confirmation and swearing-in took less than 30 days. consider this. wasoor vote in the senate 97-0. that is not a commentary on me. don't misunderstand me. it is a sign of our nation's extraordinary commitment to veterans. last thursday, president obama signed into law the veterans access choice of 2014. the law ok it's $15 billion to it's -- all law ok

billion to v va. to legislation authorizes va enter into the seven leases in tostates and puerto rico give them more space for clinicians to treat patients. newlaws grant v.a. authority to remove or transfer senior executives based on misconduct.or that is what we call accountability. the vast majority of va employees are dedicated to the mission and core values. where that is not the case, where there has been a violation of trust of the nation, there will be accountability .