c-span now a free mobile app or online at c-span. org. >> c-spannow featuring your unfiltered view on washington. keep up with the day's events and floor proceedings from the congress, white house and campaigns and more and stay current with the latest episodes at ""washington journal" and scheduling on c-span radio and podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store. download it. c-spannow your front row seat to washington, any time, anywhere. r

time. a little bit about the institute and the positioning it takes when it comes to conflict worldwide? guest: we are of the view that the united states should move its foreign policy toward a strategy centered on military restraint. we do not believe america is safer by dominating the world stage. we believe we are in a much better position to find peaceful solutions which does not mean we should have a weak defense. it means we should not get involved in all of these different conflict around the world unnecessarily. host: when it comes to israel, how would you gauge the u.s. response? guest: the thing that i am concerned about is there is a very significant risk of this conflict escalating and dragging u.s. into it. if there is a ground invasion by the israelis, there is a significant risk that there will

be a response from hezbollah in lebanon and indirectly iran as well. that will likely drag the united states into the war because it will likely also be attacked against u.s. troops throughout the region by various groups. this you should be the absolute priority of the president, to prevent that scenario because the last thing we need some other war in the middle east the u.s. is involved in. strategy so far has only been to move more forces to the region and try to deter hezbollah and the iranians and others. i think that makes sense but what doesn't make sense is that we are not between anything to also put pressure on the israelis not to take the actions that could trigger this war. instead, we are giving a green light to them knowing that this might drag us into a very bloody war with no clear exit strategy. host: we see military hardware

and troops, how much more could possibly take place if it escalates? guest: one of the things u.s. officials have been telling israelis and others is that part of the reason why there is a delay to the israeli land invasions because the u.s. wants to move more assets to be able to protect its troops. that means the united states fully recognizes the invasion will likely trigger attacks on u.s. troops and a broadening of the war. it makes sense to make sure those troops are as safe as possible by adding more protection what doesn't makes sense is when it also tried to avoid the very act that will trigger these attacks on these troops? they need to try some other solution. at the end of the day, it's important to recognize that there is no confidence in the u.s. government itself that such

an invasion will be successful. it was president biden who pulled out of afghanistan just two years ago. we invaded that country and occupied it for 20 years. and the taliban are still in power. the idea that these type of solutions, these military actions are some form of a solution, needs to be more scrutinized. host: if you want to ask our guest questions, (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8000 democrats, an independents (202) 748-8002. is there in the united states best interest in the dismantling of hamas? >> if you want to dismantle hamas, you have to it -- ask why they exist in the first place? we have gone through several of these cycles in the past where we see various palestinian radical groups pop up and are

destroyed and the reason they pop up is because of the occupation. we say we are in favor of a two state solution but we have moved beyond that. on the u.s. side during the trump in particular, we move for normalizing relations between israel and the arab states. that was according to jared kushner and he says we are moving beyond that saying we don't care about the two state solution. they will have to accept to live indefinitely under occupation. that has proven to be a tremendous mistake. it led to violence which many of us predicted it would. you cannot put millions of people under occupation and expect something good will come out of that. if we want to get rid of these radical organizations, we have to change the radical situation that is giving birth to them. as long as you have people in occupation and we say we

supported two state solution but we are doing nothing diplomatic to move that forward people have lost hope in the idea that a diplomatic move can deliver. it's as if president obama said yesterday and that will make the response much more violent and radical which is what we so with that horrific attack by hamas against israeli civilians. host: you said initially there has -- the u.s. should work toward another way to prevent escalation. what are some of those avenues that are more workable? host: we need to have a cease fire. it is an indefensible position in an isolated position internationally for the united states to stand in the way of any effort to bring about a cease-fire. the united states vetoed the resolution at the security council and instructed its own diplomatic officials at the state department not to use the

word de-escalation or cease fire or ending the bloodshed. that is making sure that we are paving the way for this work to continue. if it isn't for a concern of what will do in because and israel, i think the president should put it at the top of his agenda. they should make sure this does not escalate into war to drag the u.s. into another war in the middle east and standing in the way of the efforts to bring about an end to this. it traumatically increases the risk of the united states being involved in the war. host: sunday, the defense secretary talked about what the military aspect was when it comes to the conflict. >> we have seen rocket and uav attacks against housing in iraq and syria. we are concerned about potential

escalation. in fact, what we are seeing is the prospect of a significant escalation of attacks on our troops and their people throughout the region. because of that, we will start what's necessary -- we will do its necessary to make sure our troops are in a good position and protected that we have the ability to respond. this additional deployment sends another message to those who would seek to widen this conflict. as president biden's and earlier and as you heard me say, if any group or any country is looking to widen this conflict and take advantage of this unfortunate situation we see, our advice is don't.

guest: secretary austin is quite correct. this is a very significant risk for escalation. going back to what i said, is quite logical to do everything we can to protect the troops and other u.s. interests in the region by making sure there is an element of deterrence. a strategy that is based on deterring one side but not doing anything to restrain the other side is not likely to succeed. as a result, it will give way to a nightmare scenario that secretary austin is warning about. if the objective is to avoid a scenario where u.s. troops will be attacked and drag us into the work on does not make sense to only rely on that to turned and not do anything to restrain israelis and taking very steps we know are likely to trigger those attacks.

host: let's take some calls. caller: two issues that are overlooked. most of the palestinians are under the age of 16. that means they are not being trained in a way the israeli army transits troops and the united states transits troops. the people are hungry. any water. -- they need water. if we tell the israelis not to bomb hospitals and make sure we try to find a way once or twice a week to ship people out, the americans out of there, then i think we can sit down with the united nations and talk about long-term issues. these palestinian people are

kids. they are under the age of 16. they are being manipulated in so many different ways. guest: i think the callers quite right when he talks about the dire situation in gaza. more than 5000 people have been killed in more than 2000 our children. there is the dire situation in the israelis have cut up water and electricity and fuel and that is collective punishment. in international law, that is a war crime. under those different circumstances, we need to get a cease fire in order to find a pathway to a diplomatic solution. simply not allowing the cease fire to take place will increase suffering on both sides and will make it more difficult to find a lasting solution. host: from scott in arkansas, republican line. caller: yes, i've got two

scenarios in the problem over there. if hamas unilaterally lay down their weapons, what would happen? the other scenario would be if israel laid down their weapons, unilaterally, what would happen? please tell the audience. guest: thank you. i don't think any of those scenarios are likely. that's not going to happen but cease fire is a different story. it's giving a humanitarian pause to be able to give time to find another solution. if hamas were to lay down its weapons, i find it more likely the israelis would move in even further and try to completely eliminate the organization. if the israelis did the same, the reverse of that is also likely. this is not about giving up in

any way, shape or form. it's about where we are in no is we are killing more civilians than hamas terrorist. and is only making more protracted and difficult to find a solution and on top of that, risks and regional war that will suck the united states into it and it's not worth it. we need to avoid this nightmare scenario that would get the united states dragged into another war in the middle east. host: there is a picture of two of the hostages being released as of yesterday. how does this complicate the future of the u.s. involvement? guest: many of them are actually americans. hamas originally said they wanted to use these hostages to exchange about 7000 prisoners in israeli jails and many of them were children. taking hostages is completely unacceptable.

what hamas did can be qualified as a war crime as well. about a week or 10 days into this war, they change their position and they said they are willing to give up the hostages in return for a cease fire. it's not clear exactly what the u.s. policy is around us. some israelis are surprised because usually israel is externally adamant about making sure they get the hostages out alive. in one case, they would exchange palestinian prisoners for one israeli soldier who had been a hostage for a long time. in this case, it appears as if the israeli calculation, they cannot save the hostages and they are moving forward with a containment. host: let's hear from sam in d.c., independent line. caller: good morning. i have a question regarding the role of the media, in the united

states and the abdication of the responsibility and propagating the misinformation. to be precise, the way it is portrayed in the united states, this thing happened on october 7. would you be kind enough to explain, this goes back seven years. basically, the dehumanization and the rape and killing of the palestinians by colonial israel. could you be kind enough to shed some light on how the media is portraying this. even british newspapers are

instigators of the primary problem. they are advocating for more violence and more crime against palestinians rather than bring it to more meaningful resolution so these two peoples can live side-by-side. guest: this is a very old conflict. it is true to say that much of the world including western media had stopped paying attention to what was going on in palestine and in gaza. as a result, when the attacks by hamas took place, it looked as if this was the beginning of a new war that came out of nowhere. obviously, the occupation had been a very dire situation for the past years. that's not a justification for that type of attack. the narrative in the media has

said as if this came out of nowhere. part of the challenge in all of this, the biden administration followed up what the trump administration was doing was that it was trying to push aside the palestinian issue and go forward with normalization between israel and other arab states. the biden administration put in a lot of political capital to normalize relations between israel and saudi arabia even offering a defense package with them which means the biden administration would serve as a mediator. all of this based on the ideas would bring about peace but with the assumption you can simply ignore the plight of the palestinians. part of the reason why this belief came about is because after the arab spring, it is true the arab world by and large stop focusing as much on the palestinian issue because of the

civil wars in syria for example. many eyes returning inward. the assumption that that was a permanent shift is a very questionable assumption. that was a temporary shift because of temporary developments that were horrible. the idea that the arab world as a whole had forgotten about the palestinians was never true and it was never true the palestinians had forgotten. some of these assumptions, that assumption unfortunately has let us down the path with very problematic policies. host: this is carl in florida, democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm very interested in what you have to say today. i would like to know, is there any chance there is a small group of palestinians within gaza that may be willing to ally themselves with israelis after

this terror attack by hamas in order to throw hamas or eliminate hamas from gaza so that palestinians may have a better chance of getting the two state solution? i will hang up and listen to your answer. thank you very much. guest: hamas has had a very brutal rain in gaza. the opportunity for opposition groups opposed to hamas emerging have not really existed. there has been some attempts of repression. i find it externally likely they would side with israel against hamas because that is presuming is just the existence of hamas that has been the problem in the past in the conflicts. the israelis are also bombing the west bank where hamas does not exist. in the previous month, most of

the violence we saw was in the west bank where israeli settlers were killing many different palestinians. the simplistic view that just the existence of hamas is the problem is not correct. hamas actually was not created until the 1980's which was tickets at the occupation started. early on, the israelis supported hamas. they wanted to see hamas emerge as a competitor to the plo. back then, it was seen as more problematic by the israeli government. this is a very complex history. unfortunately, there are no easy answers or solutions. host: one of the things in the background from united states officials is iran. how directly do you think they were involved? guest: i don't think there was any operational involvement and there's no evidence that has emerged.

there is no doubt that the iranians have supported hamas and continue to support hamas the tickly militarily. when it comes to funding, i'm sure that's not been the strength of the iranians. they have been training many of these different places. there is a reason why hezbollah has become so strong is because of the training iran has provided. israelis were very surprised and shocked to see the efficiency of that horrible attack that hamas engaged in. there operational involvement is something completely different and there is no evidence of that. if this court continues and if hezbollah steps in, from the u.s. perspective, it will be seen as a direct involvement by iranians in the conflict. if iraqi militia starts attacking u.s. bases in troops, it will be seen as if the iranians are behind in that well

lead to direct military conflagration from the united states. as a reminder, i ran fought a horrible war and cause the united states a tremendous amount area iran is a much more potent military enemy. under these circumstances, when united states has a crisis in ukraine and a potential crisis in the philippines with china and the idea we were walking to another war in the middle east is absolutely horrible and must be stopped. host: when issue is the freezing of the $6 billion by the u.s.. what do you think of that move? guest: i think that was more of a political issue. the mechanism that have been put in place to make sure that money cannot be used for anything else is a very solid mechanism.

it was surprising the administration that had defended it ferociously suddenly shifted on that position. it is now shifted back but the bottom line is, that money which is iran's money would never go to iran. it's a very solid mechanism that can make sure none of that money was able to go to iran. host: this is from indiana, republican line. caller: i would like to thank mr. parci and the institute for bringing this fresh perspective on what's going on in the middle east. i'm a veteran of the indochina war. i adamantly opposed iraq because they fear the united states we get more deeply involved in ground wars in the middle east.

there is a lesson from history, namely the romans rector themselves by endless involvement in the middle east. they took their eye off the ball in terms of dealing with germanic tribes in the northern border and the rest is history. i pray to god we don't get involved with another war in the middle east. the eye on the ball for us is communist china. that's where the real game is. we don't need another big war in the middle east. host: to you think the biden administration has an overall strategy for the middle east? guest: the strategy they did have was explained earlier. they have set aside almost all are the issues and focused only on the idea of securing a normalization agreement between saudi arabia and jordan. i can see why that was extremely attractive to the administration.

strategically, i did not see any basis for it either working for bringing it to a piece they envision or per trade. the idea in addition that we would be offering the saudi's a defense package as well as nuclear technology again raised significant questions about what is the big gain in this to offer something as drastic as that? the united states doesn't have any such agreement with any other state middle east except for turkey was a member of nato. we have the non-nato status ally in qatar but that is nowhere near the type of agreement that was being discussed by the united states and the saudi's which would commit the u.s. to support the saudi dictatorship. host: next caller. caller: good morning.

i am sickened by everything. my question is, why does the united states not shut off aid to israel until the apartheid ends in gaza and the west bank and they come to a solution? the only way the israelis will stop this apart side and now it's genocide of the palestinian people, it's got to stop. what are your thoughts on that? guest: i think the u.s. cutting is not particular significant. the administration is considering -- is proposing a significant increase of funding. i agree we need to have a major

viewing of the nations when it comes of this issue to be able to bring it to a solution. the peace process and the two state solution has been dead for more than a decade. we are still pretending it's a lie but while we are pretending, the situation on the ground has gotten much worse and now we are seeing the consequences of that in a horrible way. we need a completely new re-think that goes back to the fundamentals of international law. we have set aside international law extensively on this issue. even today, the united states and the biden's ration is encouraging the israelis to make sure the attacks are in line with international law. much of what has happened clearly violates international law including the collective punishment to the blockade and the stopping of fuel and food and medicine from getting in.

these are things that ultimately will backfire in u.s. interest as well. united states has ended up in an isolated position internationally. the veto that was used against the resolution put forward at the un security council by brazil come a strong ally of the united states, had a vote from everyone in the council except united states. other european and western states voted in favor of it. i think we have to rethink our approach to this. we are getting isolated and the rest of the world are shaking their has because we talked a lot about rules-based order when it gave you you create so where are the rules -- when it came to ukraine so where are the rules in this scenario? what happened after the russians vetoed the resolution condemning their illegal invasion of ukraine was that a new mechanism was put in place which a matter could be you just moved from the

security council to the general assembly if the councilmember uses the vita. the question remains to see if this issue will be moved to the general assembly. if that were to happen, again, we will see a position against the humanitarian efforts which are difficult to defend. according to tete, 80% of democrats believe there should be a cease fire and humanitarian policy and only 12% support the position of opposing that. even among independents it's a strong majority, 66% believe there should be a pause in the cease fire. i suspect a lot of that is because of humanitarian concerns, not wanting to see more civilians die on either side but a lot of that is because of the fear of not having a cease fire would lead to a war that would drag united states into it.

host: one more call from virginia, democrats line. caller: good morning. i heard you mention turkey. has turkey designated hamas as a terrorist organization? i believe they have not and ably president trump actually praised the president of turkey. my main question is, there is a lot of u.s. support for israel when trying to root out hamas from the neighboring areas. a lot of that support is coming from people were said to be pro-life, knowing there is a lot of children dying. what are your thoughts on the support of israel even in light of so many casualties of civilians including children that are on the ground?

i will listen to your answer offline. guest: for your first question, turkey is not designated hamas a terrorist organization. hamas comes out of the egyptian muslim motherhood which is also related to er45dogan's they are eyeing a role to be a mediator in this conflict. it's not going to designate hamas as his cue over a short kid c2 -- as a terrorist organization. they don't want to eliminate its own ability to play mediation role. on the issue of this port, i think blind support is not support.

for a lot of israelis, the idea the united states stands by israel is of tremendous importance. to support a strategy that is likely going to lead to a worse situation is not really support. even the president pointed out that after 9/11, we engaged in a lot of excesses that were counterproductive. no one of our friends were telling us that perhaps we should restrain ourselves for think longer term before we engage in those practices. the president said these things publicly. the extent to which that is being received by the israelis and the extent to which privately the president is being more firm, we have not yet seen clear evidence for. that would truly be the support of israel to make sure it doesn't engage in something we know based on our own experience will not make a difference. host: what are you watching for the next few days? guest: i'm worried about a land

invasion and what that will trigger but also if there is an intensification of the air containment against gaza. there's is also the likelihood that will trigger some form of reaction but not the same as a ground invasion but it could lead to a rising of the war. i'm worried about what will happen elsewhere in the region. host: the organization is quincyin.org. majority whip tom emmer has dropped out of the race after a few hours as republicans named him as their nominee. according to multiple reports, it became clear that he would not be able to get to 217. the house rehaynes in recess and

republicans to discuss their next step in nominating a new speaker and hearing from potential candidates. here on c-span, we will cover the speaker election and bring you updates. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio got easier. tell your smart speaker listen to c-span radio, important events throughout the day and week days at 5:00 am p.m. and 7:00 p.m. and listen to c-span any time. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. >> wednesday night at 11:00 eastern, president biden and first lady jill biden host a state dinner for australian prime minister.

guest arrivals, dinner toasts and more. watch wednesday night at 11:00 p.m. on c-span, c-spannow or online at c-span. org. >> healthy democracy doesn't just look like this but looks like this where americans can see democracy at work where citizens are truly informed. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nation's capital to wherever you are because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> secretary of state anthony blinken has been calling for clear condemnation from the united nations security