next, a debate on the israeli-palestinian conflict and whether the palestinian movement has a right to exist. 's researchhor director of the eye and ran institute. he debated u.s. army strategist party subculture theater in new york city, hosted by the soho for him. >> now for the main event, to resolve the palestinian defeatts, israel must the palestinian conflict. i hope you have all voted and ask your neighbor for help if you had trouble accessing the act. please do vote for or against or undecided on the resolution. arguing for the affirmative. please come to the stage.

>> arguing for the negative, danny, please come to the stage. jane, please close the voting. >> good evening. thank you for inviting me, danny, thank you for joining the debate. thank you to the sponsors of tonight's event. tonight's resolution presupposes a detailed analysis of a hugely complicated conflict. that is the analysis that i offer in my book "what justice demands." here let me indicate one ,crucial to start with. point so much of the debate and discussion of the israeli-palestinian conflict is bound in religious, ethnic,

nationalist, tribalist premises. these get us nowhere. instead 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 from tonight. believe, and i think you can demonstrate objectively 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 premisesist and tribal and that whole way of thinking. one of the major steps in this way of thinking is we need to recognize a major distinction as -- that gets blurred and

completely ignored by 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. they have features of a culture. 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 not. they are distinct and we have to keep them distinguished when we keep up -- when we think about this issue. moralebate hinges on a evaluation of the adversaries. the palestinian -- does the palestinian movement seek freedom? is it pro-human progress?

is it concerned with righting wrongs done to the palestinian community? no, no, and no. i argue the palestinian movement is hostile to individual liberty. including and especially the liberty of palestinians themselves. by contrast, israel is the region's only free society. it has flaws and moral failings, really serious ones, and these need to be addressed and reformed, but none of these weren't the -- warrant the palestinian movement's aggression against it. it is crucial to see the palestinian movement as an obstacle to peace and a barrier to progress in 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. i argue this in my book. for example, cases of israeli land expropriation or where

israeli police failed to protect landowners who are palestinians jewish religious fundamentalists who attacked them. that is wrong and a violation of the rule of law and has to be stopped. even when you take these flaws and failings into account, and the grievances i regard as legitimate, they do not justify the militant goal of the palestinian movement, which is to liquidate israel. that is the founding of the major faction of this movement. in aalestinian movement, word, has exploited the people it claims to be serving and protecting and righting wrongs for. in reality, the palestinian movement is hostile to freedom and does not care about righting wrongs against people it claims to serve. if you look at what is the palestinian movement, what is it composed of? there are two wings. the palestinian liberation plo, and hamasr

the islamist wing. , both were founded with the shared goal to bringing an and to israeli society and are hostile to rights and individual freedom. they actively in the present , day, not in some future state, right now they are trampling the , rights of their own people. the plo runs the palestinian authority, an interim quasi-state. it was supposed to be a step toward full sovereignty. it is mostly in the west bank. it is a dictatorial authoritarian regime. , the president of this entity, his four-year term as president ended 10 years ago and he is still in power and not leaving. he is going to 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 god help you if you are christian or gay. you will be hounded out if you make it out alive. the palestinian authority moreover incites its own people to commit atrocities, israelis, knife attacks, car bombings 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 is the islamist faction, which 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 numerous times. there have been small skirmishes in between. of course 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. it is inculcating really perverse ideas. 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.

let me stress, i have argued that the palestinian movement is hostile to freedom. let me indicate some reasons to think that it is not concerned with righting wrongs done to palestinians. in fact you can see by the way , it is governing -- to the extent that it has self-government in gaza and the west bank -- the palestinian movement has inflicted its own injustice, which i will mention. there is no freedom of speech under its control. it has persecuted religious and other parties. 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. such as arbitrary arrests, censorship, expropriation, because it itself is committing these crimes against its own people. in my book, i mention one

notable example, a qatari businessman who came to open a bank and help build out what was beginning to be a new state, the palestinian authority. his bank and personal property were expropriated from him by the palestinian authority in broad daylight. there many examples of this. one other thing to know about the wingtinian authority, the that many argue is dealable with. the leader is one of the people who is invited into the white house. he has that kind of diplomatic status. under the palestinian authority it is a crime to sell land to jews. this as defined by a people's race. the punishment you can get and people actually face 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 moral inequality between israel and the 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 of them here that it is an , ethnic national state and an apartheid state. i oppose the ethnic national element of israel. i regard israel as a combination

of individualist elements, which are good, and that 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 invite you to ask me about that. i want to make the case why the main barrier to 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 a ministate in the west bank and gaza a militant regime that is hostile to the lives of the people it controls. and retrying the peace process which leads to that two-state solution will lead to 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 so far has made the conflict worse. more people have died in violence since the signing of the famous peace process deal by bill clinton in 1993 than did in the 25 years before that. this is a bad attempt to solve a problem. it even needs the character of the adversaries, particularly the palestinian movement. 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 it is a protracted war between two sides. wars typically end if you look at history when one side gives goals, 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 so harmed -- so-called arms struggle and its jihad and through a combination of military and political pressure the influence of the , palestinian movement in the west bank and gaza strip needs to be uprooted. 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 need to abandon the goal of liquidating israel and creating a society that is an authoritarian one. that is what they have been acting on all this time. 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 when it is materialized even to a small degree is that it is hostile to freedom and a militant 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] >> thank you. the negative. >> 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 remarks merely an

unopposed were his remarks an unopposed introduction to this conflict, the simplicity of the model would be persuaded. as the veteran of two wars in the middle east and a budding scholar of israel-palestine, i found this matter far more nuanced and thorny. it is for this reason i must oppose this resolution, along with the black and white thinking that informs its very framework. i cannot promise you any need models, nor any simple, reassuring solutions to this intractable conflict. rather i propose a middling approach to conflict resolution that accepts as genuine the fears for israeli security, but does not dismiss the plight of the palestinians outright. mine is a path of empathy and an attempt at evenhandedness. one-sided solutions, such as my opponent has crafted, will never bring peace to the holy land. the israeli-palestinian crisis is a veritable third rail in

american political discourse. it may be necessary for me to start with a few disclaimers. i speak as someone who is not anti-semitic, who opposes anti-semitism in all the ugly forms it takes, and believes the israeli state has a right to exist. now that that is out of the way, i have to address the controversial caveat. palestinians, for both moral and strategic reasons, also deserve state sovereignty and equivalent civil rights. that should be the stated position of libertarians, conservatives, and my debate opponent tonight. israel is neither saint nor satan, neither is palestine. these are two fluid societies that shift with domestic and international winds. they do not operate in a world of good-people duality, the matter how much some would like them to. i shall propose his resolution on the basis of three major arguments.

first, i reject as deceptive the very term of the palestinian movement, especially as mr. journo has so narrowly defined it. this movement is no single thing and is not nearly as simple or as evil as islamist jihadi as the labels my opponent prefers. second, i shall demonstrate that the vast majority of palestinian organizations, even hamas, can and should be dealt with as potential partners in negotiations. despite the blood spilt in recent years, both fata and hamas are more willing to make peace along the pre-1967 borders, accept the two-state solution, and at least tacitly recognize israel's right to exist. further, it has often been israel, especially under its contemporary right wing government, that has provoked soughtbroken truces, and to undermine a democratically elected palestinian movement. peace necessitates not a defeat

of the palestinian movement, which is neither plausible nor grounded in fairness. what peace does require is the isolation and condemnation of most terroristic elements of , but itian resistance demands that we recognize and condemn israeli policies that also hinder conflict resolution, and some cases making peace impossible. that is missing from my opponent's opening remarks, the notion that israel has a role to play in performing. in the way it has been laid out, the palestinians are evil. their movements are all evil. at least there leaders cannot be dealt with. i reject that. finally, i will argue that peace necessitates any solution in the holy land will not be forthcoming unless the israeli government, or hopefully a successor administration, reverses course and the militarization and occupation and opens its hearts to authentic negotiation with all components of the multifaceted palestinian movement.

let's begin with my first assertion, the resolution's problematic definition of the palestinian movement. take a moment to read the resolution, that staggering sentence that my opponent has affirmed. i will break down three parts of it. it is clear from the resolution and my opponent's remarks he places israel and israelis at the center of the model. to him israel represents everything good in the world, juxtaposed with all the people arab states of the region. -- juxtaposed with all the arabe -- all the evil 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 let israel off the hook for its own flawed policies, human rights abuses. educated israelis should seek to improve their own societies just as americans should. it does not make you un-american or unpatriotic to critique american foreign policy. i would say the same applies to israel. but you will hear very little of

that tonight. this is a one-sided tale my opponent is telling of good israelis and bad palestinians. good israeli movements and bad palestinian movements. you will hear quite little of the somehow absent palestinians from my opponent. the palestinians are almost the elephant in the room no one dares speak of. then there is the term defeat. i must say as a combat soldier and officer having conducted fruitless counterinsurgency in iraq and afghanistan, which is remarkably similar to duty in the west bank and gaza -- in fact, we study it -- the very term defeat has come to seem absurd. highly unrealistic. how can one people, how can one defeat a people's movement? can one even win a true counterinsurgency? i am doubtful and so are most military historians, but that is precisely the assumption of this resolution, that israel can and should defeat the palestinians. this, ladies and gentlemen, is fantasy, wishful thinking at best. lastly, we return to the problematic phrase palestinian movement.

my opponent believes today's palestinian movement is the enemy, an entity worthy only of destruction. i think that when he looks at palestine and palestinians and their organizations, what he sees is isis, that palestinian equals islamic fascist jihadist. but palestinians are little more than terrorists in this telling, and that is not accurate. beyond being wildly inaccurate, it is a wildly a dangerous conception. it leads to a lack of empathy or concern with civilian lives. the fact is this -- the vast majority of palestinians, like muslims, are not civilians slaughtering terrorists. palestinians are a diverse people, the most highly educated arab people on the planet. yes, there are monsters among them, but this is a small fraction of the beautiful whole. the crux of this first argument is that the very framework of the resolution is poorly defined, factually inaccurate,

unachievable, and one-sided. so much so that on this point alone, one should vote down the resolution. let me turn to my second argument, that the vast majority of palestinian organizations, even hamas, should be dealt with as potential partners. service in america is never ending post 9/11 wars has taught me that oftentimes one must work with, talk to, and compromise certain nefarious actors. the u.s. military tried defeating pseudo-islamist nationalism in western iraq for four success -- for four years with little or no success. only when forward thinking colonels and a willing general, david petraeus, began talking to the sunni tribesmen and dividing them from the extreme element of the insurgency did the u.s. army achieve a drop in violence. this was a hard pill for us to swallow. many of our new partners in the sunni tribes had literal

american blood on their hands. alternative was no cores with any hope to lower violence, protect u.s. soldiers, and bring a semblance of peace then to work with the muslims of the region, work with the sunni islamists. in much 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. isolating thoughts -- isolating or hamas will alienate three quarters of the palestinian people. 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, one that looks like an israeli zipped up inside of them, is fantasy. to keep on this path 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 complex than he gives them credit for. though it formed as a response to occupation after 1997, 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 the organization can be dealt with rather than defeated. it has often been israel that broke truces and provoked hamas, such as in the 2004 assassination of a quadriplegic in a wheelchair. this targeted killing came on the heels of him having stated, hamas could accept a palestinian state in the gaza strip. the leader had also offered a long-term truce in exchange for

israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. a significant shift in hamas policy that could have been capitalized on. instead israel turned to violence, refusing been, as it refuses now, to deal with hamas. once more, in 2006, hamas published a manifesto that lacked reference to the old goal of eliminating israel. another positive change in the direction of negotiation. instead, the u.s. and israel punished hamas, and by extension the majority of palestinian people who voted for them in the gaza strip. both imposed sanctions and withheld funding. the new york times, not known for anti-israeli bias, concluded this was part of the plan to destabilize the palestinian government so newly elected hamas officials would fail and elections would be held again. p,is sounds a lot like a cou except the coup appears to be israel and the united states

overcoming -- 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 the factual reality of that assumption. i will now turn to my third and final argument, that israel has its own flawed policies. i will flip the resolution and assert that aspects -- not everything -- but aspects of the israeli movement must be reversed before true peace is possible. among others, these are a perennial occupation of the west bank and gaza, illegal settlements regime, a collimation of the west bank. three, a brutal blockade of the gaza strip. and four, a disproportionate lack of concern for palestinian civilian casualties. i have maybe 3, 4 minutes left, but let me briefly address these grievances. it is an indisputable fact that the founding of israel and

expansion of israel after the 19 627 war created millions of displaced palestinian refugees. my saying this does not mean israel must give it all back to exist. therather, it recognizes genuine suffering of the palestinian people, that there are two sides to this argument. mine is the side that says there are guilty parties on both sides, but there are those we can work with on both sides. you don't have to take my word for it. consider a 1960 seven interview with the israeli defense minister, where he admitted, we came to this country, already populated by arabs, and are establishing a hebrew state. jewish villages were built in place of arab villages. we did not know the name of the villages, and i do not blame you because the geography no longer exists. not only do the books no longer exist, but the arab villages are not there either. there is not one place in this

country that did not have a former arab population. there is the settlements regime. until israel dismantles its settlements and returns that land to the rifle palestinian ownership, it is in violation of international law. the idea that palestinians are going to accept any solution while massive numbers of israeli citizens, upwards of 500,000, are living in these settlements is fantasy. these people are not going to quit. that's not how insurgency end, historically. the brutal blockade of gaza is enormously cruel. in fact, to demonstrate the cruelty and premeditation of this blockade, let us consider that a prominent israeli official actually took to calculating the number of calories a person in gaza needed, last there be an outright famine. one of the maids -- one of the aides to the prime minister

joked that because they voted the wrong way for hamas, palestinians would undergo something like an appointment with a doctor. they would get a lot thinner, but would not die. that may conclude in a sullen way. i would be remiss if i did not recognize the historic crimes against jews, including the holocaust. among those reasons, i believe israel has the right to exist and be secure. but here is what i also believe. there is a second side to this conflict. there are palestinians with genuine grievances with leaders who can and should be negotiated with. they cannot be defeated, nor should they be if there is any sense of equity and fairness. thank you. [applause] >> the remodel. -- the rebuttal. taken away, elan. >> i said the palestinian

movement needs to be distinguished from the palestinian people. i guess that did not sink in, so let me amplify that point. there are no question there are palestinians who have suffered wrongs, and i think they need to have those wrongs redressed. but let me focus on the claim that the palestinian leadership and the movement -- because that seems to be the crux of your argument -- the palestinian movement is not monolithic. i did not say it was. i said there are two major wings. it is correct to equate it with the islamist movement, but it is not the same as isis. the islamist movement is large. it includes saudi arabia and iran advises, which both of them dislike. the palestinian movement originated primarily as an ethnic nationalist movement, and then it morphed over many years

into what is now primarily a religious islamic movement. you can see this is documented in the rise of religiosity within the territories and reflected in the rising fortunes of hamas. it is important to recognize what hamas's goals are and what they remain. it is true that hamas has issued documents and manifestoes and the most recent one was not 2006, it was 2017, where it issued a policy statement. this was read as hamas is moderating. changedoncede hamas has in tactical ways. in 2006, the elections which it won in a landslide. these tactical maneuvers, the most recent in 2017, was to insulate itself from the stench of the muslim brotherhood, in

very ill repute in egypt, and from qatar, which does not like the muslim brotherhood. hamas i think retains its goal and has not disavowed its goal of liquidating israel. none of those documents do that when you read them closely. it presents itself in terms that are meant to -- how shall i put it -- fool people into thinking that hamas is somehow deal of old with. -- somehow dealable with. i don't think that's true and i think the principle that you can deal with anyone is false. it is not true you can make a deal with anyone and that there are factions within hamas but are better to the point where you can deal with them. that's just not valid. you can see the evidence for that, because we had the same argument about the palestinian liberation organization changing its position and accepting

israel, and it went through a number of hoops to do that. that went exactly how one would expect. it was a line and the same thing happened in 1993 when arafat stuck on the stage with bill clinton. the palestinian movement did not then and has not since repudiated its goal, even if in tactical ways it has moderated its position to see more appealing. people -- and to lure people back to the negotiating table. when this was taken on faith, the palestinian movement was given a because i state, which enabled it to carry out what was byled a war against israel suicide bombers and other kinds of attacks that was one of the most lethal outbreaks of violence there has been in this conflict. you raise some of the historical points, which i invite people in

the audience to raise during the question period and we can have more discussion. i think it is important to recognize that in fact the -- well,s are treated they are obviously wrong. there is real wrongs here. i am in favor of nuance. that's why it took me a book to argue my point. i think you are missing some of those, including the settlement, which cannot be treated as a uniform phenomenon. i am not in favor of israeli policy, i am not here to defend it. i am arguing for israel's position as a free society to the extent it is free, and as long as it is carrying out policies that are consonant with that. i certainly don't support all the of policies it is an acting, and i opposed many of them, as you will find in my book. [applause]

>> thank you. so i have about five minutes to address some of the rebuttals from the last two statements from my opponent, who is very well-informed and has written an excellent book on the topic. i have one question, and this is hypothetical. why is it israel's state to give to the palestinians? the whole framing seems problematic. it seems if israel has a right to exist, there is an equivalent right for palestine to exist, yet in this telling it is israel that has the right to grant a because i state to the palestinians, little more than an open air prison, which is little more than a collaborationist regime in many ways. my opponent spoke about a pro-freedom perspective, and i agree that should be the freemark, but what about the situation of living, breathing

palestinians in gaza today? who lack civil rights, who lack the basic freedoms of even arabs within riggio -- within israel, who already lack 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 -- for not just the palestinian people, but for the movement that represents them. i agree with my opponent that this should hinge on a moral interpretation again will make one wonder why there are no civil and political rights and no united states sovereignty. my opponent says this is an obstacle to peace, but what about israeli obstacles? except for a vague notion of israel is not perfect from my opponent, there is no notion of

what the israeli obstacles to peace are. i would argue that the silence on this issue is more telling than anything my opponent says. i think it is a fallacy that the palestinian movement is dedicated to the destruction of israel. in 1993 -- actually before then -- the plo did accept a two-state solution. even hamas, while it did not change its original document, has made clear it is willing to accept a two-state solution from its highest leadership level and that it will accept a long-term truce. the truth of the matter is israel never made steps towards the final settlement that 1993's oslo was supposed to create. if the palestinian movement is so harmful to palestinians, why did they vote it in? why did so many of them turn to hamas? could it be that part of it was frustration with the lack of progress toward a palestinian state? could it be the intransigence of israel in many cases?

not every time. not every palestinian leader is a saint, not every israeli leader is a villain, but the reality is there are two sides to this story, two sides to this situation. the question for me is, what if palestinians vote the wrong way? it appears you either have to believe in democracy or not. democracy appears ok for israelis because we are happy with the way they vote, but what about when the palestinians democratically elected hamas into government? who then has the right to determine that hamas cannot be dealt with? like i said, in iraq and afghanistan, we dealt with people who literally had the blood of our soldiers on their hands, and it worked. and we did not like it one bit. i still don't. but what i knew his we are never going to defeat the iraqi nationalist movement in iraq. we are never going to defeat militarily the taliban in afghanistan. the soviets tried. we have been trying. spoiler, it's not going to happen. they are not going to just give up and rollover.

this is not going to happen. it is ahistorical from a military standpoint. putting down their arms is not how movements end. compromise and politicization of movements is how they end, so towardseps of hamas negotiation are the signs of possibility for peace. take the irish republican army. after 30 years of being told that the ira would never, ever settle for peace, they did not just lay down their arms, they were brought into the movement , so much so that today, members of parliament in britain used to commanders in northern ireland. but the british swallowed their pride and realized that they had to deal with people who have blood on their hands. otherwise they would fight this war for another 1100 years, and that is the reality. do the palestinians have a biological predilection for evil? i think not. perhaps there is a historic

role the and some israelis are playing in this. i think the silence on the part of israeli perpetuation of violence and human rights abuses is instructive. thank you. [applause] gene: thanks to you both. we go to the q&a part of the question -- part of the evening. i take moderator's prerogative to ask a couple of questions, first to danny sjursen, and you can come in as well. you have affirmed your own support of israel's right to exist. elan was saying that most recently hamas seems to be ambiguous about that. you say that in hamas' basic document, do they deny israel's right to exist? 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. >> is it? yeah. recorded no, this is for posterity. >> that is a great question. i like evidence. i am a statistics guy. there was a war in 2012 and another war in 2014. the u.s. state department actually recognized, as well as an international terrorist analysis organization in israel, that the hamas fighters actually showed a fair amount of the acceptance of long-term truce, and it was actually israel that broke the truce in each of those cases. so in all three cases, israel actually conducted raids into gaza, broke the truce, in which -- at which point rockets were fired, very inaccurately, into israel, and the response was

overwhelming palestinian casualties. wereorkers billions -- civilians. i think what we can do is look at how hamas acts rather than what is in their founding document. hamas is dealing with radicals in their own ranks. they are dealing with moderates in their own ranks and they are dealing with the folks who want to work with israel, with the palestinian authority. we are seeing hamas waging a battle, because it is a fluid organization, to maintain the truces. we know hamas is capable of maintaining a long-term truce, as capable of it as israel. this is enough from my perspective to negotiate with. it does not mean we have to follow love with hamas. we have to deal with the reality that they win elections and we have to deal with it on some level. >> do you want to comment on that? the question to you, then i will give it over to either of you or the audience. you have said a couple of times

that there are legitimate palestinian grievances that should be redressed. could you elaborate on those grievances that should be specifically redressed? >> sure. can i be hurt? >> -- can i be heard? >> yes. >> 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 that jewish fundamentalists are trying to illegally settle lands. i think that is wrong. it violates the law in israel, it is a violation of the rule of law. one of the ways they do this is day basically squat. in english law, squatting is when you take over someone's property and exclude them. they do this and 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

does not belong to them -- it belongs to the palestinians. the israeli government has removed many of these illegal outposts and settlements and dismantled them by force, and i think that's one example where there is real wrong done to palestinians right now, not in history. living, breathing people right now are suffering. another example is not only those kinds of squatting situations, but attacks on palestinian orchards that are carried out often by religious fundamentalist jews. the point is you destroy someone's olive grove or orchard and you ruined their farm. that is destroying their property. the perpetrators 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 that is one where i think it is

really complicated to untangle, because part of the problem, which danny has not really brought out in his historical snapshot, is that what led to that war was and the culpability of that has been invaded over time, and the attempts to resettle those refugees and to reduce the number and compensate them, they were all pushed aside, and refugees that settled in lebanon, for example, are in a situation that is worse than gaza. if you want to place with a wall around it and they cannot bring in cement, go look at lebanon. that is a real crime, and i've heard nothing about the crimes against palestinians done by arab regimes that refuse to give them any kind of succor or citizenship or even get a job if you are in lebanon. i think there are real grievances. 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

aipac. the annual conference with remarks by vice president mike starting nikki haley, at 9:00 a.m. on c-span two. pompeo, chuck schumer, and house minority leader kevin mccarthy. withat 4:30 eastern coverage in the morning and afternoon, available online. or you can listen live on our free radio app. c-span's washington journal. live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up, casey birgit discusses his new report on staffing trends in congressional committees. and proposals to expand the number of justices. and then erica martinson

discusses the 30th annual anniversary of exxon felt as disaster. disaster. on sunday, a week after announcing her presidential bid, kierstin gillibrand held a kickoff rally. live coverage begins at 12:30 p.m. eastern. app.n our free radio trumpst lady a melania posted a be best event at the white house to discuss how their departments were progressing with youth programs. servicesh and human secretary and education secretary