thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. ncicap.org]>> rebecca slaughter and christine wilson talk about the agency's and some of the privacy concerns with new technologies. brookings at the institution in washington, d.c. today at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. > earlier today, democratic presidential candidate south end indiana mayor pete buttigieg and julian castro spoke at the j street conference here in washington, d.c. and welcome to another huge day at the j street national conference. the first few days of the conference, we spoke a great deal about the pivotal moment in which we find ourselves as jews, and as american as supporters of a safe, secure, israelisful future for

and palestinians. [applause] as a gathered together movement, at a time when our are sacred democratic norms under assault, when the united states global standing is at an low, when our relationship with many key allies has never been more in doubt, and when our president proudly aligns himself with auto ratts -- autocrats and demagogues. in israel, we are faced with a prime minister who has holeheartedly embraced president trump. deployed the same kind of rhetoric andigoted has worked with the president to and nch the occupation undermine prospects for peace. e know that in order to vercome these il-liberal

forces, defend our values and better, y toward a brighter future, we must start by defeating president trump at the polls a year from now. [cheers and applause] >> that's why we at j street are ommitted to defeat the current occupant and to support the eventual democratic nominee for president. we also know that to achieve our goals in the long term we than a win in this pivotal election. e need for the next president to enter office ready to take to undo ermined steps the tremendous damage done by president trump. see him or her embrace a progressive -- [applause]

embrace a progressive diplomacy first foreign policy democratic izes values, promotes a two-state opposes and firmly occupation, settlement, expansion, and annexation. [applause] street, we're making clear that this approach to foreign and good good policy politics. it has the support of a large democrats and american jews, and we are egularly discussing these issues with the candidates who are vying for the chance to efeat donald trump and become the next president of the united states. last night, we had the honor of from one of those candidates, senator amy this morning'sin plenary, we'll be joined by buttigieg. [applause] feel.e how you really

castro.y julian and this afternoon, we'll hear from senator michael bennet and bernie sanders. [applause] save your biggest applause for our two guests. to interview these candidates on about the .s.-israel relationship, the israeli-palestinian conflict, be lucky to have with us again ben rhodes and tommy vitor. very few people can claim to have done as much as tommy and to advance a progressive policy y first foreign and to ensure that this presidential primary campaign discussion of s global affairs. so please join me in now in welcoming them to the stage.

>> hello, again. doing?verybody gala tonight. you guys are warriors. why without further ado, don't we welcome our first candidate of the day to the stage, mayor pete buttigieg. senator ♪ >> welcome. mayor buttigieg: thank you.

foreign ve a major policy plan back in june. i think you were the first to policy vision. and in that speech you said, if prime minister netanyahu makes promise to annex would nk settlements he know that american taxpayers bill.help foot the [applause] see, that was a well-received line in your speech. unpack that a little bit? ow would you ensure u.s. taxpayer dollars won't be used to fund annexation? mayor buttigieg: it begins by basis of our the relationship with israel is not strategic alliance that's very important to us but also an lliance that's based on shared values. we need to make sure that our ooperation, our security and diplomatic and strategic cooperation with israel happens in a framework that's compatible values.ose it also has to be compatible with our u.s. security and policy objectives.

and in the long run what makes the most sense for american as israeli as well as palestinian interests is peace solution.state [applaus [applause] so the problem, of course, with annexation is that it is two-state e with a solution and i believe ultimately moving in that represents moving away from peace. a responsibility as make y ally to israel to sure we guide things in the right direction. support is urity based on strategic objectives. it's based on values. need to make sure that it go-ahead urn into a where we would be endorsing annexation.ke that means we have a responsibility. by the way, we have mechanisms o do this to ensure that u.s.

taxpayer support to israel does not get turned into u.s. move likeupport for a annexation. [applause] >> so short of annexation is construction. we've seen a spike in settlement construction. b.b. netanyahu was pro-settlement. there are some who i think a certain level, settlement construction, you could no longer have a state.uous palestinian would you also consider conditioning u.s. aid to israel leverage to stop or slow future settlement construction? mayor buttigieg: well, i'll say the u.s. law framework for security cooperation and aid to has very specific expectations about how that will be used. his is built into the arms export control act. into law.ilt we need to make sure that any funding is tion and

going to things that are compatible with u.s. objectives and with u.s. law. see steps ontinue to that are potentially estructive, i think it is a reminder that we need to have the visibility to know whether .s. funds are being used in a way that's actually not compatible with u.s. policy. nd u.s. policy should not be promoting this kind of se settlement construction because it's incompatible or at best what we want to happen. what's important is what this means, what this friendship is like. in the same way that in the u.s. be -- and we are deeply to our c and committed country thriving. without that in any way meaning to support the current agenda.sident and his [applause] by the same token, you can be

u.s.-israel the alliance without that entailing that you are supportive of, for any individual policy choice by a right-wing government over there. [applause] doesn't have to entail that. you know, if you look at the bigger picture of the vacuum of u.s. leadership world, w around the certainly it has emboldened adversaries. i mean, you look at the way that russia throws its weight around, the way that china is behaving in termsa real concern of what happens with our adversaries but i think the in terms of matter, the u.s. abandoning her leadership role, is what's going our most important allies, with our neighbors, with our allies in europe, and with like israel. so when i think about what could continue in terms of these settlements and certainly omething like annexation, i think about it the way a friendship where your friend is you think way that

might hurt your relationship, might hurt them and might even hurt you. what you do in that situation is you put your arm your friend and you try to guide them toward a better place, and i think that's our esponsibility with respect to thesele po cis. -- to these policies. >> stop texting your ex. got it. ben: not sure i can top that. [laughter] so obviously a lot of the focus is on our relationship with in this room today. i think obviously another party are the palestinians. obviously the most high-profile hing that's happened in our relationship with the palestinians is the movement of the embassy to jerusalem. that, though, there has been a downgrading of our relations with the palestinian people who used to have representation through our

consulate in jerusalem. there have been efforts to cut unding for the palestinian authority. you, like a lot of people, have spoken about some of the with the palestinian leadership over the years but in addition to talking about how engage the government of israel, what would you do to engage the palestinians? what would you do to try to show he palestinians that we want a relationship with the palestinian people as well as the israeli people? go about trying to strengthen them as a potential partner for peace? of all, tigieg: first we have a strategic obligation an ry to be perceived as honest broker, which is very difficult in this environment. obligation a moral to ensure that we're doing what we can to support the peace and the well-being of all people in middle east, palestinian, otherwise.d [applause] we shouldn't have any illusions

terms of the n in leadership capacity and governing capacity. the er we're talking about west bank or what's going on in gaza. hat we do know meeting one of those situations by withdrawing talking less and reducing lines of communication never a productive strategy. we want there to be greater on the palestinian side, and by the way, it's in everybody's interest for there greater compassibility you don't have partner for peace. and the conditions -- especially gaza cannot s in continue without eventually an that's in utcome nobody's interest. [applause] that -- the misery in aza has many sources and there's plenty of blame to go around, we know this doesn't get

there is stronger leadership capacity and capacity on the side. e know the u.s. cannot assume responsibility for the development of ideal and mature governing capacity in other countries. what we can do is make sure that we're a beneficial partner support.includes that includes aid. that includes multinational multilateral engagement. at a minimum it means talking andly asking -- liasing. [applause] ben: i am glad you brought up gaza. ou know, obviously, you know, when we were in government in the obama administration, the challenges were well-known. the threat posed by hamas, well

the iron d, you know, dome system, very important, i hink, protecting israelis against rockets fired from gaza. inthe same time, i look back regret about the intolerable humanitarian situation in gaza. -- i mean, horrific conditions people are living as you alluded to. do you think the united states leadership, to s have a humanitarian approach to gaza that seeks to deliver there, nce to the people that seeks to potentially work ith the israeli government to loosen the elements of the blockade there? can we use u.s. leadership to make life better for the people of gaza even at the same with the veryling real threats that emanate from hamas? mayor buttigieg: this is what i that the world needs america right now, but it can't be just any america. it has to be an america that's authentically living the

and humanitarian values that we preach. nd it has to be one that's trusted on many sides. [applause] because let's face it, this is ot just an israel policy question. this involves the egyptians. dynamics ves a lot of around the mediterranean. the short answer is, yes, a is the rian approach appropriate one. the challenges, if we really ground on the humanitarian front, in a way that's compatible with the interests ofcurity regional players, the u.s. has o be engaging with tremendous nuance and a deep reserve of good faith. and good faith are not exactly hallmarks of the current administration. so i don't see how this gets any better with this white house at helm.

we're in this bizarre place where president trump is neo-fascists like accusing then everyone of anti-semitism by a democrat, you said that. how can you as a supporter of israel, friend of israel, those policies, riticize people like b.b. netanyahu who made blatantly racist statements and seeming authoritarianmore himself while not following into asrap of trump attacking you anti-semitic because of those criticisms? mayor buttigieg: right. it shouldn't be hard -- [laughter] be against bad policies and anti-semitism. stakes.uld be table and -- [applause] and i don't mean to be flip

i'm mindful that we just marked the anniversary of the massacre.fe and the worst violence -- anti-semitic violence in modern history that this is a reminder is not theoretical. anti-semitism kills. hate kills. t is killing right here in our country. and the upsetting cynicism of is that you use hand omebody who on one literal no-shit jews anti-semites ase very fine people and on the other hand believes he can get that he's a nk friend of the jewish people by aligning not even with israel with a certain kind of politics within israel. nd i just think that the

american people and the american jewish community are a lot than that. [applause] tommy: agreed. that's very well said. one issue, obviously, how these issues have kind of been weaponized in issue that -- ne in particular, we experience -- on a administration was iran. the next -- if you're president, you'll inherit a very omplicated situation where essentially trump has pulled out of the jcpoa, iran has resumed its nuclear activity, consensuse diplomatic has frayed, obviously. you seek to return to the existing nuclear agreement that

of as a ked out platform to pursue an iran policy? or would you seek to take a new and different approach? mayor buttigieg: so facts on the the ground have shifted and they'll continue to shift by the time takes office ent in 2021, by the time i takeoffs 2021. [applause] at y think we got to look the iran nuclear deal as a floor. and -- but i think we got to take a look at the iran a floor.eal as the iranians, in terms of the sponsorship of hezbollah, and regionally destabilizing activities and folks are saying, oh, i see the eal is no good because they're doing this. the deal was to restrict nuclear activity and it worked. it worked. [applause] so by the same token, the policy

priority, i would take, would be ensure that we contain and restrict nuclear activity. of course, we care about all of other problems emanating from the iranian regime. need don't think that we to solve everything in order to solve anything. and if you have to pick one to prioritize, i believe the obama administration got this right. one thing to prioritize to make sure they're not nuclear. [applause] ben: and one of the difficult challenges, of course, that the inherit and t will seeking to approach those issues to u.s. ially the blow credibility from withdrawing not just from the iran nuclear from a whole slew of agreements. by the way, not just obama agreements. that.eyond not to mention just the shifting of international politics as a trend that's been

building. re-engage onhave to january 21, 2021, and address an specifically, n, where you need to build international consensus, you need to work with our european russia and china, how do you restore the currency of leadership? what would be the approach for an incoming buttigieg rebuild our n to credibility with allies and partners that we need on certain issues in order to get something done, like restoring the iran nuclear agreement and building it? mayor buttigieg: so job number one in terms of global affairs going next president is to have to be restoring u.s. credibility. and it would be hard to how costly the loss of credibility has been. deployed, i could feel in ways i can't even fully flag onthe power of the my shoulder. nd since that just as much as my body armor and any military equipment, part of what was

that that safe was flag stood for a country known to keep its word. allies knew it and our enemies knew it and it mattered. osing that is unbelievably costly anyplace in the world where we are counting on in order to protect american troops and american interests. the moment that has really stuck me, even before this horrific betrayal of our kurdish president's he appearance at the general assembly. speech by trump tandards was actually not memorable. [laughter] good.is [laughter] here.ng on a curve [laughter] what at was memorable and hurt was seeing the faces of the world leaders watching the speak.nt not as a democrat but as an american. see the leaders of

the world who usually look at the american president for leadership, looking at our country's leader with a mixture think pity and contempt. i never again want to see an looked on that world.leaders of the [applause] about?do we do something beyond saying do no harm, obviously there are things we do. to reverse or not i think we need to look for reas where american values, american interests and the aspirations of people around the linked.e all because this has always been america's strategic edge. people, that many either publicly or privately, anywhere around the world what we stand for. and i'm thinking about the desire for democracy, the desire

for religious freedom, providing at least moral support for, for the people of hong kong who have not heard a peep out of support.e house of [applause] 'm thinking about some of our biggest problems as a global community. anytime there's a problem that can't solve alone and that the world can't solve without it, that's an opportunity for leadership which means that's an opportunity to earn credibility. climate.king about imagine if global climate diplomacy were a thing. [applause] if global climate diplomacy were deeply g that mattered in geopolitics, it would not for this sign of hope global security crisis but also n example of how we might be back on the front foot with china. and so the biggest thing i think really answer the core of your question, to buildup u.s. credibility, is for the

see the u.s. meaningfully advancing things that the world needs. and putting our resources and ur whole tool kit of diplomatic, economic, and ecurity resources behind those values. and behind getting something done. then, we can recover some of the trust that's been blown up by this administration. [applause] so yesterday president told of the death of the head of isis, mr. baghdadi. think we can celebrate his work ofnd celebrate the our special operators and partners around the world who elped facilitate that operation. but also, i say this with considerable humility as someone obama ked in the administration and for a resident who sent 100,000 troops to afghanistan for a period of time and we're still there 19 years later and it

situation m like the is measureably improved. there are pockets of isis in afghanistan. ben and i sat in countless hearings about battlefield. al qaeda becomes isis. are we missing as a u.s. government, as a counterterrorism operation that led us to a point where there are more sunni extremists than there were on 9/11? mayor buttigieg: you know, i was in afghanistan in the summer of 2014 when a lot was is emergence of isis happening. hall, tting in the chow watching it on television with people who served multiple tours and now we're in afghanistan and are watching the the liding and metastasizing of terrorism there, even while we were trying

sure that something good would happen in afghanistan, i first of all teach humility, as you say. thing we should remember, and in a perverse way that this whole recent syria reflects, is forward isen the way hrough the right targeted, light footprint presence of special operations plus ntelligence plus allies on the ground. so to me the most extraordinary hing that we learned in this whole episode is what that tiny andful of u.s. special operators was preventing. exactly the kind of thing that having to get m into a lot of ground mobilization. handful of special operation troops with the right kind of ntelligence capacity and relationships on the ground, the exactly thing that's likely to

move forward in afghanistan. instead of having thousands and thousands of troops is what we had, holding the line in that syria and when you remove it, we see the pandora's box that's been opened. is not to disappear from the rest of the world. that swer is to make sure our presence in the rest of the orld is the minimum level consistent with u.s. security. hat it is in the context of partnerships. and that it is always checked american values too. [applause] tommy: one last question that's at j street. there's some extraordinary the nts from across country. [cheers and applause] nd you talked about a generational change in our politics. street ssues that j cares about. ben: particularly, the .s.-israel relationship being

pro-israel and pro-peace, i think for younger people cynicism, there's a right? because they heard the same messages about u.s.-israel elationship and now they see trump and netanyahu using those messages very cynically. support everything netanyahu does, as tommy says, you're anti-semitic. u.s. politicians saying, well, we're for a palestinian state and not really doing anything to advance that. what you do to combat as a part generational change cynicism that could erode really the u.s.-israel the relationship but younger people in this country, their whole relationship this is watching trump and netanyahu, something point it to different and more hopeful and optimistic in a situation that futile?em mayor buttigieg: my hope very from young people to hange cad gores and change --

categories and change rules. i'm thinking about how, for new bipartisan push has emerged around the subject criminal justice reform, just to take one example of how a new political across its spectrum sees different possibilities than what used to certain party silos. i think about this here because e run the very real and disturbing risk of the relationship with israel becoming a partisan issue. is bad news for everybody. we cannot allow this to be a issue.n [applause] nd young people have an exquisite relationship with truth. way of detecting all of these layers of nonsense that on by the iled current president and in this context. can cut through to see the humidity that's at -- humanity

stake here and to defy anyone telling them that you adopt this political view according to your identity. instead can really search into what the values that come identities that we carry actually mean. whether it's a political identity r religious or american identity. of hopeace a great deal in the readiness of young people what we nge a lot of have been told and to refuse to byept what we are being sold this white house. and that mobilization i think is what will change the answer. no pressure, but just to be clear. mathematically, it is within the in college anybody in y that the situation in israel for israelis and palestinians will either reach

kind of harmony or catastrophe. will live to see one of these things happen. you will also s get to be in charge while those hings are happening and let's make sure it's a good outcome. [applause] so much, mayor pete, for being here. please give it up. [cheers and applause] ♪ >> all right. i think --

tommy: all right. you guys ready to go? right. we are extremely excited for our the day.terview of secretary julian castro. secretary castro: i wanted to mix it up. little mexican music to get things going. tommy: i promise this will be fun. think j street is a pretty

cool story what kind of organization progressives can uild in a very short period of time. it's awesome you showed up. question for you -- pardon me -- first, mayor pete just about his belief that we need to condition aid to israel some sort of f nnexation of the best bank as promised by netanyahu. is that something you would support? secretary castro: that would be my first move. first of all, i think -- look, is i believe, what i hope that as israel forms a new government that we're going to a new opportunity to work ensure there to is not unilateral annexation, two-state sue a solution which as y'all know have been the approach that the nited states has taken for a very long time and used to have strong support, i think, on both

aisle.f the so my hope is that we can work make sure we don't get to that point. i would not take it off the table. what we can us on do, hopefully with a new government, and a new president 2021, that is building to work with our allies that.id tommy: just want to push you a little bit. ben and i have been fairly clear our beliefs on prime minister netanyahu but there is sense on the peace process question they won't be as hope.ent as people might and, you know, historically aid be conditioned in many places, including on the palestinian authority, to them into incentivizing behavior. the american taxpayer is doing billion a year in security assistance to israel because of president obama, signed this 10-year m.o.u. hy is it appropriate to

normalize the way aid is treated carrot and t as a stick approach toward pushing is policies that we think for the security of israel and the u.s.? secretary castro: the fact is in many ways we have a carrot nd stick approach, whether money granted, including security assistance, and i think exists mework already that the intensity of it or the pecificity of it may be something different. i would not take it off the table. i do think, though, we need to this opportunity we have, hopefully with a new israeli government, and with a new believe, in on, i 2021, to do everything that we in to get israel to go back the direction of pursuing a two-state solution so we can our having to condition aid on that. you know, i completely agree that ou i believe netanyahu has been ounterproductive, to say the

-- t, and has partisan eyes partisanized israel which was a terrible mistake that was made a few years ago. that we need an administration over there, a government over there that i -- i hope will be more productive and engaged in back on a track of a two-state solution. it's very clear that netanyahu, know, not only has rejected actively has campaigned for his own political away from in a. i disagree with his approach. i reject it. hope, even though, as you point out, and others have that benny may not be very different, you know, i till hope there's a way we can avoid the path that israel has been on under netanyahu. [applause]

question is, how do we engage the government of israel when the new president in?s another way of looking at in, how do we engage palestinians know, have seen the move to ates embassy jerusalem, seen their own diplomatic relationship of the consulate, the there used to be representation towards them, has been assumed embassy, seeing efforts by the trump administration to and, ff assistance to them frankly, even to palestinian there's beensrael, a prime minister of israel who's een fully embraced by the u.s. president who used very erogatory language about palestinian citizens of israel. what would you do coming into try to set a new tone to the palestinian people as well as the israeli people? .

we need to re-establish a consulate in jerusalem. make it clear under a two state approach that would be the embassy under a palestinian state. in addition to that, we need to ensure that they have the opportunity to restart their mission here in the united states. [applause] it i would also restore the

u.n. funding, u.n. r.w.a. funding stripped by the trump administration which was a mistake to provide aid that is desperately needed. those are the kinds of things i believe the next president could do immediately to regain some trust, rebuild trust and confidence among palestinians in addition to taking a different tone. >> i think those would all be important steps. obviously the question of how do you approach the israeli-palestinian peace issue comes to the forefront. i assume you wouldn't send jared curb near to the meeting -- kushner to the meeting. mr. rhodes: one of the things we wrestled with in the obama administration which you object oously were part of, which is how to -- how specific to be about u.s. positions in terms of what should be outcome of negotiations? long-standing position of the

u.s. government had usually been these final status issues of refugees, security territory in jerusalem are kind of left to the parties to negotiate, but by the end of our administration we -- out of a mixture of frustration and diplomatic work, were very specific about at least what u.s. ideas would be for those. would you think that it would be constructive given how much settlement activity has begun to reach into territory that most independent observers think would be part of a palestinian state in the west bank in particular? do you think the u.s. should be specific in laying out here's what we think the outcome of this should be? here's what the two states in our view should look like, at least terms for a negotiation? secretary castro: i remember, aim sure you remember than i do, when president obama about 10 years ago, early in his administration, said what others have been saying which is we wanted to base this off

the 1967 borders with land swaps. you remember the furor that the right wing went into. mr. rhodes: netanyahu conveniently left out the land swaps. secretary castro: i think that has been the blueprint. i do agree that we can add something of value to the negotiation. of course, the negotiation is between those two parties ultimately. there is a limit to that. i do think giving some direction. i understand, of course, the frustration and the sense of urgency of the need for specificity. i think we can build on that. again hopefully with an administration that is more receptive to that. mr. vietor: official washington then often calls them the blob. he deserves to trademark that name. has slowly come to the realization that the saudi government and mohammed salman

in particular around the best people. i think the horrific murder of jamal khashoggi shocked the conscious of the world. it's truly disappointling to see major businesses -- disappointing to see major businesses, a year later attending investment conferences in saudi arabia. i think it sends a message that finances are more important than values. [applause] mr. vietor: again, i say this with considerable humility given that president obama went to saudi arabia multiple times. he initially supported the civil war in yemen, which was wrong and has proven to be a humanitarian disaster. my question for you is, as president, how would you rethink or would you the u.s.-saudi relationship? are they still an ally given all we have learned in the last couple years? secretary castro: i agree with those who say we need to reassess that relationship. i do believe we need to reassess that relationship.

as we move forward in the 21st century that as you suggest that our values should be bigger drivers of those relationships. obviously sometimes there are very urgent imperative security interests. sometimes economic interests. but i believe that somewhere along the way we have come to rely too much on those interests or prioritize them instead of prioritizing the values that we have. what are those values? i think those values are the one that is have helped make this nation the nation that it is. a freedom of individual liberty, of democracy, and whether it's what we have seen in hong kong and we should be standing up for them in hong kong or the uighurs in china we should be speaking up for. [applause] we should be leading with values more. the next president has the opportunity to do that. when it comes to saudi arabia. mr. vietor: thank you for

messaging the uighurs i think it's important that people constantly bring that up. sort of staying in saudi arabia. a month ago, two months ago i think a lot of us were worried that we were on the cusp of either a saudi-iran war or u.s. military action in response to what we are seeing as either iranian proxy group or iranian military striking saudi facilities. how would you approach any effort to broker some sort of day tan -- detente between the saudis and the iranians. would that involve getting back into the iran nuclear deal? what are the pieces of that puzzle? secretary castro: i think that the immediate piece that the next president can work on, i wish this administration would work on o, is getting back into the deal that you-all negotiated in the obama administration. getting back into the jcpoa. the first task may be pressuring iran to make sure

that they are client with the jcpoa. but also getting the united states into it. then looking down the road and how that can be negotiated again, updated, renegotiated whatever term we want to use. one of the points i have been making on the campaign trail is this is much more important than -- although in and of itself is an important deal to control or manage their nuclear weapons capacity. this speaks to, again, the element of trust of united states and the world. why in the world, if you are kim jong il would you sign an agreement with the united states right now to curtail your nuclear weapons program when trump administration just came in and tore up an agreement that everybody acknowledged iran was following . to do the very thing we are asking north korea to do. curtail their program. we have lost trust. people have lost respect for the united states under this

administration. i see getting back into the jcpoa not only as helpful in managing what we are talking about, the dynamics of the region. that nuclear weapons program and the security of israel. but also qur we go on north korea -- where we go on north korea and a number of other issues around the world. [applause] mr. rhodes: i think you said that very well. pivot off foreign policy to the politics that we can envision on this, some of the set of issues, particularly on israel. one of the things that has been so depressing about how this administration, this president has approached this is this kind of cynical effort to demonize as anti-semitic anybody who is not fully onboard with essentially his, and prime minister netanyahu's iew of all these issues.

while at the same time frankly using rhetoric that seems to be attractive to anti-semites here in the united states on other things. if you were the nominee, how would you contend with the inevitable attack that is would come that any criticism of israel proves that you are an anti-semite, the kind of politics it says i'm a u.s. president, i'm going to ask the prime minister of israel not even let in to muslim american members of congress to visit israel. this kind of toxicity we see as -- that is very bad for the historical bipartisan support of this relationship. how would you navigate that terrain as a nominee and make clear that there is a way to support israel while being critical of some of its policies. there is a way to advocate for our values that doesn't necessarily mean you have to fall under the trap of what they are going to be throwing

at you. secretary castro: that's why i'm here. that's why j street is here. that's why there are so many folks in this audience that are part of this work which is to say, look, there is a different we we can do things and recognize that israel is an ally, friend, and it will continue to be and we'll have a strong working relationship, a friendship at the same time the road that netanyahu is taking israel on i don't believe is in the best interest of israelis, and the road that donald trump is taking this relationship on is not in the best interest of the united states of america. it's not in the best interest of palestinians whose rights we are also concerned about. but i think i want to commend jeremy and j street and the board members, everybody who over the last 11 years has helped -- been building up this organization. it is a strong part of that voice. now we are just talking about the politics of this because you asked about the politics.

that will help navigate that. we do need those voices there for the longest time there was one voice. i think folks know what i'm talking about. we need more than that. [applause] mr. vietor: to o follow up on that, i think i know the voice you are alluding to that offered o some criticism of the obama administration over the years. mr. rhodes: i think that's kind of a part of a general sense if you are on the campaign trail and you are meeting with young people in particular, are you meeting with college-age students -- [cheers and applause] many of them here today. and all they consumed about this relationship between u.s. and israel is a lot of this pretty cynical back and forth and demonization.

if you don't support this 100% then you are going to be called a name whether that's anti-semitic or something else. what would you tell them to get back to values and not politics? why should they care about the u.s.-israel relationship? or why should they care about a two-state solution? if in many ways trump is disrupting things and wiping so many slates so clean and we have to rebuild things, what is the basis upon which you rebuild that sense of why young people need to care about this. why they need to care about israel, why they need to care about the palestinians, why they need to care about peace? secretary castro: i think yesterday was the anniversary in he tree of life massacre pittsburgh. it was also a very powerful reminder of why israel exists in the first place. as a place of refuge

[applause] ofle it ability of expression of the jewish people -- of ability of express of the jewish people and also how consistent those values are with the values that we hold dear as americans. and that we also want to see palestinians be able to enjoy as human beings. [applause] i would say that in many way it is we can get this right that it is of our highest calling to help bring that about, because it's consistent with who we are and who we want to be. today you mentioned young people, folks on college campuses, i think they are hearing it both way from the trump administration what they are hearing is, if you are not all the way over here then you are anti-semitic and so forth. they are also hearing from b.d.s. and there is a demonization of israel in some

quarters. and i don't agree with b.d.s. i don't support b.d.s., but i also don't support -- i don't support cracking down on o political speech. i think people should be able to express themselves. [applause] what i have seen in our young people now like all of the candidates have traveled all over the place, so have you all all the time, is that more than anything else people want to know what you really believe. i think to connect with young people it's to connect tell with what we really believe and why we support a two-state solution and the values that that represents. we can do that. i think part of that is the work that j street and other organizations and some pro-palestinian organizations are also doing as they get out there. [applause]

mr. vietor: it's cliche to say israel is in a tough neighborhood. i do think that that fact is underscored by the fact that the head of isis, mr. baghdadi, was killed two days ago. and the special forces who were part that have operation, the intelligence community, the trump administration all deserve credit for taking him off the battlefield, but that doesn't mean our syria policy isn't completely incoherent. we pulled out. we are back in. we are ditching the kurds. we are securing oil fields. it's hard to keep track of. when you think about israel's security, i imagine that a secure syria is a key piece of that puzzle. what do you make of trump's syria policy today? knowing that projecting what troop levels would be a year from now is not really a

realistic thought experiment, how would you think about the presence of u.s. troops in syria in the region to try to deal with isis and keep it stable? secretary castro: yeah. it's already been said a million times it doesn't need to be said anymore that the president has been so erratic, it has been a disaster. abandoning our allies. causing others to doubt our loyalty. setting us back in syria itself. empowering the russians. that part has been a disaster. in terms of how i view the presence of u.s. troops, i agree with those who say that we should be drawing down from the middle east in different places. but i also believe, two things. number one, you have to be as thoughtful coming out as you are going in. what we saw in iraq was a lack of thoughtfulness, seriousness going in.

what we see in syria was a lack of thoughtfulness coming out. i believe whether it's there or afghanistan or other places there is a role for a small level of forces in a supportive capacity. whether they are special operations forces, diplomatic forces, also to be able to support our efforts and to help to maintain stability. i believe that may vell be where we still end of getting to in syria. it's hard to tell because the president on one day will say one thing. another day say another. then tweet something out that's completely different from what he said twice. i hope that we can get to a point where we don't have several places, don't have houses of troops there but we are able to contribute to maintaining a stability. [applause] mr. vietor: one last question to close here.

you talked before about credibility generally. mr. rhodes: we talked about a lot of issues in a tough neighborhood. but stepping back what would you do coming into office to try to restore and reset american credibility in the world that has suffered so much because of pulling out of international agreements because what images are seeing here at home, because of the twitter feed. how would you go about the project from day one of saying, here's how i'm presenting a new face of america to the world? secretary castro: that is maybe the biggest challenge for us. i think that what these leaders around the world are feeling in their head more, thinking in their head is that they see the limits of our government. y that i mean the limit to how constant or stable our approach can be because you could have a new president every four years.

and because you have so much polarization in congress. so there are some things i do think the next president can do. number one, make very clear during this campaign where you stand on these issues as clearly as possible. to lay that out once you are elected as early as possible. to indicate through your appointments, through ambassadorships and appointments within the administration, people who have a track record of expertise and of being clear. [applause] what this president has done to the state department in decimating it the way he has and so forth. but in your words and actions coming into office you can send very strong signals about the direction that you are going to take. i also think there are longer term things we need to do for our benefit that will also do for the benefit of relationships around the world. for instance, supporting that h.r. 1 that would take all

states to nonpartisan or neutral redistricting. because if you want to reduce the polarization in congress and people to work together, you need to give these congressional people incentive to reach ao cross the aisle. -- reach across the aisle. in my mind i'm connecting all these dots of how we need to change our system here, make improvements, not only to what they are going to do to improve our governance at home, but how they are going to impact the trust and ability to operate overseas. that's going to take a while to make these reforms. but in the long run i believe that that's going to pay off. more than anything else, i mean need to get off twitter and stop being so erratic. people are not going to trust right away the next president will be more stable. but they'll see that. you need to live up to that. we had a great example that have in president obama. even though we disagreed with george w. bush and some of the republican presidents, they

were a lot more consistent than this guy has been. we need to get back to a consistency. [applause] mr. vietor: you would make rudy giuliani your secretary of state. secretary castro, secretary castro, thank you so much for all the work you did. secretary castro: thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. sit ncicap.org] >> federal trade commission commissioners rebecca slaughter and christine wilson talk about the agency's priorities and some of the privacy concerns with new technologies. that's live at the brookings institution in washington, d.c. today at 2:00 p.m. eastern. n c-span2. host: our newsmakers program