two talks on israel-palestinian conflict. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. host: good morning and welcome to washington journal. with some nearing and covid-19 numbers dropping, the question for many americans is quickly becoming whether their masks should be on or off. the cdc is trying to come up with rules that can apply to everyone, but with all the differing information from cities and states, some americans say they are not sure what they should be doing, who they should listen to, and when you will be safe -- and when it will be safe for them to show their faces in public again. do you have confidence in

the cdc's covid-19 guidance? we have lines set up. if you are confident in the most recent guidance, we will hear from you at (202) 748-8000. if you are not confident in the cdc's most recent covid-19 guidance, your number will be (202) 748-8001. keep in mind you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. and we are always reading on social media on twitter and facebook, on twitter @cspanwj @cspanwj and on facebook at facebook.com/eastman. there have been a lot of differing information about what americans should should not doing in public. the leader of the cdc has been talking about a lot of this material and the most recent

guidance that the fully vaccinated americans who can go out an public without -- go out and public who -- go out in public without masks has been confusing for some. the cdc director went in front of the senate health committee and was asked by gop senator roy blunt about the confusion over the most recent guidelines. here's that exchange. [video clip] sen. blunt: let's talk about the guidance that came out last week on masks for people who have been fully vaccinated. there seems to be some concern over how that would be applied. i listened this morning to the ceo at target, who was on cnbc. he said he had followed all the cdc guidance up until now, which

meant up until last week, people in their stores had a mask on. this week, people in their stores don't have a mask on and less they want to have a mask on. in the capital, the attending physician -- in the capitol, the attending physician put out guidance last week that said on capitol grounds you would not need a mask if vaccinated but the speaker decided she would keep the mask mandate in place in the house until everyone was vaccinated. what are you seeing there and what kind of further direction have you been able to give to the cdc? the president had his mask on part of the time, largely based, it seemed to me, on what other people around him were comfortable with, but give us some other thoughts. >> thank you for the question. the first thing we should do is celebrate where we are in this pandemic that we can even be

having this conversation. cases are down to 19,008 day. as those are coming down, people are longing to understand what this means next. with those cases coming down and now the fact that every american who wants a vaccine has access to one. you can find vaccine where you are. we now have cases coming down and access to vaccines for everyone who wants one. just in the last two weeks, we had scientific data emerge in three important areas. one, the vaccines are working in public the way they worked in clinical trials. that doesn't always happen. that has happened here. two come of the vaccines are working against the variants we have here circulating in the

u.s. we have neutralizing data demonstrating against b117, b11351. these bike scenes -- these vaccines are working. and three, which wasn't tested in the clinical trials, if you get vaccinated, are you silently able to spread it? data have emerged again and examine that even if you were to get it postvaccination, you cannot give it to anyone else. that was enough for us to move forward people we moved at the speed signs gave us. host: this all comes as a recent poll shows the ecdc and the fda -- the cdc and the fda are among the federal agencies facing a

lack of public trust right now. this story coming out in the hill. "the cdc and the fda are among a number of federal and local health agencies facing a lack of public trust according to apel released thursday. -- two a whole -- to a poll released thursday. the survey found the public has higher trust in health care workers over public health institutions. 52% had a great deal or quite a lot of trust in the cdc. 25% said they had somewhat trust in the agency. 20% said they have little to no trust in the agency." we are hearing from the cdc that fully vaccinated people can now outside without a mask.

are you trusting what the cdc's covid-19 guidance is saying? let's start with alice, calling from illinois. alice, good morning. caller: no. i do not trust them. host: why not, alice? caller: they are wishy-washy and i think the government is using having had the vaccine as a carrot to allow make people think they can go out and do these things, but it is not true. you can still get the virus and people with compromised immune systems like myself can even get very sick from the virus. host: what have you been doing for the last year? have you been following their guidance to wear a mask and social distance? caller: yes. i have been wearing a mask and following that type of guidance for probably 30 years. host: so what do you plan to do

going forward? do you plan to continue wearing a mask? do you plan to continue to social distance to matter what the cdc says? caller: i do. again, i think they are using it as a carrot for people to go out and get the vaccine, and if you get it, you could do this. like, look, honey, if you eat these vegetables, i will give you this lollipop. host: you think the cdc is saying people can take off their mask as an incentive to get the vaccine. caller: absolutely. host: do you think that will work? caller: it is working because people want to be free, but what they are not telling them is that you can still get the virus and people with compromised immune systems like myself can get it and become very sick. host: ok. let's talk to carol, who is calling from florida. good morning. caller: good morning.

host: go ahead. caller: the honest truth, i think they are using drugs for it. they took it off the market. host: say that again. caller: the reason i don't like that situation with that lady? i disagree with her. they take that man, whoever he was, and i recognize his voice, and he is nothing but a drug user. host: let's go to jake, calling from albuquerque, new mexico. good morning. caller: good morning, young man. dr. kuznick:laughs -- dr. kuznick: -- i do trust the cdc. the last four years have been disastrous for governmental trust. however, just listen to the

science. i think the current administration is right on doing what they are doing. i believe the last administration did everything they could to undermine the function of a sane government. that was their objective. the current republican party i believe is on the same course. so folks out here, just listen to the science. get the shot. thank you. host: jake, before you jump off, have you already got your vaccine? are you wearing a mask outside? are you still there? i think jake has moved on. so a couple of our callers have already mentioned they think that the cdc guidance is meant to inspire people to go out and get the vaccine. there is a story on npr that i will bring you where other people are actually saying some of the exact same things. i will read a couple paragraphs from this story to you.

"when he gave full permission to fully vaccinated americans to shed their masks in many situations, the cdc made a tacit gamble that using mask rules will inspire more people to get vaccinated against covid-19, but that's far from a sure bet say experts who study human behavior. it is in experiments, said catherine milkman of the university of pennsylvania's wharton school, an economics professor who studies behavioral change. milkman is fully vaccinated but like many people has grown accustomed to wearing a mask. she is guessing others feel the same way. the cdc is betting people care about their own health and people will be nervous about living in a mask this world if they -- living in a maskless if they are not vaccinated --

maskless world if they are not vaccinated." what do you think? do you think that's what the most recent covid guidance is about? let's talk to raymond, calling from southfield, michigan. raymond, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, raymond. caller: yeah. i will do what i believe. first of all, i know i want my shot, ok? and i believe having the shot, really, wearing my mask, but i'm in the hospital right now. i have tried four hospitals and i cannot get the shot. they won't give it to me.

host: why won't they give you the shot, raymond? caller: i have no idea. i am so upset because i said, why? the hospital is saying, we don't do it at this time. host: you are saying you cannot get the shot because the hospital isn't offering it. caller: yes. and then i go to another hospital, because they sent me to another hospital, and they said the same thing. we will try to get it. i said, what? i mean -- please give me the shine. they won't do it. host: raymond, you are saying you haven't had the first or second vaccine out all, that you haven't been able to find one in smithfield, michigan. caller: exactly. host: hopefully we will get

another caller in who will tell you where you can go. we are dr. walensky say earlier that it should be available to everyone who wants it's and is medically available to get one. let's talk to mark, who was calling from new york city. mark, good morning. caller: good -- hi. how have you been. this is my favorite subject. i have not worn a mask from the beginning because it never made sense from the beginning. and now probably, with this advertising across all the spectrum, i think the shot will be 100 times more deadly than the virus. host: mark, are you saying that you didn't believe from the beginning that wearing a mask would help you avoid getting the coronavirus, and you are also saying that you don't believe

the shot is worth the risk of its possible side effects? in my understanding you correctly? -- am i understanding you correctly? caller: no, because it first, everyone put it on. host: mark, how do you think the coronavirus pandemic has lessened? do you think adjusts for itself out or do you think that -- do you think it just wore itself out or do you think none of the measures did anything at all? caller: what is the question? host: they suggested people wear masks, social distance and take the vaccine. how do you think we have gone from where we were to where we are now? caller: think there's a lot we don't understand, and

specifically, a lot of people have died in nursing homes. exactly what the situation was in hospitals. as far as the vaccine was concerned, there's a lot of problems with these vaccines. they knew and it is not good. host: well, earlier this week, white house press secretary jen psaki came out to defend the cdc guidance and talk a little bit about what the white house thinks people should be doing. [video clip] >> the guidance is pretty clear, but it gives people the information and the power to be able to protect themselves. if you get vaccinated, you go through your two doses, you no longer need to wear a mask. if you are not, you should still wear a mask to protect others and yourself. it also makes clear that kids should still wear masks, so i

would say that we know people are digesting this. we have been all been wearing masks. most of us have been wearing masks for 14 months now. different companies, different organizations, different communities are going to implement based on a range of factors, including vaccination levels, transmission rates, and we all respect that, but it was the responsible step to put out the data from scientists when available and this what we did. -- and that's what we did. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about their competence in the cdc covid-19 guidance. one says "no. it is a joke. incompetence." a text says "the last group play politics with the cdc and people lost trust. it will take time to rebuild." another text says "in my office,

i will not allow anybody to take off their mask. i am more concerned about those with the vaccine and their false sense of security and the government trying to separate us by class." another says "i trust the cdc. i don't expect people to be honest about whether there vaccinated or not. it is just assumed you are if you are maskless." another that says "no. sick people should stay home. use the brain god gave you. no morning sue pelosi -- no more nancy pelosi." let's go to stephen, calling from staten island, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i do trust the cdc guidance.

notably, my background is in science. i do think that the biggest problem is that with the guidance changing, because it is a dynamic situation, people don't understand the basic tenants, the basic scientific -- the basic tenets, the basic scientific method, so they are waiting for it to be translated by the media and the people around them. we need better education in this country so people can understand it and the process. host: what is it that americans are not understanding? it seems like there is something you think americans are not understanding. explain. caller: we are continually getting new information as the process goes along. as we were getting more data in, we were getting -- we were developing work guidelines, adjusting the guidelines to respond to the data. as the new data comes in, we

respond to it by saying, we are seeing this now, so this is what we do. this is the direction we need to shift. and that's hard to understand. that's hard to understand if you don't have any background or education in basic scientific method. host: so do you think it is a lack of education or do you think this whole issue has become politicized and is being used as a political football and you are expected to line up with whichever party you are on? caller: both of those things, because if you don't have the basic understanding of scientific method, if you don't have the tools to identify what is true and what is not, then how can you argue with someone who you love and trust to comes to you and says, this is ridiculous? and they say it with such passion. host: what are you doing now? are you vaccinated? are you wearing your mask?

are you wearing a mask and -- are you vaccinated and not wearing your mask? caller: i'm fully vaccinated. i often take it off at this point, but i have friends with children who cannot be vaccinated, so i am waiting for their age group to be able to be vaccinated, but i am not wearing it in public outdoors. i am wearing the mask indoors. host: let's go to market in massachusetts. he says he doesn't trust the most recent guidance. good morning. caller: good morning. yes. i am against the new guidelines because i think we should all be wear masks, continue to wear masks in public. i just watched a coworker on

wednesday, a 33-year-old coworker. i work in the asphalt pavement industry. it is a physically demanding industry. we work outside. he died wednesday, 33 years old. i don't think people understand that there's really a pandemic going on and they really can affect all different age groups. do you know what i mean? host: mark, what are you doing? haveyou already got the vaccine ? what are you doing? caller: i am glad you asked. i got my first shot of the vaccine thursday evening. i was looking around. i wanted the pfizer instead of the moderna for some reason so i found one.

it is easy to get them now, so i found one. my doctor's office directed me to a pharmacy that had them. i will be having my second one three weeks from tomorrow, yesterday, so i will be fully vaccinated in three weeks. and i wear a mask. i work outside and i drive a truck. i socially distance. i stay more than six feet away from people when i am outside with the paving crews, but i'm generally by myself in the truck. i whole asphalt around. -- i call asphalt -- i jaul asphalt around. you have to wear the mask in a store. it is not that difficult. i assume you wear a mask in public. host: most people wearing the

correct style of mask can breathe. caller: right. it is a political statement. i believe the new cdc guidelines are politically motivated in order to help businesses and specifically bars and restaurants, so i think -- i believe -- dr. walensky, you know, she made a mistake. i think they should encourage everyone to continue to wear a mask. we are approaching 600,000. how many have died from covid? host: we are almost at 589,224. that was from yesterday. the number is getting closer to 600,000. caller: ok, so people are still dying. my 33-year-old friend died on

wednesday. 33 years old. host: but the question becomes when do we stop wearing our masks? at what point do we know that it is safe to go back to life as normal? caller: well, everybody wants to talk about the science. have they seen what's going on in india, brazil, around the world? the answer to your question is when this pandemic starts dying down. now, here in the u.s., we have a lot of vaccinations. the numbers are down but people are still dying. wearing a mask isn't difficult, is it? just put it on your face. host: let's talk to helen, who is calling from campbellsville, kentucky. kelling, good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. you know, i have been thinking about this a lot. and i trust the cdc guidelines,

but back when this virus first got started, it was new to everybody, including the community of science, so they are still writing the book as we go, as we learn more about the virus, but the problem that i think got a lot of people kind of concerned as to whether they were going to take the virus or not had to do with the past administration's handling of the virus. we had people saying things like that this was all political and that the vaccine was going to be made by a certain day. and then there was this big fit thrown one day because the cdc didn't approve the vaccine on a certain day and it made a lot of people even here in my community, they were saying, this is a paid off deal and

therefore this vaccine may not be safe, so now the vaccines are being given and they are getting a chance to see how people are reacting to it. there are still people saying i will never take the vaccine, but at the same time, they refused to wear a mask. for those of us who are fully vaccinated and we wore our masks, now it is time for us to take our masks off and we don't know who we are standing beside in the grocery store, who we are sitting beside in church, because this thing has become so political until it is, at all the democrats take the vaccine. the republicans are not going take the vaccine. they got off to a bad start. and there are 589,000 people in

this country alone who have died from the virus. but if we come together as a country, there are all these patriots, including myself, who say, oh, how we love our country. sure. but to have a country that's strong and viable, people need to be healthy. therefore, why can't we just come together, get our vaccines, get our economy back open, so everybody can go to work and feel comfortable sitting beside the person that you feel like our vaccinated the same as your? -- as you are? host: let's go to ray, calling from rockwood, tennessee. ray says he doesn't trust the current cdc guidance. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm going to say something that millions of people are thinking the same way i. -- the same way i am.

when you have somebody in charge of the cdc who is actually a man dressed like a woman, nobody will believe him. host: let's go to alton from maryland. caller: stephen hit it right on the head. a lot of the parameters -- i do trust the cdc -- and they have said those with pre-existing conditions and with multiple comorbidities or at a higher risk should continue wearing the mask. a caller said she doesn't trust it because she has lupus and she may be of higher risk, and that's what they are saying. you should continue to do the social distancing and wear a mask if you are higher risk. if you do go directly to the cdc website and look at the science,

it is continuously changing. the guidelines are going to be continuously changing. it is incumbent upon each of us, if there is some confusion, to look at the information for yourself and look for yourself what the risk factors are. you also have to look at protecting your fellow man as well. host: we had a caller earlier that said he didn't think most americans understand basic scientific suppose. this was a completely new disease. of course the guidance is going to change because we have never faced this before. do you think that caller was correct in his assumptions? caller: i do because the scientific community was learning alongside everyone else, but as more information came out, the guidelines were adjusted in terms of social distancing, washing hands, wearing masks, and unfortunately, it did become a political football.

i do believe the cdc is saying, if you get vaccinated, you can do more things. that's exactly what it is designed to do, because if you get vaccinated and you are not going to risk spreading the virus further, you can do more things. you can go out and not wear a mask if you are not within a distance of other individuals. that's what the vaccine is for. that is not political. it is reality. it is the same for businesses. we want businesses to open for the economy to recover. none of us will be able to recover if the economy is not functioning. caller: at a senate -- host: at a senate hearing this week, someone was asked by democratic senator richard durbin about the politicization of the pandemic messaging and the politicization of the cdc itself. here's that exchange. [video clip] sen. durbin: one of the lessons

i learned out of nih was let's get honest about this. we not only have to bring this pandemic to an end. we have to prepare for the next, which may be five or 15 years away. we don't know, but history tells us there will be another one is -- one and the question is will we be ready? the cdc will play critical role. this is the first question. after 33 years of observing this agency and its role in the american scene when it comes to public health, there's a fear that it has been politicized in the last four years or maybe before, but now public health issues are so political. the issue of whether to get a vaccine seems to break out on political lines. we have reached a new stage. what is your thinking, having

observed and worked with the cdc, about this politicization of public health? >> thank you so much for your comments and your question. the viruses don't vote and the pandemic has told is that everyone is vulnerable. everyone in america, everyone around the world, and cdc is science-based. we are data and work together with state and local partners to reflect the values of their communities, so i think that focusing on the science and the service mission of the agency is what we need to do. sen. durbin: have you noticed any recent change in terms of the political image of the cdc, which tries to be a political? >> this pandemic has been so difficult for all of us in public health and certainly for our colleagues around the world. the messaging has really been difficult.

you know, very conflicting messages that left americans confused, and so i think we are committed to clear, honest communication of what we know, don't know and what we recommend people do, so i do think the messaging environment is tough. host: let's go back to see what some of our social media followers are saying about their trust in the's covid-19 guidance. here's one text that says "still wearing an n95 mask. not vaccinated due to pre-existing conditions. following cdc only. don't trust anyone else. fauci flip-flops." here's a tweet that says "they bungled the pandemic response. they have screwed up texting, minimized the ethical principle of autonomy, going full on

paternalistic, and allowed themselves to become politicized. that said, they give the best advice available." another tweet says "i thought it was odd that one day they say they need -- they say you need to wear a mask in another day you don't have to if vaccinated." another says "i am not confident in anything the government does. there's no integrity or trust anymore in government. most everything the government does has political implications to it." one last week that says "believe and trust the government at your own peril. they lie about the smallest things constantly and they hate us." back to callers with jonathan, calling from ardmore, oklahoma. jonathan says he will not trust the most recent cdc covid-19 guidance. good morning. caller: hi there.

yes. i would like to contribute my thoughts to the discussion. i agree how things have flip-flopped. my biggest concern with mask mandates are the fact that most people don't know how to properly use ppe. and people assume that a mask or a pair of gloves makes them invincible. and if you have gotten a sandwich at the sub shop, you have seen the people touching the masks, and that is direct contamination to said product, so you know, without really proper guidance on how to use this ppe, these guidelines are relatively useless in my eyes. host: so, jonathan, what are you doing right now? are you getting the vaccine, wearing a mask? what are you doing right now?

caller: i was actually previously infected in november by co-worker -- by a coworker. we were all wearing masks because we were at a bar. fortunately for me, i am in very good health. i do exercise, spend a lot of time outdoors, cook most of my meals at home. i am a microbiologist by trade and profession, so i do understand the basic principles of sanitation, keeping your hands clean if you touch a door, gas pump or something that's touched by hundreds of people a day. i have been sanitizing my hands for years after i touch something that might be contaminated. i went to a bar earlier today and half the men in the bathroom walked out without washing their hands, so you know, without

following these guidelines in the first place, it is, again, kind of pointless, so i actually fared very well. i was relatively asymptomatic. all i had was loss of sense of smell. i never had a fever. only had a headache for a few days. and, you know, i quarantined. i made sure i got all my food delivered to me. my fiance, we didn't quarantine from each other. she was never infected. we tested together each day. she never got infected, which either means she has natural immunity or she was previously infected and asymptomatic. host: so now that you know you have already had the covid-19 virus, do you plan to get the vaccine or do you think you have the antibodies so you don't need the vaccine? caller: i do not and from my

understanding as a microbiologist, with this new vaccine, it is an mrna vaccine, so the concept behind that is that mrna is interpreted by a rhizome in the cytoplasm and it creates -- it takes the amino acids and creates a protein. that protein creates the protein spike on the exterior of the coronavirus. it forms a crown like shape. that is why it is called a corona. the idea is that your body is protected against the attack mechanism of the virus. opposed to a traditional vaccine, which is either an inactivated vaccine, which is the virus is cultured in a lab and then killed and your body is able to react to it, or it is weekend in some ways, attenuated

-- or it is weakened in some way. attenuated is the term. so anything in your body that it is not used to, you will have a reaction to it, so -- host: i think we lost him there. let's go to libby jane in bonaire, georgia. good morning. caller: i had my thoughts together and then i kept listening to the other texts and callers and i got thrown off, but i do not believe the cdc guidance is confusing. i am fully vaccinated, but i am still going to follow mitigation protocols. for example, last saturday, i went to our local garden center knowing i would be shoulder to shoulder with the sales staff. i wore my mask even though i know the likelihood that i will get the virus and transmit it is extremely low.

then i went to our large grocery store. i did not where my mask -- i did not wear my mask. i wanted to get some vine ripe tomatoes. a lady was they are i got apples -- a lady was there. i went and got apples. i came back and got tomatoes. respecting each other's personal space -- it would help us so much better. we don't have to be right up on someone in the grocery store were in public places, and i just don't think it is confusing at all, pedro, and i think what has happened is we had nearly five years of absolute chaos and people just will not move away

from the chaos and want to continue being disruptive. host: let's go to terry, calling from sheltonham, maryland. good morning. caller: one of your first callers had it right when he said it was about education. i think the cdc and the fda have done a piss poor job as far as educating the public. a lot of us, speaking as african-americans in the wake of the tuskegee project, are not thinking about right now. we are thinking about long-term. we are thinking, maybe, if i take this corona shot now, the vaccine now, what's going to happen years later? maybe i take an allergy shot mixed with the coronavirus and i die from the combination of the two. i think the thing is is that the

coronavirus was made so quick that that's our biggest problem. how did you make it so fast when most other viruses and flu shots in the past took years, and you took 10 months, 11 months to make this vaccine? we see now that in our own -- i mean, look at the opioids. the cdc, the fda, past that and said it was ok. 10 years later, it was bad for. the cdc passes diet pills that tenure's later they say are bad for us. that's why most people are hesitant. it was made too fast. host: let's go to rita, calling from jacksonville, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to know -- i would like this man who just called in.

the vaccine, out too quick. -- the vaccine come out too quick. it wasn't study long enough. and if it becomes mandatory that everybody take the vaccine, what are you going to do? stay inside, locked in? that is my point. thank you. have a blessed -- host: let's go to steve, calling from noblesville, indiana. steve, good morning. caller: good morning. i have already had my vaccine and i don't understand why people -- if you look at the results, everything is going down now. the deaths are going down. get your vaccine. quit being stupid about it. host: let's talk to sheila, calling from western sure, massachusetts -- calling from west to shire -- calling from

worcester, massachusetts. caller: good morning. nobody mentions the fact that this vaccine is still in a trial factor. it has not been approved by the fda for general use. it is used only for emergency authorization. and most people have no idea of what the adverse reaction site is. they should go to the cdc's own recordings of adverse reactions, because there are many, and we do not know what this vaccine is going to cause lingering in our body. the cdc and the masking business has no scientific research behind it. masking does a minimal amount of good.

we have been propagandized to the point of paranoia in this country and we had better wake up because it is a control action to keep us in our homes, away from work, away from the people we love. it must stop. we have to get back to living our lives the way god intended -- free to do as we want to do. host: let's look at what the actual numbers are right now when it comes to the coronavirus. here's a story in today's wall street journal that i want to bring to you. it talks about what the actual numbers are now. the story says "newly reported covid-19 infections in the u.s. fell from a day earlier as vaccines -- as vaccinations showed signs of momentum after slowing down in mid april. the u.s. reported more than

28,000 new cases friday according to johns hopkins university and published early friday morning. that was down from 30,000 a day earlier and 42,000 a week earlier. friday's number may update later in the morning. the seven day moving average of daily new cases fell below 30,000 for the first time since june 22. the figure, which smooths out irregularities in the data, was 29,128 as of thursday according to a wall street journal analysis of johns hopkins data. the 14 day average was 32,256. when the seven day average is lower than the 14 day average, indicates that cases are generally falling." that's coming from the wall street journal. back to the phone lines. let's talk to joy, calling from virginia. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse.

this is joy from virginia by way of mississippi. i do have confidence in the cdc guidance because i believe the decision was based on several things that were good for the collective of the country, not just the individual parties. it included both the science, the politics and public opinion. i personally will still make a personal judgment on how i dress in public, but i will say that the soul of our country has changed. we no longer rally behind a common enemy like we did, for instance, with 9/11. katrina. we watched as that took place, rally together, supporting one another. when george bush had to make the decision to send troops overseas, that may not have been the best decision, but because of public opinion, and they

wanted him to do something, he had to make a decision. a decision had to be made for the collective good and that's how i feel about it. host: let's go to billy, calling from texas. good morning. caller: good morning to you. i don't believe in this stuff because common sense tells most people what to do. but they keep changing this. this guidance changes back and forth, back and forth. you never know what to believe. host: so, billy, what are you doing right now? have you gotten vaccinated? are you wearing a mask? are you socially distancing? what are you doing, billy? caller: i am in texas and the governor says we don't have to worry mask so i am not wearing a mask anymore. i am very isolated. i worked on a ranch. i am not vaccinated.

i am in good health. i have common sense. god keeps me safe. i hope and pray for everybody else, who believe what i government is trying to tell everybody. have a great day. host: let's go to patrick, calling from carnegie, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: i have complete confidence in our wonderful doctors and scientists working to help the american people. that being said it have zero support for certain individuals -- that being said, i have zero support for certain individuals like fauci, who have engaged in horrific experiments using fetal tissue and hair follicles that were grafted to rodents in order

to engage in experiments. i have zero faith in the national institute of health, which was in direct connection with the wuhan laboratory, which manufactured the virus and, i believe, the horrific variants that are right behind it. my friend and his wife, he is south african. his wife is out of iraq -- his wife is a virologist in china. they moved to los angeles. she said it was common knowledge they were working on bio weapons in this laboratory. she said it is common knowledge that this was a bioweapon, that china has literally gone off the ranch, and the american people need to demand changes in the freedom of information act. we need to demand much greater transparency. host: what are you doing right

now? are you taking the vaccine? are you wearing a mask? are you socially distancing? are you socially distancing and taking your mask off? what are you doing, patrick? caller: i got the vaccine. i got both of the vaccines. i got the pfizer vaccine. i socially distance. i do all the things i'm supposed to do, but i also have lyme's disease, so i can throw my voice out with the african-american man who called in who is very suspicious about what's taking place, particularly with issues of population control. the african-american community in this country has been totally manipulated when it comes to certain corporate actors who are -- host: let me make sure i understand. you say you have already gotten

your vaccine, both shots. are you still wearing a mask? caller: yes. i wear a mask. i just stopped wearing a mask in church because the dioceses no longer requires us to wear a mask, but i will tell you i am profoundly disturbed by these new variants, and -- host: let's go to lydia, calling from upper marlboro, maryland. caller: i have complete faith in the cdc and fda. i'm fully vaccinated. i have had two doses of the moderna vaccine. i still wear a mask when i go out in public. i was watching the show the last word last weekend and he had a black doctor, part of the team at the fda that created the vaccine. they have been doing research for six years, she says.

so they had done the research. when they had to get emergency directions to get the vaccine, they were ready to put it together because they had all the research. she had taken the vaccine. everyone on her team. so i have full confidence in the cdc and the fda. people need to -- i am 84 years old. i have pre-existing conditions. i was not going to be stupid and not take the vaccine, so people need to use common sense. host: so, lydia, since you have already had the vaccine, will you still wear the mask? caller: in public, yes. my 21-year-old daughter got the shot last week and or get the second in 30 days. everyone in my family is vaccinated. but when i go out in public, i still wear my mask. i will continue to wear my mask

in public. host: let's go to kathlyn -- catherine, culling from bolingbrook, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. a couple things. the gentleman who called earlier couldn't find a pharmacy or a place to get his vaccine, if you would give him my phone number, i would be more than happy to help him find a pharmacy. walgreens does it, cvs does i t. typically hospitals don't give it. he's not looking in the right place. i would be more than happy to help him find one. if he needs transportation, uber is giving free rides, so we will help this gentleman out. host: what are you doing as far as the cdc guidance says? caller: yeah. i got my vaccination about a month ago and it liberated me.

a couple days ago, i had my hair cut by my master stylist, who will not get the vaccine. so i had to wait until i got fully ready and she, you know, cut my hair after a year and a half. she is a lovely person but will not get the vaccine. she says i don't want to be another african-american experiment. i get that. i get that. i didn't push her to do it. everybody has to make up their own mind and say i feel comfortable about this or i don't, but we have to step back and not hate people for not doing it, but i wear my mask in public. like when i am in the store. when i got my hair done, i wore my mask. when i go into stores, i wear my mask. i'm sort of attached to it now. but outside, i don't. host: let's talk to mike, colin

from chester, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. personally, i have just had one of the shots. i am going tuesday, me and the rest of my family, to get our second shot. we continue wear your masks. one of the things one of the people was talking about earlier was about ppe, and the thing about it is people do not want to invest in ppe. i was a construction worker for 30 years. companies were forced to make people wear hard hats. the smaller companies had their own employees provide their own hardhats. larger companies have been provided for them. and the breathing of silicates in the air, where a lot of those masks have been used for many years, because people would

sweep up dirt and it had terrible things for everybody to breathe in, and they did not make sure that everybody had a breathing methodology. he also had to have, if you had advanced respirator, you had to have a doctors appointment and have the doctor approve -- have a doctor appointment and have the doctor approve that you could breathe through it. that was one thing. i have been in all kinds of government places because i worked in the washington, d.c. area. the nih offices i've visited in the 80's had reams of paper with the information they had. computers were slow. nowadays, the nih has computers that move real fast and the information can be transferred from place to place so fast comparatively. so the research they do nowadays is better than the past. you have a separation between

nih, fda and cdc. the fda headquarters is a beautiful complex. they have all kinds of new things, but -- host: let's talk to erica, calling from san diego, california. good morning. caller: i had both shots earlier this year and when i go to stores like target they still want us to wear masks. i don't know what is the problem with the people. it is simple. everything is simple. host: so, erica, do you plan to continue to wear your mask regardless of whether stores require it or not? caller: i have my mask with me when i go outside my house, but when i go someplace where there's people in stores, they still want you to wear a mask. target, stores ago too, still heavy wear the mask. and that's ok. host: now, when do you think it

will be safe for you to not wear yoursafe for you to not wear yor mask? caller: i don't know. we will see what happens. it will get better with time. it will get better. i don't know, i don't worry about it. host: let's talk to earl from brookfield, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: basically, i am vaccinated. i do wear a mask when i am in public. but i am hearing a lot of, everybody is so confused, it is really not at all confusing. if you are vulnerable to the virus you should protect yourself. and if you have been vaccinated, you are a lot less vulnerable to the virus. it is still to statistically --

it is still statistically possible to get the virus. it is just really not at all confusing. you hear people talking, oh, dr. fauci this, dr. fauci that. dr. fauci has been just fine. the cdc has been just fine. when the circumstances evolve, the things people say about them are also going to evolve. if they don't evolve what they say then they are not paying attention to the circumstances, because the circumstances fall. host: you say you are basically vaccinated, what does that mean? caller: i used the wrong word. host: you mean you have had one or both of the shots, right? caller: yes, two mergener shots. host: do you plan to not wear your mask in public now? caller: i got my haircut

yesterday and i brought a mask in. the barber said he did not need me to wear it. so, ok. if i go somewhere else and see masks, i will wear a mask. to me it is being polite and it is like, it is almost the same as taking a shower and being clean and not being smelly. it is just being polite out there. you don't want to give anybody disease, you don't want to get a disease. it is obvious and simple how you can cut the odds down. so you just cut the odds down. people are looking for oh, you know, somebody said something and then i heard somebody else say something else -- that is just kind of craziness. host: let's go to ann from jamaica, new york. good morning. caller: i have had both shots, the pfizer. i do plan to wear my mask.

that is my security. i think dr. fauci, the cdc, i don't listen to all of this garbage. i will wear my mask. host: when do you plan to stop wearing your mask? caller: i don't know when i will stop wearing it. i have gotten used to it. we did not have a flu season this year, so that tells me a lot about it. a mask is a simple thing. there are times when i go and sit in the park and read, i don't put on a mask. a ticket with me, but i take it off. if i'm going on the new york city subway or bus i wear my mask, because that is required. if i'm going to stores where there are other people i don't know who is vaccinated, so i will wear my mask. host: let's go to barbara, who was calling from port huron, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i'm fine, go ahead,

barbara. caller: my husband and i are in our 50's, we both have heart issues, so we have been fully vaccinated for more than two months. we have a special-needs child who is 14. he just got his first vaccination. so happy to get vaccinated. he had been waiting for months. he gets his second one on the third of next month. i don't understand why people won't get it. everybody in my family fuses to get the vaccine. because they are republicans and i am not, obviously, i am a democrat. i don't understand why it became a republican against democrat issue. host: we would like to thank all of our callers who called in for that segment.

coming up next we will talk planes, trains, and automobiles with david shepardson, covers transportation for reuters. ron dion abu to joins us to talk about the recent cease-fire and hostilities between israelis and palestinians, and whether he can last. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ cracks on "the weekly" putting this pandemic into perspective. for the last year and a half he has made countless media and the treatments and says we have made a lot of progress since the virus first came to the u.s., but it is not over. cracks if we can keep going, if we get that number into the 70's and 80's, the virus levels will get very, very low. one part of management is keeping infection numbers low.

i can imagine some amount of behavior change. in the past if you woke up one morning and you had a fever -- not even a fever, a runny nose and cough, you often still went to the office. that kind of stuff is going to start changing. i think you will see more mask-wearing. >> more of our conversation on c-span's "the weekly." be sure to listen and follow wherever you get your favorite podcast. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with david shepardson, who was here to talk with us about travel. from the health of the industry to ford motor's new electric vehicles. good morning. guest: good morning. host: let's start with the electric vehicles. electric cars and trucks popped back into the news this week as

president by them went to a dearborn, michigan four plant and drove that electric ford f-150. where are we as far as the electrical car industry in 2021? guest: i don't think it is an exaggeration to say we are at a tipping point. the ford f-150 is the best-selling vehicle and america, by far. as you heard this week like secretary buttigieg, by electrifying the pickup truck it sort of starts to shift the image of the electric car, check think people initially remember from general motors ev one from 25 years ago, that small car to a more functional vehicle. it is not just ford. gm is bringing back its hummer brand, a fully electric hummer brand. gm is going to have an electric pickup truck.

beyond what tesla has done with a small model three, and the suv and the sports car, you are going to start to see more electric cars proliferate among bigger cars, family cars, and that is why president biden went to dearborn to make the case as part of this american infrastructure plan he wants $174 billion to dramatically boost ev sales, production, and add 500,000 charging stations. that is caught up in the infrastructure debate, because a lot of democrats and president biden want to use this moment start to wean americans off internal combustion engines and move toward electric cars. host: during our lifetime we have seen all of the conspiracy theories about the oil industry holding the electric car

industry back and the resistance in legislatures around the country and here in washington to moving away from oil and gas. is that resistance gone or is that still something that the electric car industry has to deal with? guest: no question lawmakers from oil and gas estates have raised strong objections to the idea that the government should be heavily subsidizing electric cars and charging. the oil industry sees electric vehicles as a significant threat to their market. obviously the more people that move off of gasoline and engines, the more -- the less fuel they are going to sell. we have already seen a lot of impacts as the fuel efficiency standards that were adopted under president obama have taken effect. you have seen a fall off in gas tax revenue as a result.

no, you hear this from a number of republicans. they make the argument we should not be subsidizing millionaires to buy $100,000 electric vehicles. which is one reason perhaps you saw the white house today, this week rather, say these rebates they are talking about are not going to go to ultra-expensive luxury cars. they did not say what they mean, but that centerpiece of $174 billion that president biden is talking about for electric vehicles and charging is $100 billion in consumer rebates. they did not say how much they are going to be, but it is clear you are seeing a big push back. again, we talked to republicans in the ongoing infrastructure negotiations. it is not like the old debates in some years past much of the

division is simply, what is the right number? now it is more fundamental, about, should the u.s. government use infrastructure and the spending to push people toward electric vehicles? the administration argues, hey, they are already coming. gm, ford, voltswagen are moving aggressively into the ev market. that debate is going to play out over the next few months. host: let's hear what president biden had to say at that ford plant. i want you to react to it. this is president biden. pres. biden: look, the future of the auto industry is electric. there is no turning back. the american auto industry is at a crossroads. the real question is whether we will lead or fall behind in the race to the future. whether we will build these vehicles and the batteries that

go in them here in the united states or rely on other countries. whether the jobs to build these vehicles and batteries are good paying union jobs with benefits, jobs that will sustain and grow the middle class. right now china is leading in this race. make no bones about it, it is a fact. we invest more in research and development than any country in the world. china was number eight. excuse me, number nine. we now are number eight, and china is number one. can't let that be sustained. the future is going to be determined by the best minds in the world, those who break through new barriers. host: president biden there. is the government spending enough money on research and development on electric vehicles

or should the government stay out of this research? guest: it is interesting, the president making the argument that we can't fall behind china -- it is a little bit of an apples to oranges comparison in the sense that china is a far bigger country and has a far bigger auto market. the other reason china sold more electric vehicles is because they used aggressive government policy to push people toward electric cars, namely higher fuel taxes and making it far easier to get a license plate in heavily crowded cities via electric car versus a gasoline car. it is not just that china is buying more in a vacuum. it is because the chinese government has taken aggressive steps to do that, and so for the u.s. government has mainly offered the caret, these incentives rather than the stick.

as that clip referenced, there is a lot of angst among union workers because, guess what? electric cars are far simpler. they don't have transmissions, they have electric motors. that means a lot of workers are worried about losing their jobs. the battery plants that are replacing them, so far they are not union. they do not pay as well as those jobs at -- that the automakers had directly. the auto companies are forming these joint ventures with battery companies lg in the case of gm. it is not clear they will pay the same amount, and there is going to be a lot of debate on that issue. one of the things resident biden said is automakers should deepen their relationships with the uaw, which a lot of automakers interpreted as, you need to recognize the union at these

joint-venture plants. the industry is going through tremendous change and historically as the industry has gone through change it has resulted in job losses for the caller workers. i think that is one of the reasons you are seeing why senator schumer and the democrats are saying, you have to have the money and resources to ensure that workers can move into other good jobs. the details and the costs remain to be seen. host: let me remind our viewers that they can take part in this conversation about transportation and summer travel. we are going to open up regional lines. if you are in the eastern or central time zones we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, your number will be (202) 748-8001. keep in mind you can always text us at (202) 748-8003.

and we are always reading on social media on twitter and on facebook. david, one more question for you here. do you expect to see a large -- does this ford announcement mean in a year or two we will see a large number of electric vehicles on the highways? guest: that is a great question. right now, despite the talk, we are only 2% of the market. about half of that is from tesla. the traditional auto companies, foreign companies are selling a small number. i do think that the next year to two years is the key moment for electric cars. they are really going to roll into the showrooms and you're going to have lots of choices. again, if you listen to the auto companies, these cars are fun to

drive. they are very fast, as president biden got a firsthand look at, and very high acceleration. once people get comfortable charging them and we see more charging stations, you get over that main issue of range anxiety , can i get to grandma's without running out of juice? there are a lot of benefits to electric cars and, again, people don't have to fill up with gasoline, and at least on an operating mouse basis, they are cheaper. the battery prices are higher, but i do think you are going to see a higher take rate. the auto companies have spent aliens of dollars. in a lot of the world -- a lot of the world is going to go to electric cars. europe has announced they are going to and internal combustion

engines in the next 10 years, sometimes earlier. i do think you are going to see more sales, but it is uncertain. the government cannot say we are going to sell a million dvds. people have to buy each one of those. host: let's go to our phone lines. let's start with gary. good morning. caller: thank you for your time and attention. i would like to talk artificial intelligence, to analyze, per year ties, design and -- to prioritize, the size -- emphasize -- artificial intelligence can do it in 25. we could save a lot of money, and one other thing. hurricanes.

when the outer wall gets for five miles offshore, have a squadron of supersonic jet that made a sonic boom inside the eye of the hurricane and we could knock the rainout. that might weaken them. host: we haven't even gotten into summer travel yet, but david, talking a little bit about hurricanes. hurricane season is coming up. what are americans looking for as far as summer travel? what are we looking for as far as summer travel goes? guest: the airlines are seeing good news. march 2020 the bottom completely fell out of air travel. it fell to less than 5%, well under 100,000 travelers a day in march and april 2020. the u.s. government has spent tens of billions of dollars to pay a good chunk of airline

workers' salaries. that program is going to keep paying workers through the end of september. finally, the last month or so the travel numbers have really started to rise. last sunday the u.s. hit a post-march 2020 high of 8.5 million travelers at u.s. airports. that is about 70% of what it was pre-pandemic. it is not totally out of the woods, but there is a lot of pent-up demand and i think the other thing is the fact the cdc has dramatically loosened its mask guidelines. it is also going to encourage more people to travel. of course, still have to wear your masks any time you are on an airplane or airport or other modes of transportation, but i think people are getting vaccinated, they feel more, from

-- they feel more confident, so i think it is going to be a busy season. one question remains -- will the u.s. government loosened restrictions allowing more visitors to come here? the european union this week signaled it was going to allow fully vaccinated americans to come. americans have been banned for most of europe since early 2020. the question is, will the u.s. reciprocate and allow people from the european union and u.k. to come to the u.s.? it does appear, if you look at the white house briefing friday, the u.s. is not going to mandate vaccines for people to come here. the biden administration has been very reluctant and opposed to any sort of use of taxing passports, to require vaccines to travel or do other activities. i think my advice would be should probably book something

soon, because the uncertainty about europe, a lot of domestic destinations are going to fill up quickly this summer. host: that brings us to a question that was sent in by one of our social media followers. i can't wait to travel this summer and am traveling route 66. being in a border town, i do miss going to canada in the summer. can the guest speak to what the issue is with the reopening of a country like canada? what about canada and mexico? guest: that is a great question. march 21, 2020 the u.s. government, with its north american fellow governments decided to take the unprecedented step of closing the land borders to nearly all non-essential travel. people in the communities, living in upstate new york or detroit can cross the border if they work in the health care industry or they are truck drivers, but all of those

leisure travelers, the people to go shopping or get a discount on something on the other cited the border, they can't do that. just this week all three countries extended those restrictions by another 30 days. now they are in place until june 21. we have seen the reverse. the u.s. government six months ago is really pushing canada, but canada was reluctant because the u.s. caseload was so high, and canada was doing well. now we see the reverse. the u.s. caseload has dropped dramatically, but canada has been suffering through a very difficult third wave. places like ontario have imposed severe restrictions on movement during this big upswing in cases. no one knows for certain, but i think there is a good chance that these restrictions with

canada could be in place throughout the summer. it goes back to this other question that the biden administration is grappling with. what is the blueprint or metric to deciding how to unwind these restrictions? secretary buttigieg said it is a lot easier to put restrictions on then take them off. being comfortable and confident that once you open that door again, are you going to see more variants or people what the virus? i don't think you are going to see a move on canada soon. host: what about mexico? guest: mexico is a little different. we have the same restrictions, the differences that the mexican government is not enforcing those rules for u.s. citizens crossing back and forth between the southern border. so, one interesting thing that has come out in the last few months is that you probably remember in the january the cdc

announced they were mandating negative covert tests for anybody who flies outside the u.s. you fly to cancun, fly to, you know, somewhere in japan, what have you, you have to have a negative test. it has to be done within three days. those rules do not apply to the land borders. the reason for that is because of the sheer volume of people and the lack of testing capacity in northern mexico. it is simply not tenable, the government concluded, to require these to -- these tests for land crossings. there was a congressional hearing a couple of months ago where congressman massey recalled he had constituents who could fly back because they tested positive so they ended up driving to the border because there are no testing requirements. there is still this cross-border traffic.

it is not nearly as true conine as the canadian border, but it is still not normalized traffic between the two countries. host: let's go back tomorrow phone lines and talk to bill, who is calling from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would just make a little rant here at the beginning. standards, in my view, seem almost close to destroying the u.s. auto industry. they forced higher fleet efficiency. all of the small cars were built elsewhere. now you go to, they have re

-upped the fleet requirements, and now they are mandating, acyclic, electric vehicles. if electric vehicles were so fabulous there would be more than 3%, half of them in california, i believe. our oil industry went almost bankrupt. they did go bankrupt, most of them, and they were bailed out. people don't want these electric vehicles, and they should not be subsidized. you can get anybody to buy anything if you give them a big enough subsidy. this is a terrible policy. they never looked at natural gas, is a terrific thing. a lot of people have it in their homes. the idea that the government sent one hut -- spent $170 billion to ram this through, do not think you can have, our

companies will not go bankrupt in the future. you see president biden driving around in probably a $70,000 f-150. most people can't afford that vehicle. host: go ahead and respond there, david. let's talk about the cost of these electric vehicles. do you think that a lower price point would help get them more on the road, and what about the government incentives? i know some states are pulling theirs back. guest: i will say -- the caller is right that these trucks are going to be expensive. however, ford did surprise people by saying the entry-level electric car would be ready $9,000. -- $39,000. you cannot just look at the upfront cost, there are five

your operating costs, you have to factor the that in. -- factor that in. most people are not going to get out there paper and write down how much money am i going to save with an electric car? i think some people can do that. i think people are going to buy that truck because they want the functionality, whether it is -- if you listen to ford, it can power your house for several days in the event of a power outage. they say it makes a great work truck. think about cost, remember the cost of cars in general has gone up and up. america has shifted from cars to more expensive suvs. the average transaction price for new vehicles is hovering around $40,000. that is the average. obviously you can spend, for a pickup truck, certainly close to

$100,000. the car also raises -- the caller also raises a good point. as we talk about electric cars, the government and auto companies are still grappling with fuel economy standards. right now the epa and department of transportation are reviewing the trump administration's decision to roll back the obama-era standards. we should see a proposal from them within the next, by july, about where they want to see the standards go before they begin work on the subsequent years. host: just a personal curiosity question here. coming from a farm family, a question about the new electric f-150 is, who is the market for this? are they intending this to be a work truck for companies and agriculture? or are they intending this to be

a consumer truck for people who live in cities and suburbs? guest: i think if you talk to ford they would say it is for everybody, right? you are right, initially -- and i might have this number wrong -- i think it has nine or 12 power outlets. there is definitely the mobile feature, the guy working on a construction site, no, the salesperson, the mobile office. certainly that, ford, this truck , ford says the amount of revenue ford generates from the f-150 is $50 billion a year. on its own the f-150 would be a valuable -- a very valuable car company. they don't want to turn this vehicle into a niche vehicle. they believe this f-150, once you feel comfortable with moving

to electric, is for everybody. in the rural areas they are clearly underserved by electric vehicle charging stations. that is one of the reason the biden administration says we need to spend $15 billion to build charging stations. rural areas, longer distances, you need more charging stations to get around. and to help people install their own charging stations. it is part of this ecosystem. they would argue the government, auto companies, and consumer incentives to make that transition work. host: let's talk to greg, who is calling from colorado. good morning. caller: yes, hello, thanks for having me on. i appreciate your cast. i am totally behind the electric vehicle concept. it is the way of the future.

i think it is going to take some time. cannot just be a switch from overnight. when all of a sudden we are going to be going from gas powered to electric. one thing i cannot get behind it all is the self-driving teslas. i think it is ridiculous. they should not be allowed on the road. you are seeing accidents almost daily with these vehicles. the last one was a police officer hitting hit by someone with the tesla in autopilot and the guy was asleep at the wheel. i'm sorry, if you need a car to drive for you, you not be on the road. host: go ahead and respond there, david. guest: great question from the caller, which, this is an issue i have been writing for months, really years, since the first fatal autopilot crash in florida. teslas are not self-driving.

they are called level two. what autopilot does is it allows drivers to take their hands off the wheel for periods of time. he controls steering and it keeps people in the lanes. the problem with autopilot is that it does not always recognize stationary objects like, as the caller referred to, a police car parked on the side of the road. you have seen a number of crashes that have been the result of a distracted driver, someone not paying attention when they using autopilot and striking either a police car, or in the case of another vehicle, a concrete barrier in california . there have been three fatal crashes attributed to tesla autopilot. the national highway safety administration is investigating another two dozen crashes, including a number of recent

crashes. there are basically no rules for these systems on the road. as long as the automaker certifies that the vehicles meet the federal safety standards. they have the proper steering wheel and the petals and the mirrors and they meet crashes standards, you can pretty much put whatever driver assistance system you want on the road. tesla says on its website, you know, a driver using autopilot must have their hands on the wheel or ready to take over and pay attention at all times. well, i think you have seen a lot of criticism with the name autopilot, that these videos on youtube you can see people doing crazy things using autopilot. in fact, there is a crash now that just occurred about a month ago in texas where the local police said they believed that the driver was not even in the driver seat. was out of the driver's seat in

the tesla was driving. it is clear people have the ability to misuse the autopilot system. the question is whether u.s. regulators are going to view people's failure to follow the rules it comes to autopilot as a serious safety issue and whether at some point the government is going to have a galatians -- have regulations say the systems have to have limitations and have to prevent drivers from not paying attention and they have to have performance standards. do they actually have to perform the way they say they are going to? right now there are none of those things and the concern is one of the reasons that congress has not passed a broader bill to help get fully self-driving cars -- you know, google's car, a company affiliated with gm that want to get fully self-driving car's on the road, eventually no

steering wheels and no brake pedals. host: speaking of driving, coming up on the memorial day weekend there will be supposedly a lot more people on the road we -- on the road. i'm looking at a story that says aaa predicts a 60% jump in the number of americans hitting the rails, airports, and roads. even as gas prices are soaring to levels not seen in 11 years. can we expect that summer travel rush to begin? guest: i think so. i think a lot of people, again, last memorial day we were just a few months into the covid-19 crisis. what makes people spend money? confidence, right? consumer confidence. i think you see everywhere people are going back to restaurants, they are going to a bar, they are doing things that

they have not felt comfortable doing. as more people get vaccinated they are going to become comfortable doing things. things people would not do because we did not know enough about how covid is transmitted. people do not want to get in a rental car or a hotel room, or a restaurant. all of these things that people were so nervous about, i think people are now going to embrace. the other thing that is prompting to boost and travel is the destinations are reopening. a lot of the disney world's or disneyland's or the parks that were closed. that is driving a lot of traffic. and sports stadiums. in the michigan they are lifting the capacity limits on facebook games. in washington, the same has occurred. there is more destinations and more confidence among consumers. i think when you hit the road

next weekend you are going to have a lot of company. host: let's talk to susan who is calling from nasa juices. good morning. caller: hi, good morning, jesse, good morning, esther shepherdson. i too support electric cars, and i am not fully informed on the technology that goes into their engines and all of that, but i am curious about the growing dominance. china was able to do this over the past two decades while we were embroiled in foreign wars, shoring up all of the rare orth -- rare earth minerals, getting rights to them, especially in africa. i keep reading about the severe chip shortage that is impacting standard cars today, which are highly technology-based vehicles.

that is my first question. my second is, i wonder why whenever we jump to the hydrogen model. i don't know much about that technology either. third, yes, i am going to -- i am fully vaccinated, but still very cautious. i'm going to take a chance and get on a plane and go to my beloved new mexico and also check el paso texas -- el paso, texas this summer. to echo another caller, i cannot wait for canada to open up. probably the most beautiful country i have ever been to and the nicest people. host: go ahead and respond there, david. guest: great question. a couple of topics i have spent a lot of time on recently. the chip shortage. many people haven't heard about this. this is a huge problem. these tiny microchips are powering so many of our devices,

especially cars. what happened was, covid hit, the u.s. auto industry did something unprecedented. completely shut down production for about a month last april. their suppliers said, we are not going to need as many semiconductor chips. happened? cap using phones, so demand went through the roof. some of the suppliers had not stockpiled chips, so as auto production has gone through the roof and people are struggling to buy the car they want, the auto companies had to shut down plants, idle factories. ford said the shortage could cost them $2.5 billion this year, eliminate 1.1 billion in production. u.s. production in the second quarter of this year.

the secretary of commerce had another meeting with companies this week, trying to address the shortage. in the short term there is nothing the u.s. government can do. it does not look like it is going to take the most extreme measures like the defense production act, but the longer-term issue is this bill that is on the senate floor right now called the endless frontier act, to address competitiveness with china. that would dedicate $52 billion to expanding u.s. semiconductor production and research and development. but that would not result in new chip factories being online for maybe two or three years. so in the short term there is not a lot that can be done. there are reports of prices of cars that have gone up. hydrogen fuel cell vehicles,

huge, fantastic technology. the only emissions from it is water. i do think a lot of companies invested a ton of money in it. one of the problems remains -- two problems. one, very, very expensive to build a hydrogen fuel cell. far more expensive than a battery. second, the lack of hydrogen refueling infrastructure. it would cost billions of dollars to build enough hydrogen stations. that does not mean long term that is not an option, but the industry needs to grapple with getting the costs down of hydrogen fuel cells to make it a commercially-viable technology. host: let's see if we can get one more call in. is going to be steve from ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. hydrogen is very difficult to store. i have a couple of points on the

cost side of it mentioned earlier, with regard to electric vehicles. the point of maybe public transportation as an important aspect of it, in addition to the commercial use of the electric vehicles as they are unfolding, so to speak. on the point of the autonomous vehicles, when other things -- and obviously pitfalls when using traffic -- but may be rethinking a little bit the eisenhower's plan for the interstate system, which really jiggered away from chains to automobiles. maybe thinking of dedicated lanes with autonomous vehicles that people can use as they need , as may be a different analogy

than, you know, trains per se. i think if we think of dedicated transportation lanes, that that would be an area where it could be a controlled setting for autonomous vehicles could use as they need them. that would be another visionary approach to some of these things that maybe we do need. host: go ahead and respond there david, before we run out of time. guest: that is a great question to and on. the administration wants to spend $85 billion to boost high-speed rail, public transit. they have not gotten into the idea of a dedicated bus line, there are places like grand rapids, michigan, where they have dedicated these bus lanes. i could see using some of these lanes initially to help speed autonomous vehicles through travel. the broader point the caller

makes is that right now the white house, congress, is really trying to think about, how do we imagine the u.s. infrastructure system? it is not just we are going to fix the roads and bridges that are woefully out of date and need to be repaired. it is, how do we efficiently, cleanly move americans during the next 30 years? we are going to have 100 million people in the next 30 years and the population is shifting south and west. had we grapple with that when we have far less transit options and subways in the south and east as opposed to the northeast? and things like hyperloop and other moonshot ideas, what are the ways we can really have something as transformational as the eisenhower highway system? that is this debate that is

going to play out over the next few years, or months at least. we are going to see at some point this big shift to electric cars, autonomous cars, and who knows what next. host: we want to think reuters correspondent david shepardson for walking us through electric cars and the future of transportation. thank you so much for your time. guest: thanks, really enjoyed it. host: coming up next, palestinian lawyer diana buttu joins us to talk about the recent cease-fire between israelis and palestinians and whether it can last. later we will speak with former u.s. ambassador to israel martin indyk to get his take on the recent fighting in the mideast. stick with us. we will be right back. ♪ >> on sunday, june 6, journalist

mast -- max hastings will be our guest. >> the fall of saigon inflicted humiliation upon the planet's most powerful nation. peasant revolutionaries prevailed over wealth. the stairway on which during the 29th of april fugitives ascended to a rooftop helicopter, securing a place among the symbolic images of that era. all of my generation of war correspondents, the struggle was among the foremost experiences of our careers. i was one of those who flew out of the u.s. embassy on that tumultuous day. >> his most recent book is "operation pedestal." other books include " catastrophe," "europe goes to war." and "overlord." joint in with your phone calls,

facebook comments, and tweets on "in-depth," sunday, june 6, with max hastings. be sure to jute -- titun in july 4 break conversation with historian annette gordon reed. on book tv, on c-span two. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with diana buttu, an analyst with the institute for middle east understanding. she is here to discuss with us the recent violence between the israelis and palestinians, and the cease fire. good morning. guest: good morning. thanks for having me. host: can you give our viewers an understanding of what the institute for middle east understanding does? guest: we try to provide

individuals around the world with information about what is happening in palestine and what is happening with palestinians so people will get a better understanding of how it is they can actually be able to play a role to end this 73-year dispossession of palestinians. host: do you know where the institute gets its funding? guest: the institute is a u.s.-based organization. host: how did you get involved with them? you are a former spokesperson for the palestine liberation organization. how did you get involved with the institute? guest: i was never a spokesperson for the palestine liberation organization, i was a legal advisor to the palestine liberation organization. i was advising during the period of negotiations and there were negotiations that were happening between the years 2000 to 2007.

i ended up leaving my position and working for the palestinian president because i did not believe a negotiated settlement as possible. i still don't believe a negotiated settlement as possible. as a result, somebody who believes it is much more important for people to understand precisely what is happening in palestine. what it means to live under military rule, what it means to be somebody who has been dispossessed of their home and homeland. so that people understand and get a better sense of what it is the united states' role is in this as well. host: you are currently in the mideast. can you tell us where you are and what you are seeing there right now? guest: i am both a canadian citizen, but i am also a citizen of israel, but a palestinian. in 1948, with the nekba, the

ethnic cleansing of palestine, 25% of the palestinian population remained. my parents were two of those who remained. by virtue of them remaining, i also hold israeli citizenship. i am sitting in the northern city of haifa. although it is quiet now, we have been seeing serious mob riots that in just a few days ago, in which we saw groups of jewish moms coming around -- jewish mobs smashing property, in some cases trying to drag people out of their homes, and chanting "death to arabs." it is quiet now, but the problem is i don't think it is a quiet that is going to last. host: i assume when you mean quiet you are talking about this current cease fire.

don't expect the current cease fire to hold? guest: i'm talking not only about the current, what people refer to as the cease fire, but the city in which i am in right now. the reason i don't think either of these are going to hold is because what people are terming the cease fire is not really a cease fire. israel is maintaining a blockade over the gaza strip, it is routinely still shooting palestinians by air and by sea and by land, and given this and given the fact we have not addressed this measure has not addressed the underlying denial of freedom of palestinians, i don't think it is going to hold. similarly, where i am back right now in a city, i don't think that it is going to remain quiet for very long. this is because this has been a

government that has actually worked to inflame people and to incite people with everything from having ministers say we should have our heads chopped off, having ministers in the government who say that our mothers are snakes, to now embracing a political party that openly calls for ethnic cleansing of palestinians. i don't think by saying it is ended that it is actually ended. i think the only way we are going to see an actual and is that if there is -- actual end is if there is international pressure to hold israel to account for denying palestinians freedom and taking away their homeland. that is the only way we are going to see actual calm. host: for our viewers who have not been following this issue, can you explain to us what the heart of the dispute between the

palestinians and the israelis actually is? guest: well, in 1948 there was a place called palestine. there was a scientist movement that came in -- zionist movement that decided they were going to build a state in place of palestine. they ethnically cleansed 75% of the palestinian christian and muslim population and replaced it with the jewish population. this 75% have still never been able to return to their homes, making it the longest and largest refugee crisis we have seen in history. we see today -- i can give it to you in a personal example. my father was one of those individuals who remained. he was nine years old at the time. zionist forces came into his

town, they kicked his family out of his town, took over his home, and turn him into a refugee overnight. he has never been able to go back to his town, he has never been able to reclaim his property, and he has lived in israel as a second-class citizen. his older sister, she fled in 1948 and was never able to return back to palestine. she was born here, she was raised here, she got married here, she had her first child here, and she ended up dying in a refugee camp in jordan, always dreaming of coming back to palestine. but we have seen is this process of israel effectively getting rid of palestinians and replacing them with jewish israelis from around the world. any jewish person from around the world can emigrate, yet

palestinians who have a lineage, a heritage, culture, are not allowed to return. that is the core of it. since then we have seen more and more attempts by israel to expand its boundaries. this is why you hear things like the occupied palestinian territories, because not content with taking over our country in 1948, in 1967, 19 years later, they took over the remaining part of the country and now see there are palestinians living under israeli military rule, meaning they are denied any citizenship, they are not citizens of any state, and yet living under israeli the luke perry rule. it is these areas you are constantly hearing about -- the west bank and gaza strip -- where israel is besieging them or taking land to build

israeli-only settlements. this has effectively been a situation in which israel is trying to take over palestinian land and put israelis in their place. effectively kicking us out and ethnically cleansing palestine of palestinians. host: let's let some of our viewers get involved in this conversation. if you want to take part, we are going to open up regional lines. if you are in the eastern or central time zone, your telephone number will be (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, telephone number will be (202) 748-8001. you're going to open up a special line for those of you outside the united states. for those of you outside the united states can call in at (202) 748-8002. keep in mind you can always text at (202) 748-8003, and we are always reading on social media at twitter and on facebook.

let's start with kenny, who is calling from wilson, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i think it is great you all are having this conversation. i think this is the first time. i'm not going to say anything anti-semitic, so please don't cut me off. i know how you are when you speak of the jewish people. i am talking about the rich jews , like rupert murdoch, who owns your station. it is a shame how they own our politicians and everything, on both sides, the republicans and democrats. this lady is right on the money for what she is saying. netanyahu was true's body, and prudent, all of them was

together. netanyahu is corrupt. we have another trump over there running israel now. it seems like our politicians areit is a shame what america hs done when it comes to israel. will was here about the palestine issue rockets, their land has been taken. suppose somebody did that to you. we need to have a debate on the spirit i know rupert murdoch is in the background. host: we will stop him there, we will let you respond. rupert murdoch does not own c-span. there is no ownership of c-span by any persons involved in this conflict. i will let you respond.

guest: i do not hear everything use -- he said. host: he said it was good that we are having this conversation about what is going on in the middle east. do you think that is something that america should be talking and thinking about more? guest: there is a doctrine of misconception that somehow the united states is an honest broker or neutral broker. that is not the case, it is israel's enabler. the united states gives israel $3.8 billion per year and money. -- in money. they just signed over $735 million, that could be going to united states taxpayers, fixing up infrastructure.

not just a question of them providing money, but all of the money provided is with exemptions and the united states gives israel paramedics support -- diplomatic support. we have often heard there is no daylight between the united states and israel, what in effect the event sites is a is that we will stand by israel no matter what israel does. it is imperative for americans to understand their role in this. this is not a question of being an honest broker or state neutral, they are funding this. without that money and diplomatic support you would see a very different response by israel. you would see that israel would be attempting to abide by

international law. if we saw a robust system of economic sanctions against israel or people boycotting israel we would not continue to see israel being able to flatten buildings in the gaza strip and drop bought -- bombs on the heads of children languishing in refugee camps and open-air prisons. i am glad that we are having a conversation about the u.s.'s role. host: let's talk to mohammed from los angeles, california. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am sympathetic to the palestinian cause. you are sitting in your home and overnight, they kick you out and take over your home. people should take that into perspective. this happened in 1948.

since then the laws of european nations, arab nations, united states have helped the palestinian people. there has been corruption within the palestinian authority. they took on a reign of terror, hijacking planes, killing israeli athletes in the munich olympics. you cannot justify what happened with killing other jews. in los angeles, new york, palestinians are attacking jews walking down the street, having dinner on the sidewalk. this is not going to help with palestinian cause. during world war ii over 6 million jews were killed by the nazis from poland, germany. the jews got back on their feet, jews keep getting kicked out of nations but today they run the world.

20 million in population. in the united states you have a powerful israeli lobby. no president in the elected congress will come against israel because apac will destroy them. we do not have for the palestinians such organization. all of the money thought the rp and nations for the last seven years have given to the palestinian organizations have gone towards corruption. host: go ahead and respond. guest: it is interesting on the one hand he is talking about anti-semitism and making anti-semitic remarks. i can speak about what is going on with palestinian authority, i am not based in los angeles, i do not know what is going on in los angeles.

when it comes to the money that has come into the palestinian authority, this is money that has come in in order to mask the occupation, not and their occupation. we do not need the money coming in from the europeans and others. what we need is political support. two final and israel -- to finally end israel's military rule. we hear these comes of allegations of corruption that we are not entitled to be free. there is corruption inference france, i do not think anybody would say that the french are not entitled to be free. the core of it is that for more than seven decades palestinians have been living under a system of oppressive israeli rule.

either we have been living within that oppressive or under is really boots in our homeland or kicked out of our homeland. either way we have been a nation that israel has destroyed. the focus should be on palestinian liberation and allowing us to return to our homeland. rather than all of these other excuses people are funding for us to not be free -- finding for us to not to be free. if we had as much focus on palestinian liberation as we are on allegations of corruption, we would see a free palestine. these are methods used very much to distract then liberate. host: what is the role of hamas in palestine and the relationship between that group and the palestine authority? guest: it is complicated.

hamas is a political party, movement, that is largely based in the gaza strip. it is a palestinian political party which means it has people who supported across the spectrum -- support it across the spectrum. the other political party is largely based in the west bank. over-the-counter -- over the past 15 years there has been a split between the two. in the gaza strip we have hamas leading. relationships between these movements have nothing great -- not been great. just before the latest is where the attack, there was an agreement on the part of both political parties to come together and hold elections. we have not had elections in 15 years.

it ends up that the palestinian president canceled elections. in the aftermath of this latest attack on the gaza strip it remains to be seen what the relations between those parties are. it is up to palestinians to choose who their leaders are, representatives are. it is not up to the international community. it is not up to israel, we are the ones who have the right to determine who it is that represents us. it is not up to anybody else. host: let's talk to joe from plainville, michigan. good morning. are you there? i think we lost joe. let's go to maria from savannah, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning.

this is an interesting program and i am god to see it. i went to college, there was a gentleman from palestine who i befriended. he called me one evening and said turn on the tv, i turned it on. there was a woman throwing stones at a police officer, elderly lady. he said that is his grandma. i said are you kidding? now he was worried about her because of what was going on between the israelis and palestinians. he was a fine gentleman. i feel for him because here he is, far away from palestine in milwaukee, wisconsin and he is going through these changes because of what is happening in his homeland.

when i was in grad school in boston, there was a young lady who was jewish. i remember the day she called and said that someone in a hotel was killed by palestinians who were against the israelis for what is happening in palestine. i got that viewpoint. it has made a big difference that we are learning about these things. it will make a big difference in everybody's life if they can understand. if they do nothing but pay for peace, it would be helpful. donating to a cause is even more important. i wanted to know -- i wanted you to note that there are americans who are interested in this and i've got that they are doing the show and that you're a part of it. informing us as to what you feel is going on. host: respond please diana.

guest: i appreciate your comment and support. i appreciate the fact that you are on this journey of learning and listening, i think it is vital that people understand just the role the united states is playing. we are in a place where we are much more global than we were even a few decades ago. just recently with the pandemic, we can see how we are all interlinked. to be able to understand the roles that individual americans can play to secure palestinian liberation. it is very key and important. as who believes in supporting the movement to boycott israel, to push for economic sanctions be placed on israel until such time as palestinians are able to live freely.

host: one of our social media followers wants to ask you, "do you believe in eight two state solution -- a two state solution?" before you answer explain what that means. guest: good question. do i believe in one? no. the two state solution, initially in the early 70's, as i mentioned israel took over palestine, 70 8% of palestine in 1948 -- 78% of palestine in 1948. there many areas were the west bank being controlled by the journey ends and gaza strip controlled by the egyptians. in 1967, israel militarily

occupied the west bank and gaza strip. since 1967 there has been calls for a two state solution, israel will remain in control of that 78% they took in 1948 and palestinians will create a state on those parts of historic palestine that were occupied in 1967. that is in effect what people are talking about. all of u.s. and european diplomacy has been based on this concept of a two state solution. for more than three decades, closer to four decades. countries are think that there needs to be a two state solution. you see this talked about in

u.n. resolutions. i was one of the individuals who participated in the negotiations to finally end the military rule over the west bank and gaza strip. in order to create this solution, independent state of palestine. i know that you believe in the -- i no longer believe in it for a number of reasons. being involved in those negotiations, had this been about drawing a line or boundary, it would have been a long time ago. that is not what this is about. what has become key and essential is what happened in 1948 and that is ethnic cleansing. instead of focusing on creating a small life that palestinians can call a state we should be

looking to address the root cause of why it is that palestinians are not free. they were kicked out of their homeland. we should be focused instead on the palestinian liberation and the idea of one state where individuals across have equal rights, irrespective of religion. even if there were to be a two state solution, there were not the and independent palestinian state. i said that because in the territory called the west bank, israel has built over 150 settlements that house close to three quarters of a million israeli settlers. you cannot unscramble an egg.

these settlements are scattered throughout the territories. to be able to say that we are going to uproot these settlers is a fiction. it was virtually impossible to take 8000 settlers out of the gaza strip in 2005. you can only imagine what will happen if there is an attempt to take out 750,000. there's never been international pressure on israel to end settlement construction, expansion or reverse construction and expansion. to bring settlers out of the settlements. it has been the opposite. there is a large and growing movement of people who are saying that the idea of the two

state solution is dead, it died a long time ago and we should be focusing on rights and making sure that all individuals have rights, living across the spectrum from the river to the sea. it is not just me saying this. there are israeli human rights organizations, international human rights organizations who are calling this a system of apartheid. human rights watch came out with a report calling this a system of apartheid and that the only way to address this is by putting into place a system of mechanisms and measures that will begin to hold israel like -- israel to account. i do not believe a two state solution is possible or ideal. i believe we should be focusing on bringing back palestinian

refugees. focusing on the idea of justice and not just conflict management. host: let's see if we can squeeze in one more call. keith calling from virginia, good morning. caller: i am listening. i have a few questions. she mentioned the billions of dollars going to israel, she said it could be used for taxpayers here. what about obama giving pallets or cash to iran in the middle of the night? the left is supposed to be so tolerant yet they seem so anti-israel. the rest of the jihad squad, they are for lgbt and words right yet these countries will

kill homosexuals and do not give women rights. i want her vision on that and the hypocrisy. host: i think we lost him. i think his question was around lgbtq rights in the middle east? he was rambling. guest: i'm not sure i understand the question. host: he was rambling about lgbtq rights. let's wrap here. thank you for your time. we want to thank you for being with us this morning and explain what is going on in the middle east. she is with the institute of middle east understanding. thank you so much for taking time. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will continue this same conversation after the break where we will speak to the former u.s. ambassador to israel to get his take on the recent fighting in the middle east. ♪

>> sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on amazon and the ration of an empire. the growth and evolution of amazon and the founder, jeff bezos. >> the everything store is the story of a brutal ceo who is punishing and sets high standards and lashes out. at under things -- out underlings who do not match -- at underlings who did not match his stories. there are many of those stories and amazon unbound, we are flashing back to jeff tearing up documents and motivating them in

that way. he has a more delicate touch now. >> what afterwards with brad stone, sunday night at 9:00 eastern on tv on c-span two. listen to every afterwards program as a podcast you get podcasts where you get podcasts -- where you get podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with a distinct fellow at the council former relations and former special envoy for israeli-palestinian negotiations and former u.s. ambassador to israel, good morning mark. guest: thank you for having me. host: we just talked with a person who gave us the palestinian side of what is going on. you are an american, i want you as a former ambassador to israel give us your reaction to the

cease-fire that was announced. guest: it is welcome. in is important to stop the killing -- it is important to stop the killing. try to pick up the pieces. we have seen this movie before. it ends the same way. that it ended is important, but it does not lead to any horizon for ending the conflict is what is depressing. both sides claimed victory. both sides go back to rebuilding capabilities, they collided again -- go at it again.

nothing seems to change. the question is how can we change that? host: do you have any expectation that this cease fire will hold? or do you expect violence to begin because there is no solution to the problem? >> it will halt for the time being because both sides have limited objectives. hamas wanted to promote itself among palestinians, arabs, muslims as a defender of jerusalem, the only palestinian group fighting israel. in comparison the palestinian authority is weak and sidelined by this and the approach of

making peace with israel seem to have failed. hamas achieved its objectives and that regard -- in that regard. it had israelis in air raid shelters all the way into tel aviv. hamas showed that it could fight israel, fire rockets at israel even though it has been under siege. on the israeli side, the objective was to reestablish deterrence, takedown hamas infrastructure and tunnels, take out militant leadership. they achieved those things. another site had greater objectives -- neither side had greater objectives.

hamas is an gaza, israel tries to get on ignoring the challenges of the palestinians. they ignore it because they do not find they have a solution. host: there seems to be a hint of a political shift in the united states. i want to play for you what president biden said yesterday when he was asked about the opposition within his own already to support for israel. -- party to support for israel. [video clip] pres. biden: there is no shift in my commitment to israel. i will tell you what there is a shift in, the shift is that we need a two state solution. it is the only answer. what i am convinced of is that we can move as i was able to

negotiate before the cease-fire. i made it clear when i spoke with president abbas that we are going to provide for security in the west bank and renewed the security commitment as well as economic commitment to the people on the west bank. i indicated to the israel is that i thought it was important that they stop in jerusalem this intercommunal fighting by extremes on both sides. it has to end. i am prepared to put together and will attempt to put together a major package with the other nations to share our view to rebuild the homes, without re-engaging, fighting, some the opportunity to rebuild weapon systems. rebuild gaza.

they neither help and i am committed to get that done. i think that my party still supports israel, let's get something straight, until the region says unequivocally that their acknowledge the rights of israel to exist as an independent jewish state, there will be no peace. host: do you think the fact that he has to say these things means that there is some weakening of support politically for israel and the democratic party and american government? guest: certainly in the democratic party. he has made clear his commitment to israel and its security. he did it in the midst of this

crisis under a lot of criticism from within the democratic party from its progressive line. that is what has changed within the time correct party. -- democratic party. if you look at the polls, the gap between democratic support for israel and republican support for israel has grown wider. evangelical support for israel is very strong. progressive support for the palestinians has grown at israel's expense. that has driven down numbers on the democratic side, there is a 40 point spread between democratic and republican support. that is going to find expression in congressional representation. it has taken time.

there has been a lagging factor. the first evidence on the hill was the squad who were active advocates for the palestinian cause as well as other progressive causes. that was four years ago. that has been building momentum because of the attitudes. when something like this corrupts and the images every are of israel bombing gaza citizens, buildings, apartment blocks, that gives a boost. to bernie sandy's and others -- sanders and others, it has impacted democrats on the hill

who are the staunchest supporters of israel. menendez, chuck schumer in the senate, jerry nadler in the house, these are people who are always in israel's corner. they have criticized israel on this latest crisis. joe biden hester said that we are still pro israel -- has to say that we are still pro israel. that has not had to be said before. that shows a trend that will be impossible to reverse as long as israel is unable to come to clinical terms with palestinians. -- political terms with palestinians. host: we will open up the phone lines bite region. if you are in the eastern or

central time zone, your number is (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific (202) 748-8001. we will open up a special line for those of you outside of the united states, those watching outside the united states call (202) 748-8002. keep in mind you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media, twitter @cspanwj i and facebook.com/c-span -- @cspanwj and facebook.com/c-span. for our viewers who do not understand and have not been following this issue, explain why the u.s. is so invested in what is going on in the middle east and playing such a large role in the negotiations of

israel and palestine. guest: it is a role joe biden would prefer to not have to play. three president starting with barack obama, donald in his own way and joe biden have wanted to focus elsewhere in the middle east. because of the challenges from china, russia, climate change, global issues like the pandemic, nuclear proliferation are seen as higher priorities. we spent too much blood and treasure in endless wars that have not served our interest in the end. there is a feeling that we need to be focused elsewhere. a feeling i identify with.

the middle east has this habit of not letting go, you try to turn your back on it but it will not turn its back on you. as a result, joe biden finds himself having to pivot back to the middle east. how he addresses them will be different to the past. why is the united states so engaged? the broader answer used to be is the united states had a strategic interest in the free flow of oil out of the persian gulf at reasonable prices. we had interest in the security and survival of a jewish and democratic state of israel. that goes back to harry truman's recognition of israel when it was established by the united nations.

it has only deepened and broadened sense -- since. israel has become our ally, strategic micronic state. -- strategic ally, and democratic state. our relationship with israel is a special one, we have special influence because we provided with $4 billion per year in military assistance. it has a burgeoning high-tech economy, we provide security assistance to israel. we give it strong political backing especially in united nations where test be isolated because there is an automatic

majority for the palestinian side. because we have that relationship, because they are dependent on us for political support, the world looks to the united states to exercise its influence at the top one israel is engaged in defending itself and an actions that people have problems with. there is a strong call for the united states to intervene and use its influence. host: let's let our viewers take part in this conversation. beth is calling from maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i am glad that you are having this conversation. i think both sides have areas in which i can feel sympathy. this comes down to what we did to native americans in this

country when we founded it. we have been conquerors and occupiers in their minds all along. it did not happen in a time when there was a modern age with television and we can see what is going on and chime in on twitter. there's not much of a solution, i do not think the u.s. should be overly involved. i do not think anybody in the u.s. wants people from other countries coming over to tell us how to deal with native americans. the native americans have been forced into a situation where they do not have much of a part in this country the way they showed -- should. for better or worse, they have accepted their situation, there is no great solution. it is sound on both ends. no matter who is in charge or who has control, somebody is going to be considered a loser. host: go ahead and respond martin. guest: what beth said reminded

me of this old reddish movie -- british movie, shirley valentine i think was called. she looked at the camera in exasperation and said marriage is like the middle east, there is no solution. beth is right. as much as we americans believe in solutions, approach problems in trying to resolve them, the united states has played an active role and been very involved in trying to resolve this conflict. we have come up short every time. i think it has reached a point

where our interests are elsewhere. we have a commitment to israel security, we want to see peace in the holy land, but who rules is not of vital interest to the united states. the israelis have come to realize it is a vital interest of israel. israel needs to be the one that takes the initiative. israel and the palestinians need to stop being victims and take their fate into their own hands. we can support that effort. until we have both sides committing to trade -- committing to trying to change the status quo for the better, we cannot change this by sheer will of the msas alone for dictating to other side.

they will have to come to terms. we need to tell them that honestly. that they will have to take the lead. host: mark is coming from fort lauderdale florida. good morning. caller: 20. -- caller: good morning. i like this point, counterpoint. during the previous ladies period on air, i kept thinking to myself, wouldn't it be great if the follow-up guest who was going to take israel side against her that they could talk together. he is so pragmatic and diplomatic and even killed -- keeled compared to the previously who was a spokesperson for the poo.

so she said that she was no longer in favor of a two-state solution, i was going to ask what you would think as possible way to solve this? you think that there is no answer outside of those countries -- entities acting together and working at alta. the effect -- working at it. the problem is with the government that they keep picking, it is hard to do. netanyahu it was like a godsend for him, who knows what will come after him. hamas from gaza, they used it as a way to make themselves look like tough guys. am i wrong in this? there has to be some solution, some way of solving something

that crops up every two months. guest: there is a glut in what you said. i have the opportunity to listen to the tail end of her very articulate explanation to the palestinian approach, her approach. what she was saying is, we cannot believe anymore in the two state solution and she laid out the reasons why. what we believe in is a one state solution, in which israel becomes a state for jews and arabs, palestinians, israelis, all of those who believe -- who live between the river and the sea. equal rights for all.

what she does not say is in such a state, palestinians would be a majority. there would no longer be a jewish state. the zionist dream will have been forsaken. the notion that the jews of israel will cooperate in their demise as fanciful -- is fanciful. diana knows that. she is trying to make a powerful point to israelis. if you will not of us -- give us, a viable, continuous palestinian state, we are going to resist.

the reason that this approach gains credibility is because there is no viable two state solution. even though the two state solution in which the independent palestinian state lives in peace and alongside a secure state of israel remains a goal of president biden and american foreign policy. we cannot get there from here. the argument for a one state solution which is not a solution, it is a recipe for conflict. it is not going to lead to peace. it is going to lead to conflict overrides dust over rights.

-- conflict over rights. as the one state solution gains greater credibility and velocity by the palestinian side, israelis will eventually see that they are better off separating from the palestinians and agreeing to a independent state in gaza. host: pamela is coming from upper marlboro, maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am appreciative that c-span would have a fork like this today. i have never very -- i have never heard somebody speak from the palestinian situation before. why does it seem like the macy's in europe tries to justify the conflict -- why the americans

and europe tried to justify the conflict? why can't the palestinians live in their homeland, why can't they have full rights and citizenship like the jews that were sent there and took over their land? europe did not want the jews to remain in europe, the united states did not want them to come here. like you explained earlier, with our strategic reasoning, to support and enable the jews to exist over in palestine. that is palestinian land. what she said about from the river to the sea, what you did not say as if all of the people live there, that there would be more palestine's than jewish, why would not there be? it is their land. host: go ahead and respond. guest: part of the problem is it

is jewish land. it is not all palestinian land. jews were palestinians before israel was created. there is an issue of territory. it is not as straightforward. the notion that somehow we can with eight magic wand and undo 70 years of history at solve this by by telling the jews they cannot have a state of their own , they have to accept minority status is not a solution. it is a way of continuing the conflict. a perfect example is what

triggered this round was a land dispute in east jerusalem. where palestinians who had been affected from their homes in west jerusalem decades ago moved to east jerusalem, taken up residency in these buildings which were owned by jews. the jews are reclaiming that, they have reclaimed ownership rights. the court of israel is judging whether to recognize that. whose land is it? the palestinians who were evicted from their homes do not have the right under israel law to claim back their properties.

there is a discrimination there. if you focus on whose land is it, you do not end up with a satisfactory answer second resolve the problem -- that can resolve the problem. host: one of our social media followers has a question for you that fits in for your former job. do you think president biden should have appointed an ambassador to israel sooner? guest: thank you. he needed to do that from day one. when i was ambassador in israel for president clinton, at the end of the clinton administration, the intifada broke out. when president bush became

president, even though i was clinton's appointee, colin powell was that secretary of state asked me to stay on because of the intifada. i stayed there until there was a new ambassador, confirmed by the senate and able to move in in july. for those six months i was ambassador there. that is what they needed to do now because the biden administration did not want to pay attention to this. if you're going to shift focus, you will need an ambassador there who is working the issue. giving you an early warning seek make a course adjustment. they did not do that. they have not announced the ambassador. they could have put in an interim appointee. this week they decided to do that. a distinguished foreign service officer who used work for me, is

the interim appointment until they get around to an ambassador. it is unfortunate they did not do that from day one, that they do not act immediately. the campaign promise to reestablish the consul general in jerusalem to deal the palestinians. we did not have a means of talking to the palestinians. when things started to deteriorate we were not aware. some alarm bells were sounded but they were not paying attention. it is important that we get senior people on the ground, not just to deal with israel but the palestinians. we need the consulate general established. in that pc plate of the president speaking yesterday, he was outlining a series of steps.

there were small steps but necessary steps to rebuild the authority of the palestinian authority, rebuild gaza physically. diffuse the issues in jerusalem. all of these things need people on the ground in senior positions who can deal with leadership there. and not that -- not have it as something of president biden's plate every other day. host: let's talk to laura from spokane, washington. caller: i see something different. i know that hamas is a terrorist organization sworn to kill all of the jews, as many as they can. they want to commit genocide like they did the christians in the middle east. what i have seen in some films is that often times israel warns

when they are going to bomb a building. hamas will force the palestinian people to stay inside the building so they get armed and -- bombed so they can come back to the media and state what the jews did. the jews up in their first 4000 years. the whole thing behind this is hamas, hezbollah and isis. they did genocide on the christians in the middle east. it was horrible. the middle east was drenched in blood. now we have our own terrorists here, aoc, omar, all organizing what i consider terrorist attacks against jewish people in america. what i want to know is why is

that not being brought up? hamas is the one that is promoting all of this. host: go ahead and respond martin. guest: let me just say those have some things that not accurate. let's be careful about throwing around the world -- word terrorism. we are not seeing terrorism of the ice age we are seeing communal violence. in a separate -- it is separate from the anti-semitism in recent years that has been growing. intercommunal violence in the streets of new york in particular are a ripple effect

of the conflict in the region. hamas is a terrorist organization. decidedly so. it is on the state department terrorism list because in support of its objectives which is illumination of the state of israel -- elimination of the state of israel, not all jews, the tactic is indiscriminate violence against civilians. firing rockets indiscriminately into israeli cities. up to 4000 of those rockets. the reason that you do not have the same casualty toll on the israeli side is the palestinian side is israel has this antimissile system which is protecting its citizens. that is not because of hamas

's intent. hamas rules in gaza. the only way to remove the rule from gaza is by military force. on the ground invasion, which israel tried in the past. they do not want to read occupy -- reoccupy gaza, they tried and gaza came after them. the objectives are limited and does not include removing hamas's rule. they will be ruling in gaza for the foreseeable future unless there is some way to rebuild the palestinian authority's control of gaza. as long as this is a zero-sum

game in which hamas sees the palestinian authority as much of an enemy as israel and vice versa, the president was going to have elections, when he saw that hamas was going to win, he took down the elections. present but it wants to delete a reconstruction effort with the palestinian authority not hamas. i did not see how he can achieve that even hamas is that hamas --hamas's rule in gaza. we have to find a way to come to terms with hamas. how do you do that when hamas is committed not to peace with israel but to eliminate israel?

host: next call from silver spring, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been listening for a while. i can tell that israel does not need anybody for the fight. the u.s. officials, current and former officials are doing that. this is not complicated. everybody is thinking this is complicated. how about we go back to international laws. there is an illegal occupier, occupation coming on according to the u.n., u.s. government, european countries. israel is occupying illegal. host: i will let you respond

before we run out of time. guest: it is definitely an occupation. it is not illegal. it is according to a security council resolution of 1967 which came after the six-day war in which israel can continue the occupation as such time as its neighbors negotiate peace. then it should withdraw from the territories it occupies. in favor of peace, security, normalization of relations. that is the principal that was established in international law that there should be a trait of territories -- trade of

territories occupied for peace. 50 years later that is the principle that still applies. host: we would like to thank martin intact -- indyk for being here and lending his expertise. thank you for your time. guest: thank you jesse. host: we would like to thank all of our colors -- callers, viewers for being with us. stay safe, continue to wash her hands. have a great saturday. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including charter communication. >> broadband is a force for environment. that is why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communication supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> today on "the communicators," we are talking about cancel culture with randolph may and will rinehart. >> my concern here is there is too much speech