people. [speaking another language] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy visit ncicap.org] >> we welcome back to the program ambassador james jeffrey at the wellton center to talk about middle east events. you've seen happy conflicts over many a year and what sets this apart in your mind? guest: i've seen many conflicts not like this. because in the middle east you have these fights, conflicts, bombing campaigns and such. we've done them, israel, other countries. usually return to the status quo. only a few times do you see a few big ones. the yom kippur war 50 years ago.

the iraqi invasion of kuwait. this is one of the big ones, because it puts israel's existence at stake. it cannot deal with a hamas capable of attacking much of the population of israel at the same time as facing hezbollah in the north by the lebanese border, syria, and iran. that is why israel feels it has to act. host: how is the u.s. are fonts and we have seen the last couple of weeks -- how do you rate that? guest: that has been an a+ so f ar. president biden is committed to israel, and he is very shocked, as we saw yesterday, tony blinken reacting to what happened yesterday. there support diplomatically -- their support will magically is 100%.

more importantly, they deployed forces, including two aircraft carriers, to deter liberties has below, or their patrons, iran ians, from intervening and put israel in existential threat. host: we heard the defense secretary say, when it comes to the aid, it was going over without conditions. was that the right approach? guest: that is the right approach. there are always legal conditions with military equipment we give to other countries, but the israels know these rules. i am sure they will act in accordance. the main question is the aid is moving rapidly, and, surprising for us, on bureaucratically -- unbureaucratically. host: israel asking 1.1 million

people in gaza to remove themselves -- is that a reasonable request? guest: it is certainly a necessary request, because israel is planning on going into the northern, highly built up urban areas of gaza to take down hamas. and there is some one million plus civilians there. what israel is saying is move -- to give your viewers an idea -- 10 miles to the south and stay there for about puts them closer to the crossing into egypt, where assistance is still flowing, and a lot more could be. this takes more time than the israelis have given them, requires more organization, but most importantly, it requires hamas, the governing entity, to allow those people to go. but to hamas, these millions of people are nothing more than shields behind which it can continue to attack israel, and that is the major problem right now. host: our guest joins us until

8:45. if you want to ask questions, it is (202) 748-8000 for republicans, (202) 748-8001 for democrats, and (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can also text questions at (202) 748-8003. ambassador, if this turns into a ground war, what does this mean only for israel's sake but for the united states and its support? guest: it will turn into a ground war. the first question is how -- because, militarily, israel has the capability, if it is willing to take heavy casualties -- it can literally conquer the northern half of gaza and all but troy -- destroy hamas. the problem is it will lead to civilian casualties and a great deal of pressure on israel and from arab states to the united states to halt the fighting. israel has halted fighting

before on our request and demand. this time, it is different. israel sees this as existential. the second problem is outside forces coming in. lebanese hezbollah, which has basically hated within the rules -- minus shelling back and forth -- i said it will intervene if israel goes in on the ground. i do not think so, but i could be wrong, because israel has deployed hundreds of thousands of troops to the lebanese border, and they are now backed up to u.s. air force. host: so the changes adding u.s. military forces directly to the fight or support for those forces if they turn to a ground war? guest: we are not going to put ground forces in. i would recommend to underline our commitment to deploy, as we did in 1991, patriot batteries to israel. they have a lot of them, but they need more. most importantly, if israel's

enemies see american troops, however little, are on the ground, they will see america is in this fight and will stay out of it. host: do you see, the biden, initially showing full support, eventually turning them -- turning back? guest: i am sure that will happen. we saw that from tony blinken yesterday, where he went on about some length about israel adhering to international law. the israelis do adhere to international law, but there is a lot of debate and a degree of vagueness about, when fighting up in -- when fighting in built up areas, what is legal and not legal. this morning, arguments over white phosphorus shells, for example. in 2006, when israel went into lebanon, the bush administration

did pull the plug on the israeli operation. host: let's hear from callers. first call is from john, independent line. you are on with ambassador james jeffrey of the wilson center. caller: hello. i was just wondering, the people there still in gaza, how are they supposed to comply with all orders and stay alive? it sounds like they have had their electricity cut off, their water cut off, that they are being told to move quickly before they get bombed. and the population pyramid of gaza seems to be skewed that half of them are minors. it seems like an absolute logistical impossibility to move all these people out without them getting killed. how are individual civilians in gaza supposed to stay alive?

guest: it is not an impossibility to move a large number of people 10 miles. it would require a safe passage by the israeli forces, and we have not heard the details of that yet. it would require cooperation from egypt, which would have to provide humanitarian food, water, and other materials. it sounds difficult, it is difficult, but we have moved far larger numbers of internally displaced people fleeing fighting in syria. there are some 3.5 million of them camped just beyond the turkish border, so there is precedence to do this. the question is under what conditions and what timelines. host: what are the ideal conditions? guest: there are no ideal conditions. this requires living in tents, surviving on a limited number of calories a day. fortunately, the weather is not too bad right now, but it is not

something you want to go through for a long time. in the case of idlib, it had been there for years. the main problem with such a movement, other than the details, is hamas is saying it does not want people to do this, because it wants them as human shields. host: from the democrat line. caller: hello, how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: i have a question for mr. jeffrey. mr. jeffrey, it seems to me that israel is, while they may be justified in some retaliation, they are in no position to be going into gaza strip now without incredible anger and being motivated by that. what i cannot understand is this problem has gone on for half a century. why is it that the u.n., especially right now, cannot step in with their peacekeeping forces and let them try to rout hamas out of gaza and get the country back to normal, instead of having israelis come in, who

are incredibly and esther farley angry. but most of the people who will suffer are the people in gaza. i will take my question -- answer off the air. guest: we have voted in the un security council for deploying peacekeeping to israel many times. they are good for monitoring cease-fire lines. they do not engage in combat. the israeli are -- the israelis are absolutely committed to destroying hamas as a military and political organization. the israelis see, with justification, that is an existential cause for the survival of the state of israel, so they will not let anyone else do this, particularly someone who will not do a good job. host: in tampa, florida, republican line. caller: good morning. good morning, mr. jeffrey. thank you for being on c-span

this morning. much appreciated. there is no easy answers right now. it is very discombobulated situation. russia and china are standing on the sides here. i think there is a group, russia, china, some other countries, top countries in the world that should start mediating this thing. cooler heads prevail. we know these two sides have to recognize each other. united nations resolution 242. "oh, please, you go first. no, you go first." and there is just come bob elation in congress, we have no house speaker. russia and china are watching this. we have to get together here. host: ok, thanks for the segway,

because he did bring on what is going on in the house right now. what do you see playing out politically? guest: i see support for israel very strongly bipartisan. despite the circuits we have in the u.s. congress right now, that aid will continue flowing. the other point is the president has all kinds of authorities that he, for good, understandable reasons, does not want to use unless he has to, because they can be challenged in the courts. but if it is necessary and, in this case, supporting israel, it is necessary, he will do what is needed, i am sure. host: it was the former president who made news yesterday for comments he made about hezbollah. i want to play a little of what he had to say and get your comments. [video clip] >> hezbollah is very smart. they are all very smart. the press does not like it when i say it paid president she -- in light when i say it. president xi, i said he is a

smart man -- they killed me the next day. but hezbollah are very smart. they have a national defense minister or somebody saying i hope hezbollah does not attack us from the north. so the following morning, they attacked or they may not have been doing it, but if you listened to this jerk, you would attack from the north, because he said that is our weak spot. whoever heard of officials saying, on television, they hope the enemy does not attack in a certain area? unless it is a con job. but you know what a con job is. say what you want, israel was not ready. this was a big surprise this was a terrible thing that happened. host: ambassador, particularly on the comment about israel not ready. guest: israel was not ready for this. there were multiple intelligence failures, and they are being

investigated or will be investigated. more importantly, there was a failure of conception. israel thought it could live with hamas. it had three short-term conflict with hamas, bombings and schelling's and shootings, but it felt hamas would stay in gaza and israel could live with the hamas threat. it has now concluded, i think correctly, that it cannot, and it has to take out that organization as a threat to israel. that is what we are facing now. host: what do you think of the validity of reports that egypt had reportedly warned israel of the potential actions there? guest: the israeli government denied that, but the devil is always in the details of intelligence reports, because you go to the white house on a given morning, and there will be somebody with a stack of reports. 80% of them turn out to be, to some degree, incorrect or

inaccurate, or they get the timing wrong and such. that is the world we live in. that is the world prime minister netanyahu lives in, in israel. you have to look into what was pitched by the egyptians at what time with what specificity. again, the jury is still out on that. host: for ambassador james jeffrey, this is from mike in illinois, independent line. caller: thank you for your time. i am looking at this a little more simple. can you fact-check a couple points real quick? the vote for speaker of the house -- host: ok, to the question on the topic, please. caller: ok, cynical side. during trump and kushner's time, there were many takeovers of country from within, like from israel with netanyahu, from

saudi arabia with the family bein imprisoned in the four seasons, and then the prince coming out in brazil with the general who became president. that is one point. another point is the disappearing of 100,000 troops we trained in iran and the 300,000 we trained in afghanistan -- host: for the sake of time, what do you want from the ambassador as far as a question? caller: if this has been in plan for a while, the footing that hamas was attacking from is the footing of solomon's temple. those stones had been cut from solomon's temple that the antichrist had been living on. host: ok. guest: no comment.

host: john is calling from michigan. caller: good morning. i have a question relative to what the ambassador thinks would bring a lasting peace between the israelis and the palestinians. this is excluding hamas. hamas is a terror organization. but what would bring lasting peace? guest: we have a lasting peace, first in the 1948 general assembly u.n. resolution to create a jewish and arab state. and now in the resolution some 25 years ago that called for a two state solution. without that requires is neither side to question the existence of the territory of the other. there have been problems with both. you know the history of israeli settlers, but frankly, the palestinian leadership has never, at least formally, given up on its call for the

instruction of the entire state of israel. they have never accepted fully, to the satisfaction of the israelis, the 1948 compromise. both sides would need to move. i would say the palestinians need to move more. host: this is sid from maryland, independent line. hello. caller: yes, ambassador, i agree with whatever you have said so far. my only question is, as far as the plumas he is concerned, what role can -- as far as this policy -- mike only question is, as far as diplomacy is concerned, what role can the u.s. do with the 1.1 million palestinians displaced and how can we resolve the conflict peacefully? guest: the first address is

cairo. the egyptian government has to allow a massive flow of relief supplies, humanitarian aid into southern gaza. secondly, i would recommend that at least some people, the ill, the wounded, be allowed to pass through that crossing, the rafah crossing into egypt. but also, the arab states have to urge all sides to avoid escalation. that is particularly important for lebanon, where hezbollah in the south takes more from iran than their own government. i think that is what our diplomacy is focused on right now. host: a lot said about iran over the last few days. to what extent do you think they are directly involved? guest: we are still looking at that. the administration has put out statements saying senior government officials in iran did not know about this attack or about the timing.

again, i would have to see the intelligence, which i cannot anymore, because only very few people, and not in the government but in the uranian -- in the iranian revolutionary guards would have known about this attack. host: what do we know about the level of support iran has for hamas generally? guest: generally, hamas, in its current form, would not exist without iran. iran has supplied the missiles and rockets hamas has been firing. it supplies the weapons, the training, the money -- some $100 million a year -- and it provides diplomatic support. host: there was a story that the u.s., in qatar, was blocking some $20 million around a prisoner swap. what is the messaging? guest: that the u.s. congress

does not want the administration making any deals with iran right now. that's $6 billion, which is essentially iranian money from their oil cells -- sales was put in escrow, and iran was given a credit card, if you will, to buy $6 billion worth of humanitarian aid, food, medicine, and such. but any government, including the iranian government can substitute. if you have more butter, thanks to the $6 billion, you have more guns. that was a concern expressed by many people in congress and outside the administration, and they decided caution is a virtue and shut it down, at least temporarily. host: should it be released eventually? guest: no. as long as this war is going on, no money should be flowing to iran. host: from danny, republican

line. caller: good morning. i am wondering what percentage of the palestinians actually support hamas and what is going on, and how many are neutral about it? because it seems to me that many, many of the residentss there -- residents there actually do support hamas. host: thank you. guest: in fact, the last time there were free elections in the palestinian territories in 2005, hamas won a significant victory. now it is not all the people of gaza or, for that matter, the west bank, because both voted, and hamas did well in both areas. it is a significant part of the population. but i would distant was between supporting hamas politically and supporting what hamas has just done to the state of israel. i do not know what percent of

the palestinian or gazan population would support that, but i think it is much lower than the people who voted for hamas in 2005. host: this is james jeffrey joining us from the wilson center. if you want to ask him questions, (202) 748-8000 for republicans, (202) 748-8001, for democrats, and for independents, (202) 748-8002. texas at (202) 748-8003. caroline in maryland, democrats line. caller: good morning and thanks to c-span. look at what is being done with the palestinians -- i do not agree with what hamas did at all, but my heart goes out to the palestinians. we do not buy that they are trying to get the palestinians out for their own good. and for the palestinians not accepting the 1940's agreement,

that was their land. the israelis were in their space. it is like, come on, you cannot be killing and bombing these people who had nothing to do with what hamas did. and something needs to be done to protect them. moving your family 10 miles is a hard thing, especially around bombing. we're not buying that you're doing that for their safety. >> there's some capitol hill news so we're dumping out of the program you're watching and go live to capitol hill. jim jordan is now the g.o.p. designate. and voted 184-91 and it's out of 221 members of congress. whether or not they