tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 31, 2014 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT
report that compares the current law to today's bill, you will see the same due process, the same legal protections are left intact. in fact, i respectfully ask my colleagues in opposition to show me specifically where there's due process and legal protection is taken away out of the bill. i yet have heard where it does this. i have also asked my colleagues in opposition respectfully to sit down with me and offer their alternative solution or their legislative proposal to this border crisis and have yet to hear those solutions. in this appropriation bill we have to provide the funding for the federal agencies to provide an orderly border. but we cannot no longer afford to play defense from the 1-year-old called the u.s.-mexico border. we need to play defense on the 20-yard line and this is why working with the central american countries, working with mexico to address the core issues and to fix and fight the
smugglers is vital. i want to thank the men and women on the border that have defended our homeland, and i want to thank the border communities and churches and nonprofits that have done so much to help this -- folks at the border. in fact, i want to thank the chairman for allowing a provision for the border communities to seek reimbursement for the allowable expenses under this bill. we cannot leave washington today without putting the resources and the policy changes to address the border crisis. we are sent here to address not the easy problems but to address the hard problems. john f. kennedy -- mr. rogers: i yield another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is yielded another minute. mr. cuellar: thank you, mr. chairman. we are sent here to washington not to address the easy problems but to address the difficult problem that this nation is facing. when president john f. kennedy was faced with a very difficult crisis, he said, i'm not looking
for a republican answer or for a democratic answer, i'm looking for the right answer. and i think today in a bipartisan way we need to look for that right answer. i urge yes on this supplemental appropriation bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee, a member of the labor, health, and human services and foreign operations subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me thank to our ranking member on approps, mrs. lowey, for yielding and your steadfast leadership. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this woefully inadequate republican response to the humantarian crisis along our border. let me start by saying that as an appropriator i am very troubled by the shameful inadequate funding levels and
misguided offsets in this bill. i'm also deeply concerned by the dangerous policy riders that strips protections for vulnerable children, protections signed into law by a republican president, mind you. let's be clear. this crisis has nothing to do with the lack of funding for immigration enforcement. we don't do anything to help these children by pouring tax dollars into the further mill tarization of our border. and -- militarization of our border. that's what this bill does. our response needs to put children first. in a hearing this week we heard first hand from central american children who had fled violence in their home countries and had passed through our broken detention system. these children and thousands like them risk their lives on their way to this country. some have witnessed murders and gang violence in their home countries and suffered freezing conditions and inadequate nutrition while in detention in the united states. these stories were chilling and
made clear where we need to direct our resources -- humane care, access to due process, and support to end the violence and poverty plaguing honduras, el salvador, and guatemala. no one disagrees with protecting our borders, but come on, we also have a duty to protect these children who, according to the united nations high commission on refugees, 60% of whom were interviewed, these children need international protection. my home district makes up alameda county, where over 200 of these children have been reunited with their families locally. their stories are real. their stories are very, very powerful. so i urge a no vote. let's guarantee due process for these children who are fleeing violence. let's have a heart. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky virginia tech. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the gentlelady from new york if she has further speakers?
i'm prepared to close. you have one additional speaker? then i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. madam speaker, , ore i turn to my colleague ms. lofgren from california, the ranking member, an expert on immigration, the subcommittee of the judiciary committee, i just want to make one statement again. the senate, after months of hearings, passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. it is really very sad that today we can't get together, democrats and republicans, and review the work that had been
done by the senate and pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have prevented the emergency that we are trying to address today. the majority of the bill that is included in this supplemental should have been done through a thoughtful committee process. so i'm very pleased to turn the balance of our time to mississippi lofgren, a member of the immigration judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for the remaining two minutes. ms. lofgren: madam speaker, the u.s. conference of catholic bishops tells us this bill, quote, would result in the u.s. sending children who have relief available to them back to the conditions they fled and will result in many children being harmed and some being killed on their return. i join the bishops in opposing
this bill. with this bill, children who've been trafficked, who've fled persecution, violence and abuse will be stripped of protections that have existed for years. our laws provide that victims of persecution and torture must have a meaningful opportunity to request safe haven. we need not prejudge the outcome of these cases. we need only adhere to these laws that ensure that each child is treated in a fair matter that their case be individually considered, and if they deserve protection under the law, so be it. if not go home. this is not new. refugees have received protection in america for decades. in 1980, the asylum system that we have today was established. most of the special protections for unaccompanied children were created in 1997. many were codified in 2002, but critics of the anti-slavery law of 2008 claim it has caused the influx of kids to america. but the protections began in
1997, 17 years ago. no. kids are fleeing because of the extreme violence in three countries. children from other countries in the region are not fleeing here, and people were honduras, el salvador and guatemala are fleeing to every other country in the region. a 17 -- a 712% increase in asylum cases in belize, anything rag with a and otherle -- nicaragua with a and other central american countries. what the bill did, the u.n. review now makes clear that as a consequence, we are sending kids who have been sex trafficked back to their abusers as a consequence. rather than fix this loophole, this bill would subject all kids to that flawed process. i can't help but note that this will be the only bill, immigration bill with an up or down vote, a bill to strip
victims of their protections. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from new york's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. for three minutes. mr. rogers: i yield myself the balance of the time. madam speaker, we have a crisis on our border with mexico right now. it can't wait. it's a humanitarian crisis. it's also a failure of our border. 's an open border now unless you fix it. f we don't change the law to treat central american children the same as we treat mexican children at the border, you're going to be flooded. the amount now on the border will pale to incision because
homeland security tells us that hey anticipate another 145,000 next year on top of the tens of thousands of adults and families flooding across that open border. we have an immediate crisis today. this bill is an urgently needed bill. it provides immediate funding for critical border security and these humanitarian needs. the money will be there immediately. if we do not pass this bill today, you're going to risk these resources running out. then your hands will be tied. more and more immigrants will continue to flood across that border if you fail to act. this bill will allow the
d.h.s., the department of homeland security, and the national guard to tighten security and restore the border . it will allow the department of justice to process the cases that may be needed more efficiently. it encourages repatriation in the countries from which these immigrants came, and it provides much-needed shelter and care for the thousands of unaccompanied children who've recently crossed that border. we must act today before we leave town, not only to protect our borders, but to help these unaccompanied children who are being brought here by iminals, no less, on a long, dangerous, arduous journey subject to abuse, injury and death along the way. how can you turn away from these faces?
this bill directs responsible levels of resources toward the front line, toward the highest priority needs. the bill puts policy measures into place that keep criminals out of the country and help encourage children not to make that very dangerous life-threatening journey. the president's request would do nothing to enforce our laws and make this nation a safer place. help the problem. stop the crisis.the speaker pro ouse will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the
purpose of an announcement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mccarthy: i want to advise all members that additional votes are possible today. we will send out information as soon as it is possible. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman will yield? mr. mccarthy: yes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. we're going to have to call some members back. they already left on the representation that this was the last vote of the day. i would imagine you have some members are in that category themselves. can the gentleman give me any idea of when we will have notice as to whether or not there will be further votes today? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. knowing that some members -- and this vote now closed, and earlier announced they would not walk off the floor at 3:45, i think it's possible to advise all members that there are possible there will be votes
today. i'm hopeful late this afternoon we'll be able to notify the ime. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. >> tim alberta is joining us to -- therough the usual unusual day in the house. you write that house republican leaders are looking to take a second whack at packing the emergency order package >> -- border package. what happened?
>> as you can see, kevin mccarthy was getting off to an unusual start. this is also the first go around for the majority whip. everything looked at to be an order last night. they had the votes they thought they needed last night. as late as early this afternoon, we heard from leadership staffers and officials they were preparing to move forward and hold a vote on this bill as scheduled. all of a sudden,, there was the announcement it would be postponed. masskers were hit with a e-mail message saying, this is an advisory the bill has been pulled from the floor. that set off chaos, for lack of a better term.
members had been expecting a vote. they had no idea why. while there were some discontent in the conference and some members who were not on board, the vast majority were on board. they were expecting a vote. that led to an afternoon conference meeting. what we haveack -- now is leadership grouping and meeting with some members. they are going to reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. for a conference being in the hope of the leadership team -- the hope of the leadership team is they will propose the linguistic tweaks. at that point, enough of the dissenters from this afternoon will be satisfied with the changes. they will go upstairs, vote on the house floor, and hopefully
be able to pass this and go home for the recess. >> we heard there were>> -- we heard there was a role of one or two republican senators in this. reportedday, it was senator ted cruz would meet with a handful of house republicans in his senate office. this was blown out of proportion. senator cruz meets regularly with house republicans. he hosts them in his office. the invitation for this meeting out about aent month ago. it was unrelated to this particular bill. i am told by several house republicans that senator cruz did not voice any kind of opposition be read he was not trying to whip boasts against it. -- votes against it.
another senator, jeff sessions, played a larger role. , who was not happy with the package the house leadership was attending to pass theit be known that delegation should vote against this. he hoped they would vote against it. apparently, that had enough of an impact and we were working with tight enough margins that if three or four members of the --bama delegation put at slipped at the last moment, that could have moved the numbers just enough to make the house leadership team pulled the bill off the floor for fear of being embarrassed. >> the senate has been for -- working on its own version. it has failed to advance that.
where does it go? >> any senate, it goes nowhere. they are going home for the recess. must've the intent and will -- much of the attention was on the house of representatives. they are still in town. i would handicap it any good likelihood the house passes something. on the senate side, it was clear they would not pass anything. there was a serious disconnect between what majority leader harry reid was going to allow and what the senate republicans were allowed to go with. supplementaryss a funding bill were doomed from the start to read -- from the start. >> tim alberta of national journal on twitter. thank you for being with us. >> my pleasure. >> as you heard, the gop
conference is tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. the house will be returning friday morning at 10:00 a.m.. the house rules committee met late today and approved a so-called same day rule allowing consideration of a border funding bill before september 5. we will show you the meeting to read is about 20 minutes. >> the committee comes to order. thank you for taking the time to join us. we are here for the purpose of we can be prepared for a piece of legislation that i fully anticipate will be available to us. i just do not know when. [laughter]
but there is a strong sense -- >> [indiscernible] >> well, no, i think it is good to measure twice and saw once, and if you get a chance to do that, you do the right thing. we have believed in our conference that talking to each other goes a long way. we believe that if we air out the things we agree with, but the difference is that we have, that we get a better sense about not only what the problem is, but what the solution might be also. and so -- >> [indiscernible] >> we are going through a process, and now we are going to see if we can get there. it may take a few more, but we will take what you got. we are here at the rules committee to pass what we believe was a consideration of a rule that would allow us to be
prepared as quickly as we do get an answer. and so that is why we are here, and dr. burgess is now here. he has come out of -- did they take the needles out of you, mike? i'm glad you are here. so that is why we're here, and this is what we are going to do. we are going to get this work done. does the gentlewoman have any statements she would like to make? >> well, i appreciate you are between a rock and a hard place, and as i look at this, i got to say i'm somewhat surprised to see that this martial law goes to september 5. this means that without anybody seeing anything you could call something any time between now and vote on it. you would not do that, would you? >> i want to provide us with a maximum amount of flexibility. if it is not tonight or
tomorrow, or whatever it is, saturday, that we are prepared so we do not have to call you back and we can get this done. the we are trying to just give us the flexibility. there is nothing cute or clever about this flexibility. >> last night we could have done it or today, when we did the other martial law -- >> i'm sorry. >> that is ok. i am saying if we had done the martial law to cover it tomorrow, which is not unheard of, a couple of days, but five weeks is a bit -- and we realize -- we understand. it is pretty astonishing and i really feel that the fact that you could not get votes for this one, basically for the people that -- >> the people that do not think it was, it was not. >> well, look, i have a great
fondness for all of you. i really do. >> i knew you did. >> you are nice people and i enjoyed talking with you, and most of you are southerners -- >> but you're going to hear the word "but" now -- >> i want you to take the advice in a manner it is given. i think you need a better senate advisor. i do not think the advisor you have got has done a good job. first, the government shut down and now this. just saying that for whatever you can do with that. >> chuck schumer and i are good friends. >> i think he would give you to a different kind of advice. i do not mean to knock the senator. i am sure he means well. i just think that his record over here in the house is not that good, it appears to me. and one does wonder if the president of the united states might wonder if he might want to sue the house of
representatives, what do you think? for malpractice? >> you know what? that might be a good question, but we are going to live up to it and do our job. >> we were ready to do our job today, but let's go. i do not want to hold this up. do you have anything to say? >> a couple things. one is i am reading the statement by the house gop leaders on this border bill, and i am a little confused. we began the week, when you guys decided to sue the president because he took executive action, and then you brought a border bill to the floor that restricted the executive actions by the president, and it was not tough enough for some on your right wing, and you toughened it up even more. you did not have the votes.
you pulled the bill, and leadership issues a statement saying there were numerous steps that the president can and should be doing right now without the need for congressional action. i am wondering now, if we can get the president to take executive action, are you going to sue him again a second time? >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will be happy to yield. >> this said the president should take action by himself? >> i just highlighted it. >> what? >> i appreciate the chairman saying that members of the republican conference are conferring with each other and talking to each other and having conversations with each other. i want to make kind of a radical suggestion here. maybe the republican leader should also confer that the democratic caucus, because we have some ideas, too, and quite frankly i think we have ideas that i can guarantee you that if they were brought to the floor, if they were allowed to be
voted on would pass. as far as the martial law thing here, it says here that the rules of the same date is waived with respect with any resolution through september 5, 2014, providing them measures relating to the humanitarian crisis on the border related to immigration law. which means anytime between now and then, any bill that has anything to do with this can be brought before the house of representatives. we will not have the customary three days to be able to review the bill. i am not sure how much time we get for we are notified that a bill would be coming up, and assuming you do not bring up something tomorrow or saturday, some of us may go back to our district.
at least you could bring something up within an hour's notice. >> i appreciate it. if we go to some reality task and apply what i would say is logic, the logic would tell you that we are going to bring this piece of legislation that allows us to have a same-day rule. we have a piece of legislation. and so you would be notified, you would be given notice -- >> how much? >> are your members here or not here? >> if it is tomorrow, we are here. >> my logic of this, my logic is tomorrow afternoon, i assume, at some point, if we have not made progress, the progress that i would want, we would all want,
then somebody will engage in a colloquy, probably mr. hoyer, the minority whip, would ask the question on the floor, please tell us what we believe the schedule would be. and we would have an idea, do people go home, do people say here, and we would get an idea of that schedule, and then that schedule would tend to drive the behavior about when we believe a bill would be ready. now, you and i both know we would probably have to come back, the rules committee would have to come back early, but we would make sure that we talk about mrs. slaughter and i would talk, my members and i would talk, and we would come back, regular notice will be given. >> mr. chairman, are you saying that you want to be covered in case any action is not taken tomorrow? >> you know what i'm saying? >> you're saying that by tomorrow afternoon if we did not come to resolution on this -- >> i am not saying --
>> can you give us some idea of the parameters of the -- what you have in mind? >> i would say that i would fully expect that it would be a new bill. >> a totally new bill? >> i did not say totally. >> if you want to do a new bill, i would think that you would want to consult with democrats so you could get to pass it. >> i am all over that. >> it would look good. it would have to be it considerably different kind of built. >> presumably it is aimed at the appropriations bill. there maybe some other people appear but i would hope that there would be consultation. >> are we consulting on the bill tomorrow? we will do a rule, i suppose. >> we would.
>> i express my deep concern over this process which is not really regular order. what some of us have been concerned about is this whole kind of process devolving into adding more and more legislative things to an appropriations bill that none of these legislative items have been the subject of hearings or markups or deliberations. you talk about the actions that were not part of the appropriations process and have fallen under authorizing committees, i don't know if i understand with the impact of some of the stuff. add toughering to language, adding this language i like toome of us would
know if they can talk to experts , those that would be effective. those that know more about how border process works. i'm not saying we don't know a lot, but i'm saying that's why have hearings so you can learn what the implications are going to be. i am concerned about major changes in the law that have not been fully vetted. that, the more you move to the right on all the stuff, the less likely this process is going anywhere but maybe a vote on the house floor and that's it. but i will tell you what i will do. >> i will try to the best of my ability to make clear there is an understanding that the implications of this, whatever it might be, we are able to fully explain it.
i felt like the other day that whether they were republicans or democrats, they gave straightforward answers. ,f there are additional changes i don't know what they would be. this. just reading right now without the need of congressional reaction, which flies in the face of the reality. to secure our borders and return them swiftly to their countries.
for the past month, the houses been engaged. and enjoying the process, i don't know if that means. what is the process that the border bill was built? we saw that sheet of paper, just for a second. >> it is pretty much the president of the united states that you can get the votes to do something. >> mayor very much upset about that.
no such thing, listening to members and american people. nobody listens to us. they get the support of the majority of the majority. the rest of us didn't count. we managed to to seven percent of the population and we got a million more votes in the last election for democrats than we thought. we really resent as much as , being shut out all the time. but this is really an insult. you ought to be ashamed to put that up there. >> accept my apology for not seeing it before it went. what you want to do is come back . attempt what it is going
i did not get invited either so join the club. the chair now being in receipt of a motion? >> mr. chairman, i'm move the committee grant a rule to waive the clause requiring a two thirds vote to consider the same date as reported. related to the ongoing humanitarian crisis on the u.s. border and related immigration law.
>> to be determined. >> we are through with our work for the day. we hope you have a safe evening. >> in a few moments, the un security council hears about the latest attack on a u.n. school in gaza. in 20 minutes, the atlantic council host of former palestinian prime minister for his comments on the conflict between israel and thomas. -- and hamas.
and no oversight hearing on marijuana and transportation policy. >> author sylvia dukes morris is our guest. >> she was so beautiful and so smart and also so witty that she was just always a resistible to men. --ever saw, even in old age at her 80th birthday party. entered:, a washington columnist was at this party and they sat together after dinner and at one point she began to stroke his beard. heavens, he said. met an 80-year-old before that i wanted to leap into bed with. she had this seductive quality her entire life. >> sharing about their personal q&a.ionship, on c-span's
gazaphone call from thursday to the security council, a u.n. official condemned the attack on a u.n. run school. a calling it a violation of international law. the meeting began with an update on casualties in both sides of the conflict between israel and hamas. a 72 hour cease-fire was announced. this is 22 minutes. >> the current crisis in gaza takes place against the backdrop of instability, poverty, and vulnerability resulting from repeated outbreaks of hostilities and the ongoing blockade on land, air, and sea. the crossings for limited pedestrian movements.
of gaza'st, over 80% population, over half of them children under the age of 18, rely on humanitarian aid. the use ofs apply on the gaza strip. waters are totally or partially inaccessible. they are estimated to be food insecure and unemployment remains high at 43%. the economy is more advanced. this volatile situation has been exacerbated by 24 days of conflict. thousands of palestinians have been killed and 6000 injured. over 80% of those killed are civilians. 251 children. israel has faced rocket fire.
59 have been killed, three civilians, and 56 soldiers. dozens injured. 400 and 40,000 people in the gaza strip are now displaced. almost 24% of the population. hosted whileeing others are seeking refuge buildings,ey can in hospital grounds, or families and friends. these areas are becoming harder to find. long and5 kilometers six and 14 kilometers wide. with the blockade in place, most people are not able to leave
gaza even to get urgent medical attention. they come to the united nations facilities for protection when their homes and neighborhoods come under fire. people, but0,000 over 103 u.n. facilities have come under attack including a school hosting 3300 displaced yesterday. 19 people were killed and over 100 injured. lostnited nations has several and other humanitarian workers have been killed since the outbreak of hostilities. no place is safe. the other attacks in the strongest possible terms.
with direct or indiscriminate attacks. nations must remain in viable. a parties to the conflict should protect humanitarian workers. justificationo for failing to do so. the widespread destruction of homes, public services, and the infrastructure throughout the gaza strip. 9000 homes have been destroyed according to preliminary reports. they have also sustained damage. compounds havee also been damaged.
24 medical facilities have been damaged or destroyed, some hit multiple times. this includes the hospital that julyit on the 21st of causing significant damage to the top two floors of the hospital and killing four people. july, theh of hospital sheltering thousands of displaced people was also damaged. in addition to schools, hospitals, and other infrastructures, the only power plant was struck on tuesday, destroying the fuel tanks. parts of gaza will remain without any electricity while others will only receive electricity two hours of da day. repairs are expected to take months to complete under the best of circumstances. the immediate, medium, and
longer-term impact on the functioning of water, sanitation, and health care facilities as well as food production cannot be overstated. water and sewer systems are also severely damaged and i am deeply concerned about possible contamination water systems. hundreds of thousands of people are without access to regular water? . the ongoing violence is preventing urgent repairs. if the current situation persists, the number of people without water will significantly increase. they're working to meet increasing humanitarian needs. with other shelters as well as patients of hospital staff.
until they are injured, recover the fed, and allow civilians some reprieve so that they can restock and resupply their homes. we need the government of israel, hamas, and other militant groups to comply with legal obligations including international humanitarian and human rights laws. each party must be held accountable. we all watched in horror the desperation of children and civilians as they have come under attack. there is no safe place to go. under international humanitarian law, the government of israel must distinguish between the military objectives and civilian objects.
and protect them from the effects of military operations. with the different circumstances , even more has rules. there are appeals for additional funds to respond quickly and generously to these appeals. we can't provide assistance without urgent injection of funds. the people of israel want the same thing.
>> we now give the floor over. >> we want to deliver everything from gaza city. we have assessed the situation on the ground. they admit terrible conditions resulting from the conflict that iraq did on the eighth of july -- that erupted on the eighth of july. staff to thank the providing a humanitarian lifeline for the people of gaza
and under the truly outstanding leadership of the director of operations bob turner. many lost their lives since hostilities began and they are knowledge and the sacrifice -- acknowledging their sacrifice. --ant to thank the families .hey have borne witness i have, in particular this morning, seen the catastrophic human cost of this war as a pediatric ward in gaza with in armed conflict
waged with excessive and disproportionate force. they had very barely and not yet -- like many of you around the table, i have children of my own. and what i saw today, it devastated me. i have always refused anonymity in death and injury. zonesten reports in war -- the palestinian children i saw today are not statistics. behind every death and injury there is a story and a destiny to be respected.
elementary girls school, serving as the --ignated emergency shelter including a notification that the school was sheltering displaced persons. instructed by the israeli military to seek shelter in places such as ours. i reiterate my condemnation in the strongest terms, reiterate also that it was in serious filing should of international , including the immediate launching of a transparent investigation to share its findings. we are engaged in continuous dialogue with israel on the matter.
i have heard the messages time and time again. safe at school, we are not safe anywhere in gaza. the world has failed to protect. is protection of civilians not something we want to hear anymore. also call upon all parties to respect the sanctity of u.n. premises and exercise the highest precaution in the conduct of military operations. daysttack came only six after the emergency shelter caused multiple injuries and fatalities. cause all the worse.
there is something to ochoa to draw attention. on three occasions, we found rockets belonging to groups in gaza -- we alerted relevant .arties improve procedures in a manner that does not compromise the safety or staff of civilians. said thatalso be these discoveries do not in any on justify attacks facilities. a muslim -- closely monitor competence and other parties. here members of the council, allow me to turn to the most difficult challenge facing gaza today.
have 220,000 displaced people. it is four times higher than the peak number of displaced people during the conflict in 2008 and 2009. i am not here referring to the tens of thousands that have found temporary shelter only to registered. we are doing everything possible to provide them with food, mattresses, and blankets. we are now into the fourth week of mass displacement and facility unequipped to shelter large numbers for such a duration. diretions are increasingly in the shelters. latrines are totally inadequate.
withutbreak is beginning skin infection, scabies, and others. there are thousands of pregnant women. we are sheltering newborn infants in these appalling conditions. our ability to mitigate is heavily restricted by ongoing facilities. we are gravely concerned about this situation and we are gravely concerned about any possible displacement. with as many as 2500 displaced people residing in schools, an average of 80 people per classroom, we have exceeded the tolerable limit that we can accommodate. it is with alarm i have seized accounts of new instructions to evacuate the area of gaza city. cools on six occasions, i think
the population is facing a precipice. should further large-scale be the occupying power of international humanitarian law that will have direct results for the people. reality of israel is not sustainable under any circumstances. the continuing destruction of infrastructure. as i have stated on previous visits to gaza, the rockets -- we all aspire a middle
east in which people share common interests, a stake in each other's well-being, and the commitment that the said for-general st justice and security in the region. and those caused by the conflict now unfolding. allow me to add my voice to those calling for the underlying in full view of the world. is not enough. returnot conceivable to to the situation existing before this conflict.
the blockade of gaza must be they face the prospect that it would be unlivable in a toter of only a few years enable the development of gaza and the ensuring security for all in the region. it they to his mandate, will remain steadfast in their commitment to operations. required to ensure lasting peace to instability in the region. i thank you, mr. president. >> i thank him for his briefing and now we invite council members to continue the discussion on the subject. the meeting is adjourned.
by the look of the size of this audience and the buzz in the audience, you know two things are happening here today. dealinghem is we are with an issue of great urgency and we are about to hear someone of great wisdom and significance talk about this issue. to welcome the former prime minister of palestinian authority to the atlantic council. we are delighted to welcome him to the atlantic council read as her firstenter distinguished statesman at the atlantic council. generalthe chairman jones here that will introduce him. i will just make a couple of remarks before passing to the
center chair. on the future of palestinian -- it has resulted in over 1000 casualties, more than 5000 if he's me, 4500 wounded. the cease-fire has been insufficient thus far. leaders seem unable to bring the conflict to a halt. leaders seem unable to bring the conflict to a halt. now more than ever, we need fresh thinking, fresh approaches and strong leadership to a solution to one of the world's most intractable conflicts. i think you'll hear a lot of that sort of thinking today.
dr. fayyad has a written statement a little bit like congressional testimony which will be outside at 5:00. he'll be speaking from that statement, but in an abridged form in his opening comments before i moderate q&a with the audience. he joins us today to build upon the important work the scowcroft center's middle east peace and security initiative is doing to develop innovative strategies and analysis for a change in middle east. i salute barry pavell and his team for the work they are doing. this complements the fantastic work of the center on the middle east and i salute the acting director dannia greenfield for the work that that center has been doing on the related set of issues. he also, dr. fayyad wils also contribute to the critical work the council has been doing on long-term regional trends, including the growth of nonstate actors in the middle east.
as a respected and accomplished leader in the region, he'll be an invaluable voice along with ambassador michael warren, the council's ambassador in residence as the council works to better understand the strategic implications of continued conflict between israelis and palestinians. i'm delighted that general jones is here who, along with steve hadley, won national security adviser to democrat, and one national security adviser to a president, will play the central work in the ongoing strategy of the center and the scowcroft center but i also thank them both for helping to bring dr. fayyad as a distinguished statesman at the council. general jones is the chairman, as i said, of the scowcroft center, former national security adviser, supreme allied commander europe and marine commandant. he's been a great partner to the atlantic council, integral to the work of the scowcroft center
over the past few years but really the work across the atlantic council on a wide set of issues. general jones, the podium is yours. >> thank you, fred. and ladies and gentlemen, welcome. this is a high moment for the atlantic council, and we are honored to be here today. and it's especially exciting for me to be able to introduce dr. salam fayyad who i came to know and admire as a leader and statesman and colleague while working with him on the peace process now six years ago when i served as special envoy for the middle east regional security during 2007 and 2008. and my friend steve hadley was the national security adviser. i think jane harman was still in office and the world was a different place.
i think of all the two years that i spent working on this issue that one of the things i enjoyed the most during my time in the middle east was my visits -- my regular visits with dr. fayyad. without any fear of exaggeration, he's a man of courage. he's a man of commitment. and he's a man of peace. and i think he's, above all, a very wise man and someone that we should continue to listen to as we struggle to find a long-lasting solution in this very, very critical part of the world. at the current violence unfolding in the region underscores the importance of the middle east peace process. the regional stability. and also i would suggest global stability. and of leaders such as salam fayyad who devoted their lives to building a better future for all stakeholders in the region. his reputation precedes him. hence the turnout today. he's a leader and a visionary,
one who understands that human development and prosperity are impossible without good governance and good governance is not possible without transparency and accountability. during his tenure at prime minister, dr. fayyad championed law and in order the west bank, worked to build institutions that would meet the needs of the palestinian people and taught us all a lesson that the solution set is much broader than simply military activities. he was appointed as minister of finance over the palestinian authority under yasser arafat from 2002 to 2005 and won praise, high praise from the international community for introducing extensive economic and financial reforms and cracking down on corruption. and late 2005 he resigned from the cabinet to found and run the third white block an independent party that would run and win in two seats in the palestinian
parliamentary elections of january 2006. in march 2007, dr. fayyad was appointed again as minister of finance, international unity government and in june 2007 appointed prime minister, a position he held until he stepped down in june 2013. dr. fayyad will be a fantastic a addition to the atlantic council team. i look forward to working closely with him as the scowcroft center continues to expand its work on middle east security, especially on israeli-palestinian negotiations in the middle east peace process itself. i'm sure the scowcroft center will become a leading voice an this critical issue. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming dr. salam fayyad to the podium. >> thank you so much. thank you. thank you very much, george
jones. thank you for the very kind introduction. thank you. and i thank you ladies and gentlemen for the interest you have taken attending this event which i had hoped or wished would happen against different backdrop. relative to what we all are looking at. completely tragic situation in terms of the horror that has been going on for long 25 days, past 25 days. the destruction we're talking about since the event was prepared for, more than 1400 people, including many, many children. more than 8,000 wounded. many today are in life-threatening situation. made even more life threatening given the very poor conditions
in the gaza strip and health care facilities. in addition to damage to infrastructure, housing, 300,000 people displaced. this is the extent of the damage and tragedy that's been unfolding for the past 25 days and counting. with unfortunately not there being the prospect in the immediate future of a cease-fire. of course, i hope i'm wrong on this. and we've been all following this with great deal of hope that the efforts under way, efforts that have been made toward reaching some kind of arrangement that would secure a cease-fire would be successful. still hope and pray that it would be. that's the most important thing given the extent to which the situation has been the horror it
has been. of course, what is really important beyond the obvious, which is to secure cease-fire, that's the most important thing is to see what needs to happen in the period immediately following that in order to build on that cease-fire to ensure that it is -- to ensure that as things begin to converge toward a new normal of sorts, that that new normal is fundamentally different from the old one. we've been there before. meaning specifically that a way was found on a couple of occasions before then, before this time around, where agreement was reached, tentative agreement, with not really much hope or expectation it was going to be lasting or durable. with preparation for the next round literally beginning immediately after the cease-fire was seized -- or was secured.
i hope this time around will be different. but first things first, we need an urgently needed cease-fire. this is the second part of thinking. more like a medium term to longer term context is important. i know there's a dilemma here. any time you have a crisis situation, it's very difficult to introduce elements of strategic nature or longer term implications. who wants to talk about that? who cares to listen? at time there's death and destruction, tragedy and misery about long-term or strategic dimension to what's going on. at the same time, unless those considerations are factored into the discussion, unfortunately, this situation will be one of moving from a crisis to the next one. besides, i think i happen to believe in the context of the current tragedy that we're looking at that's unfolding and continues to unfold before our own eyes, thinking strategically
or seemingly longer term is absolutely essential in order to make the cease-fire promise to be a lasting one, relative to previous efforts made in this direction. the focus of my remarks will be on this. and i think in a way, it was suggested by my colleagues an the council and i'm proud of the association. thank you for the help and i look forward to working with you and others to promote ideas related to this very conflict but also to grow the region which continues to be really going through a period of unprecedented turmoil with unprecedented violence, extremism and -- that has not been seen. one really has to go back in history a long, long time where
one can find the unprecedented violence that's been taking place for a long time. and threatens to continue to be the case. against the backdrop of all of this and the title suggested for this conversation which i'm eager to have with jeff camp in short order, try to access breaking the vicious cycle. the choice of title, which was not mine, imparts the dimension to this conversation that i have just alluded to, which is what do we do in order to ensure that the new normal is fundamentally different from the old one. and if that's not really enough, and i think in the words of a woman in gaza sitting by -- specifically and i make mention of this in my prepared remarks which would be made available to you at the conclusion of this conversation, sitting by the remains of what used to be her home only two weeks ago
destroyed completely by an air strike, and pointing to it and saying, you know, even before this, she said, we have much to lose. even before this, so much misery. we are alive simply because there was not enough death to go around. i thought it was important significant words of this kind in addition to what we just talked about in terms of the title as defining this conversation today. this is really as good a reason as any for us to engage in this kind of conversation, discussions as to what needs to happen to place this in a context that ensures the tragedy what has been unfolding the past 3 1/2 weeks. and as we do, there are some ideas that have been put forward that involve certainly not, you know, rushing back to a
political process that has gone through yet another round of failed diplomacy without adjustment, nor to focus on that exclusively to the point where efforts that need to continue to be made in earnest now to secure a cease-fire, but rather to consider what it is that has to be done. in the experience over the past 20 years or so and particularly over the past 15, since the presumptive date of end of discussion or negotiation, so-called permanent status issues, what is it in light of that experience that should be taken into consideration? to inform a process that could lead to introducing badly needed adjustment to promise delivery so that we would not end up doing this over and over again, expecting different results we cannot possibly obtain. that is really the direction in which i decided to take this
conversation in the form of the remarks that i have prepared for this conversation which, again, will be made available to you. and dare i suggest, as a matter of fact, the importance of taking a new look at some of the more important precepts of the existing framework. what is a framework, negotiation framework or peacemaking framework, if you will. one fundamental question. who represents the palestinians. what is it that that party actually represents. and the other one, the other element or the other area of possible adjustment i feel would be necessary to take a good look at is the design of the original framework that's oslo. i would make to make it clear to you, this is not going to be an argument for ditching the existing framework. this is not about a statement that says let us abandon the two-state solution concept to
the contrary. in thinking through the adjustments of the kind that i'll be talking to you briefly about, actually what i had in mind was steps necessary to be taken and undertaken in order to ensure that viability of the -- steps necessary can be restored in order for this framework to be successful. and very briefly, those two key areas of adjustment or possible adjustment that need to be examined thoroughly, on the question of palestinian representation, there is an issue, quandary, if you will, of there being essentially two camps. one that happens to have the power of representation. that is the plo. but without much effective presence with one that has really waned over time, for a
variety of reasons including most importantly as a direct consequence of the failed political process. and on the other, another group, another camp that does not have the power to represent but has real strength and field presence in ways that cannot be ignored. the doctrine has referred them, deal with what exists, and the framework that does have the power to represent, reach a peace agreement that the process itself plus the outcome would be transformative enough to really take us all to a successful end, if you will, conclusion. that has not happened. that has not happened over the past 20 years. i would say over the past 15 years since may 1999 when this was supposed to have been concluded by agreement and
through negotiation and it wasn't. if anything, the goal achieved and developed out of this political process looks more distant today than in 1999. that is a really serious problem and one that did contribute to the plo being what it is. so that's a point that needs to be considered as we really move forward. both in terms of its implications for overall peacemaking effort but also in terms of its relationship with the question of national palestinian governments. how much longer can you keep on going with the countries separated and with this much marginalization going on and without adequate representation and various factions, parties having enough presence and sense of partnership that goes on. so the international requirement on one hand, the requirements of peacemaking but also the requirements of governance that would require taking a good look at. last, it's the second issue.
the second issue that needs adjustment, that's the overall design, if you will, of the framework. once again, i'm emphasizing that -- i am not talking about -- forgetting about that framework, but really fixing it. also, many people forget was about an arrangement. it was not a permanent arrangement. it was supposed to have ended. it was supposed to have culminated in successful negotiations on so-called permanent issues. was supposed to and implicit in that construction was the emergence of the state of palestine, something that was not elaborated with this explicitly at least in june 2002 when the emergence of a viable state of palestine living side by side with the state of israel was put forward as the way forward, as the solution concept and thereby making it by george
w. bush, thereby making it a universally accepted doctrine. you know, a lot of things did not happen the way they were supposed to happen. and that is why i think we need to go back. oslo itself was supposed to be a long-term arrangement. may 1999 was supposed to be. it did not happen. the arrangement may have made sense or could have been because it was interim. because actually, by virtue of signing the oslo accords, the palestinian side by virtuing of signing the accord in a formal sense accepted the occupation or continuation in a formal way for a maximum of five years beyond the 26-year period that had elapsed since then. that's the oslo accord and could be understood this way. but not forever. it was accepted as an interim period. that's the sense of it.
may 1999, past that nothing made sense anymore. once that threshold was crossed, it became an open-ended agreement. and hence, understanding of the plo in the eyes of the palestinian public. beginning with the signing of the accords hinged critically on its success in delivering life, freedom and dignity in a country for a percent of people. and that obviously has not worked out. and past 1999 it became open-ended. to put it bluntly, palestinians being told go on, continue to negotiate with israel. accept what israel has on offer for you or else except continued occupation. that doesn't make sense. and that's why i say, you know, this side, this part needs to be
looked at again. that's not what oslo was supposed to be like. how do we make sense out of both of these considerations? how do we put them together in order to come up with a concept that can, on the one hand, reinforce the effort under way to securities filed but then important to sustain it. with this introduction, i submit and to questions and answers, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, very much. thank you. >> thank you for submitting to interrogation. thank you for those opening initial comments. i missed saying something that in these modern days you said there's in different times i was supposed to say at the top. and that is for those of you tweeting it's #acgaza.
#acgaza. this is all on the record, obviously, and not only will the full comments be made available physically outside of 5:00 p.m., but we'll also have them on our website if i know our team right at the same time. so i think it should be at the same time. i do want to give a special greeting to steve hadley. i didn't see he was in the audience right at the beginning. he's been so much a part of bringing dr. fayad here. it's good seeing jane harman and many board members throughout, thank you for being here. let me start by drilling down on what you were saying. you were essentially saying we don't have the representation, right, we don't have the framework right. essentially. >> yeah. >> could you tell us what should the representation be, what should the framework be? >> there's more than -- i hope this is okay. can you hear?
>> yeah. >> there is really a very complicated problem here. on the one hand, you know, the oslo accords were signed on to by the plo acting on behalf of you' all palestinians. and those accords involved early on. and that was the declaration of mutual recognition presented to the palestinian people. and that defined the process. and that defined the palestinian counterpart. and as i said, that point in time onward, this is the criterion by which the plo was to be judged, the extent to it was not supposed to be successful in delivering freedom to the palestinian people and palestinian statehood. that didn't happen, as i alluded to in my opening remarks. and if anything, that appears to be more elusive today, more distant than it did then. not surprisingly, the standing
of the plo has eroded over time. consistent with an erosion in the terms of reference of the political process or the peace process. things that used to be taken as for granted in the past like, for example, discussions about 1967 being the presumptive boulder in negotiations. all of a sudden in more recent years, having become an issue of contention, whether or not it can be included in a policy document, including one put forward by the united states, not israel. this is a remarkable erosion in terms of the process. this is not something that is easy. thereby, i mean, this failure was very costly. it made the difference involved between the maximum offer by israel and the minimum acceptable palestinians progressively wider and wider. so you had a plo that had failed
to deliver by the end of the five-year period, which was all of it was, but then stack on to that, going through the second intefadeh, 2014, there's failure after failure after failure. one round of negotiations giving way to the next. except that the next round of negotiations started with it having eroded even further. so the plo acting on behalf of all palestinians, having the power to represent, the privilege to represent, the responsibility to represent, but then looking at the situation, it's becoming more and more difficult to handle. at the same time, there were these other factions that never were part of the plo framework. from the very beginning. they did not accept oslo as a framework for resolving the palestinian/israeli issue, from the very beginning.
and over time and in parallel with this decline or erosion in the standing of the plo, their power, even though, you know, field presence, if you will, strength, the extent to which their ideology resonated with people, you know, understanding the ups and downs of political cycles and sentiments and all but over time, one cannot really see there has been rise. and that happened to be enforced by federal diplomacy. and as a matter of fact, become even more pronounced, especially more pronounced at times like these when you have a most dangerous escalation. you have death and suffering and distraction and tragedy and all. with them really actually saying look at what this other faction has brought you or this other school or thought. it has brought you nothing, failure. so you have a situation where
you have these non-plo factions standing on a platform of this kind, gaining strength over time. at the same time, the plo acting on behalf of palestinians losing ground. this is something that needs to be fixed. >> so you have to somehow bring these factions into the representations. is that what you're saying? >> you know, it's very important for two reasons. one, i said there were two dimensions to this. international in terms of engagement to israel and the international community, but then there is the governance issue. what do you do about, you know, government and about overall government framework when certain factions are excluded? when they have at the same time this much power and field presence, if you will. not to mention the arms and what have you. i'm talking about what appears to be -- again, perceptionwise. superior ideology.
at the time when unfortunately it started to develop, that after all, violence pays off. who's going to really win in a situation like this? not the plo had had really committed to nonviolence to peace, but those all along said that's not really going to happen. and they would say -- and i think that's a really strong argument -- that where else in the history of national liberation movements, national liberation movements had to lay down their arms before they secured independence? it's difficult to argue against that. if you really look at the history. but you'd understand that in the palestinian context only to the extent that oslo was supposed to be an interim arrangement. promising delivery five years later, the commitments undertaken by the plo on behalf of all palestinians, the right of the state of israel. also denounce violence made sense in the context of it coming to an end and delivering. but once that happened, once we
crossed that, it started to become difficult to really argue. additionally, the number of things that happened over this period of time that in a way validated that kind of thinking. and you can't ignore that in this day and age. it's not the 19th century, even 20th century. you have to make sense to people you govern. you can't ignore them. there are many things that happened over the course of the past 20 years that actually validated the theory that says violence pays off. many things. not only in an independent context. we were talking about lebanon, for example. and this all happened over the course of the oslo framework, has nothing to do with the oslo framework separately. and several instances of dealing between the palestinian authority and israel. take, for example, just one example, the prisoner exchange deal.
where in one goal, israel traded the freedom of more than 1,000 palestinian prisoners to secure the release of -- contrast that with the experience that we and the plo authority had to go through on the same, trying to release palestinian prisoners. what does that tell the public at large? belligeren belligerence. you can't ignore the perverse events like this on perceptions. and you can't ignore perceptions. you can't govern without people. it's not good enough to say the right thing. the question is can you carry. and, you know, in light of the experience and failed experience of diplomacy for the past 30 years, it's very difficult for me to see the palestinian framework as is able to carry. and that's the bottom line. that's the bottom line.
that can't be ignored. you know, what i'm saying to you here, that drives people away from their comfort zones. this is not really -- i would exclude myself from many. but look, there is tragedy going on. and it will repeat itself, time and again. and there are consequences to failure. you can't keep doing the same thing. and really in the process do nothing more but kick the can down the road and pretend that you can go back to the old framework and do it. you just can't. i'm sorry if this pushes some outside their comfort zones. now, how is a question. how can we do it is the question. it's not that we're starting
from principle with the luxury of designing things to the liking of everybody. but we need to take into account, you know, these complications. >> well, let's go to the how to do it question because it seems to me that you're saying very passionately and articulately this vicious cycle we're in can't continue. and violence pays off and we're also experiencing unprecedented violence. it sounds like you're prescribing changed representation in the palestinian part because it's necessary and it's urgent. but without saying specifically what that should be. and the changed framework without saying specifically what should be but just saying that it has to change because it's not working. but you're not being specific. you're not prescribing a new framework. >> i'll do what i can to be more speck. specific. i don't know if i can be too specific. for the reasons what i have in mind is a set of ideas i'm
putting out for consideration. what or the extent to which we'll be successful and start a discussion on this is important here. and i think it's really up to, you know, various factions, whether domestic or foreign to somehow coalesce on something. what i'm really talking about here is, if you will, the broad architecture of this but not the specific details in terms of, for example, you know, i talk about time-bound commitment on nonviolence. what does that really mean in terms of length of time? the concept is there, but it's really up to all concerned to define it. but the idea is the following, the substance, to be more specific, it needs to be adjusted. i started to make the point that adjustment was necessary, but then in what direction? what does it really need? first you have a plo as a matter
of course and legality and national legitimacy had entered into an agreement going back in 1993 that has a great deal of significance. that cannot be ignored. and the power to represent was certainly there. it continues to be there today. but then what do you do to make that adjustment? my own suggestion would be to leave the plo alone. i mean, do not really get to the point of saying let's undo this or, you know, open it up without any criteria anywhere that makes international engagement very difficult if not downright impossible. just keep it as it is with its right to represent in the way that's referred to in nose agreements. but in a way that has come to be known, leave that alone. but in parallel, in parallel,
having a unified leadership framework that involves participation by everyone. you know, old fashioned. whether there are plo or non-plo. they're all sitting at a table. and there together collectively are to inform decision-making by the executive committee of the plo. what does it really mean? is this really asking too much? let's just say that the plo doesn't like that or doesn't want to do that, let's assume. this is just for the sake of argument. i don't think they would. but you know, what is the basis for the plo or for the plo to continue to engage in international diplomacy when it's not sure it will be able to carry. you know, again, we could really choose, you know, the kind of game we would want to play. but we're not going to deliver unless we have good answers with questions. it is in the interest of the plo
and its leadership, tourism. to really have its decision-making process in full. in order for it to be able to secure the consensus needed in order to deliver an agreement. you know, this is not going to be just an agreement between two people. this is a formality of it. but is it going to be delivered to a point where it is going to be this moment? something they've lost their life for? it's very important to prepare and not to continue to pretend. so no, i don't think should. and i think it should welcome it. what kind of processes are involved? and that's why i say this is really open for discussion. this is as much intended on our own domestic political team as it is international. ideas. exactly how we're going to concentrate ourselves in order
as a consequence of dialogue that's taken place to achieve reconciliation. how to authorize it in a way that meaningfully informs the decision-making by the plo which continues to serve. that's one element of this. another is how to govern domestically. anyone out there who thinks there is going to be an end to this conflict and palestine emerging. without gaza, you don't need to really rethink the position. it's not going to happen. it's not going to happen. look at it from the point of view in israel who are in favor of a two-state solution. clearly, the element is based on the kind of government and country they would like to have. and so demographics are important in that argument.
and time and again, i've seen one after another making the case for a state of palestine. without gaza, if you take gaza out of that mix, they will -- it's very important. so what do we do domestically? we need to have all of them adequately presented. this is in the interest of everybody. and at some point, two final elements. one that needs to be basis for -- there is a critical mass that is absolutely necessary in order to permit a takeoff here. especially on security. it would be a case of two missing ingredients. something needs to be agreed. and so far as violence is concerned, i think there really needs to be an understanding of the need for there to be
preventable violence. how long? let that be discussed and agreed. that's in the interest of everybody. and use the time on the palestinian side. use the time to rebuild. use the time to reunify the institutions of the people. gaza and the west bank have been separated for seven years now. there's a lot of work that needs to be done to unify institutions. you put all of these things together. let's say a consensus could be formed on these credits cal iit. that's when we should feel powerful enough to go to the israelis and the international community and say this is what we have. this is what we can and expect to do over the next period. can we now -- and this is really the most critical, the adjustment that's intended to
deal with the design flaw in the overall framework. can we now agree on a date certain for ending the occupation? that's how you really put all of these elements together. can we agree on a settlement for action? we can't keep on going like this. we need to agree. the default to failure to negotiations cannot be denied occupation. this has to be the certainty of an end to an occupation. can we agree and then work backward. and then the international front will begin to proceed with the degree of a sense of coherence that makes sense to the people. and that's we important. for us to expect the process to succeed and deliver. >> dr. fayed, thank you for that. t some in israel would say and let's come to the present tense, the situation on the ground.
some in israel would say to break the cycle is to defeat. >> host: once and for all to ensure its safety. that's exactly what michael orrin argued in "the washington post" recently. last week at the aspen security forum, lieutenant general michael flynn, head of the d.i.a., warned if. >> host: is totally defeated in the current round of fighting, it's likely that a more extreme group would rise in its place. i'd like to know your vision on this. and i know your job is not to advise the israeli government, but what would your advice be to the israeli government in this sense? you know, you see the popularity figures of what's going on right now. of netanyahu rising. so first this question of what replaces. >> host: would be more extreme. this tension between say what ambassador orrin said and the head of the d.i.a.
and then secondarily if you were sitting in a room advising the israel government, what would you say to them? >> i'd say stick with it. this notion that somehow you're going to really continue to engage in this escalation until it leads to the alienation of. >> host: and other factions of the same kind, apart from the tragic consequences and implications of continued fighting of the kind that has been taking place. this is not really -- i mean, we're talking about people's lives. and loss of life that simply cannot be tolerated. this is completely unbearable. and then what? everyone has to remember that we are dealing here, at least so
far, with unsafe actors. you know. >> host: hamas is in control of gaza for sure, has been since 2007. understanding the unity arrangement that was brokered recently or agreed to recently. effectively is there. but still it has not acquired the status of a state operator, a state. and this is really a quandary. not only insofar as factions of the palestinians are concerned, but other activists of the world. a criteria of winning and losing, you know, are different when you are dealing with state actors. we've seen this happen time and again in the united states with a country like afghanistan, for example. in terms of firepower, you know,
bombing and the rest of it. the situation is like this. we talk about survival of a few. who after the extensive damage, loss of life and misery and all and say we won. what are we going to do about something like this? this is serious. and lives are at stake. with futility. absolute futility. that's number one. number two, whether or not you agree with hamas and likeminded factions is not as significant as realizing the need for any palestinian leadership to carry in order for that leadership to deliver an agreement. and you simply cannot ignore the ideology. even if you disagree with it.
that's the kind of work we live in. these are the kinds of standards by which developed and advanced countries you will live by. it isn't a set of standards for the developed advanced world, another set of standards that should apply to others. it's time for all of us to be taken on board. then i think it should not really be beyond strong leadership, enlightened leadership. at some point you need to pay for failure. this is not 1990 or 1991. more than 20 years past oslo and more than 15 years past, you know, the end of the time line under oslo. and to somehow pretend that we're just starting this and to really take a purist approach to this in a matter that conforms to the highest standards, what
someone would like to happen is, i think, extremely unrealistic. inclusiveness. inclusiveness. you need to include and you need to govern in a way that's effective enough to ensure that there is sufficient support for that which we stand on. otherwise we should not be there presenting to the conflict. this is essential to what we're looking at. it's a necessity, in other words. but to think, you know, this way is i think is constructive and productive. unfortunately 1,000 more lives and more suffering, people come back to the same conclusion. it's not hamas, per se. it's that ideology. what do you do? what do you say to people who look at the record over the past 20 years and tell you what have you done for us? what do you tell them? forget about hamas. let's just put hamas aside. unless you're able to be
convinced and to make sense when you say, you know, we have an alternative. you need to really provide an answer to that question. if a solution is what you're interested in, we need to show enough courage to be accepting, of being pushed away from our comfort zones in the direction of finding something sensible. finally, on the other point that you raised, the region, and i sort of alluded to this in my opening remarks. really when it will end and how it will end, only god knows. but there are very few people i know who would have expected things to be the way they are today. but they are. i mean, in terms of extremism, violence. this is unprecedented, and i think defies expectations of many in terms of what's going on. the degree of extremisextremisme
this, extremely grotesque and certainly alien to any kind of decency if you really think about it this way. what do you really need to do to somehow understand this and prevent this becoming an ideology. if it's managed by and led by few, you know, unless something is done, i'm afraid this is really going to be most dangero dangerous. the key to the solution lies in good, honest, responsive government. one that responds to the needs of people. good governance is really key to do this. it's not a luxury. something that's absolutely essential. >> let me ask a quick question and quick answer, then i want to turn to steve hadley to start the audience with the first question. i want to pick up on what you just said. tom friedman in april 2013 when you resigned wrote that that it
was an arab spring before there was an arab spring. he described you as a new generation -- what was needed was a new generation of don't leaders whose primary development, their own people, not the enrichment of tribe, sector, party. and part of the difficulty and failure of the arab spring was noncorrupt, that there was not enough support and the arabs, u.s., israelis for noncorrupt institution-focused leadership. do you agree, has the arab spring failed and are these the reasons why the arab spring has failed? >> i'd like to still believe it's a nature of a work in progress, although it's hard to use those words to describe the state of play when you're looking at the extent of violence and extremism that has taken place and continues to take place.
nevertheless, you know, from time to time, i think it's really important to try to take a step or two away from what you see, to put it in perspective. i think it's useful to look at the experience of other nations and other revolutions, going back -- not that far back in history, recently, and see if things like this happened before elsewhere before we would come to the conclusion that, you know, things are impossible in the region. that somehow, you know, arabs are or belong to a species that cannot handle both democracy and stability at the same time. somehow you need to choose, you know, either democracy or stability. that's the wrong conclusion. we're like everyone else. we can handle democracy and we need stability.
democracy sustains stability. you can't achieve stability on the strength of force, but you cannot sustain it with a strength of force of governance. that's what we are missing. that's what's really important to keep in mind. looking at history of this, the arab spring is the nature of a revolution. people standing up for their citizens' right, for being respected, listened to, taken seriously, if you will. not thinking that the most important task in life -- the arab spring, its essence was about this. its essence was about this. and i think in that sense, it was overdue. you know, it took a long time. deep sense of injustice, you know, thinking that there was
too much double standards in the way the world was managed, the region itself was managed. the way the global west was relating to the region. the arabs were siding with regimes that were not doing the right thing for their own people. only they would present the case for them was the case against the alternative, with the alternative first being communism and then muslim brotherhood. you get a region that's unhappy, and so therefore in that sense, it was overdue. but it happened. it's in the nature of the revolution. what else are you going to really tell me that experienced a revolution that delivered stability immediately afterwards. it did not happen even in this country. i found the french revolution, it took three of those. it didn't happen in the chinese refuse solution, the russian revolution.
and so yes, the extent of the violence is important. there's no question about that. but to think that somehow the arab spring, if it is really about a revolution, i think it is fundamentally, to expect, you know, to deliver, serenity, stability, tranquility in the aftermath of a major upheaval like this is expecting too much. two things. we need to place it in that kind of perspective to get a better handle on it. but i think it's really time for everyone to begin to think that this is a region like all other regions. these are people like all other people. people are people. and stand and have to be laid out for systems of governance that respect their own citizens. this is so basic, but it's basically obvious, but somehow
you -- and they think they need to find a solution immediately. you're not going to get there unless they respect them. that's it in a nutshell. >> fascinating answer. thank you so much, doctor. steve hadley. >> i have to make a disclosure that i had the opportunity to have lunch with salim fayed, and i'd like to invite you to share a little bit of that conversation, and i realize there are some sensitive pieces to it. the reason i say that is because i think there's a lot of despair in the united states that the current situation in gaza can lead anywhere positive. and i think it's useful if you could share some thoughts about that both to give some hope but also to stimulate some thinking. and i'm thinking specifically some comments