legal adviser advised the congress of his conclusion that israel's government, the israeli government's program of establishing civilian settlements in occupied territory is inconsistent with international law. we have seen no change since then to affect that fundamental conclusion. you may have heard some criticized the resolution for calling east jerusalem occupied territory. to be clear, there was absolutely nothing new in last week's resolution on that issue. it was one of a long line of security council resolutions that included east jerusalem as part of the territories occupied by israel in 1967. that includes resolutions passed by the security council under president reagan and president george h.w. bush.

remember, every u.s. administration since 1967 along with the entire international community has recognized east jerusalem as among the territories that israel occupied in the six-day war. now, i want to stress this point. we fully respect israel's profound historic and religious ties to the city and to its holy sites. we have never questioned that. this resolution in no manner prejudges the outcome of permanent status negotiations on east jerusalem which must, of course, reflect those historic ties and the realities on the ground. that's our position. we still support it. we also strongly reject the notion that somehow the united states was the driving force behind this resolution. the egyptians and palestinians had long made clear to all of us, all of the international community their intention to

bring a resolution to a vote before the end of the year. and we communicated that to the israelis and they knew it anyway. the united states didn't draft or originate this resolution. nor did we put it forward. it was drafted by egypt. it was drafted and i think introduced by egypt which i one of israel's closest friends in the region in coordination with the palestinians and others. during the time of the process as it went out we made clear to others including those on the security council that it was possible that if the resolution were to be balanced and include references to incitement and to terrorism that it was possible the united states would then not block it. that iit was balanced and fair. that's a standard practice with resolutions at the security council. the egyptians and the

palestinians and others understood that if the text were more balanced it was possible we wouldn't block it. but we also made crystal clear that the president of the united states would not make a final decision about our own position until we saw the final text. in the end, we didn't agree with every word in this resolution. there are important issues not sufficiently addressed or even addressed at all. we could not, in good conscience, veto a resolution that reiterates what has been for a long time the overwhelming consensus and international view on settlements. and calls for the parties to start taking constructive steps to advance the two-state solution on the ground. ultimately it will be up to the israeli people to decide whether the unusually heated attacks

israeli officials directed toward this administration best serve israel's national interests and its relationship with an ally that has been steadfast in its support as i described. those attacks alongside allegations of the u.s.-led conspiracy and other manufactured claims distract attention from what the substance of the vote was really all about. we all understand israel faces serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. israelis are rightfully concerned about making sure there is not a new terrorist haven right next door to them, often references what's happened with gaza. we understand that and we believe there are ways to meet the needs of security. israelis are fully justified in dekraaiing attempts to legitimize their state and question the right of a jewish state to exist. but this vote was not about that. it was about actions that

israelis and palestinians are taking that are increasingly rendering a two-state solution impossible. it was not about making peace with the palestinians now. it was about making sure that peace with the palestinians will be possible in the future. now we all understand israel faces extraordinary serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. and its neighbors are correct in making sure there is not a terrorist haven on their border. but this vote, i can't emphasize enough, is not about the possibility of arriving at an agreement that will resolve that overnight or in one or two years. this is about a longer process. this is about how we make peace with the palestinians in the future but preserve the capacity to do so. how do we get there. how do we get there to that

peace. since the parties haven't yet been able to resume talks, the u.s. and the middle east quartet have repeatedly called on both sides to independently demonstrate a genuine commitment to the two-state solution. not just with words, but with real actions and policies. to create the conditions for meaningful negotiations. we have called for both sides to take significant steps on the ground to reverse current trends and send a different message, a clear message that they are prepared to fundamentally change the equation without waiting for the other side to act. we have pushed them to comply with the basic commitments under their own prior agreements in order to advance a two-state reality on the ground. we have called for the palestinians to do everything in their power to stop violence and incitement including publically and consistently condemning acts of terrorism and stopping the

glorification of violence. we have called on them to continue efforts to strengthen their own institutions and to improve governance, transparency, and accountability. we have stressed that the hamas arms build-up and military activities in gaza must stop. along with our quartet partners we have called on israel to end the policy of settlement expansion, of taking land for exclusive israeli use and denying palestinian development. to reverse the current process the u.s. and our partners have encouraged israel to resume the transfer of greater civil authority to the palestinians in area c, consistent with the transition called for by oslo. we have made clear significant progress across a range of sectors including housing, agriculture and natural resources can be made without

negatively impacting israel's legitimate security needs. and we have called for significantly easing the movement and access restrictions to and from gaza with due consideration for israel's need to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks. so let me stress here again none of the steps that i just talked about would negatively impact israel's security. let me also emphasize this is not about offering limited economic measures that perpetuate the status quo. we are talking about significant steps that would signal real progress towards creating two states. that's the bottom line. if we are serious about the two-state solution it is time to start implementing it now.

advancing the process of separation now in a serious way could make a significant difference in saving the two-state solution and in building confidence in the citizens of both sides that peace is, indeed, possible. much progress can be made to lay the foundation for negotiations as contemplated by the oslo process. in fact, these steps will help create the conditions for successful talks. in the end we all understand a final status agreement can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties. we have said that again and again. we cannot impose the peace. there are other countries in the u.n. who believe it is our job to dictate the terms of the solution in the security council. others want us to recognize the

palestinian state absent an agreement. but i want to make clear today these are not the choices that we will make. we choose instead to draw on the experiences of the last eight years to provide a way forward when the parties are ready for serious negotiations. in a place where the narratives from the past powerfully inform and mold the present it is important to understand the history. we mark a series of milestones that illustrate the two sides of the conflict and form the basis for its resolution. it is worth touching on them briefly. 120 years ago the first zionist congress was convened by a group of jewish visionaries who decided the only way through the antisemitic horrors was to create a state in the historic

home of the jewish people where their ties to the land went back centuries. a state that could defend its borders and live in peace with its neighbors. that was the vision. that was the modern beginning. it remains the dream of israel today. nearly 70 years ago the united nations general assembly 181 finally paved the way to making the state of israel a reality. the concept was simple, to create two states for two peoples, one jewish, one arab. to realize the nationalen aspirations of ju s -- jews an palestinians. they referenced 181 in their respective declarations of independents. the united states recognized israel seven minutes after its creation. but the palestinians and the arab world did not.

from its birth israel had to fight for its life. palestinns also suffered terribly in the 1948 war including those who lived in a land that was long their home, too. when israel celebrates the 70th anniversary in 2018, the palestinians will mark a very different anniversary. 70 years since what they call the nukba or catastrophe. next year will be 50 years since the end of the six-day war when israel again fought for survival and palestinians mark the opposite. 50 years of military occupation. both sides have accepted u.n. security council resolution 242 which called for the withdrawal of israel from territory that it occupied in 1967 in return for peace and secure borders as the

basis for ending the conflict. it has been more than 20 years since israel and the plo signed their first agreement, the oslo accords and the plo formally recognized israel. both sides committed to a plan to transition much of the west bank and gaza to palestinian control during permanent status negotiations that woput an end to their conflict. unfortunately neither the transition nor the final agreement came about. both sides bear responsibility for that. finally, some 15 years ago, king abdullah of saudi arabia came out with a historic arab peace initiative which offered fully normalized peace relations with israel when it made peace. an enormous opportunity then and now which has never been fully embraced. that history was critical to our

approach to try to find a way to resolve the conflict. based on my experience with both sides over the last four years including nine months of formal negotiations, the core issues can be resolved if there is leadership on both sides committed to finding a solution. in the end, i believe the negotiations didn't fail because the gaps were too wide but because the level of trust was too low. both sides were concerned that any concessions would not be reciprocated and would come at too great a political cost and the deep public skepticism only made it more difficult for them to take risks. in the countless hours we spent working on a detailed framework we worked through numerous formulations and developed specific bridging proposals. we came away with a clear

understanding of the fundamental needs of both sides. in the past two and a half years i have tested ideas with regional and international stake holders including our quartet partn partners. i believe what emerged from that is a broad consensus on balanced principles that would satisfy the core needs of both sides. president clinton deserves great credit for laying out extensive parameters designed to bridge gaps in advanced final status negotiations 16 years ago. today, with mistrust too high to start talks, we are at the opposite end of the spectrum. neither side is willing to even risk acknowledging the other's bottom line. anore negotiations that don't produce progress will only reinforce the worst fears. everyone understands negotiations would be complex and difficult.

nobody can be expected to agree on the final result in advance. but if the parties could at least demonstrate that they understand the other side's most basic needs and are potentially willing to meet them if theirs are also met at the end of comprehensive negotiations, perhaps then enough trust could be established to enable a meaningful progress to begin. it is in that spirit that we offer the following principles. not to prejudge or impose an outcome, but to provide a possible basis for serious negotiations when the parties are ready. now individual countries may have more detailed policies on these issues, as we do, by the way. but i believe there is a broad consensus that a final status agreement that could meet the needs of both sides would do the following.

principle number one. provide for secure and recognized international borders between israel and a viable. and contiguous palestine negotiated based on the 167 lines with mutually agreed equivalent swaps. resolution 242 which has been enshrined in international law for 50 years provides for the withdrawal of israel from territory it occupied in 1967 in return for peace with its neighbors and secure and recognized borders. it's long been accepted by both sides and remains the basis for an agreement today. as secretary one of the first issues i worked out with the arab league was their agreement that the reference in the arab peace initiative to the 1967 lines would from now on include the concept of land swaps which the palestinians have

acknowledged. this is necessary to reflect practical realities on the ground and ensure that the agreement is fair to both sides. there is also broad recognition of israel's need to ensure that the borders are secure and defensible and that the territory of palestine is viable and contiguous. virtually everyone i have spoken to has been clear on this principle as well. no changes by israel to the 1967 lines will be recognized by the international community unless agreed to by both sides. princip principle two. fulfill the vision of the u.n. general assembly resolution 181 of two states for two peoples -- one jewish, one arab -- with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens.

this has been the fundamental, foundational principle of the two-state solution from the beginning. creating a state for the jewish people and a state for the palestinian people where each can achieve their national aspirations. and resolution 181 is incorporated into the foundational documents of both the israelis and palestinians. recognition of israel as a jewish state has been the u.s. position for years and based on my conversations in these last months, i am absolutely convinced that many others are now prepared to accept it as well, provided the need for a palestinian state is also addressed. we also know there is some 1.7 million arab sitzs who call israel their home and must now and also be able to live as equal citizens which makes this a difficult issue for

palestinians and others in the arab world. that's why it is important that in recognizing each other's homeland -- israel for the jewish people and palestine for the palestinian people -- both sides uphold full equal rights for all of their respective citizens. principle number three, provide for a just, agreed, fair and realistic solution to the palestinian refugee issue. with international assistance that includes compensation, options and assistance in finding permanent homes, acknowledgment of suffering and other measures necessary for a comprehensive resolution consistent with two states for two peoples. the plight of many palestinian refugees is heartbreaking and all agree their needs to have be addressed as part of a comprehensive resolution they must be provided with compensation. their suffering must be

acknowledged and there will be a need to have options and assistance in finding permanent homes. the international community. we are prepared to do that. including in raising money to help ensure the compensation and other needs of refugees are met. many have expressed a willingness to contribute to that effort, particularly if it brings peace. but there is a general recognition that the solution must be consistent with two states for two peoples and cannot affect the fundamental character of israel. principle four. provide an agreed resolution for jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of the two states and protect and assure freedom of access to the holy sites consistent with the established status quo. jerusalem is the most sensitive issue for both sides. and the solution will have to

meet the needs not only of the parties but of all three monotheistic faiths. that's why the holy sites sacred to billions of people around the world must be protected and remain accessible. and most agree it should not be divided like it was in 1967. we believe that. at the same time there is broad recognition that there will be no peace agreement without reconciling the basic aspirations of both sides to have capitals there. principle five. satisfy israel's security needs and bring a full end ultimately to the occupation. while ensuring that israel can defend itself effectively and that palestine can provide security for its people in a sovereign and nonmilitarized

state. security is the issue. security is critical. no israeli government can accept an agreement that doesn't satisfy security needs or that risk creating an enduring security threat like gaza transferred to the west bank. israel must be able to defend itself effectively including against terrorism and other regional threats. in fact, there is a real willingness by egypt, jordan and others to work together with israel on meeting key security challenges. i believe intelligence sharing, joint cooperation, joint operation can all play a critical role in securing the peace.

at the same time the palestinians need to know the military occupation itself will end after an agreed transitional process. they need to know they can live in freedom, dignity even without a military of their own. this is widely accepted as well. there are many different ways for israel and palestinian and jordan and egypt and others to cooperate in providing the security. now balancing those requirements was among the most important challenges we face in the negotiations. it was one where the united states has the. along with he is one of our

foremost military minds and dozens of experts through the department of defense and other agencies, all of them engaged in trying to find solutions to help israel address legitimate security needs. they developed innovative approaches to unprecedented multi layered border security enabling israel to address threats by itself even when the occupation had ended. general allen and his team weren't suggesting one particular outcome or timeline. nor were they suggesting that technology alone would resolve the problems. they were simply working on ways to support whatever the negotiators agreed to. they did impressive work that gives me total confidence that israel's security requirements can be met.

principle six. end the conflict and all outstanding claims enabling normalized relations and enhanced regional security for all as envisioned by the arab peace initiative. it is essential for both side it is final status agreement resolves outstanding issues and finally brings closure to this conflict so that everyone can move ahead to a new era of peaceful coexistence and cooperation. for israel this must also bring broader peace with all of its arab neighbors. that's the fundamental promise of the arab peace initiative which key arab leaders affirmed in the most recent days. the arab peace initiative also envisions enhanced security for all of the region. it envisions israel being a partner in those efforts when

peace is made. this is the area where israel and the arab world are looking for perhaps the greatest moment of potential transformation since israel's creation in 1948. the arab world faces its own set of security challenges with israeli palestinian peace, israel, the united states, jordan, egypt, together with the gcc countries would be ready and willing to define a new security partnership for the region that would be absolutely groundbreaking. so, ladies and gentlemen, that's why it is vital that we all work to keep open the possibility of peace, that we not lose hope in the two-state solution no matter how difficult it may seem. because there really is no viable alternative. we all know a speech alone won't produce peace.

based on lessons from the past four years i have suggested, i believe, and president obama has signed on to and believes in a path the parties could take. beginning the process of separating into two states a political horizon to create the conditions for a successful final status talk and a basis for negotiations that the parties could accept to demonstrate that they are serious about making peace. we could only encourage them to take this path. we cannot walk down it for them. peace would bring extraordinary benefits in enhancing the security and stability and prosperity of israelis, palestinians, all of the nations of the region.

major private sector investment possibilities and a talented, hungry, eager to work young work force. israel's economy could enjoy growth as a regional economic powerhouse taking advantage of the unparalleled culture of innovation and trading opportunities with new arab partners. there could be a new security arrangement in which israel cooperates with key arab states. that's the future everybody should be working for. president obama and i know that the incoming administration has signalled that they may take a different path. even suggesting breaking from the long standing policies on settlements, jerusalem, and the possibility of a two-state solution. that's for them to decide.

that's how we work. but we cannot in good conscience do nothing and say nothing when we see the hope of peace slipping away. this is a time to stand up for what's right. we have long known what two states living side by side in peace and security looks like. we should not be afraid to say so. i began to reflect on what we have learned and the way a hehe when i joined president obama for the funeral for shimon perez. he became one of the great elder statesmen. i was proud to call him my friend and president obama was as well. the first time i saw shimon in person on the white house lawn for the signing of the historic

oslo accords and i thought about the last time at an intimate one on one shabat dipper when we toasted together to israel and the peace he passionately believed in for his people. he summed it up simply and eloquently as only he could, quote, the original mandate gave the palestinians 48%. now it is down to 22%. i think 78% is enough for us. as we laid him to rest that day many of us couldn't help but wonder if peace between israelis and palestinians might be buried along with one of the most eloquent champions. we cannot let it happen. there is simply too much at stake for future generations of israelis and palestinians to give in to pessimism when peace

is, in fact, still possible. we must not lose hope in the possibility of peace. we must not give in to those who say what is now must always be. that there is no chance for a better future. it is up to israelis and palestinians to make the difficult choices for peace but we can all help. for the sake of israelis, palestinians, for all the people of the region, the united states, all those around the world who worked for peace for generations, let's hope that we are all prepared and particularly israelis and palestinians to make those choices now. thank you very much. [ applause ] good day to you. i'm peter alexander in washington, d.c. we have been listening to the secretary of state john kerry speaking for more than an hour, approaching 70-plus minutes now,

in fact, venting the frustration of the last four years, his plea for peace in the middle east comes after the united nations security council voted on friday to condemn israeli settlements in the west bank and east jerusalem. secretary kerry defending the united states decision to abstain. this was his rebuttal to benjamin netanyahu, the prime minister of israel who has been heavily critical of not just kerry but the president and their administration for its actions. i should note my colleague, the chief foreign affairs correspondent at nbc news andrea mitchell will sit down with john kerry a short time from now. we'll take you to that interview as soon as it begins. joining me to break things down, ayman mohyeldin and nbc news chief global correspondent bill nealy live from london. this was notable for the comprehensive vision laid out by secretary kerry. it was also notable for its

timing and the waning days for the administration. secretary kerry made a lot of points. it is unclear what impact they will have going forward. he said friends need to tell each other the hard truths. so i leaf it to you. what's the takeaway from what we heard from the secretary of state. >> you can look and say this is a historic speech. this was by some accounts perhaps one of the most indi indicting speeches made against israel's occupation of treatment of palestinians ever by a sitting public official in such a forum. given the way the speech was structure d and this is important to note. he laid it out and described over the evolution of the conflict that's been unfolding between israelis and palestinians referring to the current government as one of the most right wing saying the settlements and occupation don't advance peace in addition to that. he also highlighted why the united states allowed the resolution at the united nations

security council to pass last week. interestly enough and you were talking about what will this change. the short answer is it's not going to change anything on the ground. it is now up to the donald trump administration, president-elect trump to really listen to this speech and decide if he's going to continue with these plans or policies or this vision that was articulated by secretary of state john kerry which he said president obama signed off on or whether or not he's going to go in a different direction. so when you put the speech in the context of where secretary of state started out laying the problems, laying the challenges, then articulating the vision that president obama and secretary of state have for the future of the conflict and the opportunities that lay for israel and the relationship with the arab world and what the palestinians must do to not only combat terrorism but to enhance security and stop incitement against israel, all of the vision now is going to be on the

table for donald trump. interestingly enough the language used by secretary of state john kerry really articulating the risks here. what he's saying essentially is that the two hard line elements of the conflict, the israeli government with the expansion of settlements in occupied palestinian territories and hamas which israel, europe, the united states consider to be a terrorist organization. both extremist groups are pushing the reality into a one-state solution on the ground. something the secretary of state made clear that the reality on the ground is moving in that direction. he warned that the two-state solution, i quote, is in jeopardy. the u.s. must not accept that. it ends. that's something he made very clear. >> as for donald trump he preempted this speech on twitter, his favored megaphone saying we cannot continue to let

israel be treated with such disdain and respect. he said they used to have a friend with the u.s. the beginning of the end was the horrible iran deal. stay strong, israel. january 20 is fast approaching. secretary kerry made it clear the basis of the speech and the u.s.'s efforts under this administration has been preserve the two-state solution and he said that was really what's at stake now. >> yes. john kerry wanted to give this speech but was blocked by the white house. when it came out at 72 minutes it was passionate, defensive. he feels the two-state solution is in jeopardy. there was also a warning. firing a flare across israel to try to show israelis that the two-state solution and indeed israel's own security is

jeopardiz jeopardized. he said they are candid thoughts, uncomfortable truths to israel and as mentioned at the beginning he said israel is a friend but friends need to tell each other the hard truths. he spoke frankly because that solution, israelis and palestinians living side by side in peace, he said, was in serious jeopardy. that solution, he said is the only way to ensure israel's future and future peace. he said it won't ever really be at peace if it chooses a one-state solution. he said many jewish settlers wanted that. they say the two-state solution is not just dying but all but dead. what struck me again was the defensive mode defending that refusal in the united nations or for the first time in 40 years the refusal to block a vote

against israel. he must have spent ten minutes explaining, you know, why he felt that was necessary. so a legacy speech, an extraordinary speech in many ways but new proposals? no. he went through six points but the parameters of a peace deal between israel and the palestinian palestinia palestinians taken as a strong reduke. >> you're with us now. andrea mitchell about to sit down with john kerry for an exclusive one on one interview in a moment. john kerry said the status quo is leading toward a single state and a perpetual occupation now. the frustration though for a lot of people, many republicans, others who view themselves as far more pro israel than this administration that there's been too much criticism by the u.n. and by this administration and not enough specifically on palestinian and other acts of

terror in that region. did this do anything to satisfy that critique? >> this is an argument made by john kerry to address international criticism. i'm not sure he was directing it to republicans who have been strong supporters of israel. they have enjoyed bipartisan support. the issue for secretary of state john kerry was he articulated clearly why president obama is one of the most pro israel supporters, one of the most pro israel presidents the united states and israel have seen. he highlighted key achievements including the iron dome missile defense system, the arms deal, the blocking of a u.n. security council resolution in 2011 in preventing the delegit myzation

of i of israel. he tried to tell republicans and democrats who say he's not pro israel enough. quite the contrary. as my colleague said he was using the language of friends know when to tell friends the harsh reality of what's happening. he's suggesting that israel is straying from the commitment to a two-state solution with the reality unfolding on the ground. more so than what anything the united states has to do to help israel in this situation. >> ayman mohyeldin and bill nealy, stay with us. we want to take you back to the state department. andrea mitchell is now with us. we know you have a one on one exclusive interview with the secretary of state. i hand it over to you. >> thank you, peter. thanks for joining us. this is an important moment. >> good to be with you. >> an unusual speech, first of all. donald trump, the president-elect tweeted today in

part that he was very much disagreeing with the policy. he tweeted, we cannot continue to let israel be treated with total disdain and disrespect. he went on to say this will all change on january 20th. prime minister netanyahu tweeted in response that president-elect trump, thank you for your warm friendship and your clear-cut support for israel. netanyahu called your proposals and the vote shameful. he has said it was a coordinated, orchestrated attempt by you. >> to the vote, the resolution, yeah. i made it clear today exactly what the background is to that, andrea. we are proud of the vote we cast because it was the right vote. we are defending israel and defending the two-state solution and the possibility of peace. against what i described today

which is a very comprehensive effort that is moving israeli settlers into the west bank, increasingly making the possibility of two states difficult, if not impossible. that unfortunately puts israel at risk. put it is region at risk. we also demonstrated how the obama administration has provided the greatest level of support consistently at higher levels of funding, more weapons systems, more support and more international fora when israel is being attacked than at any time previously. we have consistently defended israel. we believe we are doing that now. >> how difficult is it for you to operate in this atmosphere where the president-elect is communicating directly with prime minister netanyahu. >> i will let others -- >> also he had a direct impact. he called egypt's president. as a result of his call, of prime minister netanyahu's call, egypt pulled down the

resolution. that's part of the reason you were then accused of orchestrating other sponsors of it. >> well, andrea, egypt voted for the resolution as did russia, china, france, britain, you know, we are the only ones who abstained. we abstained because there were things in the resolution that we didn't necessarily agree with but we didn't think they re to the level of previous resolutions. we made it clear to the palestinians and to the egyptians who drafted and introduced this resolution that if it was more balanced, they dealt with it. we have always said consistently. >> you didn't orchestrate it? didn't sponsor, push it, recruit them as an alternative to bring it up to the u.n.? >> we recruited nobody as an alternative. those four countries that

brought it to the floor did it on their own. i had no communication with the four countries and i don't know -- i mean, it makes a statement, if you will, that they decidedo go ahead no matter what. that's all distracting purposefully, i think from the real issue which is the policy that's being pursued that if you have more and more settlements being built in the area that's supposed to be the future palestine it makes it harder to have the future palestine and one that's contiguous and viable as resolution after resolution has supported. >> while you were speaking we got word that israel had gone ahead with at least one new settlement approval in east jerusalem on palestinian understood to be palestinian territory. could you possibly be making it

worse by making the speech now? are you pushing netanyahu into moving to the right because of his own domestic politics? >> i don't believe -- i think what we are doing is trying to put our experience and the lessons we learned on the table in as constructive a way as possible in order to get people to stop and think about where this is going. if we didn't do that, andrea. if we sat silent, i guarantee you the policy would continue because we have seen it over the last eight years just continue even when there's been a conversation about it or an effort to move the government in a different direction. so i think that's really, again, the reason the united states voted the way we did in the u.n. is it was in keeping with our values of our support and policy for a two-state solution, our

support for democracy. our support for an israel that can be secure. we don't believe going toward states with increased settlers will increase the level of tension and potential violence in the region. >> how much was donald trump's choice of ambassador to israel someone who has been described as to the right of netanyahu, who is so pro settlement, how much is that behind your thinking? >> none. i haven't considered it. >> how disappointed are you? after all the work you have done. >> it's not my job to comment on nominees of a new president. i will respect the process. the senate has to have hearings. the senate will ask its own set of questions. it is not my role to get involved in that or make comments about it. >> with all the work that you ve put into this and with your firm passionate belief in the two-state solution which goes back at least 37 years what's

the prospect for a two-state solution if the stated proposals of donald trump and prime minister netanyahu and the other members of his coalition in particular, if those policies proceed, what is the possibility for a two-state solution? >> again, you know, i have learned through the years there is a distinction between comments made pregoverning and what you see and what you decide to do when you are governing. let's wait and see where it goes. i'm not going to rebut hypotheticals here. today we laid out a very constructive, pro israel, pro region, pro palestinian, pro the communiti communities' ability to try to make peace. why are people fighting peace? what's in the air that people want to go down a road which is so obviously confrontational? for years republican and democratic administrations alike

invested in two states. for years look at the effort president clinton put in. look at the effort way back when with president carter at camp david. this has been going on and on. now it is time for people to ask why it is going on and on. what is it that's, you know, preventing this. right now what is preventing this is a coalition that seems determined to build in the west bank to take over the west bank as i described today for the exclusive use of israel except for some minor proportions that may be left. that's something we have to look at carefully. it's impossible, as i said today, the arab world will not make peace with israel separate from a peace between israel and the palestinians unless there is, you know, a stunning reversal that would, i think, not sit well in the arab street whatsoever. i don't see it happening from

any conversation that i have had and i have probably had more conversations with more arab leaders than any secretary in recent memory regarding this. >> george mitchell was the negotiator for the administration in the first term. he said that the abstention, failing to block the vote was a mistake. >> that's his judgment. we have a different point of view. i have expressed it as clearly as i know how today. >> donald trump made his views clear on this. keeps saying, you know, shameful, january 20 things will change. he's also weighed in on twitter on china not returning the china -- china not returning the drone, on taiwan as you know, on nuclear weapons. how difficult is it to be the secretary of state reporting to the presidt when the president-elect is weighing in on so many different issues?

>> look, we are three weeks away from the transition. at this point we are obviously winding down, so to speak, though i'm going to the last day or so. there are limits to what the administration can undertake at this point in time. we understand that. i'm not going to get into a debate with the president-elect on, you know, twitter or whatever it's just not -- i'm not going to do that. there is plenty of time afterwards when they are governing. >> is it confusing allies and adversaries in. >> i think it is having an impact on allies who were questioning what's going on. they have their own policies. you know, they are not going to be swayed and intimidated by a tweet. they're going to pursue their interests and their own values. that's what diplomacy is about. so i think, you know, it will be difficult to be talking about

the expansion of a nuclear program and not wind up with difficulties with russia and their perception of what it means for them. or what it means in terms of proliferation in other regions. leaders are going to sit back and wait to see exactly what is produced not as a matter of politics prebeing sworn in but a matter of policy once you are governing. i am not going to debate with either hypotheticals or, you know, current day politics. >> what is the down side of moving the embassy to jerusalem? >> the world knows that has profound questions of sovereignty and would have a huge impact on the arab world's perception of jurisdiction and sovereignty over religious sites and the status quo i talked about. >> could there be violence? >> i'm not going to get into

predicting violence. i think everybody can make their own judgments about what acts are incitement and what are not and what will create tension and what will not. i think for the moment, andrea, i would like to focus on what we were saying today. what we were saying today is it is possible to take steps on changing the dynamics. prime minister netanyahu has the ability to be able to do some of that. my hope is that he will choose to do those things. i think if israel continues its policy of settlements it will get very difficult on an international scale and perhaps even potentially in the region because of t reality that's dawning on people about what's happening to the possibilities of peace. >> and there are reports today that the u.s. is preparing, the

white house is preparing a response to russian hacking. that there will be a panopolyof some covert, some overt, possibly later this peek. >> president obama made it very clear he was reserving the right to respond to russia at the place and time and manner of his choosing. believe me, it will be his choosing, not anybody else's. >> can we sanction russia over this? >> i don't want to speculate on what the president may or may not do. >> but it should be done before he leaves office. >> that's the only time he can do it obviously. >> it's something that would be put in place and some of it we would be aware of. >> andrea, let me let the president speak on this. it's his time and choosen and manner. it's up to him. >> how damaging was the cyber attack, do you think? >> the russian role in this. >> i think all of the cyber

attacks taking place but particularly the russian one had a profound impact on our system, on our political process, on our -- invaded the space of our election. the releasing on a regular basis of one party's stolen e-mails had an impact. i think that other things also had an impact. it's something we have spoken to that's not just happening here. it is happening in europe, in other parts of the world. i think other countries are deeply concerned. it also raises larger questions about cyber conflict. i don't want i don't use the term warfare but that's in the background of many people's thinking about the dangers that we face. but it's a new form of political

engagement that we all need to be extremely wary of and we need to find new methods of protection and new ways of fighting back against it. >> any final advice to president trump and his team? >> no. i had a good conversation with rex tillerson. we agreed to meet somewhere down the road here so i can share thoughts and that's the best place to give whatever advice i might have. >> mr. secretary, thank you very much. >> my pleasure. good to see you. happy new year. >> to you and yours. peter alexander, back to you. >> all right, andrea. thank you very much. that one on one exclusive

interview with the secretary of state john kerry after extended remarks laying out his vision for peace between israel and the palestinians. i want to bring in the president's top adviser on middle east policy philip gordon who was special assistant to the president and he's currently a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations. mr. gordon, thanks for being with us right now. in simple terms i want your sense. we heard secretary kerry say peace is a real option now. given what you have heard from the incoming administration are you satisfied with the trend that the two-state solution is an option? >> i don't think anybody can be satisfied with the trend lines even secretary kerry who is optimistic and always looking for the way forward would have to acknowledge that in the near

term the conditions aren't right. heaven acknowledged that himself when he talked about the lack of leadership on both sides willing to do hard things. he asserted and profoundly believes that it is possible. when you analyze where we are and the gaps between the sides, i think in the best of circumstances we are looking well down the road for the two-state solution. i think the real purpose of the speech realistically wasn't to lay out a path where in the coming months or couple of years the parties do what secretary kerry laid out. even beyond that if and when there are leaders ready to do it. that's the framework at that time but not this time. >> can you cast in simple terms, you have worked closely with president obama on this. as the waning days of his term are here, describe the sense of frustration that he has

personally experienced as it relates to israel and peace with the palestinians. >> the president is enormously frustrated. if you recall on his very first day in office he named george mitchell the negotiator and said this is something he wanted to give a priority to. he thought at that time that the path was to bring them together and move it forward. he was committed to that. if he thought that eight years later the best he could do was have his secretary of state give a legacy speech about, you know, framework for the long term, he would acknowledge that's not exactly where he wanted to be. i think he feels like he made a good faith effort. if nothing else the kerry evident showed it wasn't a lack of u.s. leadership, involvement or talks that was the pro. unfortunately they are more profound than that. the parties are too far apart.

that's what kerry underlined in the speech today. >> philip gordon, former top adviser to president obama on middle east policy. thanks for your time. we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> that will do it for us this hour. follow me on twitter @peter alexander. i'll be back later at 5:00 eastern for mtp daily. for now hallie jackson is next on msnbc. we hand the reins to you. >> hi, everybody. i'm hallie jackson in west palm beach, florida. we are all watching what's happening in washington. that speech and the exclusive interview right here on msnbc with secretary of state john kerry sitting down with andrea mitchell. here's what he had to say after the controversial u.n. vote last week. listen.