acked it down. to them, if you have enough destabilization, and they built the infrastructure, preparing places like yemen and were that strategy is that this will not back them down. panel, the paper draws out that the best islamic state does not have a tactical agreement with al qaeda. you said that the betrayal of ideology. i am wondering if your paper and the way you presented it appears to suggest that you think al qaeda has this engaged a new branding strategy, not actually using -- as we understood it before?

is the islamic state analyzing any correct way? atthat a political stab disrupting al qaeda? for his al qaeda losing the ability or nature -- >> that is a great question. i do not think there is any objective answer as to how well it is believed. this specific argument that david is referring to, ideological argument, that isis -- failure to immediately -- not actually following their ideology as it should be practiced in its purest form. this has always been a debate amongst jihadist scholars. some arguing that you need to fail.ent -- that will

if you introduce it to the population slowly, instead of the more pragmatic approach, it can point to things like in the car on, you have three different verses dealing with alcohol. there are verses that you cannot pray while drunk and that it was discouraged, then eventually banned. within the islamic tradition, -- have areas in which implemented or religious laws implemented slowly over time. i think they need it, but it is the threat of slower implementation has always been there within al qaeda. not to say that they have always embraced it. that discussion with people favoring pragmatism, and others taking a hard view. isis obviously takes the hard line view. >> i feel like the limits of this pragmatism is that with all , hetical, islamic movements

really sounds fascist. there is absolutely no imagination that somebody could and sayduced to the -- i do not want to believe. it is not possible. you either see the light as they have, or you need to be killed. you are completely out of humanity, as far as we are concerned. this is the limit of the pragmatism, let's just convince them and convincing the fire happened through arguments. you do not have the choice to say we will find under the belief. qaeda is financial, al a nation that is investing in services. the family of arab states providing services for the population is a huge reason for the expansion. another thing, we have not heard

-- there is an infrastructure -- thought. this is the expansionist. to cannot say we are going be contained in this area with a prophetic islam. that is not islamic, that is completely untying how the proper practices in the koran. there are so many verses you cannot compete with. urging muslims to go and expand. politicalt there is a -- al qaeda that is not expansionist, it is not possible. it is part of the dna. >> i am sure all of you have seen the famous obama angry translator sketch. -- it is one of the

key and peele sketch. when i say that al qaeda is pragmatic, she points out that that does not actually means pragmatic. i agree with you. i will just say, i used pragmatic, this is within the which isconsolation, not pragmatic anyway that any of us think it is. it is pragmatic with the goal of setting up religious through a topic -- totalitarian state. >> i am thinking about it on stage, as i hear this conversation, it is interesting to me that these debates are going on within these groups and are taking very seriously. extent, the to some anti-coalition has bought into this. the 65 member coalition, the

stateshe west, the gulf by this to some extentis. il -- isil is a different thing and a different animal than -- >> are they buying or selling this? >> let's say the coalition as a whole is buying this. when i think about the alternative coalition, the ,ussians, iranians, iraqis syrian reteam, they are not buying it. they seem to be colorblind in this range. sunni, jihadist -- isil, they are all one in the same. it certainly is politically advantageous for all of these groups.

what you really believe in what is politically advantageous can be distinguished as bland. it is easy to believe something that is politically advantageous for you. obviously, it is politically advantageous for those that support the assad regime. and those closer to the assad regime is closer to isis. i think there is also some genuine belief. isil, potato, there is no question between these two alternative coalitions that are now both actively engaging isil and syria. i think it is a phenomenal -- merit to boths

coalition views. on one hand, i think it is important to recognize the distinction between iso-and al qaeda. not because al qaeda is moderate, these are actual figures and if you treat them as though they are one, you cannot take advantage. we tend to not do a good job of exploiting them. syria could not. there will be some areas where we actually did so covertly that we do not know about right now. i argue that they did a great job. that is the merit of our coalition view. secondp side, there is a area of merit to the u.s. coalition view. it recognizes that not everyone who allies does so because they are extremists.

it would be so out of pragmatism and that is accurate. i think that is important because you when i want to treat -- fsa as though they are you definitely want to drive a wedge between them. is, i think that has nadia articulated, both isis and al qaeda both of -- have expansionist, imperialist visions that do not have limitations. it is not necessarily shared about all of the ranks. -- throughout all of the ranks. just as i did research in tunisia, it was obvious that there were guys who had no idea they were part of al qaeda. two, secondly, not all of

them would agree with the entirety of the vision. said, i think whether the leadership is able to harness the organization to shorten their strategy is what matters. that is where i would very much view. the russian-iranian they are taking seriously what these organizations believe. i think to some extent, when you look at a lot of the ways in which these groups are interpreted, hard-line sovereignty groups being framed --h groups we can work with giving these interviews and talking about how we want to set up a state in syria and do it in coordination with all of the other organizations. i do not think people are buying it. , youther groups like assad can find plenty of people who

buy into that argument. we are stopping at what they are saying in a selective platform, in not understanding the other layers of thought, which nadia is talking about. this discussion has been going on for a while, does -- do religious ideas matter? they absolutely do. we cannot say that this religion is bad, fundamentally, the reason why these guys take this debate so seriously, is because they actually believe this is an obligation. you have to understand it from the perspective, because if you do not, you can be full or miss opportunities. it is always worth understanding the enemy and understanding that enemy through their own worldview. if we decide because we do not want to do that, we are not fundamentally not going to understand groups like isis.

i think often, we handcuff ourselves in that way. get theld like to answer to what i think is everyone's biggest question from all three of you. can isis disrupt the al qaeda network and become the single dominant port in the jihadist movement? where stuck in a period they will come back -- combat and will not be able to see what we see at the moment with isis and where al qaeda is going to reassert himself -- themselves in about 10 years? >> since the odds are against isil, they could. it is a handicap against it. the reason why i think odds are --inst, the key

committed very strong , quorum that buys into the al qaeda network and they all benefit from being a part of this network. things like a change that could -- whatbe sawing egypt we saw in egypt and ultimately flipped over to isis. egyptian counterterrorism authorities went after their leadership relentlessly in 2014. basically killing off al qaeda or injuring the al qaeda loyalists so that the pro-isis guys remains. -- for example, in somalia, in terms of security services, they've been ruthlessly going after pro-isis to make sure they do not have that competition emerge. you can have this emerge where

it passes by al qaeda's ability to keep the network together. isisich point, the odds of goes way up. --ay it is against it >> events that would throw it up? >> not necessarily, i do not -- a couple ofn competitions would do it. very quick points, if you look at al qaeda today, it is probably stronger than it was before bin laden died. the control of continuous , thetory in human -- yemen controlled significant territory in syria. if you look at it from al qaeda, does looking at their power on

april 30 2011 versus today, the amount of growth they have experienced is tremendous. we have to take it back, the international community is going after the fruit and keeping the tree. -- we havewater it massive efforts and the ideology if you touch -- the dowa efforts to spread very conservative form of islam, you will be seen as anti-islamic. the truth is, this very conservative -- i was watching cnn this morning, and the shooter in california was described as someone who took his religion very seriously. dowa, thego for the

ideology that has not yet combined with a group, but it is inevitable. we have to put this in the context geopolitical he in the middle east, you have two arers, iran and saudi, they desperate to eliminate the iranian influence, and both of them are investing everything in asserting their dominance. the populations are paying for it. this is almost in existential fight for the sunnies. because of that, i would not be surprised after a year we see a complete emergence. there is a mac -- massive effort to reconcile the two groups. i would not be surprised if they are reconciled in a few years. >> just to play off of that, i

think it is entirely likely that al qaeda regains its prominence in the next few years. not because of its growth, but has tooi sold -- isil many enemies. they cannot stand against all of these people and we perhaps have not had the most substantive year and fighting isis. the russian and french are being incredibly serious about this. we seemed to have stepped up our game. i think the preponderance of force that is, a raid against isil, eventually the incompetence that has been mistreated this past year, it cannot continue. therestion would be, is -- is this subject to empirical evidence? having declared the --

in two or 35 years, no longer n in iraq org syria, will their members say aq was right? we somehow misled -- ms. read read thetures -- miss scriptures. -- is thisect falsifiable? >> i think the answer is yes in a complex way. way for an ideological which it is falsifiable. they will have some explaining to do because that is not supposed to happen. the other way is, basically what happened with al qaeda in iraq. al qaeda in iraq was known for

its brutality. as they lost around, former members themselves got brutalized. humiliated, executed, what happened to them was every bit much as what they inflicted on the population. you already see this happening to isis members, you can find it on youtube. becauset well known isis is not as exposed as isis supporters. publicity. >> majority of the people do not like isis. i'm not talking about in the theater, where you have bloodthirsty revenge killings going on. eventually,ing is, when of the reasons al qaeda in iraq turned toxic on the population turned against it and

their members were being killed. its brutality time from this symbol of strength to a symbol of how it is overplayed. part of it is ideological because the art -- argue would be -- bests clearly to her the early. the other would be a visceral reaction to see what happens to people who had been a part of crisis which would invalidate the aq process. >> we have a question up front here. thank you, mark from george mason university. thank you for such an interesting presentation. my question to you is, how many holes should we regard from this pledges allegiance to groups outside of syria and iraq? whether it is africa or the middle east? are they subordinating authority,to isil's

or are they more technical submissions to the they get this?ing from reason i ask, ultimately, is it possible that we might see some of these groups do to isil what isil did to al qaeda? after originally eating a part of it, thank you. >> i think it is a phenomenal question. group.wer depends on the some cases, there is a clear subordination. number one, you have the pledge. second, is the pledge accepted? some cases, it has not. --isian groups have played pledged, but some have not. third, look at isil leadership.

isil's strongest hub -- state ground in libya gives it the ability to have a command of control hub. i think it would be likeliest ald be -- boko hoaram, group that tends to be difficult to control. then you get into the question, if the andral leadership weakens it starts acting out ways that defies it, that is the kind of thing for both organizations that creates a potential for a tailspin. case has dealt with

that for a number of years. we can see, to care for readings attempt fromhis leadership in the region to execute strategy and accordance with the issues of the leadership in south asia and now spread out. i think al qaeda senior leadership is in places like yemen and syria. you see these attempts throughout the network. al qaeda has that with years and years of pressure being put down on them. isis has not been tested the same way. one of the key questions, with respect to your observation, how do they respond to pressure? do they keep things contact? or do they go into a tailspin because they do not expect pressure to have the effect that it does? >> do either of you have

comments? there was a wonderful table -- pledged allegiance to isis and wedge of this group has isis accepted to pledge? >> thank you for the discussion. said, from mya understanding, is saudi arabia the mothership? and here we are just focusing on the little actors, the ones actually doing the brutality. but the money, box, ideas are all coming from saudi arabia? , theat the case international community needs to focus on that and to finally stop gettings to

oil and giving you money, is that what it is going to take to end it? at this rate, it will never end. we will go after one fruit after another. what the islamic state forces children to learn in its schools is the weddings -- it is being enforced in areas that are under isis control. it is a match. to report compared isis other revolutionary -- i think the comparisons should be between them and the journey of mohammed abdullah because that is at -- actually who they aspire -- it is not so simple.

-- it is not the state itself, it is the people, the 5000 princes, some of them have stronger alliances with the others. it is not so black and white. for those that argue that it is not so black and white, why is it that when a liberal speaks one sentence outline, he is cut like this? you have millions and millions of dollars invested in islamic , thats and mosques basically perpetuate hate and violence. you would not believe the amount of excitement against the west and the hate. stop giving us all of this hate. stop -- there is definitely an enormous

role for them to play. i do not see, personally, that we contact -- can tackle this without going to the source. at the same time, it is not the state itself, maybe people within the state. it is not so black and white. >> i have a question, because yesterday i was at the conference in turkey and they were talking about oil and they said it was not necessarily turkey that was processing the isis oil. it was people in turkey. basically, the state would take responsibility for helping isis financially. like everybody knows the problem, but they are not talking about that and how saddam's daughter is helping

isis. we do not confront these people who are obviously a part of the problem. up tore any plan coming actually confront the problem, our allies? like this addressed, because once i think people are clear about what america expects, maybe change can happen. important a really point. we have saudi arabia and particularly turkey in this conflict playing a similar role that say, pakistan did in the war in afghanistan. waysich there are clear with which they are facilitating the fight and are part of the problem. on the other hand, there are other ways in which they are assisting and which they are of relative utility.

the wonderful term i learned for my children, is fienemy. i think this is how we need to approach these types of states. if saudi arabia is a problem, on the other hand, it is not a particularly stable state. we -- because of sanctions or something else we did to them, the state false. the last thing we need is for one more unstable place in the middle east. that is the worst of all outcomes. we have our hands tied and we need -- we are going to have to deal with this. what you are talking about is important. speaking truthfully about what these states are doing, and not sunshine, having a

name and shame policy that is appropriate, i think it is absolutely part of the solution. i think when he to stop using the term outline, frankly. -- ally. .> i want to add to that with respect to turkey, i see there is a problem on the al qaeda side, then isis side. i think they are generally anti-isis, although they occasionally referred to bump the kurds. but are actively supporting al qaeda. i think turkey has taken an extraordinarily dark turn. one of the problems for us, for the u.s., looking at the leverage over turkey, we need the airbase. but, i think we boxed ourselves in with thinking that we need them more than they need us. during lot like pakistan

the afghan-soviet war. at the end of the day, turkey has a mess on their border. it will affect them a lot sooner than it will affect the united states. we have a lot more leverage than we believe. part of what i think we need to do is recalibrating our role in the region and tried to deal with some of these issues that have been highlighted. recognize that we have leverage and not allow ourselves to see the u.s. as being dependent. with a few changes in our outlook, we could do a lot more notet concession, or feeling like shooting ourselves in the foot in the process. >> when dealing with these groups and determining what their ideology and strategies are, how likely they are to change over time? a co-author on this paper

recently wrote an article contesting what has been a attack inthat isis's france was the change in strategy. you recently touched on this. how stable has isis'strategy been? changed,strategy perhaps not in that year, but before and after the airstrike campaign? he is referring to the people who are sitting back there. i think they did a very thorough job of looking at the question of whether attacking the west, the terrorist attack, represents the change in isis'strategy. their conclusion, is that it is not. if you look at the rhetoric of the organization, and reviews actions, including the january

-- disrupted elgin -- belgium. they tried to do this before, what changes do that they succeeded. i think we are going to see a change, not an strategy, but in resource allocation. i think isis is likely to invest proportionately more resources in external operations, terrorist attacks abroad. it has to maintain its image of having momentum. ground in iraq and syria, there will be challenges in doing so. they will focus on ensuring themselves in places like sinai, libya, it tunisia, and trying to carry out attacks in in the west to show that they have momentum. they have a social media type strategy. the strategy is to get people

excited, and you keep getting them excited. it is a strategy of momentum. that is what it is part of the strategy is, keep people and, replenish their ranks and draw relations to them. which is why we will have completely fake social media campaigns orchestrated by isis supporters and some major organization is going to -- say it and would keep saying it and then shabab will issue a statement and say no. that's happened in some cases where they got media outlets to report -- -- they had not yet put it in their videos. it was reported in multiple media outlets that they were in isis affiliate. they never were, by isis was able to get a supporter from the organization to issue this

release that made it look like it spoke for the whole organization. momentum-basedy strategy. i think that the resource of allocation will shift. --y tried to attack the west they wanted to attack the west from the outside. they tried well before parents. paris. the broader question is can these groups change is very interesting. the biggest debate is occurring, the brotherhood now, is it the same brotherhood -- or has it become an electoral force. that is were i think the central debate is, about to what extent these organizations change over time. be --a question that will that we will be debating for

some time to come. we are talking about isaiah's -- isis and al qaeda and if we have seen any changes and it has been small and mostly strategic. we can explain the social media momentum because the vast majority of the recruits are in their 20's. this is in the organization that has an organization that has been intimate relationship with computers. figure up explains -- expressing themselves -- they grew up expressing themselves through computers. that is how they communicate. a freelance journalist, given the tenor of our presidential comingd the xenophobia out of the gop, it has been in uptick with isis and al qaeda? >> that is a good question. i have not seen it, but i also

think it would not manifest itself yet. you are talking about a relatively recent phenomenon over the past few months. we would start to andce it based upon arrest understanding the genesis of where people draw their inspiration or grievance from. i think it is possible, i just have not seen evidence for it so far, that there is a noticeable uptick. naida is talking about how there is so much hatred of the west in the media. our media, there is so much hatred for muslims. nadia: a night and day difference. cnn, msnbc, really night and day. in the arab world, you have 80%

of the population under 40, unemployed, disadvantage, not allowed to legally participate in the government. these so-called allies but all of their energy -- the media is controlled. we do not have free media like we do here. they take all of the responsibility from the failure of the nation on the west. rampant that people think everything that goes wrong is because of the west. that is what they hear 24/7. >> thank you very much. as has been a great discussion, i left it. susan, a retired analyst. i am curious to know what you

think -- i was watching the news this morning, and one of the speakers said that what is happening is world war iii, we are in world war iii. i wonder what you think about that. , if we lose world whati and isis wins, does our day to day life look like? the international system -- that analogy has been made up the coldimes, cold -- war was world war iii. i think it is possible, if it is world war iii, it is not the u.s. versus isis. what we are seeing is a broader

phenomenon. i think al qaeda and isis are one subset of this phenomenon. not so much and i were of north america, or europe. east, africa, middle places with weak governments. the state plays less of a role. i think we are seeing this global, broader phenomenon with al qaeda and isis if they are the most prominent subsets in which the state is being challenged. trans-nationalism is possible now in a way that it never was before. al qaeda was notable because it was the first global insurgency. now, transnational is a is very easy. we are also interconnected. you can find transactional operations not just with al qaeda and isis, but with

anarchist movements, racialist movements, with groups dedicated to a set of ideals, like anonymous. i am not saying that all of these groups are the same, but they are the same with some state actors that are capable of functioning to some extent at it differs from group to group. to some extent, it is strategic level. the number of countries that have been ripped apart by violence is very high. molly -- mali, libya, iraq. i am not saying it is a failed state, but it is work that hard where you have a violent act or controlling large parts of the territory. i will, not just at al qaeda and isis, but this broader phenomenon. what we will have to do, i think it is two things.

we are going to have to better navigate a world of -- isis is bad, al qaeda is bad, but some groups are either a little bit more ambiguous, or in some ways, a lot of them. we are going to have to navigate this world were all religions are not on state to state level. the second thing is, the analogy i make a lot is between the disruptions and political states the economicns in state. like his industries that are a legacy of another time. and at blockbuster videos subtly netflix comes along and it is not blockbuster anymore. the analogy i use, the violence looks a lot like startup competitors in the political organizing space.

they are able to innovate quickly, they have a streamlined structure, they are able to make strategic shifts in a more rapid way. here he burglarized -- bureacrazied states, like the u.s. -- they look at how these startups are beating them and they have adapted their structures in some ways. ultimately, i think that is one thing we are going to have to do. agility is going to be important in this world that we are in the midst of the we have not adapted to yet. >> to have the last few questions -- do we have the last few questions? im with the state department, i have a question with the muslim brotherhood.

just background i am sure you know, but this is for everyone else, there has been mixed reports about the role they play within isis. 2012, there are videos online on youtube of them raising isis flags in the background while making political speeches. there is also -- >> are we talking about egypt? >> yes. and a couple of days ago, saudi arabia has ordered that all books written by muslim brotherhood scholars be removed from the school system. msa,is also tying into the i am not sure if you are familiar with that. that also has ties with the muslim brotherhood. is this something that we need to worry about in our universities on our side of the world?

--ia: >>msa is the muslim student association. definitely a great thing to ban them, but saudi if youhas a lot more -- compare it to the writings of mohammed abdullah, you have isis versus the brotherhood. i think it is clear which one is more violent and more harmful. i think it is pretty important to go at the ideology of exclusion of owning the truth. this idea -- this egomaniac idea that i know what islam is and if you do not adhere to it, you have no human rights, you are to be butchered like an animal. we need education and values such as religion tolerance, ability to agree with one

another without violence, without coercion. how are we going to do this in a fire -- environment where these are the main mechanisms of influence by our own state? if you want to talk about tolerance and nonviolence, the state has to treat its own citizens with nonviolence. the state is not modeling what it really wants to see. you cannot leave without leading by example. a list there is a human right and participation by the population, i do not see how this will end. two, -- from within, we are aware of the limitations of what has been forced on us. of, onmonitoring a lot social media, it starts off line and goes online. the debates are more audacious and more than anything that i had seen in the west.

people do not address the issue active.it is radio people who live under islamic rule and forced to adhere to one person's vision or another, it is a problem on a daily basis. citizenple, a jordanian , i can only, if at all, jordanian women do not inherit anything, i could inherit half. this is -- the list is so long about the abuse to my life. every day, it is the name of islam. it is a problem. if you look under islamic rule, we need to reform. europe,rn state came to and is a past that took hundreds of years of abuses and for the state recognized that it is not its place to enforce christianity on people.

then, they said we have to give up this control, and instead of having real states and human rights and participation. we would never have had that. the arab -- learning the hard way. definitely, the west can help in that debate, but they are not. >> let's get a closing statement and comments going down the line. this is a very important report that lays out the distinctions between these two groups. i do not think we should let the distinctions over one the commonalities. at the end of the day, this is in internal view and the entire family is a problem. nadia: i would conclude about the reports, i like the section

about tunisia and how dowa efforts can start to -- we really need to focus on the the spread of the legal ideas before they become actual, physical violence. >> as you all noticed, this has been an unusual week as of all the world. let me first start by apologizing. the invitation before i set my schedule for the day. i am sorry i showed up late. normally, you do not begin a closing statement with an apology. this is an exception. i would like to thank the andwork, jason frtiz bridget who did a phenomenal job with the reports. i want to thank the america for publishing it.

this is a phenomenal institution and we are thrilled to have our report associated with it. thank you, david for moderating this panel. this is a panel i respect deeply, doug and nadia. overall, i would take this back to where i started. when we look at this period in a couple of years, we will look at this like a missed opportunity. a period of this as missed opportunity. it is happening in the open. qaedasingly, you have al -- describing isis as a blessing in disguise and saying they were able to clarify who the true shiites war and who the true muslims were. we need to pay attention because in the past we have not, they laid out their blueprint for

societies like tunisia and we do not pay attention to that. we end up overlooking opportunities to stop their plans from coming to for titian. tion.ui >> thank you. [applause] ♪ >> if you missed any of this discussion, you can go to our website www.c-span.org and check the c-span video library. join us later today when

candidates david johnston who represents queen elizabeth will open the first session of the 42nd parliament of canada. he speaks from the throne that outlines priorities of the government. this comes as a courtesy of the -- watch that live at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. the u.s. capitol on friday, both the house and senate are not in session. a number of lawmakers have traveled to paris to attend the global climate change conference. among that, democratic senator ed markey who tweeted out this picture, writing that he is excited to be in paris for the 21 climate change talks and proud to represent u.s. for its leadership and action. coming up this weekend on c-span, saturday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern, -- speakers include the nation

editor, katrina, former labor secretary robert rice, and former white house adviser -- leg, whichal justice has no home and no candidate. you are talking about the dreamers on the latino side, the black lives matter of movement, the native americans. the third wing of the party with no candidate and no pretense of a black candidate to mask all of that. they exploded into public view. --coming up at 6:30, the gop sharing about on terrorism, is -- go to our website www.c-span.org. andida republican senator presidential candidate marco rubio allied his plans to support israel and defeat isis. he delivered these remarks

yesterday at the republican jewish coalition or schedule form in washington. it is about half an hour. ♪ >> thank you very much. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, i appreciate it. you for being brief, although as he told me on the way out, you have been a life 44 years, how much more is there to say? , our thoughts and prayers are with those that have been impacted by the attacks in california last night. we are still gathering details. factsnot know all of the yet. we have learned facts that are concerning any wait on our minds in the aftermath that we see happening in the world. we begin with that acknowledgment in the understanding that we live in a very different world than the one i grew up in. , theorld you grew up in

world we have now long ago. i want to thank you, it is great to be back here today. each time i return to this gathering, the urgency of the topic at hand has increased this the year before. i believe that is true, this year more than ever before. the threats facing our country has grown dramatically in recent months. part, because our president has placed his own legacy ahead of our mutual security. of course, when we gather here a year from now, we will have a new president. you can clap. [applause] is, youding on who that will have either taken a significant step towards revising american leadership in the world, and advancing israel's security. or, we will have slid even further towards weakness and is engaging. i think one of the things that has become most obvious over the last year is the devastating

cost of foreign policy that lacks moral clarity. more clarity means that we stand by our principles and by our commitment. you speak up for what is right and speak out against those who are wrong. even if that opens us up to criticism. it means our allies trust us and our adversaries respected. it is common sense that american leadership should look like this. in fact, presidents across both parties have lived with moral clarity from tenant -- kennedy to reagan, until now. now, we have a president who leaves our allies feeling betrayed. feelingadversaries emboldened. there is no better example of what is happening now than what is happening in the middle east. in thes point out that entire region and entire middle east, there is only one pro-american, free enterprise,

democratic nation. that is the jewish state of israel. america has strong ties to israel on strong, cultural, political, and economic levels. it is everything we wish and want the middle east to look like in the future. free, tolerant, democratic, peaceloving him and desires of a better future. stance on the frontline of our civilizational struggle against radical, apocalyptic islam. this term, apocalyptic islam is not an attempt to be provocative. it is an attempt to be accurate. the truecriptive of beliefs of the leaders of both iran and islamic state. nd times living in e ended it their way to honor their god. reason.exact same the first requirement of

fighting for our common security, is standing together. we must not separate the threat to jerusalem and tel aviv from , london,ts to paris new york, or washington, or even miami. [applause] fact, i cannot think of no nation whose security is closely tied to our own, then israel. anytime there is a light between america and israel, it involves israel's enemies to take action. first against the jewish state, then against the rest of the free world. last month, we saw how quickly terror can spread from the middle east into the heart of europe. too many in washington failed to understand this. they wonder why we should have troubled ourselves with a small country thousands of miles away. they failed to see the connection to our national security and i will moral character. they failed to understand the -- they argueer

that we should distance ourselves from israel. abandoned its multitude of eager enemies. i think deep down, those who wish for this no what it would mean. it would mean we believe israel's -- we would leave israel to fall on their own. the existential threat of the iranian nuclear weapons program. what president obama has now exacerbated. the death threats -- iranian backed jihadists who indiscriminately killed israelis on the streets of israel, tel -- those indeo washington who wish america would abandon israel also need to understand something else. the threat of physical violence is not the only threat israel be left to face alone. the results are growing political and diplomatic threats. one international form and

another, israel attacked by the -- they should know better given their history. it is singled out for condemnation relentlessly. normally, the united states stops these attacks and shames the attackers. normally, the united states speaks with confidence and clarity about regimes that hijack international bodies. normally. not under barack obama. president obama -- and i'm afraid hillary clinton -- have a very different policy. they call it engaging, but what it really should be called is abandonment. instead of standing up to those that single out israel, the obama administration takes the path of least resistance. it throws up its hands and says, not our problem. consider this. just weeks ath