tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 1, 2016 10:06am-12:07pm EDT
world war ii and the british and the french were forced out with the system the state emerged into the jewish conflict in palestine the cold war occurred and there are many in the 1950s in powering the united states and so forth and so forth. but from 30,000 feet most of the period in the cold war would pose a certain order and stability and it was a regional politics in the relations at the center of it and there was a system of states with the changes that there was a system of states. if you look at the middle east
now, the states face the most severe problems and even the coherence is a turkey is put in question by the region. there is no legal system you could say that there was a nexus mostly of the shiite but this is not the structure of. the united states is a hesitant participant that tries to come in recently in the assyrian
conflict. so it's very different. now from the point of view this offers opportunities for israel, the conflict is less prominent in the eyes of many. there remains less important if you look at the perspective on the issue and compare it to 30 years ago you can see the difference. the sunni and other countries willing to cooperate in israel often times under the table but in ways that have not been done before. there was no danger currently of the conventional war because we
are at peace with the two countries, egypt and jordan and the former military adversaries they are not a real threat so in all of these respects, it is a formidable energy debate co- enemy and we face in the asymmetrical war a different wage that is difficult to win and probably close to 200,000 in israel that have been replaced by the use of missiles and rockets at a certain civilian populations subdued but not completely vanished in a nuclear iran and most importantly the
problem that israel has been coping with. so very important opportunities and challenges but what is primarily missing is given the paralysis of the politics we have not had a government that has taken a bold initiative to try to take advantage of the opportunities to minimize the risks and improve opposition substantially. what kind of bold initiative under these circumstances? >> because it has to do with the palestinian issue and for these countries, the limited corporations would be replaced
by the willingness for much more open and substantial collaboration but for this there has to be not a resolution of the israeli-palestinian conflict that movement towards a the resolution then the improvement and clearly this is not a good moment for trying to resolve the conflict to come up with yet another effort for the solution to explain why he and i will if you wish but between seeking the final solution are doing nothing there is a whole gamut of options that israel can pursue.
next year will be the 50th anniversary of the occupation that has been on for 50 years. you're saying that it is not still the moment to look for a competence of solution to push for other versions of solutions, so if not now, when? >> what we do not want to see is yet another failure followed by an outbreak of another intifada. but we know from our experience with the u.s. peace team and others, they know very well that since 1973 when the first
peacemaking during the period the efforts in the first decade of this century were in agreement to be reached. the united states, the parties and israel. they need to work more or less in tandem. when you look at the three right now the administration is in place and likely to see that happen. you have a very weak palestinian partner and i'm not sure if at the end of the day we can actually sign the finality on the bottom line so trying to force it right now would be
another failure. i am under the leaves in the two state solution. for us to separate from the palestinian and the west bank in a better way to let them have their own, i'm afraid it's not going to happen right now and therefore i put my sights on something more ambitious than that. >> you mentioned the united states and the elections. clearly you have had the important relationship as always but we have seen that the relationship has been for obama and benjamin netanyahu it looks like it is a relationship that is damaged.
so coming down in january how did you think that this relationship could be improved or are the two countries slowly drifting apart? >> let me use one example on the relationship when he was in the administration. a few years before he became the feminist or, he was responsible for the settlement in many respects the father of the settlement and famously secretary baker used to complain that it would be another settlement and to stick a finger in his eye.
he wasn't particularly inviting of the show when he became feminist or and underwent the revolution in the sense that when he became a minister looking less after being reelected and more at hi of hise in history underwent a transformation and began to speak differently about the issue and took israel out and would have continued in the west bank. he became a popular figure in washington and have a good working relationship in the administration and what people predicted is that there would be a difficult period but it became very good period in the relationship. this could repeat itself provided we have a prim minister that wants to move on into that
we can talk to. i don't take lightly to both israel and here could take this apart. i mentioned that we are governed by the right-wing government and there is a surge of opinion and politics in israel. you haven't mentioned this specifically but he alluded to the fact that it is a bipartisan issue in the country and became less so in recent years but it t it could also continue. so i could also see strategic threats to the fundamental relationship if things don't change but all of these can be reversed. >> do you think at the beginning of the obama administration you had an african-american president who captured the world's imagination and becomes
president being secretary clinton as the secretary of state and the political leader in her own right so you have an amazingly powerful combination and yet they did nothing when it came to the conflict. if they had done something do you think th that moment was the right moment during a debate not seem to go far in the process? >> the president tried. this is something i researched thoroughly when i updated about on the relations i read carefully the statements as a candidate in his first month in office he wanted to resolve the conflict and in his view at the time he was a supporter
according to which the issue is a major obstacle in the world and this is a theory that recently has become almost irrelevant because many refuse to complain about the issue now complained about the islamic states and no one would say that it has to do with the problem so it was a prominent issue in those days and i can remind you in congress at the time they said it's difficult to conduct military operations. he said so during his campaign
that's the problem needs to be resolved if america can improve its relations in the muslim world. the way that we went about it was mistaken and i think there was another problem but when america went to the left come israel went to the right at about the same time in early 2009. these gentlemen didn't get along from day number one. they didn't trust each other, they suspected each other and there was the other issue and that is the linkage between the two major issues in the agenda.
it wasn't handled properly so a word about secretary clinton, she was the secretary of state in the white house and i think that one of the reasons she left for four years was the fact she was tired of being a spokesman rather than a policymaker. >> let me shift yo due to the current crisis in syria. it's quite remarkable that have been remarkably quiet about syria. what is the worst were the best possible outcome from the perspective in syria? >> the best outcome to be put together again under the liberal and democratic government
because that isn't very likely that under the reasonable regime in government this isn't going to happen any time soon. i think there is first of all talking about the outcomes in the solution, you cannot separate lebanon, iraq from one another. they are all tied together but lebanon is more passive and active to the countries that need to be addressed first, and i think that in both of them there would be federal structures that would put the two countries together again. i do not see a strong space. soon the local autonomy of the ethnic and other groups have to
be formally recognized and created in both countries and this would take a long time. israel isn't going to be a participant in shaping iraq or syria but as you said it does observe the civil war and it has managed to be less involved and effective than the four other neighbors. i was critical of the government earlier in the conversation. this is where i can give you the compliment. it kept itself out and for reasons i can elaborate on, they chose not to try to intervene and stay on the sidelines and
present redlines primarily the transfer of the sophisticated weapon systems to the groups like hezbollah. and of course it offered humanitarian aid to both the refugees and those that came to be treated but on the whole compared to lebanon, iraq, jordan bathed in the least effective. >> how do you see the russian involvement in syria? >> what would have happened if he hadn't intervened if the regime had collapsed what would have been the consequence is? stimac possibly because the groups begin to penetrate the regime area that has the à la
white mountains into the coast in the shiite part of lebanon for the regime and what he began to see was success by opposition groups. it was hard to cope with them and that prompted the intervention and there may have been other considerations put in very successfully and that managed to present and maybe some of you can draw the distinction that they make things happen in the region. so russia is in the game again. there were traditional advantages but the intervention was intended to secure the regime and it did well.
it actually moved from being on the verge of collapse to taking the fresh initiatives and it's now probably taken from isis. if that continues for the next couple of years mainly russia and iran would continue fully. the regime would perhaps not reestablish full control but certainly consolidate itself in more than 40% of the country then is controlled recently. >> the united states is gearing up to fight isis and let's assume for one moment they are defeated into th and then you lh
essentially the rebels i and thn the regime is by russia so how do we get the solutions on that point? >> if you bring the parties to the table your position would insist with no intention to the parties supported very firmly by iran. they are less interested but more in the survival of the regime as a political diplomatic solutiothe politicaldiplomatic e peace conference is not likely and may control a larger part of the country than it does now with 30 to 40% of the country in
the middle east under other groups. iraq has been muddling on for years now and unfortunately they may join the club. >> you talk about the separation being the only solution. can you elaborate how you see that? how do you do all these areas? how do you do all that? >> the kurdish the distant groups 60% sunni arab and they
are not a coherent group. what yobut you do have in syriaa stronger the force is now. one of the least advertised but a the fact that in many areas not really a drug deal but for the minister and any political structure would have to be taken into account. so it's not something that we sit down and try to prepare an actual structure forgot the notion of the country that will have five or six regional entities under the state structure and the government in damascus is something that would become realistic several years down the road.
primarily. i thought about it myself and it's a very legitimate question. my answer to that is they are broken out and as aaron miller knows the members very well, it wasn't about the negotiations as the israeli negotiations. what they had in mind was not just the peace, that was less that is in part a. of would have meant opening up so as we made the deal, it would have been on the egyptian israeli peace and a liberalized
domestically so that was the model and it was very explicit. in my first informal conversation with my counterpart he said to me i hope your government realizes the this was the model and when they made the deposit in which he offered the willingness to withdraw the return for peace and security, he very much presented as something similar so if that were to be in the 1990s or early 2000 they would have opened up the pressure cooker and in 2011 would have been released in more peaceful ways. and i think the civil war may
not have broken out and therefore the question would have presented itself. second, we have groups on the other side of the syrian israeli group that is linked with isis and al qaeda. they know the consequences across the line would be a. there's another attractive site of isis in the actual golan heights but as i said, i think it would not have occurred. >> you mentioned the nuclear threats and also the missiles that hezbollah has.
do you think the crisis has helped or undermined the position in the region and is helpful? >> it is a mixed picture in the sense that something happened predator terrorist organization. remember the time that there was a difficulty so i would say the legitimacy of the region has been undermined and it has been reinforced in the experience now from syria it is better than it was. there is a lot of criticism in the community for having shed so much blood into somebody else's
war a but the stronghold hasn't been weakened so on the whole the benefit is lost. >> before i open up to the audiencaudience let me ask a fil question on leadership. you just finished a book that seems to leaders in the middle east. what have we learned what is the experience in your book? a >> the >> it's not only in the middle east.
we won make a comment on the campaigns, but look at europe. one has already cited that she is in trouble so it is a global problem i think. it's always been going on and it studied some of them. i think that it's now tells me the question to the leader of the statesman and i think it needs to have a vision for the convictions and the ability to
identify to make the bold decision to act on them and to be able to carry people with y you. remember in 1942 a very difficult year. it's been going on for a few months because the focus of the late of the politics shifted from london to washington and he knows that he does to america for a few months and does it and then of course during the war of independence state building and
so forth. second, the leader of the right against the concessions when they saw the opportunity to make peace at the cost of sinai into signing the agreement she does. i spoke about this. actually from an earlier phase he was a security hawk and he did believe in the need to come to a political settlement. it wasn't the result of the problem originally. it was considered feasible.
that explains some of his statements and actions during the first intifada but he always was very hostile. so she becomes feminist or an after 15 years of he knows he wasn't given a second chance to spend another four years during the power such as they are but he is there to do something meaningful to try to resolve the fundamental problem with the other neighbors and he begins modestly but realizes the only partner that you can negotiate
with is the plo and he decides to do it. second, the point i would like to stress very strongly, he was a bit ambivalent. the choice was to make the deal first. i spoke earlier about the deposit that he gave to the secretary in august. we have to remember the moment it took place yet he makes the deposit to the secretary and gives him a golden opportunity to because it would be better to start the peace process and come to the issue later and he did carry this with him.
the men that could sell to the public think of a dramatic moment of the assassination and the killer is sitting and waiting. the stairs and he says you know we haven't said thank you to the organizer so let's go back and think them properly. he said no i think i will go home so they go up and he goes downstairs and passersby and somebody had the whole thing on video and it's available. you can see in his face he's thinking should i keep it or not so he keeps that he doesn't get to kill him. for him, somebody a key is because he's the person that can make it happen and he decides to
wait and gets to kill him a few minutes later. >> of the open the conversation to the audience. please wait for the microphone and identify yourself before asking questions >> i am an ngo executive and i worked in palestine for five years. thank you. very refreshing and different from what we usually hear. it wasn't only petraeus that said it's hard to get things done if the conflict continues.
many military leaders and your colleagues mr. ambassador in the diplomatic corps are saying that it has to be taken care of or we are going to continue to be in trouble. is there any movement in the political structures as right-wing as they are and in a larger military and therefore the people to take that to heart any accommodation in the building of unity around that thought? >> there is the opposition that's actually not negligible. in 2009 israel into the right wt
and america wants to the left. but they were elected prime minister in the west bank and i think almost every policy would have the following if you ask the public a hypothetical question do you believe in making the signing based on the proposal. a 70% o70% of them would vote n. if you present the same public with a fait accompli 70% of the vote to approve. so i think you answered if you discuss the issue with the public they would've loo would t
goes on in the region and of the states are collapsing why did we have to do another a few minutes away from tel aviv and it is a strong emotional argument that if the deal is done it will pass the referendum. >> thank you. from the council on foreign relations, thank you for the presentation and i would note for the record i served both democratic and republican administrations. i wanted to ask you about the perception of itself and its strategic power today that started i would like to take up the next 50,000 for a minute. when israel started out it was relatively weak and faced the
adversaries in the pursuit of the doctrine as an effort to mitigate against the dangers on its borders. you've identified it as a strategy that was meant to sort of pass by the borders while the periphery became more dangerous. you solve the looming dangers and potentially in iraq and what have you. we now have a situation where you have the environment of influx. the relative power has never been stronger yet the orientation towards the region seems to be more status quo oriented than ever and its willingness and desire to play a role in any way is limited at best. the question then is this a strategic oversight? is there a debate in the circles about this or is it such one
could imagine that strategists say we are strong, they are coming to us without us needing to do much so therefore the price they demand to take this alliance from under the table too over the table is not worth it and number two, they are so unstable way address in it anyway? is there any serious debate taking place and are they missing an opportunity by adopting such a pacifist not status quo oriented approach? >> thank you. first of all it's also in terms of his very capable and she is
risk adverse. the debate is there. you find the military professionals and the politicians in thinking about the region and prospects into scenarios. i would say the two most important states from the perspective for egypt and jordan. it is a pillar of the national security and stability of the regimthe stability ofthe regimer relationship with us is key. there's not much we can do in both places but being it would
help jordan if we are more imaginative on the issue egypt is less important but there's not much we can do in that regard. syria and lebanon, they are still haunted by the memories of 1982 to engineer the politics of the neighboring state there is no appetite to do that. so, what is the price that is required for moving forward operating relations in the states and others it's not a resolution of the problem is the progress towards it and i think there are quite a few options of doing that without exposing
ourselves to their desks so that's my argument is >> mr. ambassador i may be i am a retired health care worker. given as the described the palestinian leadership is weak and considered a centrist but it's the right-wing government given that the palestinians are throwing themselves against army and civilians there is no solution except a democratic solutiodemographicsolution thats palestinians reproduce more, there will be a moment it is impossible to maintain a jewish state. may i have your comments on
that? >> for one thing it is a disillusion more than a soluti solution. in the debate, this is the main argument for the population that do this and if things continue as they are they will become a majority and get to the point of one vote so you find that discussion and i do speak to many some of them say we are not in a hurry, we are a nation people and we have seen many
come and go. this is the way things are going to develop. so you have a sort of rejectionist move particularly among the young ones. we went to meetings with the palestinian groups and part of the efforts we saw some of the younger palestinians criticizi criticizing. but they recognize it from the beginning i should have said that the [inaudible]
course it is important to have a better relatnship th saudi arabia and others. the relationship is primarily under the intelligence cooperation and other forms of collaborations that are under the table mount over the table and there are some where you had them meet the israeli officials shake hands in the security conferenceit defense minister and much of the relationship has to do with the issue of legitimacy. the better relationship in the prominent country like saudi arabia.
remember even meeting with roosevelt at the end of world war ii roosevelt was treated to a very strong statement and kissinger was allowe allow the secretary and the jewish presence were not allowed famously think it's true he said at the time we accept you here as a human being come and kissinger responded to some of my best friends are human beings. [laughter] now to have the relationship is important in the region.
turkey coulde the key to many important developments in the region. turkey and israel have had ups and downs in the relationships since the founding of israel and now of course there is a down period and he's keen on normalizing the relationship. it won't be the close relationship that we had in the '90s but of course if turkey and israel were to collaborate in places like lebanon in placee places of the region this could be a formidable issue
>> i have two quick questions. the first one is something you talked about that hezbollah has a grip. we used to so man so many statem military officials talking about another war in lebanon. do you think this is a possibility, and my second question the state department about the human rights abuses and the egyptian military what do you think this is for the plaintiff congress? >> thank you. okay. on the first question, the prospect of hezbollah and israel is a nightmare or would be a
nightmare for everyone. hezbollah has over 100,000 rocks and missiles. several thousand of them are long-range warheads and precision guided. they had good intelligence about the long-range missiles and destroyed them. so tel aviv wasn't affected and strategic targets were not hit. it was a very awkward and unfortunate. but if there is another, it would take some time before they could neutralize and sustained a significant dimension and it would inflict significant damage not just on has a lot of leban lebanon. it should be avoided.
the best scenario is for the war not to happen. if it does happen to israel would try to end it as quickly as it can. it is no appetite for such a poor right now. iran is not in such a poor right now certainly not at this point of implementing its agreement. but going to the second part of your question, yes, they do want to deploy not just along the lebanese border by gola but goln heights and they made several attempts to. if you will remember a year or so ago a general was killed by an israeli drone while trying to
build that kind of infrastructure. i would use this opportunity to point to the changing outlook and potential outcome on the floor in syria -- the war. is it better for us to stay or to go? now i think the majority in the opinion would tell you that it is better to go because the victory for most of damascus is dangerous, more dangerous to israel.
soldier who shot a palestinian assailant, he has been put to trial. so these are not secrets. almost everything that happens in the conflict between israelis and palestinians now is filled by television, is on social media. one u.s. senator raise the issue. i think the prime minister responded to me. it is one issue among many. >> mr. ambassador, i wanted to thank you for a great presentation. some time ago prime minister --
if i'm pronouncing his name correctly, had made a presentation any mention fact that he had met with mr. abbas to try to conclude a peace deal. it was very generous work on his part. there was no counter offer by mr. abbas and nothing came of it. only israelis just wasting their time trying to achieve peace with people who don't seem to want to make a peace treaty with the jewish state? >> thank you. first, if i may, i personally don't use the term generals and i tried to persuade my israeli colleagues or policymakers not to use it because it sounds patronizing. i'm giving you -- say far-reaching offer, doesn't sound, and far-reaching it was.
yes, the prime minister was like former former minister, made a long journey from the extreme right wing. he was born in -- and made journey into position of a combination. so in 2008 in his last weeks as prime minister, was known as the annapolis process, culminated in presenting the far-reaching offer to abbas. as i said more than 90% of the west bank, the rest to be swapped and petition in jerusalem. consisting of course all of this would only happen if abbas would sign on the dotted line fidelity and end of conflict. and there was no response.
secretary rice, condoleezza rice, if you read her memoirs, write about it that she was stunned by how far olmert was going to go and even more stunned by the lack of response by abbas. so this is used by the israelis particularly those who object to a compromise in think that there is no partner on the other side. i don't think this is reason to abandon hope, and we should continue to try. if there is no response then we know that there is no response. at the fact that in 2008 abbas did not respond to olmert does not mean in 2016 we should abandon all efforts to move on in the palestinian issue. >> thank you very much. could you speak to
israeli-russian relations? there are a number of components there. i understand there's a hotline between russian base in syria and israelis who are fluent in russian to advance area with deconstruction issues and so on. and also, could you talk about the role, potential role, actual role of the very large russian speaking israeli population that could play in developing greater relationship or moving towards some kind of regional solution? >> okay, thank you. very important, very important issue indeed. the israeli-russian relationship is good. what you spoke about is one specific issue, and once the
russians arrived with her air force in syria there was need to avoid incidents like the one that happened with the turkish air force where russian planes were shot down. that's a technical issue. there is a dialogue between netanyahu and putin, and it's limited. what we want from russia is to abstain from selling sophisticated weapons systems, game changers to iran or to syria, because syria such as it is to end up in hezbollah's hands. and russia of course would like to drive and even deeper wedge between israel and the united states. the individual's primer on the israeli right who believe that israel should -- to some extent
from the united states and around a more diverse international foreign policy, working with russia, china, india and other countries, while the united states is happy to see israel must depend on itself and working with other countries, i don't think the united states was happy to see israel abstained from voting on ukraine in the united nations. and i believe there is no substitute for israel, for the relationship with the united states. with all due respect to russia and other countries. they are not mere with the kind of political military support that we need or community of interest and values that we have with the united states. but it's good to diversify. now, the russian jewish community and israel. from kos pointed to israel is an important middle eastern country. it's a powerful middle eastern country and it has a russian
jewish israeli community of more than 1 million people out of a population of about eight, has been while absorbed in the country but keeps its cultural identity strong, say, sentimental and cultural connection to russia. and it cultivates it. it cultivates this community, the jewish community in germany and committed in this country. we see them as strategic assets to be cultivated. the first generation of russian immigrants to israel tend to vote for the right. they come from a very large country. they don't like living in the a small country, and to see the shrink even further. there is sort of a general anti-muslim sentiment that they brought with them from russia, and to be more hawkish. the second and third generation become a very rapidly every successfully full-fledged israelis and the vote according
to the normal president of voting in israel. >> let me, when questioned about turkey. yesterday, the president of pref turkey was at brookings and he gave a long speech in which he seemed to indicate that turkish -- about to improve significantly. but what was very interesting any speech and if you follow him is for him with favorite important is turkey has to get back into gaza. so he is looking, part of the deal for him, for the deal to take place is israel has to allow turkey to bring energy. he talks about the turkish ship would go to gaza to bring energy, turkish companies, turkish demands, et cetera. but it seems as if for erdogan having lost so much influence in
the region, becoming the patron saint, so to say, of gaza and palestinians, which is formidable in motion issue for arabs in general, but that's what he wants to do. so is that advantage to give them that kind of stature and essentially allowed him to assume this important plan? >> thank you. very interesting question. in fact, win, after the incident, erdogan was very bellicose. threatened to send flotilla to gaza, and he was not interested in normalizing relations. because he has that many domestic and external problems that making up with israel would be to his advantage. one element is that he needs to climb down the tree.
having made far-reaching demands, he needs, i guess he needs to have something on gaza as face saving formula. what's interesting is, as israel is negotiating with turkey, we are reminded, two other countries against. one is russia that is not a conflict with turkey. the second is his egypt. because egypt is the last country on earth that wants to see turkey in gaza. there is any between egypt and erdogan and turkey and egypt. turkey is support of muslim brotherhood. blasting the what is this turkish influence of presence in gaza. we are not interested in either, but the task of diplomats is to find a creative solution that would provide turkey with face saving without any real interest.
now, you know, if humanitarian aid is going to come to gaza, money and so for the going to flow into gaza and going to create more housing and more employment in gaza, there's nothing negative from an israeli point of view. but to add to the politics of gaza with hamas and groups to the right of hamas, turkish presence, turkey, erdogan turkey has not proven itself in the last decade as a very productive element anywhere in the middle east. would not be a good thing. >> for you at the face saving approach would be essentially just allow turkish humanitarian aid? >> possibly. you know, the reason -- there is negotiation going on. they manage to keep it confidential. so i'm not familiar with all the details. i don't want to speak out of turn, but i would say that it would be most important,
substantive. >> steven stern. at the beginning of your remarks i either missed heard or misunderstood something in terms of the 30,000 regional view in which i heard you state that the sunni-shia split our the saudi-iran rivalry were either not the basis of analytical starting point for -- >> no. regional politics. not all regional politics in the middle east arranged along the axis, but if you're looking for some coherent, structural order in the region of the middle east, the saudi iranian rivalry which is almost with the shiite and sunni rivalry, is maybe the most important organizing
principle right now in recent politics. >> gotcha, thank you. >> george washington university, elliott school. could you comment on what seems to be a deteriorating relationship between western europe and israel? >> yeah, it's, you know, obviously has to do with the palestinian issue and the ongoing failure to end it. i mean come israel has good relations with either britain, with cameron, with germany with angela merkel, a little less so with president hollande, with italy and spain but on the whole in western europe public opinion elections, young generations,
since and so forth are -- there's been eu decisions and resolutions importing products from the settlement. there is, i would say, anger not just in the israeli right wing but in the israeli public for what they see european double standards. in that regard. you know, some average israelis, i'm not of that attitude. it's not the position i represent that many israelis that you talked to said, you know, there is a terrible civil war going on in europe. and syria. and syria. what are these europeans preoccupied with the palestinian problem and not with what's going on in syria? you find that mood among israelis, but on the whole,
there's the wage. israel also has some new friends in europe quote-unquote because they're either right wing backlash today risen into the ways of -- countries like denmark, holland and so forth. some of these right wing movements are not critical of israel, sometimes are embarrassing. so it's a bit more complex than just tension. >> thank you. with regard to american policy, there some right wingers in this country better hugging israel also. you mentioned mistakes of the early obama period with regard to negotiations promoting negotiations, mistakes and specify. and the later obama period holding back from participation
in middle eastern mess, to the extent possible. there's been some writing in this country suggesting that president's decision to settle for the withdrawal of chemical weapons from syria and not go further in support of the rebellion gave a green light to putin even to the chinese, their number and all the bad guys of the world to take advantage of the american reticence. what is your take on that allegation? >> yes, you, you know, there is no vacuum in politics or international politics. and if the u.s. is not willing to take the lead, somebody else does. so the chinese are not that active, at this point active economically and -- they help prevent security council resolution on syria that would have sanctions, military action.
but the russians do the heavy lifting. and, of course, you mentioned the chemical weapons deal. i was actually a russian idea. this is how putin helped obama out of embarrassing moment and achieved something that was useful in good, good in itself, but also presented as a dealmaker or arbiter in the syrian conflict. conflict. so yes when he felt it was in his interest to act, he knew he would not meet with stronger effect american opposition. >> i heard a diplomats say we hate what putin is doing but we loved the way he is doing it. >> thank you. my name is warren clarke. you mentioned saudi arabia and
issue of legitimacy, and there of course is the arab peace plan way back in 2002 which is still on the table. it doesn't seem to time much interest. nobody talks about it very much. can you explain why that seems to be so unimportant? >> no. it's actually not unimportant, and there are quite a few israelis, including on the right, who argue that the belief in regional peace. easier to negotiate with the arab states and help them then, wouldn't want to -- help the palestinians come to the table and walk away successfully from the table. the saudi peace plan has been mentioned, even by right wingers really. foreign minister and right wing
politician, major advocate of this approach. now, it's interesting, you're right, even israeli politicians or leaders who accept the basics of this plan has not formally like olmert. so yes, if i look at some ways of reviving peace process in the middle east, step everyone would be saying, yes, we look at, now it's called the arab peace plan, not the saudi peace plan, and not everything in it is acceptable. it's actually not a plan. it's sort of a very short the top but we see some very positive elements and we believe start a discussion about it. that would be a good start. it would also help bring israeli public opinion because for many israelis there is a sense is
when the palestinian conflict is a zero-sum game. the israeli-arab conflict is not. approaching it regionally rather than directly is much more appealing. >> i was wondering to what extent does the israeli government acknowledge -- is strategically, serious issue, to what extent is there policy divided or does it leave it to other organizations? >> the answer is absolutely yes. there is minister in the government who's been given the responsibility to fight, given a budget to do this. that is governmental activity. there are quite a few by the
initiatives or ngo initiatives in israel and out of israel to do that. and given that victimization is major national security threat for israel, fighting the ds -- higher on the agenda. >> thank you for visiting. welcome back from a fellowship in 1986. i remember your tenure there in the castle which was a different experience than being here in the ronald reagan building. i want to pull the optic back and put a very general question that relates to your profession. you are a historian. historians argued debate endlessly about the role of the agency in history. and the respected role of internal agency which is sort of organic and indigenous versus externally imposed. and i think that if one looks at
the obama foreign policy in the middle east and the interview with jeff goldberg as a tom friedman comment reflects a position on the question of agency and essentially what the restraint that one sees in this blog is a port of the few that external agency, intervention, is neither legitimate nor durable in the eyes of local people. in america we have the unsatisfactory experience of social engineered in iraq. israel had an experience in 1982 in lebanon trying to remake the order there. and so there something more fundamental going on with respect to the role of external powers involving themselves in the middle east region. as brent scowcroft said problems have solutions, the limits have horse. this is a dilemma. i just would ask as a historian who works on the middle east and lives of their, any general observations about the role of external powers whether it is putin or obama involving
themselves in local affairs, given that as you've discussed in the intractable province in iraq and syria which are connected vessels have to do with the nature of political or in those societies which does not seem to be susceptible to influence from the outside. >> it's difficult to think of the modern middle east without external agency or great power politics. it's been a long time since forces coming out of the middle east have dominated the middle east itself, and beyond, projected into europe, north africa and other places. so it was the colonial order until 1945 or early '50s, and then the two, primarily the cold war and the two superpowers
competition. and that's a fact of life. i think middle easterners first of all accepted, and secondly, feel a bit helpless without it. the absence of major external agencies has been no part of the problem. so if people are looking for that kind of leadership and help from the outside. of course, ideally everybody would like to have the support or the help without too much ignorance or intervention, like help me do what i want and walk away, please. we know that it doesn't work like that. for instance, for peacemaking as i mentioned before, israelis have always said just let us
deal with the arabs directly. let the arabs come to the table and we will manage. but it turned out that even when you have that direct contact, israel and egypt, israel and the palestinians, you don't conclude it without in this case bringing the united states in. camp david would not have been done in 78, 79 without the united states, and the oslo accord had to be concluded here. it was cited oslo but was given its full volume and significance on the white house lawn. and, of course, you don't bring in the united states just to give passive advice. you bring the often into the room, you know? and you know that the elephant is going to throw its weight about. from my perspective that's in arab-israeli peacemaking. i would like the united states
to become involved late in the game. israelis and arabs should begin by themselves and cover long part of distance and then have the united states come in, say the final lap, help close it, underwrite it and help it work. why they'd rather than early? because if the united states comes early, it becomes a mediator. he becomes involved in personnel and bureaucratic interests begin to play and that compounds the issue. so i'd like these relations to begin early, giving take him and for the united states to come in late and help conclude. there's another element. sometimes israeli and arabs saved that this idea come from the united states.
it will be easier for me quote-unquote to sell it to by people saying it's not i who upgrade to the concession are part of the concession, it came from washington and what did we do? we had to accept it. i've witnessed quite a few of these incidents myself on both sides. it came from washington, what could we do? so that's another form of external agency that is beneficial. >> last question. >> in your opinion, what would be israel's top three games with turkey? at also your opinion, what would be top three risks for israel in making a deal with erdogan? >> okay.
first of all, is to reduce hostility. i think some of his own fierce criticisms of israel, some of the, i can say at the semitic manifestations in media, close to him in turkey against israelis and jews, if they can be eliminated it would be a very good thing. secondly, collaboration in the region and thirdly, a bilateral relationship. even during very intense days, very helpful economic commercial relationship continue, and it could continue. i would say ideally go back to the collaboration of the 1990 1990s. you know that the different air force used to drink in turkey because we don't have the space anymore. we are not training in greece.
the greeks are watching all of us of course with some anxiety. so these i think will be three advantages. the disadvantage is that, you know, we may end up giving him the benefit of an apparent reconciliation without actual implementation on the turkish side. we may be overly lenient on gaza and find ourselves another factor in gaza to our detriment. and i guess by the middle of the day i will find the third. >> on that note i would like to thank the ambassadors for his patients and for -- [applause] and again, and again i would like to thank -- for making this possible for us.
[inaudible conversations] >> coming up, the congressional internet caucus looks at proposed fcc rules on privacy that cover broadband service providers. providers. we would've some legal analysts on how those rules could affect consumers and businesses. cli than eastern here on c-span2. and on c-span, a look at the future of syrian president bashar al-assad, and his actions over the last five years that lea led to civil unrest anr in his country. the event is hosted by the council on foreign relations and it is live at one future. also remarks on president obama at the closing news conference of the nuclear security summit. people speak to reporters from the d.c. convention center and it starts live at 5:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> joining us now from little rock, arkansas, is general
wesley clark, retired general and former nato supreme allied commander in europe. general clark, thanks so muchou for joining us. >> guest: thank you. pleasure to be with you. >> host: we are talking about nato in the wake of the brussels attack. you were stationed in brussels when your head of nato. were you surprised by the attacks last week in brussels? >> guest: it's always shocking when it happens but i wasn't surprised in terms of the factfa that we know that the security, internal security and belgian and brussels has been weak for years and years and years. it's an international city. it prides itself on being open. got lots of neighborhoods that people of different nationalities.ff the country is split by people who speak two different languages.politically with they thought bitterly politically with each other for decades. there was less talk about maybe
brussels as the center of the split that's going to take belgian apart between the flames and the wallet come those who speak flemish and those who speak french. so it's not a country that had a strong central government. it never had good internal coordination with its police and it said people who have been disaffected living there for years and years and years.s. it's the least secure country in europe in my experience. >> host: we are talking with general wesley clark about the situation in brussels and about nato. our viewers can chime in on our lines. general clark, in today's "new york times" it talks about the criticism of brussels in the wake of the attacks of lastly. it says --
>> guest: of course they concern me but they are not a surprise. to secure in our port you can'tn do in isolation unless you're going to bring it with a bunch of military guys and stop everybody from coming in.g in. their support -- airporthe genel superstars with generosity of the public. it starts with local police beep able to receive information from national and international authorities. start with working off terrorist watch list. and watery with international allies. that information has to be analyzed, filtered, passed down to local authorities. you have to have the authority to do investigations. you have to be able to have a certain amount of listening to the communications in your own areas. these are fundamental outside the airport. you have to look at the airportr itself and access to it. it's all part of a broader pattern. it's left over from an earlierie age.e. it has to be tightened up.
>> host: how does yours security saturday situation differ fromtu the situation with security at airports here in the united states? >> guest: since 9/11 we put billions and billions and billions of dollars into our own homeland security situation.s to we've ended the caps that used to be between the fbi and state police and local police authorities. that's been tightened up considerably be. it's much, much better information sharing. we've got much better equipment. we have integrated watch lists are we pull together information from international agencies across our border. it's just a much tighter system. not saying we can't have another terrorist incident in the united states, but before and after is much different in the united states. europe has to go through that process in a very serious way. >> host: we are talking to retired general wesley clark, former nato supreme allied
commander in europe where he served from 1997-2000. general clark, donald trump the republican presidential front-runner has been critical of nato, even calling it obsolete. let's take a look at some video from donald trump from his recent "washington post" editorial be about this. >> i see nato as a good thing to have the other to the ukraine situation and i say, so ukraine is a country that affects us far less than it affects other countries in nato. and yet we are doing all of the lifting.y and i say what is it that germany is not dealing with nato on ukraine? why is it that other countries that are in the vicinity of the ukraine, why aren't they dealing? why are we always the one that's leading?g. potentially to world war with
russia. why are we always the ones that are doing it? and i think the concept of nato is good but i do think that the united states has to have some help. i would give you a better example. we paid billions, hundreds of billions of dollars every year into supporting other countries that are in theory wealthier than we are. at if you look at germany, saudi arabia, japan, south korea. we spend billions of dollars ona saudi arabia and they have nothing but money. and i say why? i would go in and structure a much different deal with them. it would be a much better deal. when you look at the kind of money that our country isy losing, we can't afford to do this. certainly can't afford to do it anymore us back and also general clark in a recent piece in real
clear politics it's as donald trump says nato doesn't have the right countries in it for fighting terrorism. what's your reaction to that? >> guest: first of all we need nato. nato is a vital sacred institution to the united states. it's called together by the strongest commitments that one country can make to another, that an attack on one is an attack on all. we put it together when the cold war began back in 1949. it served us well. we need it today because there are security threats in your. we are not in nato to help others. we are in there to help ourselves. the united states 52 world wars in the 20th century because we recognize that we couldn't allow europe to be dominated by our adversaries. so what we learned from that experience was formed strong alliances, have collected defense in peacetime to prevent
the third world war. it worked during the cold war, so we need nato. it's in our interest. we've been arguing about who pays what in nato for 60 years. there's nothing new in what mr. trump says, but there is a lot of information he doesn't share or does it seem to have. for example, in the case of ukraine, actually it's been germany who have shared the lead for good with russia. this has been a concern because rush is a nuclear power, germany isn't. it's been germany which has borne the brunt of the sanctions burden in cutting off certain economic relations with russia. because of the heavy industry trade that's been shut down. so it's not only the united states that's done things' in the aftermath we put more u.s. forces forward in your. but we had been the older ones have done.esat other nato allies have sent
airplanes over, troops over there doing training with the ukrainians even beyond nato's borders in eastern europe. we are not the only ones doing that. so i di could hear any of that n mr. trump's remarks. it's a mixture of old sentiment and a lack of current information. >> host: we are talking with retired general wesley clark, former nato supreme allied commander in europe.he he is also currently the chairman and ceo of wesley clark and associates, a consulting firm and were discussing nato's role in the aftermath of the arg brussels attack in the fight against vices. we'll bring our callers into this conversation. first democratic line, highland park illinois. you were on with general clark. >> caller: good morning, general clark. it's an honor to speak with you. i followed your career for many years and i think you would've made a great president, here's my question.
what are the chances of you becoming vice president for either hillary or bernie? >> guest: i think the chances are very, very low because they are going to look for us can help them in what they need. hillary has great foreign policy experience. she knows what she's doing her i think she will be the nominee o. the democratic party. i would be pleased to help our democratic nominee in any way i could. but she's got to make her own decisions on that. i'm in business today. i been traveling around the world often talk to leaders of government an important defense officials in other countries the isis pasha i stay current on these issues. be happy to help but know, i'm not active in politics. >> host: just to follow up, watching the presidential election, are you satisfied with the current discussion surrounding nato and national security? >> guest: i think really to have it come up in a democraticn
context. they will come up in the context of the general election more. that's appropriate because right now we're kind of at an inflection point in american politics and the think it's reflected in what's going on in both parties. the traditional formula for the last 40 years has been keep inflation low, make financing available, open up international markets, let the free market system work and americans will be better off.americans wi it worked during the 1990s where under the clinton administration we created 22 million new american jobs, ma and americans at every level of the income scale ended up better off. but that hasn't worked as well since 2000. it, that formula is just not as powerful today. you are seeing the impact of that in politics, both in the strong support for donald trump on the right, and in the
questioning of conventional economic wisdom in the democratic party by a lot of people who support bernie sanders. they are asking what are these free trade agreements about?ut why are we sending jobsnd jobs v overseas? what's this income disparity that has emerged? and so on both sides of the aisle we've got to take another look at the economics of the united states. the macroeconomic theory of the past is not as powerful as it is today and we will need some new thinking. i think that's a good thing in this election, and it's good to do it now. but when it comes to the general election, we will be talkingal more about national security. >> host: we are talking to retired general wesley clark,to former nato supreme allied commander in europe and we'rerk talking about nato in thehe aftermath of the brussels attack and beyond get up next we have on the republican line, from woodbridge, virginia. you are on with general clark,
general, called in on republican-led it's also a great honor to talk to you. i've also followed your career.u in particular i think you made some very prophetic statements when you're running foryo president regarding the destabilization of the middle east, step-by-step process of changing the governments of seven middle eastern country. i would be curious to hear what yourn feelings are about what s transition, what's transpired over the last 10 or so years. and then in addition to that with regard to the upcoming presidential election, i would be curious to hear who you believe is probably the worst possible outcome in the election for national defense in particular, and who do you think would be the best?, i do agree, even as republican i'm very conflicted about trump. i , let's give general clark a chance to respond. go ahead, general trinity thank
you for those questions. look, i think what i was saying in 2002 and 2003 was coming from information i was getting from the pentagon that there were people in the who believed our policies should be to turn over those old regimes that had worked with the soviets duringhe the cold war and try to get the markets to spread across the middle east. we started with i write i think there were those who said we will just march from iraq into syria, fix lebanon, get rid of all that stuff in there. but it didn't work that way.t id instead we've got long-term instability in the region. it's difficult. i'm glad we pulled our troops out of iraq them are most of the troops out. we've got to work against vices of course but we were not going to end we are not able to transform a country's culture that has devastated, givenpe history, different age grades
is, different expectations.ot you can't suddenly sent a fewnd tens of thousands of u.s. troops over there, weighed your magic wand, put in some insight now he would be like this.yo how would you like to be the 51st state? it doesn't happen. that kind of nationbuilding isis flawed. we've got to work with the cultures that are there. we've got to work with our friends and allies in the region. we've got to promote the kind of step-by-step change that is possible that people can accommodate in their own lives and their own values. i think it would eventually come out probably a lot like what we are. but it may take generations to have a more open, more egalitarian, more mobile society than what we find there. so can't do it by force of arms and i think that's one of the big lessons. i think president obama understood that, i and so i thik he has made some wise moves into avoiding committing another big of u.s. u.s. forces chasing
terrorists through syria. so got to work against isis. we've got problems in north africa, problems in central africa. but we are solving these problems in an efficient way.ly. when i look into the present election, i'm looking for someone who has experience. every new president is challenge on national security. foreign policy is the one area national security where presidents have the most immediate impact. it's very hard for a project to snap his fingers or her fingers and create jobs. bring industries back. but national security, that's the province of presidents. so you want the one who is experienced and knowledgeable. you need a policy that's consistent, that's reliable, that lets others work with us and year their own internal politics on the expectation of the relationship with the united states. so i look ahead. i see hillary as the most experienced person we probably have ever had running for this national office.
and when i look at the republican side, i don't see anybody at that level of experience. i'm worried on the republican side.t pe when i listen to mr. trump speak, i'm even more concerned because in foreign policy him and i've been up to and dealt with heads of state, you've got to have reliability and have rel consistency. sure, maybe there's a time when you do something that's unpredictable but that can be your policy come to be som unpredictable. by working business negotiations it doesn't work in foreign policy. so i'm concerned about what i'my hearing on the republican side or another for the record of presidents who have succeeded and failed, if you go to the ones were at the bottom of the list of the 44 insight who had the greatest problems? is the people who didn't pay attention to details, who couldn't work across the aisle with others. people who are locked into ideological straitjacket. people who did not see the strategic big picture.
that's what gets presidents in trouble if you look at the historical record.si i see a lot of that. it's a worrisome on the republican side. >> host: you hit a briefly on the president obama's policy in terms of fighting faces. do you think there need to be troops on the ground or are you satisfied with his current approach? >> guest: i don't think you can solve this problem with use of troops on the ground. isis is a reflection of the realities of the middle east. it got its start because iran, using hezbollah, which i could take over syria, lebanon, to tae encircle israel and cut off saudi arabia, block turkey. so countries fight in the middle east in different ways. they may still sheikh hands at diplomatic summits, underneath, their intelligence agencies are feeding a bonus of each other
and syria was the proxy battleground. so putting a bunch of use of troops in there when you haven't solved the underlying political strategic issues in the region was a recipe for long-term bog down an effective occupation. unless you just want to support pressure on assad askedhelo mr. putin is doing. so what if he really wanted to change, that wasn't going to bed you had to go look at the balance between iran, turkey, saudi arabia time and have a played out in relations in syria at the political level. if you could solve that problem, a lot of the isis support that comes under the table where they're taking over weapons and fighters from other terrorist organizations and it's going to go away. i think that's what the president is in trying to do. john kerry has gone all over the world. he's really worked really hard to try to pull something together out of this. it hasn't happened yet.
but i go back to the experience in the balkans which were much more simplistic but anyway they were instructed. it took took us over two years after the united states became engaged to bring effective diplomacy to bear in the balkans. a lot of failed efforts, and we were not working directly against russia in those days. today, mr. putin has his own ambitions, his own directions in the survey not pulling in our direction. that makes it even more complicated in the middle east. >> host: we are talking with retired general wesley clark, former nato supreme allied commander in europe, and also a former democratic presidential candidate in the 2004 campaign. up next on our independent line we have john from holyoke, massachusetts. you are on with general wesley clark. >> caller: thank you. i wish people that have smart phones, right, stop being stupid and did the research on the
history of this country. we have propped for 40 years, we have bombed countries with brown people in the. we have put dictators in the past 50 years, for the international corporate white 1% fascism that puts hitler into power, let me ask you this. do you have a question for general clark? callback i have freedom of speech. let me finish to give coca-cola, jpmorgan, prescott bush who was one in union banking corporation of the nazis, and you're going to think the fox ain't coming home to reduce? >> host: we will move along in our discussion about nato.. were going to go toward democratic line. john from bethesda, maryland, you are on with general wesley
clark. >> caller: general clark and it's an honor to speak with you. i have a question about homegrown terrorists, whether it's al-qaeda were isis, potentially belding sells your. -- potentially building sales you. are we doing enough to prevent that in our country or our which is to would about it happening overseas and not about things going on in the u.s.? >> guest: i think we're working hard. we've got advantage is culturally the people come to
the united states because he wanted to get finished of our laws, our freedoms and they want to become americans. that's what's happened for two centuries in this country. people are proud of where they come from but they are proud to be part of a new nation. we are still that new nation. when you look at our record of assimilation of immigrants in this country, it's an outstanding record. europe can't say that. in europe what's happened is people come from north africa and the middle east. they can come and live in these european countries but they go back on their really not frenchmen or germans in the sense that these immigrants come to the united states and become american so we start out with some tremendous advantages. but we are very conscious of the threat of domestic terrorism, and our police agencies, our fbi and others are very watchful of us. they are working with local committee leaders, local police forces. we've lost a few young people to isis, but we are very careful on this. we work it really hard.ul woric not perfect, trying to do better better. >> host: dimension, general clark, you mentioned russia's involvement in syria. what is your reaction to russia's recent withdrawal of its forces from syria. does that concern you? >> guest: i haven't seen that much withdrawal.al i saw a head fake. some airplanes flew away because the imprecise bombing they were doing was less effective than the of an attack helicopter and russian ground equipment.
and maybe russian special forces. so don't actually know who is in there. we think it's a combination of attack helicopters, russian sf, and then maybe some paid volunteers. we know there's some tanks in there, some artillery, some unmanned aerial vehicles and improve reconnaissance.ai russia is still in theresu supporting bashar al-assad the record conquest of the palmyra area was decisively held by russia, despite the announcement of russian withdrawal. so this is characteristic. mr. putin makes an announcement, the press follows the. just as the case when russia invaded ukraine and people kept saying who are these little green men? who are they? they are wearing russian uniforms. they are carrying russian weapons but they wil will talk a standard method of russian soldiers. who could they be?
antedate if we did get in there we would see that there is russian default still in syria. he is pursuing his own objectives. differencee's making a difference. >> host: our next call is on our republican line, bill from pennsylvania. you were on with general wesley clark. >> caller: thank you, c-span. good morning, general. >> guest: good morning. >> caller: i just want to say i'm not an antiwar person. i had two grandfathers, one was injured in hand-to-hand combat during world war i. my other grandfather was shot down as a pilot after dropping bombs on germany. .. from a family -- a i call him -- i come from family that supports the military. but i think nato served its
purpose. you talked about how indispensable nato is. don't you tell the viewers what nato stands for? you said hillary was probably the most qualified person to ever run for the office. how can you say that, given people like general dwight president, who became and didn't he warn us about the mili industrial complex? i'd like you to say a few things about the military industrialco. complex. >> host: bill, that is a lot of things to unpack. let's give general clarke to chance to respond. >> guest: nato stands for north atlantic treaty organization. what it is trying to do extend the zone of stability eastward across europe. it is trying to provide a zone of protection in which
democracy, free market economies and self-determination by nations can emerge and take place. so from estonia in the north through the baltic countries, down through slovakia into hungary, romania, bulgaria, and all the way into turkey that's our nato frontier and it's being challenged economically and geostrategically by mr. putin. so countries like poland day-to-day have a military challenge, they have a geostrategic challenge, infiltration, the contest of ideas, active propaganda war going on in their domestic politics we don't actually see here but they're doing it there as what their alignments are, whether they have western values or not. i could go on that. nato is an integral part of that.
that struggle is about keeping us in america safe providing for us allies, people who share our values and will work with us around the world. that is what nato is. as far as president eisenhower, one of my heroes, i think he was a tremendous president. he was a great military leader in world war ii. he was working at the diplomatic level. he knew how to bring people together. he knew how to have strategic vision. he wasn't hyde bound idealogically, he worked across the aisle and he was worried about getting the balance right in our economy. the generals didn't always like him. some of my army forbearers were really opposed to some of general eisenhower's policies when he was president. army chief of staff general maxwell taylor actually, he left in protest and wrote a book called "the uncertain trump met quote, criticizing the eisenhower's administration defense policies but -- >> we'll leave this recorded portion of "washington journal
to take you live now to capitol hill where the congressional internet caucus is looks at proposed fcc rules on privacy that cover broadband service providers. this is just getting started. this is live on c-span2. >> in conjunction with the congressional internet congress chaired by congressman bob goodlatte and chairman anna eshoo and by patrick leahy. we appreciate their support they allow us to host briefings in conjunction with them in a fair and balanced way and their ability to say, we don't care, we don't care where our particular perspectives are, we want to actually have a good debate pros and cons on these issues and let congressional staff decide where they come out on the issue. before i get going just a few little bits of housekeeping. if you want to follow the conversation on twitter, the hashtag for today is
#fccprivacy. and you can follow us @caucusac. that information is on your list here. we don't have any up coming events. notice one in week or two. the next one will be on the transition for the department of commerce and internet governance. keep on look out for that. we have pros and cons on this particular issue. let me introduce quickly my panel. from the left is jim hall pert, with dla piper, a law firm here in town. he is partner there. next to him, is debbie mattis, she, debbie is vice president of privacy at ctia, a collection of wireless and cellular phone companies. next to her cat at that rena copp center of democracy and technology which is a great civil liberties here the non-profit in washington.
laura moy is visiting professor of georgetown university law school. all their, why we are here, federal communications commission, proposed a rule governing privacy issues related to broadband services and covering broadband service providers. they're basically updating a law from 1996 which incidentally the same year that the congressional internet caucus was created. 20 years ago the telecommunications act of 1996 which was a law governing the private telephone service and congressional internet caucus was created that year. incidentally the one, billboard top song on the billboard 100 was the macarena. i don't remember what type of phone i had but it really wasn't portable. it was a very, very different day. the congressional internet caucus was created that year to
bring attention to internet issues. this is really interesting collision of old and new and what are we hear for. so the fcc had notice of proposal of rule making. they want to make a rule update privacy rules for telephone providers. now what they call broadband service providers. our panel debates that and debates pros and cons of that. we go through a lot of material very quickly. rules governing privacy for broadband service providers, they include folks that provide cellular service, not the phone itself but the service i get here which is t-mobile, over your laptop or desktop which in my case at home is verizon fios. here is on the house public wi-fi. and so those are the types of services we're talking about, broadband service providers and these rules are covering them. let'slet's go to my first quest. jim arrived just in time for the people out there who, gnawing qu