c-span. it's not partisan coverage of washington. it's a public service by your cable or satellite provider. on television and online. c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. next, a debate on the israeli-palestinian conflict and whether the palestinian movement has a right to exist. author is research director of the ayn rand institute. he debated u.s. army strategists at the subculture theater in new york its city -- new york city. event now.main reads, toresolution resolve the israeli-palestinian conflict, israel must first achieve defeat of the palestinian movement. i hope you have voted and ask your neighbor for help if you

had trouble accessing the app. vote for, against, or undecided on the resolution. please come to the stage. [applause] arguing to the negative, danny sjurs. please come to the stage. [laughter] -- [applause] please, close the voting. >> thank you for inviting me, danny, thank you for joining the debate. tonight's resolution presupposes the detailed analysis of a hugely complicated conflict.

that is the analysis that i offer in my book "what justice demands." let me indicate one crucial part to start with. so much of the debate and discussion of the israeli-palestinian conflict is bound in religious, ethnic, nationalist, tribalist premises. these get us nowhere. i suggest we need to adopt a different approach. we need to adopt a secular, individualist, pro-freedom perspective. that is the framework in my book and what i will be arguing tonight. the reason is, and i think you can demonstrate, individual liberty is an objective moral ideal. it is true for all people in all places at all times. i believe that freedom is the standard by which we should evaluate the adversaries in this conflict. this individual perspective i'm

arguing for leads us to discard activist and tribalist premises. one of the major steps in this way of thinking is we need to recognize a major distinction as blurred and completely ignored many people. there is a crucial difference between the palestinian community and the palestinian movement. we have to keep these separate and distinct. the community is a group of individuals that recognize themselves as part of the palestinian identity. the movement is an ideological political enterprise with goals and an ideology. it claims to speak for the palestinian community. there is overlap, that is true, but they cannot be treated as interchangeable. they are distinct and we have to

keep them distinguished when we think about the issue. this debate hinges on a moral evaluation of the adversaries. does the palestinian movement seek freedom? is it pro-human progress? is it concerned with righting wr ongs done to the palestinian community? no, no, and no. i argue the palestinian movement is hostile to individual liberty. by contrast, israel is the region's only free society. it has moral failings, really serious ones, and these need to be addressed and reformed but, none of these more the palestinian movement's aggression against it. it is crucial to see the palestinian movement as an obstacle to the fundamental barrier of progress to this

region. the debate does not hinge on the question of whether individual palestinians have grievances. they do. some are legitimate grievances and need to be redressed. for example, cases of israeli land expropriation or where police failed to protect landowners who are palestinians from jewish religious and mentalists who attacked -- religious fundamentalists who attacked them. that is wrong. even when you take these moral failings into account, and the grievances i regard as legitimate, they do not justify liquefying israel. in reality, the palestinian movement is hostile to freedom and is not care about righting wrongs against people a claims to serve.

if you look at what is the palestinian movement, what is it composed of? there are two wings. the plo and the islamist wing. both were founded with the shared goal to bringing an and two israeli society and are hostile to rights and individual freedom. they actively in the present day, not in some future state, they are trampling the rights of their own people. the plo runs the palestinian authority, an interim cause a state. -- quasi-state. is mostly in the west bank. it is an authoritarian regime.

the president of this entity, his four-year term as president and did 10 years ago and he is still in power and not leaving. he will appoint the next prime minister. if you try to live there, you will realize there is no freedom of speech. no freedom of association. if you criticize the dictator in place, you may be thrown in jail. and got help you if you are christian or gay. you will be hounded our if you make it out alive. moreover it incites its own people to commit atrocities, knife attacks, car rim links, other violent action. they celebrate the perpetrators as martyrs to the cause. the palestinian authority led by the plo we should note, this is what is considered by many as the moderate wing of the palestinian movement.

let's look at what people regard as beyond the pale, hamas. this runs gaza. it took over in a bloody coup in 2007. it injected islamist ideas into the area where it rules and has conducted executions in the street. they have fought rocket wars against israel and many times, and there have been small skirmishes in between. there were two rockets fired from gaza last week towards tel aviv. hamas is notorious for inciting its people to commit suicide bombings and celebrate the acts of destruction against other people. this is not only through the mainstream press of hamas, but through children's programs. when you look at the palestinian movement, this is a movement

hostile to freedom, that does not care about the lives of the people it governs. this is a movement committed to liquidating a free society, a basically free society, and the only free society in the middle east. that is what i suggest and argue in depth in my book. i argue the palestinian movement is hostile to freedom. why it is not concerned with righting wrongs done to palestinians. you can see by the way it is governing and has self-government in gaza and the west bank that the palestinian movement has inflicted its own injustice will stop there is no freedom of speech under its control. minorities are persecuted horribly. religious and other minorities. worse than this, to the extent

that they have control of these people in the palestinian community, the palestinian movement is not opposed to the kinds of crimes it accuses israel of. it itself is committing these crimes against its own people. i mentioned one notable example, a qatari businessman who came to build out what was beginning to be a new state, the palestinian authority. his bank and personal property was taken from him by the palestinian authority in broad daylight. there many examples of this. one thing to know about the palestinian authority, the move that many argue is dealable with. under the palestinian authority it is a crime to sell land to jews.

this as defined by a people's race. the punishment is hard labor for life. the maximum penalty is death. keep that in mind. let me turn to look at israel briefly. what i want to argue is that you take seriously the value of human life, human progress, and freedom, is crucial to recognize a stark moral difference and inequality between israel and palestinian movement. israel stands out as a basically free society, one with many flaws and moral failings. yet, it has freedom of speech. it has religious freedom, intellectual freedom, and all citizens regardless of race or creed have the right to vote and be a part of the government. their will be objections to

israel's moral standings, and i anticipate some that it is an ethnic national state and an apartheid state. i regard israel as a combination of individualist elements which is good which leads it to protect individual rights. and national and ethic religious elements which i regard as a problem and source of its failings. we can talk about the apartheid claim, which deserves more attention and i'm but you'd ask me about that. i want to make the case why the main barrier of moving forward to peace is the palestinian movement. to the extent that the current approach is being tried, the two-state solution, it has led to empowering the palestinian

movement, giving them in the west bank and gaza a militant regime that is hostile to the lives of the people he controls. and retrying the peace process which leaves to that two-state solution will eat the same outcome. it will not change until the ideas animating the palestinian movement change or give up its goal, which is what i advocate. the approach that has been tried has made the conflict worse. more people have died in violence since the signing of the peace process deal by bill clinton in 1993 then the 25 years before. this is a bad attempt to solve a problem. what i'm advocating for instead is that it is a necessary condition to reach peace that the palestinian movement be defeated. this is because i think what is

happening is a protracted war between two sides. wars typically end if you look at history when one side gives up, puts down its arms, and its goal is unachievable. that is what i'm suggesting needs to happen with the palestinian movement. it needs to lose heart and give up its jihad and its combination of military and political pressure. the influence of the palestinian movement in the west bank and gaza strip needs to be abraded. this is a long-term process and will not happen overnight. the crucial thing is a mind shift. people need -- the leaders of the palestinian movement needs to abandon the goal of liquidating israel and creating a society that is an authoritarian one. a major thing that can be done

from outside the conflict is us that have influence, particularly the governments in the u.s., canada, and europe, need to withdraw the moral endorsement of the idea that the palestinian state is a goal to be achieved. what we have seen even when it is materialized to a small degree is that it is hostile to freedom and a militarized regime that seeks to undermine israel. withdrawing the moral sanction and financial support that makes it possible i think is critical to reaching the point to which the palestinian movement feels defeated and gives up its goal. thank you, very much. [applause] >> danny sjurs for the negative. [applause]

sjurs: thank you. my opponent has undoubtedly laid out a passionate, detailed defense of israeli policy over the last half-century. he has highlighted the worst aspects of what he dubs the palestinian movement. were his words and unopposed introduction to this conflict, the simplicity of the model would be persuaded. as the veteran of two wars in the middle east i found this more nuanced. it is for this reason i must oppose this resolution, along with the black and white thinking that informs its framework. i cannot promise neat models or simple reassuring solutions. rather i propose a middling approach to conflict resolution that accepts as ginny linda fears for israeli security, but does not dismiss the plight of the palestinians outright.

mine is a path of them into the and sman attempt at even my thinness. the palestinian crisis is a veritable third rail in american political discourse. i speak as someone who is not anti-semitic and opposes anti-cement is him and believes the israeli state has a right to exist. i have to address the controversial caveat. palestinian's for moral and strategic reasons deserve civil rights. that should be the state for all conservatives and my debate upon tonight. israel is neither state nor satan, and neither is palestine. these are fluid societies. they do not operate in a world

of good-evil duality. i shall prepare propose three major arguments. i reject the term palestinian movement. this movement is no single thing and is not nearly as simple or as evil as islamist jihadi as the labels my opponent prefers. i shall demonstrate the vast majority of palestinian organizations, even hamas, should be dealt with as potential partners in negotiations. despite the blood spilt they are more willing to make peace along the pre-1967 borders, accept the two-state solution, and recognize israel's right to exist.

israel under its right-wing government has provoked thomas, hamas and broken truces. defeat of the palestinian movement is neither possible nor grounded in fairness. what piece does require is the isolation and condemnation of most terroristic elements of palestinian resistance, but we need to condemn israeli policies that also hinder. the notion that israel has a role to play in reforming. in the way it has been laid out, the palestinians are evil. their movements are all evil. they cannot be dealt with. i reject that. i will argue that any solution

in the holy land will not be forthcoming unless the israeli government or a successor administration reverses course and militarization and occupation regime and opens its mind and hearts to authentic negotiation with all components of the multifaceted palestinian movement. let's begin with the problematic definition of the palestinian movement. take a moment to read the resolution. that staggering sentence my opponent affirmed. i will break down three main parts. it is clear from the resolution and my opponent's remarks he places israel and israelis at the center of the model. then israel represents everything good juxtaposed with the people arab states of the region. israel and israelis can do no wrong. this is problematic not only because there are good people and good faith movements in the middle east, but because he left israel off the hook for its own flawed policies, human rights abuses.

educated israelis should seek to improve their own societies just as americans. it does not make you un-american or unpatriotic to critique policy. the same applies to israel. you will hear little of that. this is a one-sided tale of good israelis and bad palestinians. you will hear quite little of the somehow absent palestinians from my opponent. the palestinians are almost the elephant in the room no one speak of. there is the term defeat. as a combat soldier and officer having conducted fruitless counterinsurgency in iraq and afghanistan, which is remarkably similar to the west bank and gaza, the term defeat has come to seem absurd. highly unrealistic. how can one people, how can one defeat a people's movement. can one win a true counterinsurgency? i am doubtful.

that is the assumption that israel can and should defeat the palestinians. this is fantasy, wishful thinking at best. lastly we returned to the phrase palestinian movement. my opponent believes today's palestinian movement is the enemy. an entity worthy only of destruction. i think when he looks at palestine, palestinians, and their organization he sees isis. the palestinians are little more than terrorists in this telling, and that is not accurate. beyond wildly inaccurate isit is a dangerous conception. the vast majority of palestinians, like the vast majority of muslims, are not civilian-slaughtering terrorists. they are a diverse people.

the most highly educated arab people on the planet. there are monsters among them, but this is a small fraction of the beautiful whole. the very framework and the glitch and construction of the resolution is defined, factually inaccurate, unachievable, and one-sided. so much so that on this point alone one should vote down the resolution. the vast majority of palestinian organizations should be dealt with as potential partners in negotiation. service in america's never ending post 9/11 wars has taught me that often times one must work with, talk to, and compromise with nefarious actors. the u.s. military tried to feeding sunni islam own nationalism in western iraq for four years with no success.

only when forward thinking colonels and a willing general, david petraeus, began talking to the tribesmen and dividing them from the most extreme elements of the insurgency to the u.s. army achieve a drop in violence. this was a hard pill for us to swallow. there was no alternative course with any hope to lower violence, ultimately protect u.s. soldiers, and bring a semblance of peace than to work with the muslims of the region. and must the same way israel must deal with any palestinian individual and organization that is ready to accept a long-term truce and two state solution because there is no other path to peace. none. the notion that upon the defeat of hamas' leadership that the palestinians are going to lay down and give up and form some new version of themselves that

looks like an israeli zipped up inside of them is fantasy. this will freeze any movement towards peace and birth a generation far more radical than the past palestinian generation. even hamas, the villain of mr. journo's movement, is far more than he gives them credit for. though at times after 1994 it engaged in suicide attacks on israeli civilians, and though its early charter denied the right of israel to exist, even hamas has come a long way. in reality the hamas of 2019 is not the hamas of 1987 and it can be dealt with rather than defeated. it has often meant israel that has broken truces and provoked hamas, such as the 2004 israeli assassination of this came on

the heels of the state of the hamas could accept a palestinian state in the west bank and gaza strip. that leader had offered a long-term truce in exchange for israeli withdrawal from the occupied territory. this was a shift that should have been capitalized on. instead israel turn to violence, refusing to compromise with hamas. once more, in 2006, hamas published a manifesto that lacked reference to the old goal of eliminating israel. another positive change. instead, the u.s. and israel punished hamas and the majority of the palestinian people who voted for them in the gaza strip was that they imposed sanctions and withheld funding. the new york times, not known

for anti-israeli bias, concluded that this was a plan to destabilize the palestinian government so that newly elected hamas officials will fail and elections will be called again. this sounds like a coup. but instead of hamas taking over come it appears to be israel and the united states overturning a democratically sanctioned election. associating the movement with the secular arab states and violence of islamic extremism, my opponent denies legitimacy of the palestinian struggle. i reject the simplicity and factual reality of that assumption. my third and final argument, israel has its own flawed policy. i will assert that aspect, not everything, but aspects of the israeli movement must be reversed before peace is possible. among these, a perennial occupation of the west bank and gaza, illegal settlements regime, and a brutal blockade of the gaza strip, and unacceptably

disproportionate lack of concern for palestinian civilian history lesson, i have three or left, but let me briefly address these grievances. fact that isputable the founding of israel in 1948 and the expansion of it after 1967 war displaced many palestinian refugees. my saying this does not mean must give it back. that's not unrealistic, or cease to exist but rather it genuine suffering and grievance of the palestinian people that there are two sides in this argument. mine is the side that says there are guilty parties on both sides. those we can work with on both sides. ut you don't have to take my word for it. consider a 1969 interview with the israeli defense minister admitted we came to his country which is already populated by arabs and we're

establishing a jewish state here. jewish villages were built in arab villages. you did not even know the names and i do not blame you because geography no longer exists. not only do the books not exist the arab villages are not there either. this is one place, there is not built in this country that did not have a former arab population. settlements.e the the bottom line is until israel dismantles it's settlements and land to the rightful palestinian ownership then it is in violation of international law and impeding the peace. the idea that the palestinians are going to lay down and accept solution while massive, massive numbers of israeli citizens, upwards of living in these settlements, it's fantasy. these people are not going to quit. how insurgencies end historically. >> the brutal blockade of gaza enormously cruel.

to demonstrate the cruelty and remeditation of this blockade let us consider that a prominent israeli governing official actually took to literally of ulating the number calories a person in gaza an ed, lest there be outright famine. one of the aides to sharon they edly joked because voted the wrong way for hamas, palestinians would undergo something like an appointment the doctor. they would get a lot thinner but die. won't let me conclude my opening remarks in a rather solemn way. not ld be remiss if i did recognize the historic crimes jews and thegainst worst crime in history, holocaust. among those reasons i believe srael has the right to exist and be secure but here's what i also believe. there is a second side to this conflict. there are palestinians with genuine grievances with leaders who can be negotiated with and negotiated with. they cannot be defeated, nor any d they be, if there is

sense of equity and fairness. thank you. [applause] >> the palestinian movement, i distinguished be from the palestinian people, and didn't sink in so let me am bring fire that point. there is no question there are suffered ns who have wrongs, and i think they need to wrongs addressed, but that focus on the claim the palestinian leadership and the movement, that seems to be argument, the r palestinian movement is not monolithic. said there are two major it's correct to equate it with islamic movement same as isis.he

the islamic movement is rather large including both saudi iran, which are conflicted countries, and isis, of them dislike. he palestinian movement originated primarily as an ethic nationalist movement and then it morphed over many years into what's now primarily a religious islamic movement. documented this is in the rise of religion in the territories and reflected in the hamas.fortunes of now, it is important to aregnize what hamas's goals and what they remain. so it's certainly true that issued documents and manifestoes and the most recent 2006, it was 2017 where it issued a policy and this was read as hamas's moderating. concede hamas has changed

in tactical ways. drawing the in 2006, which it won by a landslide, these are moves and the most insulatee, in 2017, to itself from the muslim and qatar, who does not like the muslim brothers and by.as wants to be funded hamas, i think, retains its goal. disavowed its goals liquidating israel. none of those documents do that closely. read them what it does is it presents themselves in terms that are put it, to hall i fool people into thinking that somehow dealable with. i don't think that's true and i think the principle that you can anyone, this is a very common principle in diplomacy, it's false. you cannot. that you can make

a deal with anyone and that factions within hamas that are to the point where you can deal with them. valid. just not and you can see evidence for that when -- we had the same about the palestinian liberation organization changing its position and accepting through a it went number of hoops to do that and prove itself in 1988. that went exactly how one would expect. it was a lie, and the same thing 1993, when arafat stood on the stage with bill clinton. and itement did not then has not since repudiated its in tactical ways it's seem ted its position to more appealing and to lure people back to the negotiating table. hat happened when this was taken on faith the palestinian movement was given a quasi state palestinian authority,

enabled it with money and arms, o carry out what was then called the second intifada, or rather a war against israel by other kinds rs and of attacks, that was one of the most lethal outbreaks of violence that there has been in conflict. let me mention, you raised some of the historical points which i audience toe in the raise in the question period when we can have more discussion of it. think it's important to that, in fact, the -- they s are treated are obviously wrong. there are real wrongs here. in favor of nuance. it took me a book to argue my point. missing some of those including with the settlements, which cannot be uniform phenomenon. i'm certainly not in favor of israeli policy. it. not here to defend i'm arguing for israel's to tion as a free society

the extent it's free and for as long as it's free and as long as it's carrying out policies that are a constant with that. i do not support -- i certainly all the policies, and i oppose many of them as you will find in my book. thank you. [applause] major sjursen: thank you. so i have about five minutes to address some of the rebuttals from my opponent, who is very educated on the topic. i have one question. why is it, and this is hypothetical, israel's state to give the palestinians? the whole framing is problematic. if there is a light for an equivalent -- tofor

grant what is being called a quasi-state to the palestinians, which is little more than an open-air prison in many ways, little more than a collaborationist regime in many ways. my opponent spoke in his earlier remarks about a proponent of freedom perspective, and i agree that should be the framework, but what about the life of actual living, breathing palestinians in gaza today who lack civil rights, who lack basic freedoms of even arabs within israel who do not have the same rights of jews within israel but who have lived under occupation 50 years after the war in defiance of every single ruling of any international court, organizational organization. perhaps 180 countries in the world are all just anti-semitic and only israel and the united states are correct, or maybe there is something to these grievances, not just for the palestinian people, but for their movement. i agree that this hinges on a moral interpretation, but a

moral interpretation again will make one wonder why there are no civil and political rights in no palestinian state sovereignty. the ponent also says palestinian movement is an obstacle to peace but what about israeli obstacles? just a vague notion of israel is not perfect from my opponent there is no list to israeli obstacles to peace are. why is there nothing about this? would argue the silence on this issue is more telling than anything my opponent says. i think it's a fallacy that the movement is dedicated to the destruction of israel. in 1993, actually before then, plo did accept the right of israel to exist. did accept the two-state solution. hamas, while it didn't change its full original document has made it clear that it's willing to accept a two-state solution from its highest leadership levels, and it will accept the long term truce. is, truth of the matter israel never made steps towards the final settlement, that the oslo was supposed to

create. if the palestinian movement is o harmful to palestinians, why did they vote it in? why did so many turn to hamas. part of it was frustration with the lack of progress towards the palestinian state? could it be the intransyens of israel in many cases? every time. not every palestinian leader is a saint. a every israeli leader is villain but the reality is there are two sides. there are two sides to this situation. question for me is what if palestinians vote the wrong way? to ppears you either have believe in democracy or not. democracy appears okay for we can -- we're happy with the way they vote but what about when the palestinians democratically elect hamas into government. who then has the right to that hamas can't be dealt with? like i said in iraq and afghanistan we dealt with people who literally had the blood of soldiers on our hands. t worked and we didn't like it

one bit. still don't. but i knew we were never going nationalist iraqi movement in iraq. e're never going to defeat militarily taliban and afghanistan. good luck soviets tried. we've been trying. it's not going to happen. they are not just going to give over. roll this won't happen. t's, a, historical, from a military history standpoint. putting down their arms is not movements end. compromise and politicalization f movements is how they end so these steps of hamas towards negotiation are the signs of for peace. take the irish republican army. after 30 years of being told ira will never, ever settle for peace, they didn't lay down their arms. they were brought into the movement. today, members of parliament in britain, used brigade commanders in

northern ireland but the british swallowed their pride and to deal with had people who had blood on their hands. otherwise, they would fight this 1,100 years and that's the reality. do the palestinians have some of biologicalle predilection for evil? i think not. some role the israelis are playing. i think the silence on the issue of israeli, perpetuation of abuses and even rights is instructive. thank you. gene: thanks to you both. we go to the q&a part of the evening. i take moderator's prerogative to ask a couple of questions first, and then of course you can comment as well. you have affirmed your own support of israel's right to exist.

most recently, hamas seems to be ambiguous about that. you say that hamas' basic document, do they deny israel's right, my particular question is what is your best evidence that hamas has affirmatively stated, as you have stated, that israel has a right to exist? >> that's a great question. >> oh, no, no, no, we are recording for posterity. major sjursen: that is a great question. three wars in gaza since 2008. 2012 and one in 2008, another in 12014. the u.s. state department as well as ognized an international terrorist organization in israel that the hamas fighters actually

showed a fair amount of acceptance of the long term truths and it was actually truce in t broke the each of those cases so in all three cases israel actually raids into gaza, broke the truce at which points rockets were then fired. inaccurately into israel, and, of course, response was verwhelming palestinian casualties. 1,371 in operation lead of which civilians and some 320 were children. o i think what we can do is look at how hamas acts rather than what's in their founding documents. radicals ealing with in their own ranks. they are dealing with moderates and dealing ranks with folks who want to work with israel, who want to work with the palestinian authority. i think what we're seeing is hamas is waging a battle, because it's a fluid maintain the to truces and what we know is hamas is capable of maintaining a long truce. it's as capable of holding a long term truce as is israel enough this point is

from my perspective to negotiate with. it doesn't mean we have to fall hamas.e with we have to deal with their reality. they win elections and they will dealt with on some level. >> i'll give it over to either or to the audience. you said a couple of times, there are legitimate palestinian grievances that should be redressed. can you elaborate on those grievances that should be specifically redressed? elan: sure. heard?be >> yes. elan: i mentioned them because they speak to the moral framework that i am bringing. one of the worst things that is happening in israel right now is jewish fundamentalists are trying to illegally settle lands. i think that is wrong. it is a violation of the rule of

law, and one of the ways they do this if they basically squat. in english law, squatting is when you take over someone's property and sit there and exclude them. they do this, and then they expect the government to come and protect them. they have accomplices within various levels of government. i think this is wrong. it essentially steals land that belongs to the palestinians. the israeli government has removed many of these illegal outposts by force, and i think that is one example where the real wrong done to palestinians right now, living, breathing people now who are suffering, ample is not only those kinds of squatting situations but attacks on palestinians rchids, and when that is

carried out, you basically ruin their farms. the perpetrators of those kimes stopped, put in jail, full extent to the of the law. the perpetrator of those crimes have to be stopped, put in jail, punished to the full extent of the law. one of the things i would say about grievances is that danny mentioned the refugee problem. i think the refugee problem is probably the thorniest one, and complicated to untangle, and part of what danny really brought out is what led to the war is the initiation of war by neighboring 1948, and the culpability for that has been evaded over time. and that the attempts to those refugees and the attempt to reduce the number and compensate them, they were all and refugees that are settled in lebanon, for are in a situation that's worse than gaza. if you want a place with a wall they can't bring in cement and they can't become citizens look at lebanon. crime. a real

i have heard nothing about the crimes against the palestinians one by the arab regimes that refused to give them any kind of even to get a job if you're in lebanon. there are real grievances. one of the problems with the grievances, is that it's been inflated. there are seven times more now after 70 plus years than there were at the time of this war and one reason for politicized way in which they are defined. you can be a citizen of jordan, fully resettled in jordan, and yet be counted as a efugee, and you can be a refugee who is in a refugee camp. there is something really wrong with the way that's accounted the o i think politicalization of that grievance makes it hard to untangle. he worst part is the palestinian movement, this is niform including the supposed moderates, they hold it an absolute wholesale right of return.

basically six million people have to come back into israel. there is something fishy about that, i think you have to agree nd that's not easily remedied because you have to think about what happened in history and figure out the culpability of all party, not just israel, usually the one that's as the villain here. >> do you want to come in > i think it's important to note, it's mostly towards a atural high birth rate, and what's not mentioned is that by theere plans in place sraeli military or thenasent military to conduct cleansing in 1948. the most esteemed israeli benny morris, david ben-gurion has admitted to t, he's been on record, i can read quotes, this was a historical crime. it pales in comparison to the holocaust.

any time people try to equate them i think they are wrong but t doesn't deny there was truly a grievance there. also, many, many of them may ave become out of necessity, citizens of jordan, but i would imagine that people who left world war esponse to ii, though they quickly became citizens of the united states if still considerld themselves refugees from poland. as for rights of return i think it's very interesting. i don't think that six million people can actually come into israel. that will have to be arbitrated symbolic right of return and compensation. it's not possible for jewish to both democratic and jewish while letting six million palestinians in. i recognize that but you know have a right of return? based on religion? israel. a right of return for any jew worldwide. in is whym interested does that right which is based ethnicity eligious but why does that exist, but the whose or palestinians,

grandparents were kicked out of villages should be so easily dismissed. .t's a fascinating dichotomy >> you want to address that? >> the right of return, law, i's immigration permits almost instant citizenship to jews. i think that's a real problem. we can treat that as a principle by which to hold both sides accountable to, of countries have that kind of rule but i think it's a problem. think it reflects the motivations for establishing israel but i think, a couple of some of the n things you said. morris, as far as i read him, there is a plan to cleanse the land. think he's written on the contrary, the opposite. in fact, the evidence, and i hink it's worth reading other historians, too, that part of what happened, there were a lot of people who left as a of the war and it was military contingencies that led to fleeing.

now, the high number of refugees is not exclusively birth rate related. fact that unique among all refugees in history that we as, of, they are defined you can be a refugee through your father's bloodline. if you're born to someone who refugee, you're a refugee and so are your children through the male line. that's not the same standard u.n. high commission for refugees for other conflicts holds so part of the issue is, politicized definition of refugees. now, i want to just acknowledge there are refugees who are invited to come back and esettle, and that's definitely a fact. but i don't think either side be held to this idea that israel has a right of return, we should hold. i think that's a problematic easyand i don't think it's to say what israel's immigration rules should be but i think very different things

in understanding this issue. >> okay. know we've have people in the audience who want to ask questions. do you guys want to wait for questions or do you have any questions you want to ask? question?e a >> question, danny, go ahead. >> danny, what do you take to be israel's right to exist? interesting 's an point because one could argue that it's a problematic framing for any state to have the right exist. i think that the historical wrong against the jewish people certain unique to a degree, especially in the holocaust, the meant that there was a global the, an understanding among states of the post world war ii world that there was a special situation and thus israel should have a right to a sovereign jewish state which is why there was a u.n. commission, which is partition, s a which, even though arabs were still the majority gave 55% of israel.d to

this was problematic for a reasons since israelis only owned 7% of the property at that time, but i do think the circumstances of the jewish people made it a global norm by accepted global most states that later formed the u.n. to have an israeli state. admit, that there are intellectual arguments against any state having the right to exist. on my own to accept the israeli right to exist because done toistorical wrongs the jewish people. >> do you have a question to ask? --you want to sure. >> microphone. major sjursen: elan, would you please define what you mean by the "defeat of the palestinian movement"? how do you see this proceeding, and how long will it take? elan: i think it is a process that

doesn't happen overnight. it requires a shift that happened after world war ii with the nazi regime in germany and with japan, and essentially what it requires -- i do not think it requires necessarily a large-scale conflict that is armed and violent, but i think it requires a psychological shift. the abandonment of a goal that is animating the hostilities on one side. in my analysis, the palestinian movement is animated by a goal of making the whole land of israel ruled by palestinians, and that means the river jordan to the mediterranean, and that is a phrase that is commonly used. and i think the achievement of that requires sustained pressure and communicating that violence is not going to pay, the way in which the negotiations, which you are seemingly an advocate for, really encourage.

the peacemakers model is we pretended the palestinian movement was doable and they were moderating, and we sat down with them numerous times, israelis and sponsored by the u.s., on the premise that you should seek to everyone. i think that is empirically false. what that led to if they were given the encouragement think that, wow, we spent decades attacking israel, we did not get as far as we wanted, but hey, we just got invited to the diplomatic negotiations, the way we were elevated and given dignity that was never earned. arafat was pioneer of and national terrorism violence. that cannot be disputed and here he was celebrated as somebody, given that up. has he? has he really? i think that was a and, in fact with those kinds of negotiations, what it led to, it was a of that kind of behavior and a continuation and a funding of it over time. what you want to do is

reverse that. so it means not rewarding that showing the more you do that kind of thing, the more you attack, less likely you reach your goal and it's a lost goal. process.a long term t requires shifting theened understanding of what's achie achievab achievable. > do you believe they can be militarily defeated, palestinian movement and let me just say uickly, it seems like you're saying the palestinians have to wait more multigenerations. it's been three or four we're saying now it's going to be multigenerational to defeat them o now a palestinian refugee might have to wait seven or eight general races but japan 1952ts sovereignty back in despite attacking pearl harbor and west germany got its 1954 and wasack in armed, given tanks and put into only had to so it

go through nine years of ccupation prior to getting its sovereignty. i'm wondering if you really believe there is a military olution to the palestinian resistance? >> i think there could be. i don't think it's been military the premise of your question is essential to challenge and i to to raise that, you seem be operating on the premise that the palestinians are entitled to challenging you're me for saying they don't, and that's part of your argument that i'm being one-sided. but let me make it explicit. i don't think the right to self-determination can mean that you're entitled to create your tierney, and sell yourself and the people that you regard as part of there is no such right. and as long as that is motivating the palestinian movement, they should not the permitted to pursue a state.

and if in the future that is no longer the state they are working to build, then fine. i am all in favor of it. in order to be justified in pursuing the momentous step of creating a state, which means you have a monopoly on the use of force in a geographical area, you are actually going to use a state that protects freedom, or you are leading a situation and moving toward a situation with greater freedoms, the essential premise for israel's basis, it is basically a free society. if palestinians really wanted that, and there was evidence for that, then i would be in favor of it. i would say yes, go ahead, build yourself a state, create it, support it, i am not opposed to that. i am opposed to the palestinians demanding, and the idea of a democracy is the all-person -- all-purpose solvent of good

because enough people voted for it, which is completely wrong. if that is the principal, then yes, but it is not the principal. the only way you can make sense of self-determination for a group of people is they are trying to reach freedom, and that is not what the palestinian movement has been pursuing. we can talk about the situation in which they live in today, which is really perilous and difficult, but i do not think there is evidence to date, and there is certainly no evidence that they have given us, that what they are trying to do is move to greater freedom. that is my basis of objection. so the issue of how long they have to wait, they have to decide what kind of society they want to build. japan abandoned its goals after world war ii with a great deal of pressure, and germany was defeated. i think those are outstanding examples in history, because it was so rapid, and the fact that the military defeat came first. what happened in iraq -- i do not believe the surge and that whole thing of handing him money really is a solution.

cell that did not work, and i think we saw that with the rise of isis, which is i think a fruit of that attempt to solve iraq by dealing with everybody. so the issue is not how long they have to wait, it is what is the goal, and what is the standard by which you judge it. major sjursen: i do have a comment about that. again, it feels like the palestinians are being held to a different standard than the israelis. who is to determine what the people want except for the people themselves through democracy? i agree democracy is flawed, but as churchill said, it is the worst solution except for all the others, essentially. you said it cannot justify the armed struggle of the palestinians, but article 51 of the u.n. charter recognizes and -- recognizes the right to self-defense, and protocol one of the geneva convention

recognizes a fight against alien occupation. one could argue that because palestinians are still in a state of resistance, a state of insurgency, that we have never really seen what a palestinian state would look like. we have only seen the state list of a collaborationist regime that looks like swiss cheese. even though the israelis pulled out outposts from gaza and the west bank nothing has been done , about the 500,000 jewish-israeli settlers in the west bank. it looks like a piece of swiss cheese, frankly. it is a problem. gene: one more comment and then back to questions. elan: sure. i will make a brief comment. i have a real objection to the idea that there are two different standards here. i think there is one standard, and it is are you living up to , or trying to achieve a free society?

i don't think democracy is a standard. democracy is a tool is a of what makes a society free, an essential part of it, but it is not what makes something good or right just because people vote for it. the issue that you are raising here, which is you are invoking international laws and the whole regime of armed resistance and so forth. i question that. i am not entirely convinced -- can 180 countries be wrong? yeah, they can be wrong. the question is, this is a moral principle. [scattered applause] i would go further than that. i will put all my cards on the table. i am not a fan of the u.n.. i think there are serious problems with the so-called customary laws of war, and regarding the morality extension of conduct of war and have a

standards of what they do in the battle field, but i haven't -- but i have real problems with the standards that they pose because they disadvantage those who obey them and empower those who disobey them. there is clearly a problem with that. and the idea that we treat u.n. bodies or international law essentially like a papal pronouncement that it is essentially unquestionable, i think is a mistake. you have to think about whether this is right or wrong, and you can make the argument that palestinians are trying to resist occupation, and i am sure they hate being under occupation. a lot of them have been told it is israel's fault. the question is what is life , like under occupation? i am sure no one in this room would choose to live under occupation, but did you know -- and this is relevant, i am sure it has come up in your reading that however bad you think it is, the material life is better 20 years into the occupation than it was. life expectancy, infant

mortality, hookups to electricity were like a percent, they were 9% within 15 years, you can say, i still hate the israelis, that is fine, but if you are talking about human needs and the welfare they to live, then you cannot argue that they are not materially better off under is really occupation, even if they dream of a palestinian state. so the question is are they , seeking freedom and a better life? that to me is the standard by which we have to evaluate these things. [applause] jea gene -- you a chance give to respond. the first question please, phrase your question as a

question, if you could. >> i would like to thank major danny for his service. hopefully the dual citizenship works well for you. i cannot believe i am old enough to be both of your grandfathers. >> do you have a question, grandpa? [laughter] >> i was brought up with the fact that all wars are bankers' wars, and at the same time, i was always taught to follow the money. so it is not a mistake that yasser arafat, he left, how many ago, he was10 years killed under suspicious circumstances, but his family has billions. gene: what is your question? >> my question is, how do you expect to end the conflagration that exists right now especially , with the arabs and the palestinians -- i do not know where palestine came from. it is not mentioned anywhere. gene: what is your question? do youuestion is, how

and the conflict right now, what is behind the conflict, and especially when the conflict is not something we can really put our fingers on. gene: i think both of you guys have tried to address that question throughout your remarks, but do you have anything in particular to say in relation to that question? elan: one thing that is relevant to say, if the question is about economic conditions that the palestinian leadership has enjoyed, there are differences that are worth noting, that the plo are much more in the model of the secular arab dictator who not only dominates his people, but also exploits them economically. there is a great deal of documented graft and racketeering under the palestinian authority. hamas, andnce with this speaks to its ideological character, one of the ways it gains credibility is that it is seen on corruptible because it is religious.

the way it gets funded is not from outside regimes. according to its propaganda, it gets its money through a tithe.ous the plo is much more in the model of exploiting its people aonomically, and hamas makes point of not doing. explicitly because that is a part of its prestige. major sjursen: i don't think that the conflict will end anytime soon. i don't think there will be a military defeat. my opponent keeps talking about how the only time you have a right to a statee is if it is in favor of freedom. what we don't have with the palestinians is any freedom to form its own sovereign state. they have never had that, at any point. jordan is not the same as the palestinians. mr. epstein: if you want to ask

a question, ask the question in a respectable fashion. major sjursen: as truly palestinian economy grew rapidly in the 1970's, but it was only tying the palestinian economy to israeli whims. one major economic report noted the growth witnessed in the territories is fundamentally not sustainable, and ending the occupation is a prerequisite for transforming the territory's economic potential into reality. in my book, i argue the palestinians have not had the full expression of a state, full sovereignty. that is certainly true, i agree. but you can measure that to the extent they have achieved some degree of self-governance, you can see that in several places. the palestinian authority from 1994 to the present, the gaza

strip from which israel withdrew every person and left it to the palestinians, so there is no occupation left there. and you can see it as well when the plo set up bases on the border with jordan and later set up bases within the palestinian refugee camps in lebanon. and all those cases there are commonalities in the ways they governed, which was authoritarian and they had the practice of full control and arbitrary courts, the kind of things you don't want to see. expression under the palestinian authority, which is a step towards a full state. ,ook, i get what you are saying you want palestinians to have the room to create the kind of state you think they should have. but i would love to know, what is the evidence for thinking it would be anything better than, and in fact not worse, than what we see in the palestinian authority today, and in gaza, where do you see evidence of that? what is really

important is, we don't have the evidence of that because there has been no sovereignty for the palestinians and anything other than estate lit, which looks like swiss cheese. palestinians have as much sovereignty as their masters give them. and their masters are the ones with the american weapons and with the american money. the reality is, they cannot militarily defeat israel, but israel cannot militarily defeat them. we don't know what real palestinian sovereignty would look like because it has not existed since 1948. [scattered applause] mr. epstein: please ask your question. you base a lot of your n, and defeating the movement because hamas wants to defeat israel. but in a war, if a person wants

to kill me, it doesn't give me a right to kill a person. withourno: we are dealing the situation that is not governed by american law. have ancipal is not, you right to kill the person attacking you. you have a right to defend yourself, that is the principal. what i am arguing for is that, to understand what hamas is about and what the palestinian movement has been doing since it came to the fore is a sustained campaign over time with that animating goal. now, our they -- are they in a position to destroy israel? i don't think so, but they would like to be. they have shown from numerous attacks. that is what they are after, to psychologically destroy israel by terrorizing it. that is the goal. my argument is, israel has a right to self-defense. because this is a long-standing war, the way out of this conflict, and i think it is solvable, is that if you give

them to believe through action that their goals are achievable, and you can do that, wars have ended because one side has given up its goal and been led to believe that this is hopeless, the idea that that is a fantasy is ignoring the fact that we have seen this in other contexts . world war ii ended not because we negotiated with the nazis, but because we defeated them, and we defeated the japanese. there is a great deliver reluctance to fight and defeat people. obama said he doesn't like to use the word victory, and danny says he doesn't think that is achievable, i agree. iraq was a no-when war but it was not because we fought to win, we thought not to win, i have many things to say about that i am sorry that you had to suffer some of the consequences, but that is what i said. i have been arguing about the failure of american foreign policy militarily for a long time. it's a this conception to think that you can't and wars

peacefully. major sjursen: i can assure you i thought to win. the reality was, there was no victory over the iraqi people so long as we try to create the country and our own image. we violated iraqi sovereignty and so long as we did, there would be a forever insurgency. every country involved in world one of them lost those colonies to much less countries,-advanced because national movements don't die. elan, i challenge your understanding of the palestinian authority. i have been there a lot and studied a lot and it is not like the nazis and it is not like the japanese, and it doesn't have to

be defeated the same way. my bigger question is about the two-state solution. without a two-state solution you would have two choices, basically what is close to an apartheid state, or you have a single entity, which would mean there would be no jewish state. there is really no other solution that is at all satisfactory to people who either believe in the idea of a jewish state, or believe in democracy and do not want a revival of the evils we have already seen with south africa and other places. mr. journo: i think it is relevant to think about what it means for there to be an end to this conflict. and i don't think you start with, what does the configuration of a society look like? you have to start with, what is driving the conflict and how do you end? then there will be questions

about, what kind of society should there be once the palestinian movement is no longer seeking to liquidate israel? -- they hard questions are really hard questions, and i agree, we don't want the whole population that is denied citizenship. the israelis won't accept being a minority. i think they are fearful of that, and i think for a number of good, historical reasons they are fearful of being a minority in their own country. i don't think that's an easy problem to solve. i think it's a mistake to turn that around and say, well, the obvious solution is that there has to be two states. i don't think that is obvious and i don't think that is the way to begin. the weight to begin -- the way to begin is to say, what is driving this, why has it been going on for so long, what are the ideas going on here? what can we expect from a palestinian state? i don't think it is true that we

don't know. we have a lot of empirical evidence of what the ideas of the palestinian movement mean in practice, and it is also telling if you look at a palestinian who wrote a book about why the palestinian movement has failed in its attempts at state building. is, heng that struck me doesn't take it as seriously as i do, but he says in passing, look, they have given so little thought what it would look like to achieve a state, that it is alarming. and to me it is not -- if youing, it is spent decades looking for sovereignty, wouldn't you promulgate what that looks like? absence of that speaks to, this is not a serious effort at righting wrongs. there are a lot of things to solve once you get past just

moving the obstacles in the road. and some of those are things to solve. i think you have hit on one of them. we have time for one, final question before some nations. yes. >> this is a philosophical question to both groups. i'm unclear about the arguments. elan, you made a moral presumption that freedom is somehow tied to democracy, individuality and secularism. it'sn the side of danny, unclear whether you are arguing for the feasibility or the desirability, because your arguments have been for the desirability of collaborating with the movement, the palestinian movement, but you haven't demonstrated the feasibility.

the question is, what if it is impossible to both have a jewish state and to collaborate with you take the entomological position saying that, we have to collaborate, or maybe we have to do something else, and if so, what would it be? mr. journo: a palestinian -- major sjursen: a palestinian state is desirable. it is not currently feasible so long as there are jewish-only roads, settlements, 500,000 israelis in the west's, gaza shut off from the sea and the land, the most heavily, densely populated on earth, half the people there get the goods from united nations organizations. so it is relatively infeasible palestinian be a state, but largely due to the intransigence of israeli policy, and self-defeating violence on behalf of terrorist elements within the palestinians.

it is interesting you brought up doesheik, because he british size elements of the palestinian authority, but what must be remembered is that he is one of the preeminent palestinian historians in favor of a palestinian sovereign entity. through honest negotiations, a removal of the military occupation in the settlements, it is possible. we want to go to the some nations, and you can answer that question. mr. journo: i will give you my summation and try to answer the question you raised last. thean atheist and i believe

principle of freedom has to be the framework by which to understand this conflict in the character of the adversaries. i don't accept we have no basis for thinking what a palestinian state would look like. we have a great deal of evidence to know what to expect. it is the responsibility of anyone who is advocating for that as an outcome, anyone in favor of a palestinian state in the present, to make the case that it would be a moral state, meaning it would protect the lives and freedom of palestinians and do so more so than ever in the past. i don't think anyone has put forward that basis, that evidence, and i think it is a dodge. there is a great deal of evidence that it is dodging to say we don't know what it would look like. it's a problem that we don't know what it would look like, and there has been enough development in political thought over the past 200 years for

people to pick up the federalist papers, the u.s. constitution, and learn something from it and say, this is the sort of thing we are thinking of doing, does it make sense to you? a group,to say, we are we deserve a state, and you are not letting us have it and we are going to rage against that, that is not an argument that deserves credibility. let me add that there are many more historical issues that have been raised that we did not get a chance to answer, and claims my opponent has raised i haven't had a chance to answer. some are addressed in the book. i encourage you to look at that. the issue i want to stress is the palestinian movement does exist. they think of themselves as a movement, even if the opponent tonight says i am simplifying it . there is a progression you can track overtime.

over -- that you can track time. maybe it is difficult to conceptualize, but the goal is a that and what defines state is some authoritarian model that we see plenty of in the middle east. that is the unity of this movement, even if the justifications for it overtime went from airbnb nationalism took palestinian nationalism and now it is more framed in islamist terms, but that is the unifying thread through time. i haven't made the case, and i'm sorry you have been led to believe this, i haven't made the case israel is blameless or is somehow a saint. that is not the view i opened with and it is not my view and not the view you will find in my book. i castigate israel for many of its flaws, and there are more we can talk about.

i think it is a mistake to present the major obstacle being is not beingif it entirely fair here, and has committed wrongs. time, the pattern is israel is responding to aggression that there is a significant reason to believe is seeking to do significant damage to life and property. in response, i think it has been justified in retaliating. if it goes beyond that, it is wrong, and that is the standard i apply here. , the silence i am glad was partially broken tonight but not completely, is you have to judge a movement not only by the idea that it's -- the idea of its charter and its founding actions, and i agree with that, but i think the issue the palestinian

movement has been true to its ideas, and we have to take seriously what those ideas are. pretending they are not there are trying to whitewash them or say, let's bite our tong and we have to talk to anybody, i think miss -- is dash that think that misses the point. the palestinian issue has not --y become is llama sized icized, butcome islam that it is aligned with other forces in the region, principally iran and qatar. do you believe it is better to have a free society, or do you believe in tyranny, whether it is nationalist or theocratic? that is the question. thank you.

[applause] major sjursen: why am i here tonight, taking the position in favor of a palestinian state? logical measure, with islamist organizations and iraq and afghanistan taking the lives of money i loved, many with think i would take the position of my less-educated soldiers, to .ate islam, to hate iraq but i came to a place of respect for the best -- for the vast majority of people in the middle east. and i realized there are strategic and ethical reasons to care for both sides in this conflict, thus i applied it to the israel-palestine conflict. i helped to israel -- i hoped to illustrate not a pro-palestinian position, but a middle road, one

that recognizes the strength of israeli democracy but also thegnizes the plight of palestinians. you have heard a notion that is biased, that the palestinian movement has no right to self-defense. there is a personal matter but it is an essential one nonetheless. my third assertion is that israeli policy must carry some blame for the intractability of the conflict. israel is not alone in carrying some of the blame. the united states must recognize its own complicity in hindering peace. virulent hatred for the u.s., israel and islamist terror plots in the u.s. will not meaningfully decrease until washington at least begins to address the roots of the problem and rebalance its one-sided relationship with israel. it's the right thing to do, it is up a pivot away from these policies, it will make american soldiers, israeli soldiers and surveillance in both societies, israel and the united states,

ultimately safer. d earfullsea from moderates and iraqi society. these people cared about average palestinians. recognizedl petraeus said u.s.10, when he favoritism toward israel endangers his troops. he was predictably lambasted by certain lobbying groups but that did not make him wrong. if you want to protect the homeland and the troops on the israeli troops from is lummis-inspired violence, demonstrate that israel and washington demonstrate some equity and justice in israel and

palestine. that is what is missing from the other argument tonight. compromises the only way to peace. it was the caseframing israel ae protagonist will get us nothing but further immunization and radicalization of a new generation of aggrieved palestinians. compromise requires personal humility and selflessness from both sides. offpalestinians must swear attacks on civilians and israel must measure its attacks with the required degree of proportionality and care for its usual civilians. all serious arab groups must accept the existence of israel and a two state solution. this may sound like a tall order, but unlike my opponents affirmation of the resolution, it recognizes the guilt and responsibilities of both sides and recognizes the notion of sovereignty for both sides. my opponent was the state of

israel. it honestly bleeds through as an ,dmiral -- admirable quality but he is missing the fact that just liking israel's democracy more than the secular arab regimes does not make it more a military will be or political victory in the occupied territories. i am through with fanciful make-believe. it died with my folders in baghdad and kandahar. palestinenot defeat ine than the u.s. could win afghanistan or palestine. beliefs your personal or inclinations, i asked to show the rationality and intellectual honesty to vote in the negative and reject this resolution. israel, does not reject its people, existence, or right to security.

it merely recognizes there are two sides in this tale of woe, and that there may be a middle path to peace that involves the two state solution. resolution, because there is no other rational way. thank you. [applause] thank you to you both. we are now going to do final voting. there will be a book signing afterward could he can chat with you. pleased to come around as well, a lot of people will want to chat. debatingh, we will be the issue of climate change. i hope you can make it. debating, we will be bitcoin once again. that event, the previous debate

on bitcoin had 450,000 views on youtube and was sold out weeks in advance. you might want to buy tickets to that event in august. i will be once again debating againstm in november, someone sort of my own size, and emeritus professor from the university of massachusetts, debating the broad issue of socialism. get a lot of socialists to show up. we sold nearly 500 tickets to the last socialist debate i held. he did not listen to me when i told him he could start the socialist revolution right now, just put some of the money together and it could happen. he preferred to go the intellectual route.

i am not surprised he did that. jane, where do we stand on the voting? one more minute on the voting. i want to thank my wife, who ,atered this affair, and c-span c-span has filmed this. [applause] >> you will be on c-span. be shown onalso video by reason and available on our website. debatinge will be vegetarianism. [laughter] >> a real food fight in may. versus the rather tame debate we had this evening. [laughter] -- we were do want nervous about the import of this debate, and i want to commend you all and our speakers our debaters on the stability they

felt for each other. [applause] can you shake hands? >> they will. usually there is hugging, but if you want to shake hands -- ok. [laughter] voting went this way, the yes vote for the resolution was 27.2%. the yes vote picked up nine points and went to 36%. the nine points was the figure to beat. 15%no vote went from 30% to and picked up 14 points. the no vote wednesday tootsie roll -- wins the tootsie roll. congratulations to you both. [applause] ♪

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> live monday, coverage of the american israel public affairs committee annual conference, with remarks by ice president mike pence, new york city mayor bill de blasio, and former u.s. ambassador to the u.n. nikki haley, starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. in the afternoon, senator -- senator chuck schumer and kevin mccarthy at the conference live at 4:30 eastern on c-span three. with coverage in the morning and afternoon available online at c-span.org, or you could listen live on our free radio app. >> congress is in recess this week. house speaker nancy pelosi has announced last week -- next

week, the house will vote on an override of president joseph ito on hisident trump's veto boardwalk. next week, the house will vote on transgender people serving in the military. when the senate returns to session next week, lawmakers will continue debate on judicial nominations and later in the week, take up a resolution of support for the green new deal. when the senate is back in session, watch the chamber live on c-span two. >> first lady lumia trump hosted trump hosted an event at the white house. health and human services secretary alec cesar and education secretary betsy devos