tv Israeli Officials Discuss U.S. Policy Toward the Middle East CSPAN January 31, 2017 8:21am-9:55am EST
i. >> house democratic leader nancy pelosi reacting to president trump's claim of voter fraud. >> all we want is the truth for the american people. i frankly feel very sad about the president making this claim. i felt sorry for them. i even prayed for him but then i prayed for the united states of america. >> liz cheney addressing enhanced interrogation. >> i do support enhanced interrogation. i think that it's something the court has helped us in the past to prevent attacks and save lives, and so i was glad to see president trump take that step. >> to watch any time to do c-span.org. >> the washington institute hosted a discussion with an israeli cabine cabinet ministera former israeli ambassador on the future of use israel relations. from yesterday, this runs just over 90 minutes.
>> good afternoon, everyone. welcome back to the washington institute. we are really delighted today to bring two perspectives from israel that i think will really get at the question that's on peoples mind, which is how does the middle east look at the start of the trump era? we have two israelis to offer how they would like the new administration to look at the region writ large, then how to also reinvigorate the u.s.-israel relationship. so it's really a delight for me to really welcome back to this podium to people who have been friends of the institute in the past. one is cabinet minister tzachi
hanegbi who was there regional minister for cooperation and a close confidant of this prime minister, prime minister netanyahu. he is at a range of cabinet portfolios. his involvement in israeli governance and goes back to leave the 1980s and is been involved in israeli politics ever since. also another person who is no stranger to washington, certainly is professor itamar rabinovich known to many of you, itamar you will recall was israel's ambassador to washington in the 1990s, was also the chief negotiator with syria, a real scholar when it comes to syria. and he's also been ahead of what's tel aviv university center, and he's been the president, the provost of tel aviv university. these that chairman of something called the israeli institute
support the idea of israel studies in the united states and in different parts of the world. and i just really think here are two people that are really thought a lot about israel's foreign policy, and it's really a delight for me and for the institute that they've come back and have shared, to show their perspective with us today. some want to thank you both very much for coming, and we will start with cabinet minister hanegbi. >> it's already afternoon? good new. good new an in an afternoon, da. happy to see danny here. itamar, good friend, and everybody here, thank you for
coming. i just came in the middle of the night, being sad that we didn't have snow in jerusalem like it was promised to us yesterday, so we found white city. i know it is beautiful. so you are happy to see washington snowed in. i was invited to this event and was happy to accept invitation, the washington institute is very important think tank, entity in d.c. and i'm always happy to cooperate, to learn, to read, and when it's possible also to be part of such deliberations.
today we will discuss what is really an egg pneumatic testing enigmatic nature for all of the relationship between israel and united states and the new administration. so i'll begin by describing a little bit how we felt the last eight years. the alliance between israel and the united states is a momentum for decades. and it doesn't really matter whenever there is a change in the american administration or israeli parliament or government, the tendency is very identical to whatever before and what happens next.
so it's a given that you will have disputes among the sides in every administration, be it republican or democratic. there will be issues that both sides will not look in the same direction, both sides will have contradicting strategies,, interpretation of the railed about goes without saying it is part of the national relationship. it happened during reagan, great support of israel and remember 1981, the israeli action, vis-à-vis the nuclear reactor in iraq, and reagan was furious and he suspended the f-15 i think it was for several months, and he was really angry with us. we had problems with carter and bush and the bush father and the
son, and, of course, clinton. but last eight years were different in the way that we did not feel that the disputes, the tension, reflects what happens in a family. it doesn't reflect something that it's part of life. you have to find a way to get over it with sensitivity, with recognition that the other side has its own interests, and even if there is a misunderstanding or contradiction. both sides, since they are on the same side of this equation, work together to minimize the
damage and to open a new page. and we were sad. we were not only frustrated or upset because this is natural thing in such relationship, but we were sad that we failed, that the administration is not in various issues, not everything,, it's not even the majority of issues, but in various issues, especially to issues, settlement issue and iran agreement, not at the beginning with the iran strategy of the jcpoa. we felt that animosity that is going between us and the american administration is beyond what we expected to happen with such a profound alliance.
so whatever happened history, and all of you know what, this is why we're so hopeful for the future. because we believe that even once we will have disputes with the new administration, and it's going to happen, there's no way we will have full understanding, full cooperation in every nuance of every issue in the next four years. we do feel that we are not going to have the same problems that we had with president obama. we feel that he comes from a place that's different in his understanding where we stand, why we are so passionate about various issues, and it's going to be easier. let's take the palestinian issue, for example.
david here, dennis here spent, itamar also spent, i don't know, thousands of hours, tens of thousands of hours inking, working, negotiating, and they know how complicated things are. what happened with the last administration is that they very soon after coming to office in the first term of president obama and secretary clinton made a declaration to denounce any kind of building in jerusalem, and the bronx, where ever. and you remember the slogan was not one brick. not even one brick. remember exactly where was it given public reflection, but it was told in the first meeting
between the president and the israeli prime minister in washington right after the election of president obama. and i remember the prime minister coming back, and he was in shock. because not only it was not just, not only he realized that it's really a new sheriff in town and it's not what he was used to with president bush or clinton, but it set the ground for this ability of the palestinians to be less pragmatic than this, this, i would say, top, this border. it's not possible for the palestinians to accept going back to the negotiating table or
understanding they can either discreetly or publicly negotiate with israel. the american administration firm, demand from israel is to stop any kind of building and settlement, not even one block. unfortunately, this is exactly what happened. it was a time for negotiation for nine months because of many regional issues, but the major problem was that the palestinians, especially the pragmatic faction, could not allow themselves to be less tough, less committed than the best friend of israel, the american administration. and this led for a variety of events, you know them all. now this president, as far as you can understand from the way he speaks, it's not that he is
going to encourage us to build whatever we want, whatever you want, but he understands that this is not the obstacle, the major obstacle in the middle east or between israel and palestinians. he understands when rees we said major issue is the fact that palestinians yet do not find within themselves the power, the courage to recognize israel as the homeland of the jewish state. this is where the obstacle is, and this is what has to be challenged and this is what has to be taken care of, and not whether building or build there. whenever we get an agreement, wherever we crossed the border, there's no more settlements. those will be in israel will be in israel. they will not be settlers. they will be part of visual and the part of two-state solution for two people.
you have to tackle the major problem and not just drag on fighting about issues that are irrelevant to the solution. and this is one example of why we are hopeful with a new administration taking into account, of course, that they will have to take their time to learn, to absorb it, to shape the policy, and we will be very happy to be a part of this process of thinking together and building together the political part of our alliance. but we know that the instincts are correct, where they stand is where we stand, and if we were sad, vis-à-vis, what happened in the last administration, we are
hopeful and even enthusiastic about working with an administration about the palestinian issue. the last issue i will relate because will speak about many, many issues today is the iranian issue. this is exactly another place where we do feel that the new administration does not feel that it has to prove that the legacy that is charged or responsible for is something that overshadows every other problem. they don't come with a legacy of this jcpoa, and they understand our problematic is, they understand israel when we said there are pros and cons in each and every agreement but we feel the leverage of the west end and yet states had at the time were so strong to achieve a better agreement, one that will not bring iran within 12, 13 years
they get to the place where they can become a nuclear state. and we will be working, hopefully, with the new administration about ideas of minimizing the damage of this agreement, finding solutions to the basic problem of this agreement. i read, dennis, what you wrote, you are great ideas in there. we will find friends in the white house and elsewhere trying to fix whatever is needed to be fixed. because the issue of iran becoming nuclear was and still is the most problematic, strategic danger that israel faces. it's in this aspect in this context we are hopeful to find the administration that can understand our passions, our fears, our ideas, our vision,
and we will work together in a way that will ensure the success of both america and israel. and we will make israel and america great again. thank you. [applause] >> okay, itamar. >> thank you, david. afternoon to you all. it's a pleasure to be back at the institute. i see some familiar faces and some new faces. i will present some different perspective. i'm not speaking for the government, i'm speaking for myself. and in a way or the israeli extra community that works on the middle east and on american israeli relations. let me begin by saying in a way there is no bilateral or bilateral american israeli
relationship. i'm sure he will bear me support the view that from day one there was always a question of america, israel, evidently stood for many years israel struggled with the question, are we supported because of shared values or are we supported because we are a strategic asset, an ally? and the purpose of meaning israeli policymakers and leaders with regard to that relationship is minute effort to bring the two together, to create a situation where the two are not in contradiction supplement each other were israel would be a valuable ally, a strategic asset as well as the democratic ally sharing the same values as the united states. this culminated i think for 16 years during the clinton and the second bush administration.
for 16 years from 92-2008, it was 1 16 years of an unprecedend close relationship between israel and different administrations. the issue of that tension between u.s. support for israel and u.s. support for its allies has been gradually reduced, beginning with the peace process of the 1970s when henry kissinger managed to overcome the state department at the time and explain there is no point in pressuring israel to give up the sinai and the golan heights, the beneficiary of which would be the soviet union. he said we will pressure israel to make the deal when the arabs understand that the address for getting back the sinai and the golan heights is washington and not in moscow. culminated in the egyptian and israeli peace treaty of 1979, and again blossomed during the
peace process of the 1990s when the united states orchestrated a peace process, israel was negotiating with most of the arab world that the united states was the key to that peace process. it was all faded into an architecture of what was called then containment. let the united states help contain the two dangerous regional powers in iraq and iran in the east, while we are settling the tensions in the core area of the middle is by promoting peace between israel and its immediate neighbors. with george bush it was different. his administration found a way of dealing with the israeli-arab issue, and famous bush letter to prime minister sharon. but we were to some extent brought together by the war on terror when israel was on the
right side of the war on terror. it was of course 9/11 totally transformed the bush administration. certainly his foreign-policy. so in addition to being able to settle this to bolster the relationship, the values and the strategy, the president here and the prime minister in israel, key players. and when they have a close relationship, the whole relationship thrives. it happened of course between clinton and rabin famously but also bush with sharon and then their teams had a very close relationship, almost daily talks between the chief of staff, the prime minister, nice as could advisor. this was an unusual time. they came to an end when the
obama administration came to power. but two things happen. it happened both her and israel. because when america went left, israel went right. netanyahu became prime minister in early 2,009,009 and obama entered the white house on january 20, and then things begin to diverge from day one,, there was no personal chemistry between the two. and there was substantive differences on policy, both with regard to the two pacific issues, the palestinian issue and the iranian issue. but also with the overall view of the region. if you go back to the cairo speech by president obama, is a vision of the region did not dovetail with the israeli vision of the region. and then again he pressured israel to respond to the arab spring, say, by taking,, encouraging initiative on the
palestinian issue and he famously said israel should be on the right side of history. he used the term more than once. the arab spring was a march to the right side of history and israel should join it rather than try to keep the status quo. if you will recall, president obama has interview to the atlantic, his defense of his foreign-policy and his regional policy, and you go back to his outlook on what we call the pragmatic arab, saudi and otheri pragmatics, we go back to the question of his administrations response to the fall of president mubarak in egypt. these are all issues on which israel and washington found, had a very different view of the region.
let me say something about how israel views the region. it's been since the beginning of this century actually, the region has gone tremendous changes and tele- graphically i want to mention the main changes. one is of course, not complete but definitely unwillingness to invest, certainly not invest militarily, most clearly and disastrously in the case of the syrian crisis. secondly russia's return as a major actor in the region and again most egregiously demonstrate since the end of 2015 in russia when russia became a key actor at washington's expense and everybody else or many others expense in syria. the crisis of the arab world, several arab states, key states
that are not safe, preoccupied with huge domestic issues, egypt, saudi arabia, the arab world is in nevada. from its own perspective. while two major powers have joined fully the middle east system, turkey and iran. iran since 1979 but more fully since 2003. 2003. and turkey primarily since president erdogan. this is a dramatic development. these are successor states of the two empires that far many centuries control large parts of the middle east. the ottoman empire and different persian dynasties. for much of the 20th century for different reasons they were not full participants in the region. they now are. so here we have in regional terms to very large powerful states, more than 18 million
each. strong economies, large military forces participating in the politics of the region and changing it. and need to deal with that with that change your so israel obviously asks itself, how do i fit into the region? what would i like to see in the region? which takes us to the current moment. clearly american admissions has not given prior thought to the question what middle east they would like to see. speaking specifically about issues such as iran, islamic terrorism and the palestinian issue, the bilateral relationship with israel but not offering of you of an architecture for the region. i think it would be good for both countries if the prime minister comes here next month, and as we communicate, to try to come to yo as much of a common
vision of the region as we can in order to help the region and help our own relationship. and here i would like to offer insights on the way i see how we can think together and possibly work together on some of the major issues. one, russia. there's been loose talk about a grand bargain, about a total shift in american-russian relations. is there going to be a grand bargain? if it's going to take place, obviously would affect the middle east, and more specifically, the syrian issue can, does russia want to make such a deal? is a syria going to be an important part of it? and if so, what does washington want to have and what does russia have to offer? i guess washington mostly want stability and quiet. russia at least on paper would be willing to provide it, but
will it be able to do that? it's not alone in support of bashar al-assad. is russia willing to abandon its relationship with iran in syria? can it leave stability and quiet or is it going to try to push maintenance of the assad rule? if peace and quiet means let bashar al-assad regained control of 80% of syria, is that going to be acceptable to others in the region, to the sunni arabs? are they going to accept it? how about turkey, which is now in the absence of american leadership has been drifting at the direction of russia, but does turkey really want to russia as a permanent, important neighbor south of its border? more question marks than answers
in this, but this is obviously an important question. so russia and then intimately connected to the relationship with russia, the issue of syria. clearly, something needs to be done about the current crisis in syria. from a human point of view, unacceptable. it upsets stability in the region. it threatens the stability of europe. it creates more pressures on the issue of refugees and immigration, and doesn't need to settle that. i would say this, a perfect solution is not available. a good solution is not readily available. and if the united states wants to be an effective actor here it needs to make decisions that would be very welcome by israel to come back as a major player in the politics of the region, to forget about -- make a
decision with the united states wants to play a role similar to the one that played in earlier decades in the middle east. that i think would be very well, -- welcomed to israel. there is a question affixing the relationship with the traditional sunni allies, not to speak to them recently about the way it was done in the atlantic interview, but to look at the saud is, the egyptian, the jordanians, the moroccans, friends and allies of the united states, and to work with them. that again something that needs to be done. israel as we know now has still under the table but on the whole a very good working relationship with many of the states. and, of course, if the if it ca, and await a trilateral relationship, united states, israel and the pragmatic states in the region, that is something that i think again would be very
welcome from an israeli point of view. finally, the palestinian issue. the relationship between, first of all, it's an issue that needs to be addressed first and foremost from our point of view, from our point of view. it's something that israel needs to deal with not because washington is exacting pressure but because israel needs to deal with the issue. and, of course, it affects israel relationship with the rest of the world, the issue of legitimacy and our relationship with the sunni states and with washington itself. and i'd like to offer the premise to say that the final two-state solution or the final state solution is not available around the corner right now. in an effort to try to negotiate such a solution tomorrow, it's likely to fail and likely perhaps to produce something
similar to what happened after the second conference. but an interim solution is available. it's not acceptable at this point to the palestinian leadership. their policy is everything or nothing. and if the prime minister of israel is willing to make the concessions that issue will have to make for that to happen, and is willing to try to persuade his american interlocutors that this is what the clini united ss should do in the event he does want to invest in this area, i think we can have a fruitful cooperation in this regard as well. so a rich agenda, many question marks, many issues to deal with but i think first of all, a fruitful field to deal in. thank you very much. [applause] >> okay. thank you very much for really wide-ranging remarks.
i start to both of you, i think for minister hanegbi, if you were to look at, we hear these rumors, reports of a possible meeting between the president and the prime minister in february. what do you think is, you would think about what went wrong in the last eight years. also there were good things that security at intel that israeli officials talk about as well. but if you had to say, what is key for this prime minister in establishing in that first meeting, you know, what would you point to? because you're going to get asked about this, i might as well put it out there, on, for example, the issue of the u.s. embassy to jerusalem. but what would you see rt sets of understandings on how the u.s. and israel will deal with each other going forward? you pointed yourself to the
relationship at the top as crucial. so if you could just say, like, iran sanctions, settlement, are there other areas you would say there are some of the principles i would like the u.s. and israel to establish early on? we won't be able to work through all the issue so fast, but at least certain principles that you would like. and itamar, i guess my question is, you touched on the sunni israel under the table relationship, which is got to be what other bright spot in the middle east right now. because they're so is no shortage of challenges and the like. and you mentioned the importance, used the word it would be welcome for viewers to play a greater greater role in the region and the u.s. should get closer to some of the sunni states, which are some years may be a little jarring that issue is advocating closer use arab relations. but it shows you how the middle east has changed.
israel doesn't see itself as a zero-sum game, that the u.s. can be both close to some of his pragmatic states as well as close to israel. you mentioned the idea by trilateral relationship and is one if you could expand on it israel would fit into that, whether it's through formal arrangements or informal understandings. >> thank you, david. the meeting is supposed to take place in february. hopefully it's going to be on december 26, that's my birthday. and i'm going to be 20 the third time, 20 years old. [laughter] the reason i want the prime minister not to come in before the 26th is he is supposed to be in australia, and it's the first visit of an israeli prime minister in australia since israel was established and it
was postponed several times, because of the war in gaza in 2014 and then the president was supposed to be there and couldn't make it. so i was just an australian and i know how anxious they are to host the prime minister. hopefully he will get there on time. but whatever it takes place, it is an important meeting. those two leaders are good friends anyway. they know each other. they met, they spoke, but this is the first time that prime minister comes to the president of the united states, and probably solve so many issues to discuss, to be discussed. i'm not sure that the palestinian issue is going to be the first in the most important on the agenda. i'm sure it's not. hopefully, the palestinians will count -- come to the defenses
and get back to the negotiating table and then we will see whether the united states wants or can help us find the way to run our dialogue. but what we have learned from the peace accord that we have with the jordan since 1993, and with egypt since 1978, is that when the parties sit with each other and bring, put on the table everything that they have, their interests, their frustrations, their vision, their despair, their emotion, history, everything, the way to get an agreement is to find a common denominator between themselves. we did it with egypt. the united states was very helpful. remember, camp david summit in maryland, but it was really between begin and his team to
anwar sadat and his team. and more than a year before anwar sadat was courageous enough to come to the israeli knesset, state his mind and told us all, no more war, no more bloodshed. it was moving. it was exciting and strong, and it led later on to the success of the peace talks, and it's still working. with egypt we have very, very good relationship, based on our common interest to fight terrorism and to ensure stability of the middle east. the same goes with the jordan. the king, king hussein, had relations with israel, even before the six-day war and after the six-day war and before the 1973 war and afterwards. he didn't need any icc decision or european parliament or
american administration encouraging him to go forward and get to an agreement with rabin, and it is still working also like with egypt, working very pretty good. so we want to do with the palestinians, and it will probably be discussed with the president. the major issues i think were touched on here. .. it's not the jewish devil. we are in essence extraordinary.
it's easy to go public with it but the work of the united states and the understanding of the need to bring about such an all-inclusive alliance in a world that is now much more exposed and powerful and what we believe is the strengthening of the relationship between israel and the sunni world, not only in germany but other countries will make it easier for the palestinians, the pragmatic palestinians to be part of this new development and not to see so much afraid, not to be so terrified that there will be unification's or such a courageous move on their part
and that hamas is going to iran or some of the enemies that isolate them . but then the article is giving them support, making them understand that it's in their interest to put an end to this ongoing bloodied conflict. it will be much more feasible to achieve such an agreement and i'm sure this will be discussed in the new administration. i hope we discuss also the need for the united states to acknowledge israel's sovereignty going forward. today, there is no more syria there. we don't want rebels or others threatening the north, supporting the legs in the sea of galilee. the united states could not for the past except allocation back in 1981 but
the world has changed. everything is a new administration. they can be dealing with syrian, russian, hezbollah issues and understanding that giving legitimacy to the administration of the government high is a powerful move by the united states. first in the real context of the geopolitics and what could happen in syria. there's so many issues with north korea to touch on and these are major issues that will be discussed. the most important one is the iranian issue but this probably is not going to be discussed in a public manner. ... >> let me respond directly to the question and then a brief comment on the minister's
statement. i doubt that there can be any formal, open, trilateral relationship. there was by the way that a relationship with the arabs but what was then known as israel's rectory, and turkey and iran and ethiopia and the united states, it was a formal structure for intelligence sharing in what that at the time was soviet policy and that was formal cooperation with the soviet hierarchy. i think for a while it would be more under the table then over it. but there's a way of helping to transform the relationship and also add the united states by responding to the issue of the arab peace
initiativemany israelis, including on the right wing , the prime minister speak enthusiastically about the region of the palestinian issue and say there's no prospect of coming to an agreement with the palestinian leadership but this should be made with the arab world and pass on to the palestinians. there is something in the koran way, it's easier for the israeli public, the republic to accept the arab world. but there is an unstated but real sense in israel that the israeli palestinian conflict is azero-sum conflict. they gain, we lose . not so with the arab states where this has been complementary. so confessions and agreements
made with the arab state are easier to market in the israeli world. secondly the arabs can offer concessions that would make it easier or would supplement the value and we call on the way to obama stopping in saudi arabia to persuade the saudi's to offer an over flight to israel on the way to asia. he met with and negative response but israel's response to the arab peace initiative and the united states comes in, issues like these can be responded to and upset. the arab peaceinitiative , the original one in the 1987 one, it was not exactly relevant. it's a very short document.
it's a small plan and of course syria is not a respondent at this point. but there has not been an israeli response, even from prime minister olmed. he did not not respond to the peace initiative so the response is more or less like okay, we are willing to respond. course it could be changed. it needs to be formulated in the most effective sense and israel is willing to also do what would be a step forward. for this administration decides it doesn't want to see together a revival of the notion of doing agreements between israel and the palestinians and the arabs and his partners into these, it could be aware of elevating this whole message. now, in my brief comments
on prime minister hanegbi's statement. i would not focus if i were the prime minister of israel on trying to persuade the president toundo , it's not going to work. but to enforce these, the iranians are not giving a description so make sure it does not go off here and more importantly the deal with iran's behavior in the middle east, these are not issues on which israel and the united states can come to an agreement and also finding cross-cultural. to go down with respect to this, it would be a bad idea for israel for the annexing process to go on hiatus. the world annexation, they don't want to see there is integrity of anyarab space . iraq, syria and other states,
it's very important to the arabs keep the territory integrity, in the united states because they are afraid that to move from the world war, it will be a matter of course flex at this point, israeli settlements in the goal on there, it's not an issue. i'm not going to be an issue for a long time because syria is not put together again, the issue is not an issue, why raise it. expand this to a problem in which is a very complex and controversial issue so i agree that whatever animals that are conflicting. >> .mister makovsky? . >> i thought both the presentations were very interesting.
i have a question for each of you. how is it, it is true that historically , the chemistry between presidents and prime ministers have been useful in terms of shaping a relationship although the truth is frequently that chemistry hasn't been great even in administrations that ended up doing things fairly well together. the reagan administration being a good example. reagan chemistry was very good. andafterwards , improved a little bit but it was never that great and yet the reagan administration ended up establishing cuticle operations with israel and drove a relationship that was shaped in a sense on values and interests so that is the backdrop i would say, maybe the upcoming visits, the most important thing is to be certain that there's a kind of broad understanding to the approach of the region and here i would say, one of the problems i think when obama wasn't just chemistry, it was
also i think we alluded to this, president obama was an internationalistbut he was a minimalist, . it's not at all clear what president trump is going to be when it comes to the region. we know that he has an interest in isis but we don't know if he has an interest in having the united states remain involved as a power within the middle east and i think that's profoundly in israel's interest. the united states needs today given all the uncertainty, the united states needs a strong israel in the region. israel needs a strong united states so i would focus heavily strategically in the upcoming meetings, talking about what are important strategic industries we both have in the united states remaining in the area precisely as it will affect america'snational interest but one thing we've learned
about the middle east over the last 17 years , it's the las vegas rules don't apply. it takes place in the middle east, every state in the middle east so i would keep that emily in mind and i would then pose the question to each of you more specifically, would you think a reaffirmation of the bush drawn b something that could be of interest to the prime minister when he comes? that would be an achievement but would also send an important signal about understanding on what israel's relationship is with activity and that letter itself has implications for how israel might approach the settlement issue. and given the interests that you have raised on the value of the european initiative, and in effect what you are talking about with regard to my understanding possibly a three-way understanding, where would the issue of the jerusalem embassy fit into that conversation?
the jerusalem embassy. >> before you get into the details, for those of our listeners, who are familiar with the bush letter , that was written in april 2004 at a time that prime minister sharon wanted to drop back. he found he could get no pre-quid pro quo from the palestinians will be purchased president bush and the letter contains a paragraph that says in every final deal with the israelis and palestinians is unlikely to go back to what's known as the 1949 armistice plan which is almost the same, not identical as the pre-1967 line but rather there would be a population center, sometimes known as the settlement blocks that are 80 percent of the settlers with an 80 percent of the land and five percent of the land inside what is known today as
the security barrier so the issue of the letter has returned and there's a lot of speculation that others have in washington that prime minister netanyahu would look for a reaffirmation of that letter, especially as it relates to the start of obama when that letter was not reaffirmed obama administration and it takes the question of settlement blocks in the focus and not building outside the barrier. that part is not in the letter but that's what is a lot of interest in the issue is suddenly going to reassert itself in washington at the time of the visit or in the aftermath of the visit. >> thank you. we understood that we have to go there, okay. i agree that it would be our assessments of the chemistry, the order is most important
component. and i can say that even though let's say the prime minister netanyahu and president obama, feeling these eight years of the administration, that the administration, from israel in so many ways that all of them are known. so we were made public. intelligence, political backing, support in various international forums. of course the new nyu that was signed. during $38 billion. and here is the beginning from 2018.
the corporation, and they did had nothing to do with the fact that we did have repeals over various issues. >> so it's the fact that you can find it to be serious with each other and have emotional reactions but life is life and being enhanced and verystrong , going all the time. must be encouraged area and we'll see what happens before every administration. >> i disagree with my friend, disagree about the sale but i'm not going to raise it , we will be invited again specifically for the issue of this one day. when the syrian issue will be more relevant. but about iran, we do this
thing. i'm not calling for limiting, really calling on israel to carrying the agreements, this is the area apart. but the iranians have inherited this protracted interest tocomply . and maybe they won't but their interest is to make the clock work. and getthe end of the agreements, get all the sanctions . to believe that the world, get their economy, regenerate incomes and fits where the various paragraphs are. >> and we will inspire, they are free to unlimited
enrichment uranium your facilities. they want to say how, 190,000 working. and the agreement, is a legitimate possibility. they will have r.m.d. , and then meet so many integrations to have this material needed for hundreds to be what they call a backout state. being in a position where as president obama put it, in an interview given at the time of the debate about the agreement. they will have weeks before achieving the capability of reaching the armaments, of course they will still need to do things to be achieved
when it comes to the weapons systems. but i think that just waiting for them to be very tough about the implementation of the agreement, they will be able to implement the agreement. >> may have patience. >> it's a empire, alluding to itself in thousands of years and they can wait eight more years if they work the world or the united states leading the world. >> to be located. >> so we cannot just go back and forth in our lives, we have to do many things. these are the icbm programs, there is the issue of breaking the regime of the united states to cut loose, expanding those icbm programs, influence in the region and not ourselves, these issues are important for israel and for the united
states alike and they are more important for the arab world. much more important, we know how this itself, in 81, according to various american groups, we can do in 2007. but we know we cannot do it, we cannot do it in the region, in jordan, we cannot do it in the uae or others , bahrain, or the gulf. seeing the united states disassociate themselves from this issue. or the country, proposing it is a great legacy. so it has to be challenged and how the public future again with the help of those leadership and the same. as time passes it becomes more difficult and thank god we have an administration
that understands the importance of this challenge. did you ask about the embassy before? >> i asked about the sharon letters. >> it would be very not diplomatic for me to relate these because i'm still not like my friends and still here with the israeli government and these are various things to be done. i can relate with but noted in any public forum. >> speaking of sensitive issues, it is very sensitive on our fronts, very much so in the sunni arab states. in two of them they are in houses and chosen, expanding status with regard to the most places in jerusalem. and also, much of what's
being discussed with the small moment between the israeli state with the regime not necessarily with the public and the example of sending israeli guests in jordan is very telling, the public demonstrations against something that the government for the regime decided to do. for jordan's own best interest so the issue of transferring the empathy to jerusalem, is likely to if it's i'll say, without precaution, it may generate public transactions in the last couple years, including these sunni pragmatic states but i think we are a bit behind the curve here because the trump administration is
serious, realizing that what could be said during the comparing, that needs to be addressed to reality here and an administration in the midst of learning the installation process. and without knowledge, just guessing i think there are probably investing a lot in trying to find and create an approach that would enable the president to leave with his commitment about roiling the region. >> if you can relate, do you see the statements of the administration of the last week which seems to kind of put a much quieter on this issue with this temporary pause until the prime minister comes. from your perspective, do you see as using away from its campaign pledge on the issue of the embassy which is an issue that stirred a lot of interest in washington ? >> one created, instead of
moving the odyssey to jerusalem, it would be moved to a mosque where the new places are evacuated. >> it's a joke. >> no, but the people that are worried about parking programs. >> i think this is long overdue. and every american administration, cannot's stand up its commitments and i have this instinct of telling that the current administration will make this decision. but i agree with him, it's time and they will have to do it and make haste to work and consider how to make it in a way that it really only corrects the abnormality, not
many people i'm sure everybody knows but i'm not sure than in israel, according to our world people are in dissent that in 1948, one of the few countries in the world that would not be recognized as the capital city of israel was the united states. it located in its embassy in tel aviv in 1948 and had nothing to do with the israel policy of 1967 moving closely with any other fixation of jerusalem in 1980 or whatever. this was something that was very, very problematic in the beginning of our relationship having allies with united states. it was probably something that was accepted as something that we have to live with or change. but now i think it's
incumbent on the relationship to know the unification and we cannot be bullied by arab threats or other learnings that bring about the fire into jerusalem because it is nothing to do with the peace process. it is not going to determine more than it is to do about recognizing waste on israel as the capital city of israel as it was established in 1948 so of course, it's all about emotions and not about rational thinking. i believe and hope that the administration will find a way to live up to its commitment and it is a commitment, it's not about israel for israel getting our right, it's about legislation that was agreed upon by the american congress in 1995 and every expense is being made
to get the president authority. so it's between the congress and the administration and every israeli left by every israeli praise in a just decision to change and hopefully it will happen. >>. >> before i go to the next question i wanted to be precise, this being c-span, not everyone's aware of all these nuances and how jerusalem, and my hearing you correctly by saying the us relocating it is a western part of jerusalem is rectifying an anomaly. >> historic anomaly and it is not about recognizing the whole city under israeli sovereignty, but a peaceful negotiation? >> i wanted to be clear, >> thanks.
it mentioned the return of turkey to the middle east. i wanted to ask mister hanegbi what you see as the future of us, israeli turkish normalization progress. i wondered if you had specific reference to their role in gaza, to security possibilities, there's already been a meeting, the workings of another meeting between deputy chief of staff and the turkish chief of staff. and also to the energy issue and how do you balance that with the relations you've developed in recent years with the hellenic world? >>. >> hellenic world, cyprus and greek. >> we have great internet strategic relationships with turkey for a long time. even during our primer shift. >> we visited as a minister,
several times that the patient have great concerts with my colleagues. and we all know what happened. this is first in the language and the historic and later on probably with the synthesis of art along, this is what happened in gaza. it's the islamic affiliation and the fall of hamas. victims and he was, we know the these are all political maneuvers and other issues as well. >> israel, they made a pragmatic decision not to escalate the relationship, to inflame the ongoing tension after what happened with that so the prime minister, took advantage of president obama
to try to mediated with a phone call between him and burda want to apologize. accepting the basic humanitarian reasons to compensate the families of altogether 10, and in turkish territories nearing this confrontation. then the battle came back, erdogan came back. the energy issue was found to play an important role in the extent of turkey and of israel. but we have strategic operations which can be challenged which would put aside issues that belong to the past. these will have to be
questions because hamas does not operate and it has a tendency every three or four years they forget what happened in the last confrontation and it provokes us again and then we have to do whateverwe have to do . and it provokes the israeli turkish relationship but it seems that greece, cyprus, turkey, we have a relationship with italy based on our mutual ways of having our projects together. our energy, with cyprus, we learn together how to cooperate with greece, we have a lot of cooperation in various aspects, and very great relations with the government in greece even though it's very much sympathetic to israel and their interests so the
balance is there. we will have to be very light not to enter our self into this local regional debate. >> just to add to all of this, the israel and syria. i think we have huge interest in syria. i think we focus maybe too heavily on the kurdish issue. i think one of the important byproducts of the syrian crisis has been fundamental witnesses in the republic of the turkish state itself. earlier it's been assumed that turkey is a powerful sector in the middle east and this is not the case that the sense of frailty and threat to the foundations of the turkish state by the
prospects of kurdish sovereignty either in syria or iraq was so powerful that it became a driving force. atsome point , as we witnessed that turkey preferred isis over the kurds in syria.and now we of course with we call it the russian iranian victory in aleppo has eased somewhat but as we proceed in dealing with the syrian crisis continues to unfold and the prospects of potential russian american reason so forth into this and what the church really want. there maybe?'s. >> i was thinking of two
questions the trump team might ask any visiting israeli delegation beyond what you touched upon and the first it seems to me would be an interest in getting an assessment from israel as to how it now views aside and given the military victories and consolidation he's been able to gain with the help of the iranian forces and russian forces, and the question might relate to military interesting op-ed piece which martin put forward not too long ago in which he said that contrary to the general logic that jerusalem being the most difficult issue should be left to the end, we should have a jerusalem first diplomatic initiative whether it's directly with the
palestinians between some larger coalition of the arab states but perhaps you could comment as to what you think and israeli answer to those questions might be? >> the second question, i totally agree that the refugee issue is much more problematic. we haven't heard any palestinian leader, prominent leaders so far disassociate himself from this dream of right of return, on getting assad and nazareth. they say in closed rooms they understand that it's a no starter but no one really knows what's happening in closed rooms because at the end it has to go to referendum both in israel and among the palestinians and if you don't teach the palestinian people that this
is not going to happen, that it's somethingthat no israeli same leader left or right can accept , then the palestinian refugees will have to find their solution in desperation in the two states solutions and not in this 1948 area so it's either going to be killed in the referendum but i don't see the beginning of understanding among the pragmatic people that this is an education issue in the country. you see the excitement for the other stuff so i believe it's much more pragmatic than finding a creative solution in jerusalem or a creative one with the holy basin.
and with the next question? we have, thank you. we have five years debate in israel about what is better, assad or some kind of placement, whatever we don't. and it's very chill because there's no israel decision or policy about it, it's caught up to us before we decide we are not going to make any real difference. an impact but my personal decision in the debate is that the best scenario is that assad is out. i see this big blow to iran and hezbollah in the region. they think so which is why
they fight for years to make assad survive. this is like thousands of hezbollah fighters feeling the brunt, many were killed and wounded and crippled to achieve this goal, this is why he ran put some many of this, they say houses of the tribulations staples for why the country was there, many of the iran were killed. but they invest in it because they understand the reunification of syria not being led by a supporter of the radical front headed by iran so i think it would happen it would be great news for the world, for israel, for thelebanese, for the real people , the peaceful people
of syria, who would love to take a leadership helping the people in order to segment of the minority but this is virtually and i'm sure, they think more about it and maybe it's interesting. >> could you weigh in and study syria your whole life? >> sure. these things about syria, part of the problem with trying to negotiate the issue of it is that we've been at it for a very long time and almost everything has been done at nausea and so if somebody comes out of the box idea, it's worth thinking about and i would say that if negotiations are to resume, they should be preserved. you don't understand litigation into the room. it's less tried to find out whether there is an area
where we come to the point of trying to prepare for this situation. now israel and, i oftentimes acquitted in the government and not in syria. it's kept us responsible, out of the crisis. and at points and at places where action is required, on the whole it's done very well. i think the debate that is waged maybe wages not the right term but israel, between the devil we know and the others, it's been decided . and certainly clearly the governments understands that staying in power is worse for this situation. first of all, sometimes we have moral opposition. i think it is wrong for the
international community to support mass numbers staying in power. and it's the president of serbia and it's not a trip morally speaking. secondly, this will be a victory for the coalition of russia, iran, assad but for israel. we tried to establish itself in southern syria and to extend the line of confrontation. into the golan heights and that's where they go. >> briefly, if the current trend continues with russia and with irani and help, assad continues to crush opposition and push southward, eventually south of syria will become an area of fighting between the regime and insurgents and
possibly embroil both of them in this so it's an issue that needs to be thought through. it's one area in which the united states and other arab states could very well collaborate >> . >> and i'll take a few in the row because this is the last round. next, >> thanks very much. thanks for all your remarks. >> the reason i wanted to raise some of this in the market is that mister rabinovich made an interim settlement idea and i have two questions with regard to them, one is i think it's from that suggestion to agree with mister hanegbi that the obama approach was fatal but
there now exists some possibility of integration and negotiation and that's what you see that interim settlement solution to be. >> what's the three in the road here, identify yourself. >> you can look and have this support for defense ãa and my question, i have two questions. it regards the momentum in the us israeli operation and possible palestinian peace talks. do you think that those still are a role for the european union and how increased operation, how increased the role, what kind of influence will they have four relations withthe european union. that's the first question and the second one , do you think that perhaps part of the talks of your prime minister
would be possible usa in syria and that there will be a melting between the us and russia on syria and cooperation, will you help us , to have that part and have a say on the future solutions in syria. also in terms of pushing back iran. >> thank you. >> a more general question about this, the huge importance of release, there are different reports that indicate that all will run out in the next 30 years. >> what implications you think that has or israel in general, for the importance of the middle east on the world stage. >> we are going to allow the,
our panelists to respond to these three sets of questions and we will conclude so just to recap if i have this correctly, one question is to what extent you could articulate what an interim agreement would look like and the fact that what i think the obama administration was trying to do, the second question as i understand from our colleagues from poland was about to what extent would a stronger us israel cooperation have to be to you, europeans role, europe's role going forward, and also how israel's interests regarding the us russian approach and the other question is about the role of oil. going forward, strategic oil. >> let me go first. you see the issue is this. and people sometimes try the situation as an extension
between the quest for comparing the settlement and continuation of the state. so my two points of advice here on this, one is we have impulses right now to find this and compare settlement and through the regional states. what we call the status quo is a trip towards conversation. and it's greeting the administration. and one of the things the israelis can offer in the interim agreement is to stop this. >> the revival of the bush sharon letters as we mentioned, this would be one element of agreeing on the block, on construction. just inside the blocks, of course free from coalition consideration in israel and i can say that. >> maybe we will join power okay. and i come home with one of
these. >> he didn't say which party. [laughter] thirdly, area c, 60 percent of area c, much could be done in offering to the palestinians in area c. b, it's going to make construction of gaza, in order to reduce the human pressure cooker and so forth. i could go on, i think there are advanced elements that touch on finding respect with issues , that would lead to a significant improvement in luxury, standard of life. in the west and in gaza. and that could subsidize the administration but the main obstacle is that the pa leadership is absolutely dead opposed to the idea because they say an interim settlement, they have to
confront the issue, how do you prepare the palestinians to recession is a more the benefits of an interim settlement but the question of declining in terms of the middle east is, one of the changes in the region during this century has been the decline. and to a large extent because of the expanding presence of middle eastern origin, the rise of analysis and part of the underlying agreements for the american people is a way for the region is to do exactly this. >> thank you. about europe, i'm in charge of some of the concepts of the relationship between israel and europe. i present from the
discussions with europeans union and going to attend the special meetings of dedicated to those relationships in russia next month and i just came back from meetings in barcelona with the senator, representatives in the european union and we always have societal's here for needs and readiness and hopes. to have very close relations with europe, europe is our best trade partner, we have so many connections to do with countries in europe. we would like to see the european approach to the middle east conflict in a more balanced way, the traumatic acceptance of palestinian approach.
will the countries in europe share our views about this conflict and does european unity need another one of those decisions which helps to minimize the tension. what we do feel that now the new administration, there is room for your more european involvement with a more balanced approach and europe can play a role because they are much more palestinian resistance than the united states it. there may be some kind of triangle to motivate the palestinians to go toward a two state solution table. we have many projects with europeans in order to encourage projects, all these projects in this environment in the west bank. by the way we present israel
in the bulk of communities with the release of donors in new york and in september and see how much importance the european contribution places, the very lives in the west bank. it's important to bring them to the board and do it with cooperation with israel and the palestinian authorities. all making with the part of the original cooperation that is to cooperate with jordan, with egypt, with the palestinians and neighboring countries with the help of europe and other countries and other places in the world. in order to at least until we have final arrangements with a lot of citizens to be their own institutions, to have a more fluid economy, to have
infrastructure, to allow that in due time to have a functioning state. about syria, the last remark is that as they put it, we were very cautious about remaining with syria. we only made some red lines concerning the state that we don't want to see the art of weapons from iraq through syria to the heads of has bullock and making them more motivated whatever they will be freed from 11 to again provoke israel to begin being the aggressor and we don't want this to happen in other grounds of violence. another interesting part is this session to present the syrian iranian has bullock friends to use the syrian
golan heights in order to make israel infiltrate injuries and build an infrastructure of terrorism in the golan heights, taking advantage of the extent that it is a no man's land there. but we do think several times , we say that it will happen and we intercepted. it's then stated the strategy was put aside and we hope that there will be a better administration in the future. >> i want to thank our panelists and i hope you join me in thanking them for a very wide ranging discussion and i'm sure as the new in ministration here takes shape in washington and prime minister comes and visits, this issue will be very much
coming to the floor so i want to thank you for getting us started here in 2017 on this issue and more discussions to come. you all very much for coming. thank you. [inaudible conversation] >> c-span: where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> we are going live now to the senate education committee.