a path to progress or road to ruin. before that, we hosted josie klein and peter by dark on the nature of modern design. the great debate has given a podium to the crystal -- billy crystal and barney frank. and other luminaries giving voice today's debate is no different. in a moment, when our chevy -- ara shavit and the deputy managing editor of "the jerusalem post" we will be continuing a today, one that has served our people for thousands of years. it will take up the issue of the two state solution, increasingly being challenged by both the right and left. it is no secret that ajc believes in the two state

decision as more of a practical solution then others proposed. more than that, we have advocated for it. more than that, we believe it is not a shine of weakness to engage in different points of views. it is a sign of strength. the -- before a debate takes off, please turn your head to the screens for a short video to offer a bit of background. thank you. [applause] [video clip] >> the struggle to find a permanent solution to the israeli-palestinian conflict has plagued the two peoples. many american and israeli organizations have tried to forge peace in the middle east. in the summer of 2013 israeli-palestinian peace talks continued under john kerry.

secretary of state kerry: the best way to end the college is to reach peace, as i reach a negotiated solution that results in two states for two peoples. >> a few months later, israel made sacrifices for peace, but in the spring of 2014, the peace process ground to a halt with a palestinian unity government. this was still followed by the kidnap and murder of three israeli teenagers. after hamas lost thousands of rockets and israel, putting millions of civilians at danger the idf responded with operation "protective edge." for some, there is no alternative to the two state solution. >> the only way is to enter the negotiations room and end the

conflict with the palestinians with two states for two peoples. >> for others, the two state solution is a gamble that israel cannot afford. >> this is a, we're not giving up our liands. we will not commit damage to ourselves just because that is what the world takes we should do. >> after the march election, netanyahu announced his position. prime minister netanyahu: i support the vision of two states for two people. >> from syria to iraq, to yemen chaos has engulfed the middle east, making israel's neighborhood more unstable and dangerous than ever. nearly 70 years after the u.n. partition plan for independent is really an arabic states, is the two state solution viable or

is it a solution? >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome our moderator and debaters. [applause] >> good afternoon. winston churchill once said, you have enemies -- good. that means you have stood for something sometimes. our two debaters have stood for something and have the scars to prove it. we're honored to have two opinionaters, to individuals who love the nation and have fought for its defense, yet to distinct -- two distinct

opinions and two distinctly different answers on whether the two state solution is viable and whether indeed it is desirable. my honor and my privilege to introduce arif sharat and carolyn glick. before beginning, it is also my privilege to introduce the rules. [no audio] -- [laughter] each speaker will have a chance to offer an opening statement, there will be five minutes for opening remarks, and then they will be to respond to each other. at that point, i will give certain questions to them. at some point, we will also open

it up to the audience for questions. please use the comment cards. or, you can tweet your question. that is also for people following is online and on c-span. if you do not understand what i said @acjglobal. or, as someone younger working on their phone. [laughter] at the conclusion, each debater will have three minutes for concluding remarks. we value the notion of bringing different sides together to express their views. both of these individuals have tremendous respect for each other.

i would ask the audience to do the same. and your applause until the end. the debaters know that despite striking hard blows, they will strike hard ones. ari will go first. mr. shavit: thank you so much. let me begin with three personal remarks. i hope i will have time. first of all, thank you so much. we are privileged to be here. we want to thank the remarkable david harris. for me, i have learned to admire the jewish community and organizations like yours are so needed. the second personal remark that

i really hope -- while we sometimes have a serious debate, we should have a respectable one. with all of the challenges facing us, i think we should have much spirit. carolyn, let me shake your hand. [applause] mr. shavit: i think if we can manage to prove that we can have a respectable civilized debate among us, we will be doing something for our people. ms. glick: i will justt interrupted for i agree. mr. shavit: the third remark is about myself. apart from my beloved wife, children, dear family and friends, there is nothing more secret in my life than the

jewish democratic state. whenever i believe in, and whatever my approaches is because of that -- approach is is because of that. i think it is so essential to protect the state of israel that we have managed to sustain. now i shall begin. before we address the two state solution, i think we must address the alternative. the one state solution. i have two or three things to say about that. one, how is it that i go around american campuses fighting bds which promotes a one state solution, and then i go back home and find the top ministers in my government support the one

state solution. our enemy -- and carolyn is rightfully so concerned about our enemy -- the are not encouraging us to pull out now. they want a one state solution and they know why. the second point, when i go to these campuses, the one reason i use the debate regarding these enemies of ours -- the one-word answer is syria. we tried the one state solution in the middle east. we put sunnis, heirs, and jews in one country. what happened? we are seeing the worst human catastrophe in our region.

the world is helpless. if this is what happens to sunnis and others in syria, what would happen to jews and arabs in israel? with all of the terrible conflict, the multidimensional differences. the third argument is that in my mind, this and dangerous design this project -- endangers the zionist project. what was zionism about? having a massive jewish majority. throughout the years, we were a minority, even in this great country, we are a minority. we wanted one place to be a majority. in my mind, the one state option

endangers, in the most erotic way, the zionist vision and dream. i knew" about this for 20 years that many attempts to bring a quick solution our fault -- are flawed. we failed in 2000 2008. i asked my friends on the left who learned from this experience, you run into the wall once, twice, of to five times you run into the wall, it is time to understand there is a while there -- a wall there. that does not mean that we have to put in one million more settlers, or kill the option and hope. what is my vision? i think we need a new creative

approach. we israelis are about thinking outside of the box. i know there is not a two state solution that can be implemented tomorrow. we need a two state vision, tuesday option, -- two state option, and to stay dynamics. vision because we were stronger when we went moderate and generous. we accepted the plan in 1937, and that is why we won the war. we went to bill clinton's camp david summit. we did not achieve peace, but because of that we had the credibility and unity to win against the suicide bombings. we need the three.

the vision, the tuesday option -- two state option, and the two state dynamic. what do i talk about when i talk about the two state option? building be on the barrier is so dangerous. i am not naive. i understand the danger. i want security, security, security. i think the sentiment -- settlement building weekends israel. if we try to build the on the barrier, and my mind, we're not endangering ourselves in any way, but we are keeping the tuesday option. host: if i could ask -- mr. shavit: if i could just say the two state dynamics, let's have an option for gaza.

let's work with the constructs and -- with the constructive palestinians while maintaining our destiny and security. thank you. [applause] host: caroline, you have seven minutes and 52 seconds to respond. [laughter] ms. glick: and one interruption by you. good morning, everybody. thank you for hosting us in this important debate. thank you ari for being a very esteemed debating partner -- or opponent. it is a pleasure, interest, and challenge for me to debate you. i think ari is the example, shining example, of what is left on the left.

he represents the best of his tribe because from time to time, he can make room for facts they are comfortable to his tribe. for instance, a very important article that he wrote in 1907, he describes the original bds as the bb derangement syndrome that the left harbors towards our prime minister. this was written during his first 10 years of prime minister. he showed that the hatred is tribal just as the policy is tribal, as the left wishes to advance in israel. as for policies, and how we are supposed to look at the two state solution and the

viability, or lack thereof, i think it is important for us to understand the nature of the debate on the policy today in israel. on the one hand, 20 years ago the left one the -- won the ideological debate. you have about 3/5 majority for an establishment of a palestinian state, under certain conditions. on the other hand, a the left cannot win an election. when the left goes to elections, it seeks to hide the fact that it is the left. the question is what explains this seeming contradiction? how can you have one -- the ideological debate, and yet you fail to win the election. the reason the left fails to win the election is because most

israelis have come to understand, through our horrific experience over the past 22 years since israel embraced and adopted a two state solution as a core of its national strategy, we have come to understand that these conditions -- certain conditions under which we would accept the establishment of a palestinian state will never be met. it is silly to argue about how to make this happen. it is silly, a waste of time and indeed irrational to argue about how to make this happen. this is mainly because the palestinians do not know, and never have wanted primarily to establish a palestinian state west of the jordan ritver. it is irrational to continue discussed -- continue to discuss the two date solution.

the premise is based on the fact that the issue is about land. it is not about land. it is about the failure for the states to come to terms about the existence of the jewish state of israel. that is the core cause of the conflict. that is why he does and during -- it is and during, and why we will never reach a two state solution in our lifetimes. partitioning, or questioning on what positions we should partition west of the jordan river is similarly irrational. the real question that we ask in israel, and that i think should be the question that guides our discussion about how content is

given. to understand that it is a given that israel will be at the odds with palestine for the foreseeable future, the policy question that we should be considering it was how should we manage the situation? how should we manage the situation that we cannot resolve through a peace accord based on the assumption that the way to reach peace is to give away land . in my book, i make the case for a our democracy with our security requirements by extending israel's democratic rule of law, are liberal lea legal code. i argue this not because it will greenpeace, but because it is just and right. it reflects the right of the

jewish people to the land of israel, and the justice of our state by extending our democracy. it also shows that our democratic values go hand-in-hand with our security concerns. moreover, and finally, it answers the existential question of how israel is to handle the palestinian security threats that will not disappear in our lifetime. the covey took exit time, and i am a woman, -- because you took extra time, and i am a woman, i will conclude. i am done. [applause] host: before allowing you to respond, i will remind the crowd to fill out your cards. mr. shavit: first of all, i completely agree that the reason

the israelis do not vote for it the moderate option is because the israeli left has failed to produce a realistic peace prospect. this is why i promote a new kind of approach that would be realistic. creating a two state dynamic and keeping option, knowing there is no solution. by the way, there's definitely no one solution in the coming years. it is a complicated, difficult situation. if i may, i would like to challenge the option that carolyn is promoting. i have mainly to concerns -- two concerns. one is that if we go for the one state solution, we are endangering ourselves as jews

twice. once, we are endangering the jewish majority. there is a great democratic controversy. i don't want to get into it. carolyn writes about it. let me speak about where we know the numbers. israel itself, sovereign israel, right now we're already down to a 75% jewish majority in israel. in 2025, we're talking about 70% . if you were to add even one million, i think there are 3 million, but if you add one million arabs, we will either stop being jewish, or stopping democratic. it would not give full rights to these palestinians. if we do, we would go down to levels of a jewish majority.

if we insist in that context -- if we build around one town they were built around my home town where does this the best -- lead us? either be commit suicide or go back to the 1950's. this is not an option. the second problem, and i have little time, is my fear for the impact of this on the younger generation. this kind of ethic were in danger the ability of young american jews to stand by israel and identify with it. the only way to win jewish minds and hearts is to prove that israel is a benign israel, fully

democratic, america small and endangered sister. we are a pure democracy, supported by your democracy. if we danger that, we danger everything. [applause] ms. glick: all right. first of all as a product of the american jewish community, i think that you are vastly underestimating the ability of this community to understand what is good and right. i do not believe, not even for a moment, that the way to win the hearts and minds of young american jewish -- to say that we are sorry, desperate, and need you -- that is not inspiring, and it is certainly not true. it is not true that israel is pathetic or a poor weak

democracy that is an absolute need of the american jewish community in order to exist, with all due respect to our partners in the israeli community. that is not the message that anyone needs to hear. not the united states, israel, belgium, france, south america. nowhere. we are not pathetic. to the contrary. we go from strength to strength. we are creative, exciting, and believe in who we are and what we do in this world. the whole idea that i will not discuss demographics -- i wish we could not discuss number of demographics. i'm not a number of person. but, the numbers you gave are incorrect. our fertility rates are higher than the arabs. we surpassed them into thousand

12 in israel. when you add to that the safeguard of the vast jewish majority in the state of israel, you understand that what you are saying is completely untrue. as to the issue of whether or not extending israeli democracy to sudan will be a viable option or not, in my book, i set all the problems involved in this plan. they are many and mighty, and intimidating. what they are our problems that can be solved when bright committed people, people who love israel as much i as you and i and the vast 99% of israelis do and vast majority of american jews do, then we can solve these issues. but we cannot solve is the

challenge that the two state solution presents to israel. the real demographic is the threat of a palestinian state. everybody talks about there cannot be a right of return, but the fact of the matter is that everybody says they can look to palestine, but they cannot move to palestine. as we look at the borders of what is happening and the arab world surrounding us, we understand that the true demographic threat to israel and exes is chill threat -- existential threat is from the state of palestine. we would have a situation where the leader who is not a

moderate, but pretend to bs to become a would be killed. we would see a jihadi enclave. i think, with all due respect that the one state solution is a possibility, but the two state solution is a disaster, as we have seen over the past 22 years. thank you. [applause] host: first question. before this debate began, we heard prime minister then you who speak about -- prime minister netanyahu speak about his two state solution believe. of course, we do not hear him

before the election. ari, do you think the prime minister's up two state solution? mr. shavit: his enigma, i will be following it closely micelles. i will tell you what. first of all i really appreciate what are prime minister did in his speech. i think he does not get enough credit. it is not fair for the heads of the israeli right to accept the two state version. netanyahu did have his contribution. again, did to do well i talk about, which is to capture the moral high ground, zionism succeeded because we had it

combination of realism and morality. the always understood that we were a small, lonely people. many people hate us. we are not china. we are not russia. we cannot do the ukraine. we have to act in a very sophisticated way, on the one hand being tough and strong. we will not survive in the region for a day if we are not strong. our power has to be combined with morality. what netanyahu has to understand is he has to capture the moral high ground. again, i think there was a mistake in going for the final state option. when secretary kerry came, i admired his vision and commitment, but i said, this will not work. i kept saying, i hope there is a

secret cellar that is planning plan b. it was so obvious that when a decent american comes to town, and they sing the song that the israelis and palestinians want to hear, no one believes it. i saw a practical approach would have been much better. i don't think under the circumstances that we have, that we can have any peace deals signed. there will not be nobel prizes, but we have to go for the alternative approach. we will try to bring water to gaza. it will combine israel's amazing water technology so that we prevent a catastrophe when they do not have drinking water. the good about how that would

change dynamics? we would be offering something positive, water in the middle of the desert. it would be the right thing to do. and if we work on more such projects so the palestinians go through a slow process, it will take a lot of time, and we have to be very cautious. we have to live from all of the mistakes in the past. but, to leave things as they are with no israeli initiative or hope, without projecting anything positive, this endangers our unity. if, got her big, we have to use forces, and we might, we don't have enough legitimacy now in the world because settlements have damaged our fight. it took so much energy.

if we go back to the spirit that talk about which is to know where we are, understand the conflict won't end, but understand that we are jews, we must have the real commitment to democracy. and the search for peace, even when peace is not there. that attitude will make a stronger, and more just. [applause] host: carolyn the same question on the words from the prime minister. has he read your book? does he agree with your sentiment? ms. glick: in all fairness to prime minister netanyahu, he may clear that the position of his government is to establish a palestinian state. that is not the position that i argue in my book, and that is fine. ari supports that as well.

i respect his right to do so. i think it is dangerous, but that does not mean that it is a reasonable position for an individual or the government of israel. i think it is important to praise netanyahu for coming out. he made significant statements and concessions in order to convince, mainly, president obama of his seriousness in moving forward in negotiations. we see that he got nothing. not only did he get nothing obama pocketed that concession and asked for more, demanded more. when israel did not give more, israel was condemned. it doesn't matter that -- when jews were denied our right to property in an unbelievable trampling of our democratic rule

of law, civil rights of jews and their property rights, because we are jewish, were denied in jerusalem. because we did that, we were supposed to be supported. we were supposed to show the entire international community first and foremost, the united states of america, the truth and sincerity of our intentions and desires for peace. what did we get? nine months of the 10 months of freeze one person refused to sit down and negotiate. what concessions did he demand? that we release monstrous terrorists from prison. terrorists who murdered our children, mothers and fathers and husbands and wives.

murdered because they are jews. that is what he demanded. he demanded that from us. unfortunately, the obama administration supported that the man. then, they blamed israel for not being sincere in our desire to make peace because we said finally, and nothing is enough. we will not go through a third trench of arab citizens who murdered us because we would use. this, we will not do. we would have done it, but did not because mahmoud abbas refuse to negotiate, refused to make one concession. today, we see that we make concession after concession, things that harm us and endanger the lives of israeli citizens. releasing terrorists from prison

leads to the murder of more jews. we have statistics to show it. jews have been killed. what is a jewish life worth? and enough is enough. we never get credibility for showing our sincerity for peace. we get killed for showing our sincerity for peace. [applause] host: i just want to add ms. glick: i just want to add, i don't believe as a jew, i do not believe that it is the responsibility of the jewish people to be the only true

christians around the world. i don't. i don't think that is our responsibility. our responsibility to our people and to our future is to not give the other cheek. it is to say excuse me, you cheated on me, shame on you. i have a responsibility to my people. my responsibility to my people is to secure our lives first and foremost. then, we can move out and see if we can talk. the entire tuesday formula is based on this notion that israel is guilty. and it is no peace. and that people say they should murder our children. that is what they are teaching their children everywhere. yet, we are the ones who are

supposed to be making concessions. i say no. prime minister netanyahu has also said no. the guiding concept of his tuesday formula is reciprocity. you want us to make concessions to you, you show good faith. stop inciting genocide. stop the glorification of the murders of our people. when you do that, we can sit down and chat. so far 22 years of this nonsense, and nobody has told the palestinian people that israel is just, and the jewish people are just. they should make peace with us. [applause] host: ari, i believe you might have a response in mind. [laughter] mr. shavit: i hope i have some time. ms. glick: sorry i get a little

worked up. [applause] host: that is 10 more seconds for you ari. [laughter] mr. shavit: caroline, i totally share your feelings about the jews, and the fact that we are people that has contributed so much to humanity, and was treated so badly by silly parts of humanity. i definitely see anti-semitism and unfair approach is to israel. i do my best to fight them. by the way, i am on the front lines. sadly, your message, your line is totally ineffective when it comes to the front lines. [applause]

mr. shavit: let me say something. we have to be very cautious. we live in this jewish bubble. the bubble is very strong because of the extraordinary success of the american jewish community. but, once you go outside the bubble and talk to young people, america is changing. the demography is changing. people's minds are changing. as passionate as i am about my truth as a jew, i have to go out and convince people. it is not enough to have all of this great feeling of, they hate us, and we are just. we have to go out and have political warfare. with this sense of wheelwright and everybody hates us -- we

will lose. we don't understand what is really going on. i again, what with zionism all about? it was to not sit anymore in the ghetto and shout. myes, many hate us, but it is our responsibility to go out and work in the real world. we cannot be different from any other country in the democratic world. we cannot do that. that is suicidal. it is suicidal. it is so nice to get into these feelings of how just we are. we are just, but we have to be smart as well. just being just is not enough. specifically, these terrorists why would he release? netanyahu has no options.

these terrorists that you were talking about were not released because you were not willing to freeze one settlement. this is the problem. because of a history and fundamental justice, because we are endangered, we sometimes go into a pattern that becomes dangerous. when i talk about enduring zionism, that is what i mean. we're now 48 years from the war of 1968. that was our greatest victory. never before and never since were we so strong. we had less faith, less of the land, but more unity. more determination, and we were able to defend ourselves in such a victorious way.

60 years later, we had our worst failure, when so much land -- with so much alike, but we were weaker. land is important, but not the only component a national security. [applause] mr. shavit: the problem with this approach -- when you try to grab at all, you lose it all. you try to grab it all, you lose it all. we need land, and have every right for the land, but we have to find a way to accommodate and respect others. if we do not respect them and find a realistic way, we are endangering ourselves in every way possible. i will say this again. the major fight now is how israel is perceived amongst us and others in the world. [applause] mr. shavit: we are endangered.

i have no doubt for a moment. we have to think like david, and act like david, rather than be perceived as goliath. we have to go back to being those big, strong, realistic and just dig david that the word. when i go around campus, i say don't forget, historically, we are the underdogs. we are the underdogs on steroids . this is a great success. but, if we ignore the fact that there are billions of others -- if we do not except the fact that they need their own rights and liberties, we were in danger our own liberty, -- and

endanger our own liberty and existence. host: we are running out of time, if you can make a comment and then we will go to a close. ms. glick: i will make this brief. that is one aspect of what you're saying that i want to discuss. that is the issue of how we are among the nations of the world how they perceive us. i think this goes to the heart of anti-semitism, and what anti-semitism is really about. it was professor ruth white who posited the notion that the ability of a democracy to withstand the test of time, to retain its democratic character is in many ways measured by the tolerant and understanding of

acceptance of that democratic society for jews. really, the litmus test for whether or not it countries -- a country's will survive is how that country looks at jews. we really are the most vulnerable people and have been for thousands of years. the issue of whether or not a democracy is vibrant is directly correlated to the level of at the sentences in -- and desolate toanti-semitism in that country. another point on anti-semitism. i have the privilege of interviewing ali miz elie weisel.

i interviewed him in jerusalem and there were anti-semitic riots. they were very frightening. i said to him, i asked him, what do you say to the jews of america and those who for the first time in their lives are having to deal with the fact that their hated because they are jewish. they never experienced this as children. i was blessed to grow up in a time when it was unacceptable. i asked him, what do you tell them? are scared, confused, and don't know what to think. he responded to me and said, the most important thing in fighting anti-semitism is to not allow the anti-semites to define us. we, the jewish people, have always defined ourselves.

we have always defined ourselves as the children of abraham isaac, and jacob, and we have to maintain the ability to define ourselves. and the moment that we give up that right to define who we are are haters -- our haters harm us and make us less able to continue on as jews. the most important thing, he said, when we are dealing with this internalized hatred is for us to keep clear who are, what we stand for, and what we believe. and not to think that we have to change the way we do things to make the haters happy. we can't. we cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. anti-semitism is simply

unreasonable. we are not persecuting the palestinians or denying them their rights. since 1996, 97 percent of palestinians have lived under palestinian control, not israeli control. when we say we are guilty of the projected guilt that they place on us, when that guilt is actually in the hands of the palestinian authority -- the brutal totalitarian rule of palestinian authority, we're allowing palestinians to define who we are. i truly believe that is dangerous and wrong. it is wrong to try and put together a policy to contend with. [applause] host: ari you have three minutes for your sum up and concluding remarks. mr. shavit: i think that

for ourselves, for our own soul, security, and future, we must find a wise way to change the present condition. again, we should never be -- we have to address the failures of what was tried before. we need another third wave approach that will lead us to some are better. -- somewhere better. i deeply worried -- i am deeply worried that the dynamics within israel, and sometimes within the community, are taking us further and further away from the west. we are here, in this conference, with this amazing organization. the great success of zionism throughout the east was based on

this combination of we are just but we must be realistic and no in what world we live. we already destroyed ourselves in history. we have to be so cautious. i am so passionate when i think about the founding fathers and mothers of zionism. the not only have the diagnosis they thought what was coming and try to prevent it. they struck a balance. they were no flower children. they knew that we live in a cruel world, but we have to find a sophisticated approach. they had two leading

principles. one was to always have a superpower on our side. first, it was the british, then the french, then the grid alliance with the united states of america, for which i am so full of gratitude. when i heard the way that some people talked about the secretary the other day -- one of israel's greatest friends -- this kind of dangerous approach among our community, not having enough gratitude or respect. we cannot survive one day without america. with all due respect to our heritage. america is a democracy. deadlines is based on shared values. if we risk that, if we approach this disrespect for approach that we saw the other day -- and i feel so embarrassed as an israeli and a jew that this

happened to us -- we should express our differences. i write a lot about mistakes being done but to respect the gratitude, if we had endorsed a kind of arabic approach, as if there are no other people, no palestinians, no progress of americans, no afro-americans no latino americans, no young americans, we are endangering ourselves. there is nothing more dangerous. gloomy me, we will deal with all the threads of the middle east -- believe me, we will deal with the threats of the middle east. if we a road with the west, that has to do with other principles.

we must reach out to peace, even when peace is not there. if we go the other way, and find ourselves on the wrong side of history, we are endangering this amazing achievement of putting ourselves in history again. let's remember who we are and how dangerous it is out there. let's remember our values and legacy. the universal pride i mentioned. we are not just about narrowminded nationalists. we have a mission in this world. in a proud way, in a jewish way let's both guarantee our soul, our values, our democratic identity and our security and existence. they all go hand-in-hand. in israel will not be

jewish, it will not be democratic. if it ceases to be democratic, it will not be jewish. [applause] mr. shavit: before it is too late let us see ourselves, but ourselves -- build ourselves, and guarantee ourselves the glorious feature future that we should and can have. host: thank you. caroline, final words. ms. glick: thank you. i think we have been told -- you have said in your way that the only way israel can have a successful foreign policy, the only way we can get a log of this world is to continue to maintain our commitment to the two state solution. the real question though is how

can we have a successful foreign policy, how can we went the hearts and minds of the people of this country, of europe, and beyond in asia and elsewhere if we are maintaining our ability to a foreign policy that is based on a lie. it is based on a lie that the plo, hamas, and the arab world is a partner in peace, and that there is a peace process. that is a lie. the palestinians are not partners. the plo is not a partner in peace. you know this. we are in agreement, complete agreement. this man has never accepted any compromise with israel. we will never agree to any compromise. he is not a partner in peace.

and yet, the entire two state solution for a policy is based on the lie that he is. the whole notion that we have a peace process is based on the vibe that we have a partner. we have no partner. as a result, our foreign policy is based on a lie. what is the basic assumption of islam? it is the assumption of israeli guilt. that is the basis of the two state solution. you get peace if you give up land. you will not get peace as long as you hold onto it. it is your fault. you are greedy jews. he will not give up jerusalem. and until you do, you will not get police -- peace. we will continue to blame you that you did not abrogate property rights, you do not abrogate civil rights.

it is all your fault. the reason there is no peace is because you have too much land. this is a lie. as long as we maintain our support forbasically it paradigm, we cannot go forward in a world and explain ourselves to anybody because we are accepting as a basic assumption as a foreign-policy anti-semitic idea. of jewish culpability. we are responsible for everything, we are guilty for everything. and we confused, then come as a result, people's ignorance with values. secretary of state john kerry made several comments over the past year when his attempt to draw water from a rock and get peace with someone who is no interest in peace with israel, says israelis don't have a sense of urgency about peace process. we have martin into telling us that the israeli people are

rational because we don't move forward with peace. really what we see here, and even comments by our need to show justice and morality are willing to compromise or to win hearts and minds, this is one of the terrible things that the left has done. they try to repackage to their audiences that the audiences ignorance of the fact as some sort of moral failure on the part of the israeli people. it we don't want peace enough. when we save the palestinians aren't peace partners, when we say he is not a moderate, but he's not interested in making peace with israel, we are not saying it because we don't want peace. we are saying it because we are making the factual observation. we are observing facts. we live in reality israel. we live in reality and we die by reality. and we have to deal with it. and it's an insult to us, to the

israeli people, to prevent this -- present this observation of fact and reality as a moral failure. as if we don't want peace. let me just finish this. true morality is to live by the highest values, to live by the highest values in the world that exist. israelis demonstrate our loyalty to the highest moral value every single day in the world in which we live. [applause] host: thank you. thank you both for your passion. [applause] host: thank you. thank you for your courtesy. thank you.

[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our presentation. please make your way immediately to your advocacy training lunch. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> could find the debate online go back and watch any time at c-span.org, including remarks from the assistant secretary of state. the middle east is just one of the topics discussed at the g7 summit in germany. politico sent out this picture from the g7 industrial nations agreeing to limit the increase in global temperatures and to reduce common admissions for 40% to 70% below 2010 levels by 2050. an ambitious target ahead of the climate summit scheduled for paris in december. president obama was in germany for the summit, he is returning now to washington dc. before he left, he held a news conference and answered questions about the u.s. response isis, cyberattacks, and another of -- a number of other issues. you can watch that invaded what eastern's -- at 8:00 eastern on c-span. a speaker from iraq is in

washington d.c., speaking at the u.s. institute of peace about the challenges facing iraq . join us live at 3:15 p.m. eastern. tomorrow, c-span3 will be live with a hearing on the tsa both firsthand a government watchdog accounts, the problems with the tsa. we hear from official from the department of homeland security, a former tsa officer that has written several stories about what he has seen at the agency. that hearing is tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m. eastern. >> the summer, book tv covers book festivals from around the country, and top nonfiction authors and books. watch for the annual roosevelt reading festival. in the middle of july, we are live at the harlem book fair the nation's like ship african-american literary events, with author interviews and panel discussions. at the beginning of september we are live for the national book festival.

>> i look from today's washington journal. >> a recent look at the clinton foundation. how the clintons built into billion-dollar global charity. good morning. why take a look at the subject. guest: hillary clinton has started her second presidential run. we saw contrasting images. before she started running the second time, people thought of her the red cross. as has got into politics and we have seen more come it's been cast in a totally different

light. it sounded like maybe it was the slush fund, it was a clinton political operation that had name foundation. we wanted to explain what it was, and the weird hybrid that it is today. host: what is the hybrid? guest: it's a charitable foundation that is a lot of good the world. it channels a lot of money to a lot of different causes. the interesting thing about that is that it is not -- it wasn't created or built in any sort of deliver way. it wasn't like they sat down in 2001 and said we are to go into this area in this related area of, the way to jimmy carter's work has been. he done a few focus things. the topics they are found in -- involved in are things that happened to catch bill clinton's eyes. aids, drugs and africa, after he had a heart attack, child obesity issue.

a lot of things they have in common is him. they branch out in all areas. also, clinton thinks of himself as a convener. he is not a philanthropist that gathers money and spend it. if you have $1 billion, you can use the clinton foundation as a conduit and as it goes by, clinton gives it his prestige. the foundation also has an apparatus to see if or you are giving is working. that is the charitable part. there has been, along the way this involvement with the , clinton political machine. bill clinton's aides had jobs in the foundation and as hillary clinton has prepared a second presidential run, some of her aides have been paid employees are consultants for the foundation. her political operation has been entwined with the foundation. host: what is the specific role

of bill, hillary, and clinton and do they get paid? guest: they are not paid. they are on the foundation -- hillary is not. she was but now she is not. bill clinton gets paid to do speeches. he is paid by people who do donations and also gets paid for speeches on how the foundation works. so he does not get paid by the foundation but by people who donate. host: it is not pay to the foundation and then directed to him? guest: been your times had a story about this charity run by a czhech model and he was paid to show there. and sometimes, you can pay him to show up or you could pay him to talk about the foundation how it does for the world. host: if you are hillary

clinton, what are you most concerned about the foundation since she is running for president? guest: bill clinton set this up to be close to the wealthy and powerful. that is its purpose. that is what makes it work. it's so close to powerful interest, it takes their money and blesses their money as a goes by and gives it prestige of bill clinton and the family. that is how it works. that is how bill set it up. now that hillary clinton wants to run for president, this same feature, all those people, it looks like they paid exclusively to be an exclusive clinton family network. and if she becomes president, these interests can say they gave to the bill, hillary, and chelsea clinton foundation. there is now an explicit connection. she could have firewall this off, saying this is her husband's foundation and she admires the work. i'm not going to be involved in its work. but she has chosen to intertwine

herself with it and that makes it hard for her to say these huge donations had nothing to do with me. host: were there firewalls in place when she was secretary of state? guest: yes. she had a different job and there was a lot of disclosure. the moment the administration set limits on what kinds of countries and people could you -- give to the foundation. that was imperfect because the foundation was broken up independent entities. into independent entities. it appeared some of those did not follow those rules as well as the main foundation, but that was the arrangement when she was secretary of state. now that she is not anymore, those rules have changed. host: david is our guest. lead writer of a piece looking at the clinton foundation at how it works on "the washington post." if you want to ask questions about what you have heard, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and for independents, (202) 748-8002.

if you want to tweak your -- tweet your thoughts, @cspanwj and post on our facebook at facebook.com/cspan. the foreign governments angle, how many foreign countries is -- does the clinton foundation have a role or presence in? guest: i would say 180 were their work is in. only about 195 countries according to the state department. they have their presence in a lot of countries. a lot of the work is done by the clinton health access initiative, which was supposed to lower the cost of aids drugs and countries. that has 1500 employees. they lower the cost, gets drugs to provide lower-cost drugs, but also do work to make sure the countries that get those drugs find aids patients, test people, and get the drugs that most efficiently. that is what a lot of there on the ground impact area but they get impact in 180 countries. host: one of those countries

that came out in those is sweden. could you tie that up for us? guest: i do not know much about that. somebody else handles that. if i talked about it, i might be wrong. host: it dealt with iran, and that's the process as well. guest: as far as i understand it , had to do with the rules of whether certain countries could donate to the foundation but i do not know enough to talk about it. host: john from montana, you are on our independent line. go ahead. caller: your young guest mentioned the fact that what caught bill clinton's eye was foundations he wanted to get to and things he wanted to help. i can think of other things that caught his eye. i will like your guest to a comment on the past scandals. even the guys jet he flew to an

island, the pedophile guide. where there is smoke, there is fire, young man. i would like him to comment on that. guest: the scandal part of bill clinton, one of the things i will say, the role -- you can read this foundation as a way for clinton to transform his persona. he is still tarnished by the scandals. he goes out of office under a sort of cloud. we talked a lot how in 2001, after leaving office, he sort of lost. his wife is in the senate, his daughter is at stanford and then oxford. he is stuck at home and stewing about legal bills and all the bad press. apparently someone had given him a tivo -- steven spielberg -- and he sat watching old movies. i think he was both alone and lost. did not have a sense of his role in the world and unhappy that he had gone out on this low note after being president eight years. a lot of the work he has done in

the foundation is him repositioning himself in the world. if you look back at where he was in 2001, and where he is now, being able to be in a global conference dedicated to him, the wealthy being with him -- giving money to be with him. that is an amazing turnaround. host: chicago heights, illinois annette, you're up next. caller: i have a comment and a question about hillary clinton. i think that nobody really cares about how much money she has. most people are concerned about what she can do for us. we are not concerned about who she is working with as far as the initiatives. she sounds like someone who cares about our issues. income inequality. voting rights. trying to help every day blue-collar workers get ahead. that is all we care about.

we understand that republicans are angry and they are the ones who kind of restrict and make things difficult for working-class people. my question is, why it is no one talking about the republican money? there are a lot of rich republicans running and no one is talking about their money. it seems that they are afraid of hillary clinton. i can tell you one thing. myself and my friends, we only care about what she can do for us. we think she stands for the working-class americans. thank you. guest: that is an interesting question about whether clinton's money matters. i see your point about what it matters is what she cares about. the not how much money she has made. it is different with the foundation. the clinton foundation is a charitable organization that does not pay hillary clinton. the question is her associations with people on wall street and around the world, rich countries. and the political context, there

is something related to her wealth. the problem for her politically is going to be we have seen her casting herself as a champion of the middle class. taking some of the language john edwards and those of war and has used. -- elizabeth warren is used. there are two americas. the rich have too much and the poor have too little and there is too much income inequality. the associations she has treated in the foundation and the connections she made their and her own personal wealth will be used against her if that is the message she is trying to use, because in an academic or political sense, she understands the importance of pushing for the middle class, but it is not something she can feel and her bones with the life she leaves and the people she is associated with. host: does she get called out for that kind of thing? guest: i am sure. think about marco rubio, scott walker. if we get into a general election, one of those guys says my dad grew up bussing tables, in the case of marco rubio.

i built myself up from nothing i still ride my motorcycle. all of the cultural associations those guys will bring up if they end up running against hillary clinton in the general election. even if she has the right rhetoric, she has no cultural touchstones, in part because of these associations and because she has basically been in public office since 1992 and even before then, the governor's mansion. it will be hard for her to create the sense that she understands it. even at she says the rate things. host: little rock, arkansas. richard, good morning. caller: we have no they -- we have known about the clinton since they started here. a quick question and comment. as i understand, the foundation pays out less than 25% of the money it takes in to charity. so if you donate one dollar, $.75 goes in and they are paying for meals and salaries in all that and $.25 or less goes to the actual charities.

as far something else another caller said, you hang around with and how you make your money is important. there is a reason the clintons have not carry arkansas in any presidential election. just see what hillary has done since she got into public office. judge her from that. guest: the question about the way the foundation accounts for its money. there have been a lot of reports about that. there are two main organizations that rate charities. they look at their finances and decide whether they are giving enough to the causes they claim to focus on. one of them rated them gave them in a on a skill goes to a plus something like 80% or 90% of their money actually goes to a charitable purpose. it is confusing because it depends on whether you count travel pair a lot of what the clinton foundation uses is called the clinton global initiative, what i was

discussing earlier. a giant convention in new york every year. produces a lot of the pledges and commitments they use the rest of the year. if you count that as a convention, it looks like they give a less fraction of their money to charitable work. if you counted as charitable work, it looks like a lot more. the one holistic evaluation, the foundation got an a out of a scale that goes to a+. host: does provide a way to measurably prove whether this foundation is having an effect? guest: the clinton foundation as i said earlier, if you give a bunch of money, $100 million part of my gift is giving money to the clinton foundation to monitor that gift. they say all but a tiny fraction, less than 10% of their commitments after know to be successful.

that is their accounting for it, not my accounting. we did not go back and look at all of those hundreds of pledges. but if you listen to them, they say more than 90% are successful. host: is a normal for a foundation not to be funded by the people setting it up? guest: that is what is so interesting about this story. you think of a foundation, you think of andrew carnegie or any of these american philanthropist swear they matched money and gave it away. clinton has this interesting view he calls himself the convener. he takes rich people's money and wrangles it, packages that for four people's problems. it has a much greater impact than his own personal wealth, though that is pretty great. the downside is you are tied to the people whose money -- back to come down in a couple of ways. one thing you're worried about is people whose money you

convene might run out of money. clinton sat next to a interparty -- at a dinner party next to scotland's first billionaire. they go to africa together. they set up a $100 million fund funded by this guy. that is before the financial crisis. that's before the financial crisis. he loses a lot of money and cannot spend $100 million. the thing they set up with him with his money helping small farmers and coffee farmers come all the sudden he can only afford to fund part of it. that is one downside and the other is what we are seeing lately. both in haiti and in other places, it turns out those people by associating with clinton, at these big conferences, they have made lucrative deals and those folks have used the clinton foundation in a way that was not completely charitable. you could argue whether that is an unfortunate side effect or a

fine side effect. that affects your view of the clinton foundation there that is the downside, you do not control whose money comes in. you do not control what they do with that. host: david fahrenthold talking about the clinton foundation. waldorf, maryland. you are next. good morning. caller: i want to recap what the german said about the clinton -- what the gentleman said about the clinton foundation. i know he is trying to remain neutral. it seems to me going thing he can report is that the clinton foundation, a hybrid. however he said is not useful for political purposes. they're not getting paid off of it. they do not receive a paycheck. if bill clinton did not run the clinton foundation, he still would see large checks. george bush is still sitting at

30% in our own country, but he still receives large checks. it seems to me someone can run a soldier -- vulture capitalist company and they receive less questions about her husband, who is an organization that takes from the wealthy and gives to the poor. the clintons have been around a long time and i think maybe if foxnews wants to focus on something, they can find it out there. to use a charity, i have heard the number on fox news. 25%? you are saying they're giving more than 80% or 90% going directly to the work. that is better than your local fraternal order of police. can you answer this question for me -- do you find any quid pro quo? that is what we have heard. hillary clinton goes to people and promises them favors in order to get a donation to the

clinton foundation, as if she cannot do it in a better way. i appreciate ringing on such a neutral guy, but you can let the cat out of a bag. there is nothing wrong with this program. thank you very much. guest: let's start with that question about quid pro quo. we did not find any. what we were doing in the story was not to look for that kind of thing in any particular donation . it was to tell the story of how it began and got to where it is today. my colleagues did a lot of other reporting about individual gifts and relationships through the clinton foundation. today we did not find it or included in the story, it was not really the purpose to dig that deeply into the relationship. i do not think secretary clinton's is greater detractors or promise a secret quid pro quo. i know a lot of folks will be

looking at that. it does not exist. to talk about the foundation and how we should think about it related to hillary clinton, to me the most important point is what i said earlier about the idea where there should have been or could have been a firewall between her and the foundation. if the foundation were purely bill clinton's, and there were be a second order of whether somebody give a big order to clinton's's foundation, he has his own global standing. it is operably easier for her to defend. the degree to which she hand her aides and ideas have been wrapped into this, after she is secretary of state, she comes back to the foundation and starts a couple of initiatives that are primarily her ideas about helping women around the world, small businesses. the degree to which she has wrapped her own people and ideas and identity in the foundation not to say there is anything

wrong with that, but it will make it harder for her to say, there was nothing there. because she has chosen to be part of the foundation in a way she had not been before. host: one name that comes up is sidney blumenthal. whose see, nyc important to the story -- who is he, and why is he important to the story? guest: a long time clinton aide for a long time. after bill clinton left office he had one point got a consulting job from the clinton foundation geared at that time hillary clinton was secretary of state and sidney blumenthal was a reporter for the new york times, started sending her back channel intelligence from libya. libya was sort of chaotic and they were trying to figure out what to do there. he was sending these that channel television reports. he was working for businessmen who had investments in libya, hoping one particular group of people in one particular set of

outcomes would happen. as he is passing this intelligence to hillary clinton not an entirely neutral observer. it was an interesting view. you can see her, even though this guy is not in libya, he doesn't know that much about libya, but as his intelligence comes in she passes that out to , the main state. it raised questions about the degree to which cronies would have that kind of influence, even though they do not have actual expertise. that person was employed by the clinton foundation briefly. host: amir, hello. caller: thank you for accepting my call. as we were warned 30 years ago we must stand up against evil. , as your guest is implying, the clinton foundation, the clintons are evil. we cannot let hillary become clinton. thank you. guest: i have gone from neutral observer downhill pretty

quickly. it is important for us to talk about this foundation in as detailed a possible way. understand how it works because it will be a big deal in the next year. it is one of the most important things in her family's's life her life. it certainly will be a campaign issue. the sooner we understand what it is and how it works, the better we will evaluate her. if we have dueling strawmen one , that it is a red cross or an evil slush fund, we will not figure out how it works. host: texas, pat, go ahead. caller: i was wondering how much investigations you have done on similar foundations like the reagan foundation, carson foundations, they all do the same thing here is what is so different from the clintons and how much does jeb bush -- benefit off the health florida

benefited from obamacare? guest: the interesting comparison with past residential foundations, it is interesting but not that obstructive shared none of those, at least the most recent folks would run again for president. a lot of times, the foundation mainly focuses on the library. jimmy carter has done some work on habitat for humanity. that is what makes this an interesting story for us. there is a potential, this was created to be a permanent residency for bill clinton. it is seen by outsiders in a and -- a new light, and you see the foundation trying to retool itself to be the foundation of a future possible president.

two totally different sets of needs. no one is really looking hard at and what an ex-president does and future presidents because it is totally different and a much more severe set of needs. greater demand for transparency. one transition into the other, we have never seen that before. host: have there been discussions about how it should operate if hillary clinton becomes president of the united states? guest: yes. it's very hard to know -- the fundraising has been great when hillary clinton is running for president. they made a lot of money. hillary clinton runs for and becomes resident, then you cannot have a sitting president taking donations from these people. her role would have to diminish and the foundation itself would have to change. when bill clinton for started this foundation, he wanted to do things mainly overseas because he wanted to stay out of the way of domestic politics. a sitting president, where would you put something that it would

not affect the domain of the president of the united states that would be really hard. and what happens if she runs and doesn't make it? the last few years of the clinton foundation the , fundraising has been partly based on the idea that maybe hillary clinton will become president or become powerful again. if that does not happen, where does this go? what is the endpoint and what does it take him? either way, the outcome of the election will change the foundation. host: washington, d.c. gary is up next. independent line. caller: i had a question and a brief comment. who were the top 10 donors to the foundation or to you the most interesting donors and what do they expect to gain from giving that money and rubbing elbows? my question or suggestion is, i wish they would also, and i like bill clinton and i think he is a nice guy. but i wish they would focus on 600,000 residents of our

nation's capital who cannot vote according to the constitution for u.s. senate or the house of representatives. some of that money helping us people here in our own capital, who are legally prohibited from casting the vote for office. we have no voice or our own government at all. also, how about a few more public toilets. there is only only two and the whole city of washington, d.c. that is my comment, my requests. guest: on d.c. voting rights one thing that has not been done at all is political activism. they feel like this causes above politics. they have not done a lot of political activism. on the public toilets and d.c., you just have to find a bill clinton. you can find bill clinton, shake his hand and talk to him, there is a chance that will happen. this foundation focuses on

elephant poaching in africa, childhood obesity in america crop yields in rwanda, they are all over the place. that can be one of their causes. you just have to get to the man. host: another question, if bill clinton decided he wanted to place her time in the white house -- could the clinton foundation work without a clinton at its head? guest: i do not know. because it is not a typical philanthropic organization and it is not like there is a giant sum of money, there is some money, it where you just headed off in that person could give the money away, he is the engine that makes it work, and you need him flying around the world giving speeches. it would not be there if he were the first gentleman. i cannot imagine he would have the kind of freedom to do his own freelancing project. imagine the headaches that would create for the sitting president if the gentlemen were there

first shaking hands with all these people, all these heads of countries, which we have very nuanced relationships. host: roger, new hampshire. caller: the republicans are the ones that, because they're trying to do stuff hillary ended up having citizens united past citizens united has allowed a lot of donors donors to be tax-free. to me, it is ridiculous. i would like to see transparency of all the donors, political organizations. that is my comment. guest: anyone wants to run , including her, will have to take advantage of that system. no way she could win without disarming herself. when she comes into the office she would be crusading for fighting politics and probably

having been an enormous beneficiary of money in politics. you can see that now it is created, it would be hard to fix. host: new york, catherine, you're up next with our guest. caller: i would like to say, the democrats try to see what hillary will do for everybody. she is just lying the does the last time i saw her talking, it was the lady asking for a picture and said, you better get to the back of the line. back of the line. the rich ones in the front. for everyone to see what she said, that his state. she does not agree to talk to any reporters yes, everybody for everywhere. [indiscernible]

the rest of what is going on. thank you very much. thank you. good morning. guest: talking about hillary clinton's political aspirations. i wrote another story this morning about was interesting about hillary clinton in iowa in 2008 and why she did not catch on and what caused her political demise back then. it will be interesting to see, aside from the foundation, whether hillary clinton do what obama did last time around which is not just inspire people to respect her, but actually make people feel like they're being swept along in something greater than themselves. part of that will be cultural identifications. people will feel like hillary clinton is like them or understands them in some way. given the life she has led to the success of herself and her husband, she is coming from a different place. host: you wrote a line in your piece. the clinton's charitable causes for aids and allies and

indirectly for the clintons themselves, for the aide's and allies. guest we talked about sidney : blumenthal. the state department was paid a second salary by the clinton foundation. was paid consulting between the state department and hillary running for president. there have been other fundraisers and it worked for hillary clinton and also the foundation. that is just her aides and allies. look back at bill clinton. the top person at the white house runs in aids drug initiative. there been other folks, the body man in the white house, is sort of one of the top people in the foundation for a long time, who sort of came up with the idea for the clinton global initiative. a lot of infrastructure from the clinton foundation was carried over from the white house. you can see a lot of the same

infighting for bill's time that you saw in the white house among people. host: do businessmen benefit from that especially from their associations through the foundation? guest: of course. the example is the canadian mining tycoon, who has funded a lot of clinton's's work at the foundation, especially helping countries through mining is prevalent. met the president of a couple of different countries. met two countries who later signed a lucrative uranium mining deals. not only does your name get to be on the gift, but you often physically go with him to these countries to inspect what you have done or set up a deal. often folks who have come along with clinton have made lucrative deals with the heads of state.

host: tony is up next. caller: good morning. everyone knows bill clinton is an economic genius. he balanced the national budget. left george bush with a surplus that he squandered. the comment i really want to make is everybody is trying to make this a campaign issue for hillary. she went for the democratic nomination, but she is not here there are a lot of democrats that feel like me. they are just -- they just really do not trust hillary. i am looking at some other candidates. bill clinton is going to make money, but talking like she is an automatic nominee, i do not think that is the case. that is my question or comment. thank you for your time. guest: it is interesting you say that. the folks with hillary clinton

bernie sanders and martin o'malley, no one are taking them seriously as challengers but that could change. the perception a lot of folks have of the clintons, even folks who are democrats see the clintons as bending the rules. just the idea if they remember the first clinton presidency that you have to spend a lot of your time defending the clintons in these ways were it is not really cut and dry what they did, that kind of frustration, are we about to go into another time of what is the meaning of this and me defending the clintons, if i am a democrat, i think that weighs on people. if the foundation creates that kind of fatigue, it can hurt hillary clinton the primary or later on. host: can all those phone or debt foreign donors make direct touch visions in their own country? guest: that is the genius of the foundation.

at the clinton global initiative, they are in front of angelina jolie and bill gates and bono. you get to come up on stage and be honored with bill clinton. if you just give money to some cause somewhere else, you do not get that prestige, you do not get to have your name on something with bill clinton. that is powerful even for people who are incredibly wealthy. the mexican telecom billionaire, one of the richest men in the world, it would not seem like he needed extra prestige or gravitas, but that is someone who has gravitated to bill clinton. he is to go to bill clinton's speeches, right down lists of top 10 orders around the world even people like that see a benefit associated with bill clinton on stage. that is the genius of the clinton foundation. to get a piece of clinton prestige, they give clinton some of their money. host: what about nonprofits? do they get the same access?

guest: if you want to sponsor the foundation, $250,000. if you just want a ticket for your company, it can be $15,000 to $20,000 per ticket. but they have a way for nonprofits, to get in for reduced rates or for free. they are there also, but obviously the whole thing is set up, it is a big moneymaker for the clinton foundation because these companies want to be there. host: jane, columbus, ohio thank you for holding on. you are up next here good morning. are you there? caller: yes. i have a statement. i think it is great people are donating money to the clinton foundation where they go and help other people. you have to have rich people donate. poor people will not be able to

donate the kind of money they need. but when it comes to the presidency, nobody talks about how much money it takes to put a man or a woman into the presidency. guest: i think that is right. you need a lot of money to become president. that is sort of a different side of hillary clinton. she will need a lot of money and a lot of political donations if she will make a successful run for president. i do not want people to get the idea of a mingle with the foundation. the foundation is a separate entity. it is not a part of the presidency to those things are separate. they are not the same thing. host: if you look at the washington post on paper there , is a listing of all the various arms of the clinton

foundation, a good deal of them starting when they were listed. does the money that comes in only go to clinton foundation programs, or does it donate to other charities outside the clinton foundation? guest: it makes grants to other charities but a lot of them are funneled. some of them have broken off. alliance for a healthier generation after clinton had , emergency heart surgery, she partnered with the american heart association partnered to fight obesity. that is a huge program trying to get full calorie sodas that of schools. which employs hundreds of people in schools around the country, that of its own thing. it is kind of broken off into its own thing. host: james in houston, texas, you're on. good morning, go ahead and go ahead. caller: is that me? i'm sorry. my comment was, i was just wondering, when they come out of

office when he was president hillary was complaining they were just totally broke and like he was going to have to get in line for food. how come none of this ever comes up when she is getting ready to run for president and telling all these lies? i do not understand how that works? host: go ahead. guest: that was something she said early in the preparations for the presidential run. at that time, there was a lot of fundraising requirements for the presidential library in arkansas. the comment i think she said was not flat broke in the way regular people understand flat broke. obviously, if you look now, the change in their network has been just incredible. part of that is due to any

president, as an earlier caller said, can make a lot of money giving speeches. but there is an extra -- that is the great thing about the clinton foundation, as she -- as he blesses the money, the money also blesses him. he gets to be a greater global figure and become more demand around the world, the more he convenes the money. it's a great relationship very host: are there programs the clinton foundation decided to stop, because of lack of interest? guest: one major program. i will tell you the story of that. it helped get the clinton foundation its start. 2001, clinton's moves from the base of operations in arkansas where they were building the library to new york, where hillary was a senator. she says, i am a small business woman, i want to get better, but i do not know how to get better. he set up a whole mentoring program to show small businesses to understand things like marketing, websites.

it expands to nine cities. 600 people involved. we talked to a lot of people who are really involved in this and thought it was a great program. and that it ends. it is not scalable. it is too much work per person to go around the world to it with the clinton foundation likes to do, it is mostly about bringing in money, as found was -- finding individual mentors wasn't as valuable as people come to become it wasn't scalable. host: there's a lot more in this piece by david fahrenthold and others, from "the washington post," taking a look at the clinton foundation. you can find it online. >> president obama on his way back to the united states after participating in a two day g-7 summit. when country not in attendance -- russia, which used to be included in meetings of the g8, but has since been excluded

after the conflict with ukraine. president obama talked about russia's presence in ukraine and the court battle over his immigration executive order. you look very >> you mention of the u.s. and european allies reached a can census -- a consensus about extending sanctions against russia. is there a consensus about what the next step should be if russia continues to violate the minsk agreement? and can you deter russian aggression in other parts of eastern europe without a permanent u.s. presence? separately, i wanted to ask about the possibility that the court battle over your actions and immigration could extend late into your term? do you think there is anything more that you can do for the people who would have benefited from that program and now are in limbo, and how do you view the possibility of your term ending without a college pushing your goals on immigration? -- a cop pushing -- accomplishing your goals on

immigration. president obama: there is strong consensus that we need to keep pushing russia to abide by the terms of the minsk agreement. we need to continue to support and encourage ukraine to meet its obligations under minsk. until that is completed sanctions remain in place. there was discussion about additional steps that we might need to take if russia -- working through separatists -- double down on aggression. inside of ukraine. those discussions are taking place at a technical level, not yet at a political level. because i think the first goal going into a council meeting that is coming up is just rolling over the existing sanctions.

i think at a technical level, we want to be prepared. the hope is that we don't have to take additional steps because the minsk agreement is met. i want to give enormous credit to chancellor angela merkel, who is shown extraordinary stick to it of mess and patience in trying to get that done. ultimately, this is going to be an issue for vladimir putin. he has to make a decision -- does he continue to wreck his country's economy and continue russia's isolation in pursuit of a wrongheaded desire to re-create the glories of the soviet empire, or does he

recognize that russia's greatness is not depend on violating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other countries. as i mentioned earlier, the costs that the russian people are bearing are severe. that is being felt, it may not always be understood why they are suffering because of the state media inside of russia and the propaganda coming out of state media in russia and to russian speakers. but the truth of the matter is the russian people would greatly benefit. and ironically, one of the rationales that vladimir putin provided for his incursions into ukraine was to protect russian speakers there. russian speakers inside ukraine are precisely the ones who are bearing the brunt of the fighting.

their economy has collapsed, their lives are disordered, many of them are displaced. their homes may have been destroyed. they are suffering. and the best way for them to stop suffering is if the minsk agreement is fully implemented. oh, immigration. with respect immigration obviously i am frustrated by a district court ruling that now is winning its way through the appeals process. we are being as aggressive as we can, legally. the first and foremost appeal that ruling and then to implement those elements of immigration executive actions that were not challenged in court. but obviously, the centerpiece one of the key provisions for me was being able to get folks who were undocumented to go for a

background check, criminal background check pay back taxes, and that have a legal status. that requires an entire it mistreated apparatus and is getting them to apply and come clean. i made a decision, which i think is the right one, that we should not accept applications until the legal status of this is clarified. i'm absolutely convinced this is well within my legal authority the department of homeland security cost legal authority. if you look at the precedent, if you look at the traditional discretion that the executive branch possesses when it comes to applying immigration laws i'm convinced that what we are doing is lawful. our lawyers are convinced that what we're doing is lawful. >> president obama's press

conference at the end of the g-7 meetings today. leaders vowed to keep current sanctions against russia in place until a peace agreement between ukraine and per moscow rebels is fully implement it. they also pledged to add sanctions of russia escalates aggression. you can watch the president's entire news conference tonight at 8:00 eastern. live coverage in about an hour and a half, 3:15 pm eastern of the speaker of iraq's parliament and the highest raking sitting -- sunni muslim making remarks on the challenges facing his country as iraq's parliament considers legislation them ibt to fighting isis. -- that might be she to fighting isis. first tanning government watchdog accounts of the transportation security ministry shows challenges including an inspector general from the department of homeland security and a former tsa officer who has written several stories about his tenure with the agency.

we will have that tomorrow morning at 10:30 eastern. tonight, on "the communicators," at this years's consumer electronics show, we met up with author andrew keen and asked why he feels the internet is not the answer. >> the internet is not the answer at the moment. is not the answer in the sense that it's not working currently. it is lending itself to undermining jobs, it is compounding the inequality of our economic lives. it's creating new massive monopolies that were unimaginable in the 20th or nation century. it has created this data economy in which we will be, and all internet users have been turned into products. you and i have been packaged up when we use facebook, we become the product. it's like a big hitchcock movie. >> tonight on "the communicators," on c-span two.

>> the house gaveling in shortly for a pro forma session. here's a look at what to expect on capitol hill this week. >> can we start on the house side, specifically. there are reports that trade may come up in the legislative process. ms. is in the you were hearing? guest: trade should come up at the end of the week. we are looking at a significant number of amendments that could come up as they are debating appropriations bills that might slow down the process towards the end of the week or push it into next week. there is a -- dash to get them to pass this trade bill. democrats are struggling to get more than a dozen folks to get on board with the trade bill. that will be sending to watch over the next few days. host: speaker boehner was asked about if you have the votes he said he would have them. what does it look like? guest: it sounds like republicans are making some

inroads very slowly. i think it's an interesting moment for paul ryan. he asserted leading this effort. of course, leadership is also whipping this boat. everyone is very engaged. leadership aide said this is becoming their number one priority, it sort of consuming much of their time at this point. democrats are going to be -- it's a little more difficult to see whether they are going to be able to get two dozen to 30 votes. so far only 17% publicly they support this trade bill. that is far short of the number they will need. either republicans will have to wait parter, or democrats will have to make up some of the deficits. it's harder to do when democratic leadership is in supporting this in the same kind of way republican leadership is. host: what is expected on the senate side is for as activity is concerned? guest: for the next few days it

looks like focus will be on the defense bill led by senator john mccain from the armed services committee. looks like senate democrats are taking some aim of the additional $38 billion that being added to that overseas contingency operation. that's meant to avoid those automatic budget cuts from sequestration. democrats aren't sure if they're going to go for this yet. they say that this budget is sort of gimmicky, they are not decided whether or not they're going to go along with republicans there. that seems to be going to be eating up much of the time the senate. senator john mccain is optimistic the by the end of this week it will be wrapped up. host: we talk specifics, but as far as spending bills what is to be considered for spending bills they keep government operating? guest: if the house passes transportation and defense this

week, that leaves them with six more to do. we have to remember by the end of the fiscal year. that is something that has not happened until the end of the 1990's, so it is not clear if that is going to be possible, but they are at about halfway stage. host: lauren fox talking about the week ahead in congress. thank you very much. lauren: thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or