tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 8, 2014 10:00am-12:01pm EST
what is expected to be the last week of work in the lame-duck session. to addresspected water resources in california in response to the drought there. the senate will be working on nominations. you can see the senate live on c-span2 today starting at 2:00 p.m. eastern and we will be legislative work will get underway at 2:00. several major hearings planned for this week. tomorrow, congressman jonathan gruber and medicaid administrator testified through the house oversight committee about the health care law, with many looking at whether administration officials held details for the passage of the law. he will be talking about combating isis, and with a new authorization for congress and the use of military force, that
starts at 2:00 eastern. then coming wednesday, the house and got the committee will be held for the secretaries of state of diplomatic security. the state department inspector general, that hearing starts wednesday morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span three. former secretary of state hillary clinton sat down for an interview friday for a discussion of the middle east. by haiminterviewed saban. it is about an hour. >> you want to say hello to all your friends before you start? [laughter] all of you.ee on behalf ofstart, the whole team and myself, we would like to send our condolences.
the --ould all join in in that. >> thank you. we had 11 forums so far. we have traveled to jerusalem a few times and i have to share with you that this audience has one important question on their mind. the united states has an important question, the whole of the united states. expect youy hope and would give us a straight answer from this stage. feel to be a grandmother. [laughter] [applause] >> well, i was in the senate for eight years and i would like to
filibuster on this question. fabulous. i have to tell you, we talked about this with cheryl and other friends. it is an extraordinary, wonderful blessing. for our first thanksgiving with charlotte, it was just beyond words for both know and i. i am feeling particularly grateful that we're are in this new stage of our lives together. >> good. try not to be too busy. save some time for the granddaughter. [laughter] in the middle east, outside of bringing palestinian and israelis together, it is about bringing communities together.
have we succeeded in our country in bringing communities together? when we look at ferguson and what happened in new york, or have we failed? what happened in new york, or have we failed? >> i think we have made extraordinary progress over the course of our nation's history. for that, i am grateful and proud. but we still have work to do. it is most obvious when tragic incidents like those we have recently seen occur. we recognize, at root, there is a problem with our being able to put ourselves in each other's places, to recognize the challenges that our fellow citizens often face. so we have work to do. but our founders were extraordinarily psychologically smart. because they talked about us trying to achieve a more perfect union, and that has been the impetus for all these years as we have taken on big problems like slavery, like war, like depression. civil rights, women's rights. like so many of the other difficulties as a nation we have had to face. i support the efforts now to do what the president and attorney general have advocated, and that is to work with our
law-enforcement enforcement, work with our justice system, so that everybody believes that they are equal under justice. and that the rule of law applies to all of us. that will take some retraining and some additional outreach, not just into our law enforcement and criminal justice systems, because i would argue that by a large, the majority of people who work in both our honorable, our brave. are very committed to our values. but i also think it is about communities, it is not just about our in tuition. it is how we relate to each other as people.
it is a task we have to be constantly focused on and doing better with. >> amen. i would like to ask you a very theoretical question. very theoretical. nothing to do with reality. what if you decided to run for president? and let's assume that you got elected. it is the 21st of january, 2017. you walk into the oval office. you are familiar with it, so you do not need to get acquainted with the environment. what is the first thing, what is the first order du jour, on that very first day, that you tackle? >> it will not surprise you that i have long learned not to
answer hypothetical, theoretical questions. [laughter] >> next question, then. i was just joking. >> i am taking myself out of it. let's talk about whoever is our next president in 2017. it is going to be as it always is, and increasingly so in this complex world that we share. a long list, there is not going to be one thing. because we live in an interdependent, interconnected, networked world, where we see so much progress that is occurring around the globe. people making their way into prosperity, into middle classes, advances in science and research that are saving and transforming lives. there is a lot to celebrate in the world today. it is partly because of this interconnected world of ours. we face new threats and challenges that we have to be prepared to take on. it will continue to be a priority of whoever the president is, in our own country, and through our own efforts at home, to grow our economy, to create more jobs with rising incomes, better standards of living, increasing the opportunities for americans, which in turn will have a ripple effect throughout the world. if the united states economy does not service the engine for
growth and prosperity, it is hard to imagine, at least in the foreseeable future, who else could. and the job numbers today were very good news. we continue to make economic progress. but now we have to work on the challenge of inclusive growth, roughly shared prosperity. that economy is at the core, not only of our well-being, but it is also at the core of our leadership. unless the united states remains strong economically, unless we remain committed to our role in the world, then so many of these challenges that we confront, that i tried to write about in my book, hard choices, those are not going to be as readily dealt with. because we will be rightly concerned with what happens here first and should be. i think as we look into the next couple of years, i anticipate the economy will continue to
grow. i think today was not an outlier. i think there is wind beneath our wings. we have some tough decisions to make here at home about how we make sure our economic good news is broadly shared and how we think of our own leadership globally in a way that makes us more secure. helps our friends and allies, like israel, have as much security and stability as possible. grow the economy, and do the work that will sustain american leadership in the 21st entry. >> you are absolutely right. i agree 100%. if we were to take just foreign
policy, what is the one most urgent issue that we are facing? >> i think it is very difficult to say there is one. let me just quickly mention. i think the continuing threat from terrorism, especially the way we had seen it morph into a more sophisticated delivery system, in the form of isis wannabes in other parts of the world, we have to remain vigilant. we have to take the coalition that the president and secretary kerry have constructed and make
sure it is more than just a rhetorical debating society. that it is a commitment of nations by goodwill and a commitment to deal with the threats that the new brand of more socially adept, more well-organized terrorism, particularly as we see with isis holding territory, trying to establish a state right in the heart of the middle east. so that remains a high priority. certainly, i think we have to deal with. there are a lot of other issues. russia's aggressiveness. how far putin is intending to go, whether he will be slowed down by economic problems at home.
the drop in the ruble, the oil price. i think that will remain a challenge for him. whether he tries to deal with the challenge or instead tries to be more nationalistic and aggressive is going to have to be addressed. i do not think we will be finished with our work in trying to deal with him in two years. i think it willl be a longer-term effort. the rise of china, such a consequential, historical event. we want china's rise to be peaceful. we do not want to see aggressive behavior, nationalism, coming to the forefront. we do not want to see a war of words with japan or other neighbors in the east china sea or any territorial dispute reach a flashpoint. but those are areas that i think you have to particularly pay attention to. the middle east, as always, russia, china. and try to do what we can to manage each of those. >> you mention isis. what do you think we can do differently than what we are doing now, because they continue gaining territory. and they continue expanding. is there anything more or
different that we can do? >> i think we are in for long struggle. but i think we have, in the last month, put together the pieces of a strategy. starting first and foremost with the removal of maliki as prime minister in iraq, something that was long overdue. he was unfortunately the instigator of a lot of the bad feelings and fears that the sunnis and the kurds and others within iraq felt and were trying to deal with in their own way. with no positive outcome. i think getting him off the stage has led to a couple of positive changes. one that was just announced finally after years of effort, getting an oil deal with the kurds. being able to get the government in baghdad to recognize the importance of the kurds in the north and to permit the reequipping of peshmerga units. i think you will see a more concerted effort on the part of the kurds with respect to isis and joining forces, to some extent, with kurds across the border in syria. we are still a long way from an iraqi army that can defend territory and take back territory. but we are doing more than we have been doing. and the president asked retired general john allen to take on that responsibility. and i have the highest regard for him. he is trying to help undo the damage that maliki did to the iraqi army after we left. i think it is fair to say that, when the united states withdrew, the time, effort, money, expertise that had been poured into the iraqi army, gave a fighting chance to the iraqis to defend their territory and be in a position to use the army and a positive way to unite the country. what we saw instead, unfortunately, was maliki used
sectarian measures to make the army a personal militia for him instead of a national army. it did not serve him that well. it served him well enough until isis posed a threat. >> they are still there. >> the iraqi army had been destroyed largely. it was not willing or able to defend territory. it was a shadow of its former self. and it was a very strong incentive for the sunnis to either sit on our hands or join with a group like isis. the enemy of my enemy kind of thinking. so what the united states and our partners, arab and european have done in the last several months is laid a stronger foundation for the potential of a unified iraq, able eventually to take back the territory that has been lost. to drive isis out of iraq and across the border.
as we keep air pressure on them across the border, to look for ways to finally deliver the death blow to them. but this is not going to happen easily or weekly. >> as you said, it will be a long haul. would you like to take a sip of tea while i asked this question? >> is a hypothetical? [laughter] >> you do not have to. but i do not want to get too cold. should we talk about the israelis and palestinians? a concordant was i'm 21 years ago. a palestinians date was supposed to come to be five years after that. are the clinton parameters, or some version of that, still relevant? or do we need to live in a world where we manage the crisis versus solving it? >> i think they remain relevant. and i believe that there is a necessary imperative to achieve a revolution between israel and the palestinians. the two-state solution, the hallmark of the clinton parameters and the work under president bush, the work under president obama, remains an important, and i would argue, essential concept to bring people together. i am well aware of everything
that is going on right now. and the increasing tensions that are existing in the region in israel, in the west bank, to say nothing of the continuing aggressive behavior by hamas coming out of gaza. but i am one who believes that the absence of negotiation leaves a vacuum that gets filled by problems, bad actors, threats. other kinds of behavior that is not good for israel and not good for the palestinians. so i think that the efforts that were undertaken in the last several years from when i was secretary, now with secretary kerry, are very much in the interest of israel and the palestinians. >> i hope it happens. but we will see. a secretary of state, what is the one thing you wish you had
done differently? >> oh my gosh. >> is there a list? >> there are a number of things, and i write about a lot of them. i say in my book one thing that, looking back, i believe that we could have done differently or better was our reaction to the iranian unrest following the election in june 2009. we consulted broadly, and a lot of experts on iran, sources from within iran, sources in other intelligence agencies. long list. the consensus was that it would not be productive for the united states to be vocally supportive of the demonstrations. and really speak out persistently against the abuses of the iranian regime. the reason for that is -- it did spring up from the iranian people. the concern was that we will look as though we were directing it or supporting it. giving an excuse, not just for the iranian government, but for people that might be on the sidelines, worried about the outcome. to move away from the movement. and looking back at that now, i wish we had spoken out more. but they would have been against
the advice of a majority of people with whom we consulted. obviously, for me, the work that we did around the world to try to bring people together, whether israel he or palestinian, after the revolutions in arab countries, they were fraught with faculty, hard choices. trying to decide exactly what to do in uncharted territory, in retrospect, you could say we could have done that. could have done that. and, obviously, for me, the work that we did around the world to try to bring people together, whether it was the israelis or the palestinians or after the revolution in arab countries, they were fraught with difficult, hard choices, and trying to decide exactly what to do in uncharted territory. in retrospect, you could say, maybe we could have done that, or maybe we could have done that. we were trying to do the best we could under circumstances that were not within our control and were rapidly changing and had been predicted, but nobody thought they would happen as they did in egypt and elsewhere, and then, of course, i deep we regret the loss of life of any member of our state department family, whether it was an aid worker in iraq or in a worker in afghanistan or foreign service officers in libya. that is always something you think, ok, what more, what more, what more could we have done? >> you mentioned -- speaking of iraq, you mentioned we could have spoken more. speaking more would have alienated the government, but --
so i think that the efforts that were undertaken in the last several years from when i was secretary, now with secretary kerry, are very much in the interest of israel and the palestinians. >> i hope it happens. but we will see. a secretary of state, what is the one thing you wish you had done differently? >> oh my gosh. >> is there a list? >> there are a number of things, and i write about a lot of them.
i say in my book one thing that, looking back, i believe that we could have done differently or better was our reaction to the iranian unrest following the election in june 2009. we consulted broadly, and a lot of experts on iran, sources from within iran, sources in other intelligence agencies. long list. the consensus was that it would not be productive for the united states to be vocally supportive of the demonstrations. and really speak out persistently against the abuses of the iranian regime. the reason for that is -- it did spring up from the iranian people. the concern was that we will look as though we were directing it or supporting it. giving an excuse, not just for the iranian government, but for people that might be on the sidelines, worried about the outcome. to move away from the movement.
and looking back at that now, i wish we had spoken out more. but they would have been against the advice of a majority of people with whom we consulted. obviously, for me, the work that we did around the world to try to bring people together, whether israel he or palestinian, after the revolutions in arab countries, they were fraught with faculty, hard choices. trying to decide exactly what to do in uncharted territory, in retrospect, you could say we could have done that. could have done that.
we were trying to do the best we could under circumstances that were not within our control and were rapidly changing and had been predicted, but nobody thought they would happen as they did in egypt and elsewhere, and then, of course, i deep we regret the loss of life of any member of our state department family, whether it was an aid worker in iraq or in a worker in afghanistan or foreign service officers in libya. that is always something you think, ok, what more, what more, what more could we have done? >> you mentioned -- speaking of iraq, you mentioned we could have spoken more. speaking more would have alienated the government, but -- >> you never know. i mean, you never know what you might say that could give heart to people, could encourage them, could get some off the fence they are sitting on and possibly
take action. you never know, and that was why -- if these were easy choices, we could to them by computer, you know, if they did not require any kind of judgment, and in that case, we went with sort of the expert consensus, but it was such a fraught time. we try to do things below the radar screen with the demonstrators. they were doing things very much by twitter, and we learned that twitter was going to go down for a long, planned rebooting that had nothing to do with iran. it was just an internal issue, and we were, don't shut down this weekend, because we wanted people to be able to talk with each other, so we did a number of things overtly and covertly to try to provide some support and encouragement, to give heart to people rising up against the rate, illegitimate elections --
the rigged, illegitimate elections, and i cannot sit here and say that would have had some impact, but at the same time, we were working extremely hard to put together an international sanction to put together international sanctions. we were committed to that pathway, but it was not enough. unless we could get the sanctions through the security council, sanctions through the european union, and create an environment in which other countries would feel compelled to abide by those sanctions, we were never going to be able to put together the kind of
economic pressure on the regime and the turmoil, and the first part of 2010, i spent my time trying to convince other countries to impose these types of tough sanctions and then to enforce them, so it was a two-part issue. >> -- >> there has always been leakage. there has always been holes in them, but they have surprisingly and largely held, and they have hailed in part because we had a two-part strategy. the sanctions were not just to
now. the extension of the agreement until june i think will most likely be a period during which the sanctions will hold. there is nibbling around the edges. there are people trying to position in the event there is a deal, there is not a deal, but my assessment is that the sanctions, the international sanctions have had the effect that we hoped for on iran. >> they came to the negotiating table, so those sanctions did work. >> they did, they did.
>> the concern is that we have shown some people would say too many carrots and not enough sticks. >> my bottom line is a deal that is verifiably -- closes all of iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon, and the key there is verifiably and all, including covert efforts, and that is what is at the center of this negotiation, and i think one might say remarkably, our partners have not jumped ship. they have stayed in the negotiation, and there has been both, as everybody now knows, a process with the so-called p5 plus one, and there has been a bilateral process between the united states and iran, and they converged, as they were intended to. i was involved in making the decision to send the first team to oman to begin talking about whether or not we could talk, and just like churchill famously said, we had to explore as carefully and thoroughly as possible whether there was such
a verifiable deal that could be adopted. i remain strongly with the idea that a deal is better than no deal. the nuclear-weapon negotiations is not the only problem we have with iran. it may be the most important, and in many ways the most urgent, but iran's sponsorship of terrorism, iran's sponsorship of assad and the havoc that has created, the continuing pressure on providing arms to hamas, and so much else it engages in in the region that causes great concern to israel, to our arab partners, that is all part of the ongoing challenge that iran poses, but with respect to the nuclear weapons negotiation, i think we made the correct decision to get the sanctions imposed internationally, get our partners to the table, begin the negotiation, be willing to enter into the interim agreement, which has so far, as we know, stopped their nuclear program. to be absolutely clear about their constant inspections that would be required to reach the
threshold of verifiability that we would seek and to be very clear in any deal about what the consequences would be of any violation by iran, and that would include, as we say, keeping all options on the table, so how this is constructed, if, indeed, it can be achieved, it will have to have those kinds of requirements embedded within it, but i think it is a very important effort to continue to pursue and to continue to see if we can reach an agreement that is in line with our requirements. >> let's hope that, indeed, we reach an agreement and that none of our allies in the region are going to feel threatened. >> well, that is one of our biggest concerns. we have to intensify our cooperation with our partners and, obviously, most
congress of the last six years has done with respect to israel's security, it is quite extraordinary. the funding of iron dome, the funding of other military needs and equipment, the continuing strategic negotiations that we have been consistently engaged in with israel -- you know, it is hard to measure what administration did x and what administration did y, but no one can question the commitment. >> the political back and forth -- >> we are two raucous democracies, and i have some experience in that, and you do get carried away from time to time, but with our friends in the gulf, we have to have an intensely serious, ongoing consultation with them. i started something with them called the u.s. strategic dialogue. we need a forum where we bring them all together. now, that is not easy, because they have their own differences
with each other, but when it comes to iran, when it comes to terrorism and other threats to their stability, they need us. we need them. we hope we can continue to have not only a good dialogue but a lot of positive outcomes from our cooperation that will make them safer, will make the region safer, and pave the way for more cool operations strategically between israel and the arab states. >> speaking of israel and the arab states, is there enough of an alignment of interest, do you think, between israel and some arab states, gulf states, and is that a path that may help resolve israeli-palestinian peace in kind of an overall deal? >> i mentioned some, and i know there has to be a lot of work done to create cooperation around those convergent interests, but that is something that i think is very much in israel's interests and in the gulf nations's interests. the gulf and others in the region are very fixated on syria, assad, isis, other region are very fixated on immediate matters, but they remain obsessed, understandably so, with iran's intentions, and i think that is a particular point of convergence. the arab peace initiative, which held out a lot of promise cap
when it was introduced, it basically was the form of a deal -- which held out a lot of promise when it was introduced, it basically was the form of a deal. >> but is that not a chicken and an egg? >> with so much happening in the region, so many serious threats coming from every direction -- i know the president just asked for a big increase in aid to jordan, because jordan is on the front lines of so much of what is happening, not only the refugee flow from syrian, but they are cooperating with us in the coalition against isis. they remain one of the bulwarks for cooperation on is really -- on israeli security, and i think that when you look at the chicken and the egg issue, that is why you cannot give up on any of these channels. you have to keep working them all of the time. you cannot say, "let's throw up our hands and walk away in these negotiations between the israelis and palestinians." figuring out ways for the israelis and the arab states to work together. security with egypt, that is very much in both of their interests, so you have to keep whooshing all of these rocks -- keep pushing all of these rocks
up the hill at the same time. >> i hope you keep coming to the form, and the next time we will be talking about the peace that came to the region. we can hope. in closing, i would propose a game of words with you. you will have fun with that. i will name a noun, and you have to answer in one or two double your words. can we do that? >> i don't know. let's see. >> -- >> fabulous. >> shimon peres. >> wonderful. >> granddaughter. >> over the moon. >> women's rights. >> essential. >> writing books. >> writing books, hard.
>> ok. love. >> inescapable. [laughter] >> and to end on a sweet note, dessert. >> trouble. >> trouble. [laughter] thank you very much, madam secretary. we are going to open it to a couple of questions, and not too many, please. wait for the microphone, please. and introduce yourself. >> israel. [laughter] i would like to ask you about two countries that will be very important building blocks. turkey and egypt. turkey is a nato member and will be very important for a stable middle east but does not behave if you look at the games they play with isis and a policy that is not always desirable, and egypt, where there is a contradiction with american values and very interests that is very poignant. what would you do with both turkey and egypt? >> well, i think, ambassador,
the two countries that you ask about are the biggest challenges and the biggest opportunities. with respect to turkey, i think turkey is facing an extraordinary period where they are trying to sort out how to deal with their internal contradictions and their external threats, as they see them, and i see no alternative but for the united states and other like-minded countries to do everything they can to work - >> trouble. [laughter] thank you very much, madam secretary. we are going to open it to a couple of questions, and not too many, please. wait for the microphone, please. and introduce yourself.
>> israel. [laughter] i would like to ask you about two countries that will be very important building blocks. turkey and egypt. turkey is a nato member and will be very important for a stable middle east but does not behave if you look at the games they play with isis and a policy that is not always desirable, and egypt, where there is a contradiction with american values and very interests that is very poignant. what would you do with both turkey and egypt? >> well, i think, ambassador, the two countries that you ask about are the biggest challenges and the biggest opportunities. with respect to turkey, i think turkey is facing an extraordinary period where they are trying to sort out how to deal with their internal contradictions and their external threats, as they see them, and i see no alternative but for the united states and other like-minded countries to
do everything they can to work with, to stay with, to try to influence how turkey makes those decisions. there is nothing easy about that. they have a kurdish population, as you well know, that they were on the path to try to resolve decades long internal conflict. they are now worried about the kurdish fighters on their borders with serious. that has upended a lot of their calculations, and it is difficult to get them to focus on isis until they have some sense of how they are going to handle a prior challenge from the kurds. i understand that. i think it is something that they need to resolve and get about the business of resolving, and i think we have to do more, and i would love to see the relationship that turkey and israel used to have slowly knit back together, if that is possible, so i think both united states, other members of nato, other partners in the region -- we cannot get discouraged or frustrated with some of the difficulties that turkey is dealing with.
continuing difficulties, so let's try to work towards the former. egypt is, as you say, an example of the kind of difficult, hard choices that we faced following the revolution and the overthrow of mubarak, and i went to egypt shortly after mubarak fell, and i went to tahrir square, and they were very relieved and feeling quite validated that their efforts had led to the overthrow of mubarak, so when i asked of them, so what do you do next? are you going to form a political party? are you going to run people for
office in these elections eu demanded? "oh, no, we do not do politics." you have to do politics, and they looked at me as if i was a relic from some ancient civilization that had ended up in cairo, and i said, look. there are two forces, the muslim brotherhood and the army. if you do not form a political alternative, one of those wins. they won in succession, and we are back to the status quo, i would argue, so it was hard to navigate through the competing interests and the values, and we
no matter what we did, we were criticized. i think it is now again time to reboot the relationship and get back to trying to work where we can and do whatever is possible to work with the current leadership to not make the same mistakes. i mean, they are a partner. they are an important partner for us on counterterrorism, and they will be increasingly so, because they will face more internal dissent and violence. they are an essential partner in the sinai.
they are absolutely critical to israel's security on that border. all of that is true, but we hope they will pay more attention to fixing their economy, giving the egyptian people more opportunity, trying to extend literacy, particularly among women. a lot of the work that needs to be done if they are going to create a more stable society going forward. so i think, again, it is not so i think, again, it is not easy, and there is a lot of problems in the u.s. trying to help, but we need to do what we can. >> madame secretary, thank you for talking to us. in your book, you called benjamin netanyahu a complicated man, and with the relationship between the u.s. and israel -- what is due to benjamin netanyahu, his policies, and what would be different if the prime minister and the president would get along? and you go into very candid detail about after the 2008 election. i know you said you do not answer hypothetical and theoretical, but there is the pro-con list you have, but could you share with us what is in the pro column and the con column? >> i will answer the first question. [laughter] the rapidity of change in the region, and everything that all what is due to benjamin of us were dealing with, i happened to believe that the relationship between the united states and israel is -- i happen to believe that the relationship
between the united states and israel is solid and will be solid, and our foreign policy and domestic concerns, our values, our ideals -- but that does not mean we have to agree on everything. that does not mean that not only our leaders but people in our country who care deeply about israel, just like israelis who care deeply about the united states -- that, to me, is the mark of a mature relationship and a deep, abiding friendship. so are there differences between leaders? absolutely. i think it would be foolish to try to pretend otherwise. but i think what is important is the continuing institutional
support and the support we will give israel regardless of leadership. security support. and i think a lot of the -- you know, the reports of attitudes and the like -- maybe it is because we live in an instantaneous world, where everybody has an opinion, and everybody can say it. you know, i have dealt with a
lot of different leaders. obviously, i have seen my husband deal with a lot of different leaders, israeli leaders as well as others, and at times, there are going to be differences, and i do not think it is personal. i think it is a different perspective about -- sometimes what we think is best for our friends may not be what our friends think is best for them, and when we say that, i don't believe that is disrespectful or rupturing the relationship. i think that is an honest relationship area that is the kind of friends i want. i want friends to say that to me, and i want to be able to say it back. i think that is a broader and more accurate way to look at the relationship right now. >> do you have time for two more questions or one? >> madame secretary, thank you very much for gracing us with
your presence and share your wisdom with us again this year. you referred to the anxiety about iran, and that has very much for gracing us with certainly been hyped in the sense that they are surrounded by iran's -- now in yemen. given the negotiations with iran and their anxiety about that, as well, and as you said, sharing the anxiety with israel, is it time for you to resurrect that idea that i think you had six years ago in the presidential campaign of some sort of security arrangement that would provide them with an umbrella, that would give them some greater sense of reassurance in this very anxious time for them? >> well, martin, i think it is one of the reasons i wanted to form the gulf cooperation council, to begin a much more regular, in-depth discussion
about security issues, because, you are right, i did call for what i think i said a security umbrella, for them to have a nonaggression pact towards israel, and we, during the time i was there, explored a lot of different approaches. we never formally offered such a potential package, but we looked at how we could try to create a more effective security environment, and it takes a lot of time and effort, and it needs to be a priority, because, for example, without naming names, where you place certain radar is dependent on geography, but countries want it to be dependent on their interests and needs, so as i said, but if you look at this map, the radar should be here, and they say,
no, we want it here, and you say, but that does not help us do what we are trying to do, so it is a lot of work, and it would go back to the ambassador's question and your question. there is no substitute for consistent diplomacy in the face of persistent problems, and on the security umbrella, i think it is an idea in whatever form it could take worth being resurrected because of what you described. if you look at the circle around the gulf, there are more iranian outposts now than there were, and a lot of that is because the countries themselves, take yemen, take those in the north -- the countries themselves
cannot figure out how to defend themselves, and we have tried. we continue to have eight and assistance there. the lebanese situation is so destabilized with hundreds of thousands of refugees, with hezbollah being basically part of assad's army against the rebels and the inability of various parts of the lebanese leadership to have a united front to protect their own country. i mean, we cannot do that for them, nor can anybody else, so a lot of this is weakness that iran takes advantage of, and, you know, in this world, you can be mad at somebody taking advantage of you, but at the end of the day, that is your fault.
how you treat your own people in a way that they will not look outside your borders, and that is part of what has been going on, as you know. the iranians have been incredibly focused on exploiting any opening, and i think that we have to do what we can to try to bolster a sense of security that the gulf has going forward in order to deal with the constellation of threats that iran poses. >> thank you. thank you, madam secretary, for your insight and wisdom. one of the good news of the last two months is oil going to $70 per barrel, maybe below. iran.
russia. how do you see the international community dealing with the oil price, and is it affecting the idea of rebalancing to the pacific or some other issues -- to asia. you were part of the idea in the beginning. thank you. >> well, you're absolutely right that the increase in supply on the international market and the decrease in price has the potential to dramatically reshape strategic and economic relationships. i believe that we don't yet know, however, how this will play out. it appears that the drop in oil prices is having an increasing effect of pressure in iran,
which may, on the margins, at least, give us more of an opportunity to get to the kind of deal i was talking about. we certainly believe that the decrease in price is having an impact inside russia and on the decisions that putin will have to make. inside the u.s., it is predominantly a good story. however, the cost of extracting oil and gas in the united states is more expensive than it is getting and out of the ground in saudi arabia and other producers, and they are keeping the price down to begin the process of limiting production
in the united states so they do not have the u.s. surpassing production levels in the gulf, and they do not have the u.s. able to use oil and gas to a great extent as a tool of our diplomacy in our engagement. it is too soon to tell, but it is a factor that we have to constantly be watching. now, having a low price and so much production does help us in this way. china, and india, in particular, they are getting antsier. there is enough supply at the price that opec forced, and it may be going lower. we have to be smart about this. one of the areas that i emphasized during my time at the state department was energy diplomacy, and i want to thank the former senator dick lugar. much more attention and resources behind it, and we did so, and it makes a big
difference, because we have to see energy not just as a commodity, not just as affecting the economy, but as a tool in our diplomatic arsenal. they are having a lot of internal stress. there are going to be many moves in the next year if the price stays down and it has the impact externally and internally that it is predicted to have. >> thank you very much for your insightful comments and
inspiring words, and i will see you next year on that stage, i hope. [applause] thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> protesters have been carrying signs and marching today outside the u.s. capitol demanding a human rights investigation. two dozen protesters were met from a line of lease who stopped them from advancing toward the building. country overnd the the deaths of unarmed black men. session forback in the last week of work in the lame-duck session. -- in california in
response to the drought going on. later this week, considering for the rest of the budget year. the site -- the senate has judicial nominations coming up. you can see the senate live on seas then to today and the house at noon eastern for general speeches here on c-span. several major hearings coming up this week. tomorrow, senator jonathan gruber and marilyn tavener about the health care law. the committee is looking at whether officials held details to assure passage of that law. c-span3 will carry it tomorrow starting at 9:30 eastern. c-span will ben, live as secretary of state john kerry will be live on combating isis and whether the new authorization is needed from congress on the use of military starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three. coming up later, the house benghazi committee will hear
-- that getsrk started wednesday morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span three. israeli labor party leader spoke about his talked country's relations with the u.s. nuclear program, a two state solution in the israeli-palestinian conflict. collects i just asked him what side he wants to be on and he said the right, note that. [laughter] thank you very much, tammy. thank you, haim. we have agreed to call ourselves jeff and bougie.
there is a lot to cover tonight. i want to start with something called word association. [laughter] >> can i say three short sentences? one is that, of course, join with all of my colleagues from israel in expressing heartfelt condolences to mr. liberman. and on a note, to be grateful and thankful to haim and brookings and the saban forum, and those who have flown here. i know you are a shrewd journalist, and i am ready. >> "shrewd" is a code word for something. >> i read you.
>> let's start with the news of the moment. and will and will you you took a long and possibly will will even full flight here with, among others, tzipi livni, are you and there is a lot of will and there is a lot of and interest in understanding will whether you and tzipi livni and possibly others are going to try to merge your parties, merge your lists in order to form a potent center-left bloc. you and >> i talked to my wife about doing something over the weekend. in a let's understand israel and first. let's understand the israeli let them scene. will youou and you and are you let's break this notion that netanyahu is unbeatable. i i am here to tell you i will
form the next government, and i a you will lead israel in a are you are different direction. are in this season if we build the proper coalitions in israeli politics. >> so, mr. prime minister, how are you going to build that? [laughter] >> it requires a lot of things. number one, that all ego is set aside. and i lead labor. we believe, and i believe, that from day one since i take office that we should have a running together of forces. tzipi livni is a very distinguished israeli leader, and i would like to very much join forces with him and with other parties. there has to be a centrist israeli bloc that is an alternative unequivocally to netanyahu.
>> now, could you answer the question? have you formed a list? >> the elections were decided just in the last few days. so not yet. has not even finalized the dissolve yet. i believe clearly that labor is the strongest element. it should lead it. and i hope to be able to do it. >> let me ask questions about who you might serve with. can you envision going with avigdor liberman? >> the polls over the weekend gave me a nice leap ahead in terms of closing the gap.
it is a coalition game. you have to see what will be the day after. this is what people don't get. there could be an interesting coalition of parties and leaders who decide to form a coalition, a new coalition, and i hope that my capability of tying knots, of being able to bring people together, things which i have done in winning the labor party primary, and this is understanding the vista, and all partners are possible. the arabs themselves always say they do not want to go in any coalition. any coalition, they may
have support from the outside. let me explain to those who do not understand israeli politics. it ain't nothing like being a minority leader here. we have in my opposition right now, eight parties. ok? it is a multiparty system. it is not republicans and democrats. in a multiparty system, today i have three arab parties. i have the muslim brotherhood party in my opposition. we have the only legal muslim brotherhood party in the world in the region. we need to have them all represented. all communities in israel are represented to -- represented. can workieve that we together and build a coalition which will be different from the current situation. >> let's talk about your candidacy.
you are obviously a man of accomplishment. you come from a very, very famous family in israel, but you are known as a non-charismatic figure. flex thank you. >> you are welcome. [laughter] there is a certain assumption. >> look at how many charismatic leaders we had in what happened to them. [laughter] >> with israeli politics, and maybe this is just conventional or perceived wisdom, that the voters want something, especially from the center or centerleft that is gruff, and nobody would mistake you for -- gabi ashkenazi walking down the street. so talk about the barriers to your success among the voters. i mean -- and then we will talk about the labor party. >> it is combined, intertwined.
the label is staged right now in the centerleft. it should resume its role as a mother party. together with all of the other parties, which i mentioned, because labor has the capability of being so, talking to all of the other members of the political scene in the same eye level. and as for myself, because i do not see having psychological treatment with you -- there is an innate fear within israeli society of whatever we see and hear around us. it is the reaction of human beings. my role is to acquire enough trust in all of the -- in all of
the polls, they trust me. they have to be able to trust me, and that is what i am focusing on. that is my main challenge. correct answer this question, because security is a threshold for a center or centerleft candidate. who are your security gurus? who do you look to? on the israeli spectrum form advice on matters of national security. >> there are wonderful people within the security and defense community who are willing to lend a hand or are willing to give from their experience. we have some people within our party. we have people from the outside. there are very distinguished people. some of them even here. the issue is, again, to shatter this premonition.
you know that we have a party. in the elections either in 2009 or before, only generals, and it did not make a difference. if you ask me, the real issue is social economics. -- the real issue is socioeconomic. undoubtedly, we will talk about it, breaking the umbilical cord and moving forward with the palestinians and creating very strong security interests of israel being fostered and nurtured. we give an answer on issues. we must remember the social protest of 2011. the summer of 2011 was a major watershed in israeli history. it is something that i'm always inquisitive about in american politics and history. all of the sudden, the nation woke up and demanded not security, they demanded social justice, and they kept on saying social justice, and 5% of the nation's population gathered in a city square one night
demanding justice with no violence. 100 years after the revolution in russia. all of a sudden, social justice, but in a democratic sense, they did not get that delivered to them, and the only partner that can deliver it to them in a fair and square manner is labor. this is part of the agenda between me and netanyahu. these are not the only issues. >> i want to come to this in a minute, but i do want an answer to this question of who you listen to in israel. >> i will not tell you. >> why not? >> because some of the people don't want to be exposed. it is legitimate. me, we have a very strong security contra -- cadre.ty cage o
and i hope to be able to present a nice group of people who have devoted their life to the defense of the state of israel who are going to be with me and the party. >> i will probably try one more time later when you are tired. >> i am not going to chicken out. [laughter] >> that is not the exact expression, but you are close. [laughter] people watching on c-span -- >> let's put that aside. the real expression is something that i do not like at all. >> we are going to come to that, nonetheless. we come to the question of the labor party. why is the labor party in such a diminished state? where did it go wrong? >> i will explain, because right now, the israeli situation is comprised of different parties.
the last one that had more than 40 mandates was ariel sharon. the structure has been actually broken to medium or small-sized parties, and remember there is going to be a new threshold introduced in this election with which is quite big, for mandates. namely, only if they get full mandates. that is a lot. that is about 3.25%. therefore, there will have to be mergers, m&a's, and there are a few processes, undercurrents. the first one was that we lost touch with some of what the public really feels is important to them. for a long time, we were a member of the coalition, and we were kind of erased of our identity, and it took time to recover, and we also lost touch
with new groups in society -- who demanded to be part of it. for example, the russian immigration of one million people. we kind of lost them somewhere. they supported both rabin and barak. and they were turned off. add to that other groups in the arab population. 96% support to help barack. couple that with a young generation that is coming in and voting and they do not remember the legacy of labor. and even within that generation or the public at large, we were viewed as giving up too quickly to the palestinians or the arabs. >> on that subject, it is april of next year, and you are the prime minister. you are a big advocate, obviously, of the two-state solution.
i want to know specifically from you why you think that you would achieve what barak tried to achieve and what ehud olmert tried to achieve -- they try to make the first with yasser arafat and the second with abu mazen. >> i am not going to go to it, but i am not going to give up trying again. and moreover, part of it has to do with psychology. we are not dealing with psychology at all. the fact that there is no is adverse no trust to their ability to reach an agreement. yesterday, i had a meeting with the leader of the sinn fein, and may i remind you, he was an outcast. he came to palestine and we had breakfast and i said, jerry, tell me what was the moment of
truth when you guys moved, and he told me it was when they came to realize they would not achieve it in any other way. both sides. and also, there was a unique configuration of leaders, and one of them is bill clinton, who knew how to work on the psychology of the leaders and the people. this is part of it. and nobody is dealing with it. mazen. to all the i said, people say that even if i negotiate with you, you will never make peace with us, and he laughed and said, i am sure we can reach an agreement. it depends on trust. it depends on confidence building measures. it depends on innovating, being bold, and radiating to the people that there is hope. the situation that we see right now is so devastating, because there is a feeling of a lack of hope. there is a despair feeling.
most were some of all -- most worrisome of all is the unleashing of feelings of hatred. it is so dangerous to all of us. >> you are prime minister. what is your settlement policy? >> the settlement policy is that -- first and foremost, i believe in the blocks. i definitely believe in it being part of israel. it is essential for security. >> no, no, no, i want to get this in. when the u.s. administration tells you, no building and you , are prime minister. what do you say? >> hillary clinton said, i don't answer theoretical questions. because i believe israel -- i have always said it. israel should put a plan on the table and move forward and often. within that umbrella of
movement, there are things that both sides can do. i believe in settlement -- freezing settlement construction outside as part of confidence measures, that it should be part of a plan that israel presents, in this plan should take into account the basic inherent security needs of the state of israel. >> what if it doesn't work? do you have a plan b? you have spoken of the unsustainability of the status quo. >> that is true. >> what about plan b? >> the problem with plan b is we already negate the possibility of moving on with plan a. there are some that do not believe in the negotiating process but believe in unilateral steps. i think israel, the nation, suffered a certain trauma from pulling out of gaza. we have to attend to that. i was there.
we were blamed for pulling out by our brothers and sisters from the settlement in gaza, and it did not work out. so we have to take it into account. i do believe unequivocally and from the bottom of my heart that it is a must under all circumstances to separate from the palestinians, that if it fails, we will have to take steps that define our border in a clearer way. >> that is, unilateral with draw -- withdrawal. >> even if you do not negotiate, you can coordinate. you can do steps that say, i give priority to that area. and not another. but i think it is a mistake that
we already assume it is over. it is part of the tragedy that unfolded in front of our eyes. it is not true. i am telling you absolutely, it is possible, absolutely possible, to make peace with the palestinians. >> i am just trying to put myself in the shoes of an israeli voter, who hears you say that if all else fails, we are going to have to withdraw -- >> i did not say that. whether legislative or other, -- i said, we will have to work smartly, in making efforts, whether legislative or other arranging the fact that most , israelis will be in southern areas. but i'm not willing to go into any detail. >> let's turn, and, again, i will try in a minute, let's turn to the relationship between the united states and israel. secretary clinton made it seem like there are occasional ripples in the calm surface of
these waters, downplayed personal tension between the president and your prime minister. you have spoken about this, however, as a crisis. can you define why you think this is more of a crisis than hillary clinton says it is? >> i am not here to start personally criticizing the prime minister. outside israel. my aim is to convince the people of israel. there are rules of the game that we attended to. i think that the policies of the israeli government have led us to a situation -- sorry -- has led us to a situation of a total lack of trust, a total lack of trust. now, it is essential, it is essential to have trust between their leaders, not only the professionals, not only the government level, but the leaders. it is a fact.
it is a fact that there is no trust at all between the president and the prime minister, and we have to attend to it, and one of my first things will be to mend those relationships. in israel's history throughout, the ability to have trust between the top leaders was essential in critical moments, to israel's well-being and to peace and safety. >> do you blame the american side or the israeli side? but i am not in a blame game. i am telling the israeli people that there are so many faulty policies that we will have to correct, and there are so many mistakes that netanyahu has done that we will correct. a major part of it is the relationship with the united states. the relationship between israel
and the united states -- even if we argue, we should do it in closed rooms. we know how to argue. even if we debate. but there is the issue of trust, telling each side what is the problem and what is my interest, what is your interest, let's try to get together and agree, because the united states is the world, because the united states is not pulling out of the middle east as people were perceiving it to be, and because the united states is our closest ally. and because the united states is our closest ally. >> i've heard people on the right and israel talking about replacing europe, for instance, with the china-india policy. you don't think that israel can pivot east? >> there is nothing to compare, with all the respect to these important countries, economically they are very important countries.
but look at the record of the united nations. we have only one real ally that affection and trust with on so many levels, and is nothing to replace that. it also has a huge economic bearing on the israeli economy. >> i have to step back and ask a very basic question at this moment. it's something i really don't understand. why is israel moving toward elections right now? can anyone explain what happened? like someuation is sort of theater act whereby each side locked the other side to a situation where they could not move on together.
and i think it has to do with the decisions of benjamin netanyahu that they can pull this one again. and the israeli public will be faced with the question -- is it willing to have a number -- another term of benjamin netanyahu? it's a key question in this election. in addition to all of the important issues that you have discussed. but it will also reflect the following, will israel skid dangerously to becoming a more extreme state in its behavioral mode, definitely as a government? or will israel correct itself in the direction of well-positioned policies that go together with the regional envision meant of ?ionism understanding our regional situation, trying to move social peace and
justice, alignment with the united states, economic recovery , and most importantly, strengthening and fostering our democratic values. >> i want to come to that in a second, but one more foreign policy national security question. where do you rank the iran threat in the scheme of -- in the range of threats? obviously, the current prime minister believes that iran poses a unique existential threat, the iranian nuclear program to the future of israel. do you believe in that thread? >> i believe it is a very important threat. definitely, an important threat. and it's a threat that has to be debt with. i say the following, i think the negotiation process is important and i think the u.s. and its allies should get the best deal possible. i think we should enable it to get the best deal possible, but we should not rule any alternative off the table until we sealed -- see that deal.
>> do you trust the obama administration to get a good deal? >> i trust the obama administration to get a good deal. we hope for the best deal possible, which means a lot of elements. most important, the fact that we on a set breakout time that will give ample warning to everybody if the iranians want to break the agreement and move toward the bomb. i think the professionals have to work on it and we have to give it a chance. nonetheless, we shouldn't be i -- shouldn't be naive. we still live in a very dangerous and come located world and region and the policies of the iranian regime are clear to us. and we have been discussing them for years. until thenot be naive deal is all well. we should be very strict in monitoring and in deciphering whatever is going on in relation to that program. >> if you had been prime
minister this past summer, how would you have handled the hamas threat? correct i think we need a combination of force and diplomacy. nation ofink we knew, force and diplomacy. --entered that crisis with it led to a situation where the secondly, the international community was already showing nerves and shortsightedness in terms of what is going on in gaza, because of the picture that came out of gaza, of course, had a bearing and influence. one, we have to see how we deteriorated into that conflict and how to make sure we do not deteriorate again. ending it has to do with a very strong regional coalition the palestinian authority into gaza that gives and to the people of gaza, moves on as a basis for the with the palestinians.
>> the palestinian authority is a fairly weak and corrupt body. obviously, palestine itself is divided between two competing and sometimes warring parties. you seem to have more faith in they lead a moderate palestinian body. let's be frank, we always love to judge everyone else's lyrical systems. i am not judgmental. -- political systems. i am not judgmental. they are working. itk at the summer, let's put in perspective. following the abduction of the three boys, which was a huge tragedy for everybody. the palestinian authority functioned properly. they coordinated with efforts to find their whereabouts. the situation and coming it down, despite the fact
that there were many israeli operations on the ground. then came the protective edge over the summer. everyone loves to turn to them as weak -- term them as weak. >> are you worried about the future of israeli democracy? >> i am worried about the direction in which israeli democracy and society is moving into if we don't correct. tomorrow you will have [indiscernible] here, a distinguished representative from the right. .e believes in annexing areas he believes in a deal that the world will accept, unilateral steps from israel in this direction. he does not answer the question -- what will you do with 100,000 citizens who will become israeli take jerusalem, the
recent tax came from palestinians from east jerusalem who grew up under israeli sovereignty with an israeli id card. does that mean we will go through another 100,000 who have no loyalty to the state of israel in the sense that they will not feel part of israel but rather under occupation? there is no other choice. despite the fears, we will have to get over those fears. we will have to try again. otherwise the direction of the israeli society could be moved, and that is what we are doing in order to correct it. i am worried about undercurrents that are trying to limit, contain, and curtail the beautiful vista of israeli democracy. the fact that in our parliament there is such a wide range of views, of free speech laid down itour supreme court, to me is holy and i will do what i can with my colleagues to protect it.
and there are endless efforts where the ministry of justice tries to block another week another piece of legislation which, from the outside, from those with a liberal understanding of what democracy is all about, seems incomprehensible and dangerous. >> israel is quite obviously a jewish state. what is so bad about passing a law that says israel is a jewish state? >> i will explain the following. i set it on the floor of parliament when i debated last week. said it on the floor of parliament when i debated last week. in the final moments i think it that both to say states are nationstates. that palestine will be the nationstate of the palestinian people and israel the nationstate of the jewish people, as it is derived from the november 47 resolution.
do with has nothing to what is within israel. within israel all citizens must feel they are equal. not only say it, but they must feel it. coming forward with this discourse on jewish state treads on racist undertones, making the feeling that somebody will be , therred over the other way that a mage or it he is essential to the well-being of our society. in israel isunity 20%, comprised of all denominations of christianity and islam. fascinating community. other communities in israel, not homogeneous at all. many of them want to be part of an inclusiveness in israeli public life all throughout and many want to be secessionists. if duty is to be inclusive
we want to protect the well-being of the state. to make anyone feel in a formal manner anything than that, it is not only a huge mistake, it is against the basic inherent declaration of the state. our magna carta. >> i'm hearing from you that it would be impossible for you to enter a coalition with someone who has just proposed that parts , the triangleer area, be sliced off and a final arabs and and the their land transfer to palestinian sovereignty. sounds like that is a very -- talmudic tonight. >> i always am. especially on shabbos. [laughter] >> good. it doesn't work this way. again, the coalition in israel is formed under the guidelines
of what is agreed and what is the agreed-upon policy. a policy ofl be having an agreed-upon guideline, that is what we would be, but it has nothing to do with the nationality, per se. the nationality came out of many ideas that were floating around to define the real nature of the state of israel. int nature has been defined our declaration of independence. the greatness of our founding fathers is that they did not like to talk too much. they simply came forward with the declaration of independence. they did not argue about words endlessly that could hurt. in an atmosphere whereby there is this interreligious flaring issues are ater stake, it is a horrendous mistake to deal with it, unleashing all of these genies out of the bottle. >> you are saying now that the
idea of transferring arab villages in israel, made up of israeli citizens to palestinian -- two israeli control -- of israeli citizens to his -- to palestinian control is off the table? spin, let'selection put it on record, it won't work. in general i invite each and every one of you to tour and understand that what you see from the outside is not exactly what you get. all groups have different views of life and there are many, many arabs included in the big parties, including my party, who share a dream with us of living together with peace. when i go to an emergency room in a bethesda hospital, to save the soldiers life, when i asked the jewish family who saved your
sons life, they show me professor mohammed, one of the best surgeons in the country. we have to put everything in perspective. >> we are going to questions in a minute. i want to ask one other thing, in your opinion does israel have pr problems or does it have problems? >> israel has both. look, i don't rule out the fact that we feel besieged and that the world does not understand us at times, however i don't believe in the biblical proverb saying that the people dwell alone. dwellnot in this era alone. we have to have allegiances. we have to have connections with our friends and allies. we have to cooperate together in an international arena. therefore, we cannot just go on saying to everybody -- for crying out loud, we are the ones who are besieged. we have problems.
yes, there is a lot of israeli and thered the world are a lot of anti-somatic undertones, but it has nothing to do with the fact that we have problems to deal with. we must present policies correctly, change the policies correctly. i always compare israel to a midsize ship in stormy waters in high seas that has to maneuver through correctly. we are in a situation where we find ourselves cornered without any ability to maneuver. that is our main problem. >> let me get back to one question, the main question, i want to get you back -- get you on record as much as possible here. process,ut the peace because we tend to think of it started 21 years ago, with oslo. theirlestinians and
representatives, before there have had fourity, or five opportunities over the last many years to have a state. each time the offer has gotten worse, obviously, from a pure territorial standpoint. the question that plagues the left in israel, after 80 years of being rejected, of having the division of the land being rejected by the palestinians or their arab representatives, what makes you think that now what most people see as an in a spacious time, what makes you think that now is the time to try to move forward on this two state solution? >> it has been a long, drawnout process. do not forget oslo. you are ignoring a lot of things. you are ignoring the process of 68 and comparing it to today. there is a totally different ballgame, a different arena. today there is an intense
.nterface not necessarily towards the middle. but my fear is that within the camps of people are losing faith in the possibility of separating and coming to the two state solution. believe me, it was there. in 94 there was a huge majority for it in both peoples. unfortunately, terror on both sides led to the fact that we got into a stumbling block with no possibility of moving forward. and then we repeated it time and again. it is the easiest thing, to tread on the psychology of fear. my adversaries in the political system, especially from the right, tread on fear. i am trying to challenge that and say -- we cannot live only on fear. we have tobe lucid,
be careful, we have to protect our interests. it cannot be that mothers and fathers on the other side do not want peace. why would anyone at the age of 35 with five children go in the morning and commit suicide and butcher the people he is working with all of his life? it is cynical. we have to understand where it comes from. we have to make an effort and not say that therefore all of the muslim world cannot make peace with us. we have to go on and try. >> where does that come from? the impulse to suddenly slaughter? >> it is against any moral, legal, or human values, and it is shocking. when you look at the whole picture it has to be analyzed and in order to neutralize the elements we must bring hope. we cannot give up on that. >> thank you for this
conversation. thank you very much. we are going to open it up. [applause] the gentleman left -- next to sippy live me -- tsipi livni. you both.ou to a lot of people here would like to see a change in government. express mying to opinion, i am your host, so i will shut up about that part of it, but when i look at the members of knesset, when i count the numbers and put the right on one side and the left on the center, then the other side, taking out the arabs, it just can't happen. usld you be willing to give some numbers about how you think you can become the next prime >> people think of the
ultra-orthodox are part of the right and will reject any piercing -- any. -- any peace agreement. first, the ultra-orthodox community has shifted dramatically in other directions. the four widows of the butchered were unfortunately fortunate, getting up to stand in front of a thousand people. the first widow sent -- we have to think about the way we treat others. just as an example, ok? nobody picked up on it. why get interested in those groups out there, striking him out as if we are out of it? absolutely wrong. remember, the coalition had sharpened it. that is just one example of why
people in all communities are simmering with inner debate about where to go. it is not a question of right and left, it is a question of where we go from here. can we move and live in peace together? ofe, for example, the party [indiscernible] , less known to the american public, a major player in the election. one can assume that they would rule out any coalition, definitely centrist. we mentioned others. i think that there will be a moment of truth whereby the israeli political system asks themselves -- do we move in that direction or skid into the abyss? >> so, no numbers? >> there are no reasons to write numbers right now.
we are in the beginning of the election. those analysts know how to start a elections. they don't know how to end elections. mikulski. >> [inaudible] there is an idea that the founder of the labour party talked about a term that i don't know how to translate into speaking foreign language], but for someone who was more -- >> that is not fair -- >> i am not asking you to say that. i am not asking you to say that. i am asking to say -- how do you
hit the israeli middle that wants that kind of labour party, that has that kind of approach? >> it is about uniting sources with centrist. weise -- we share the same thing, same values, the same understanding of the risks and ander in front of our eyes other parties, we all understand the dangers that face israel, so we must share together the ability to ring change. >> you mentioned the social 5%tice these of this and how of israel came together. this was a unique moment. yet, netanyahu one after that.
>> it you want to depress me? [laughter] isall i am asking you about why labor has not been able to really capitalize on its natural socialuency, the movement. there is a very sit -- very distinguished here who can delve what went happen -- what happened. thatruth of the matter is it was the island that enjoyed the fruit of that process and they did not deliver. not join during the peace process because of your would you rule out
joining him or would you bring him in under your leadership? >> the problem is that you guys questions of the last battleground. i am trying to understand to you that i am not hallucinating. it is not easy, it is complicated. us here understand that politics is a game of undercurrents. all of a sudden there is an enormous frustration within the israeli public in general and the body politic in particular as to what is happening in israel and the policies of netanyahu.
this will be reflected in the election results. >> thank you, jeff. this is an uncomfortable subject, but would you agree, as an old hand in israeli politics, that sometimes during election time the united dates government tries to exert some influence one way or another? and you might be the beneficiary if they did. >> perhaps not true. that he'll lay around. >> but what is your view of that at all? does the u.s. do that? should they? us that no oneto should fiddle in another's political system. at least i intend not to do it in america. secondly, i think the u.s. administration is wise enough to
know what not to do within an election process. >> over here. >> with michael lawrence wright in the middle, where he always is. [laughter] >> you talk about this and the incentives as being crucial for the future of israel. where does this fit? i would think that the results and reaction to the next election would be crucial for ,he church -- the jewish world finding it more and more difficult for the younger >> a very,to connect valid point. >> is not reflected well in the
israeli outlet discourse. we see it, we see the main jewish leaders expressing support of israel. we don't see the grassroots or streaks of disenchantment, which bother me and my colleagues tremendously. to believe in israel as the true homeland of our people, we have .o work towards that i think that the whole game of with and touching temple mount was extremely dangerous and adverse to the basic interests .f israel it unleashed a very, very dangerous religious conflict, which is unnecessary.
of course, the palestinians flared beautifully. without re-justification on this -- on this whitehorse , i think that responsible legislators cannot do these steps without understanding their implication on synagogues and diaspora jews all over the world. that interesting to note the ultra-orthodox sages of the time, they ruled against going into temple mount, including my late grandfather. zionismrom religious have decided to undermine that decision and i think that one needs to debate, argue, and ask you questions about that to the leaders of zionism. -- ask deep questions about that to the leaders of zionism. >> there is a big debate in this country, do you believe that
young american jews are becoming disenchanted with israel because of israeli policies are just because they are growing distant from being jewish? >> i am against generalizing. i think there are different kinds. first, birthright has been a huge success. all of the other projects that follow suit, they are incredibly important to forming a new feeling towards israel in the young generation. now, the young generation is like the young generation. the attached at times from the , on these social networks and on others, with issues of religious pluralism or war and the tax and so forth. and so forth.
i think that young american jews are challenged in israel and in the organized community, which is trying the best, including and others organizations of connecting them better to israel and bring a sense of jewish community. >> michael oren, the nancy pelosi. -- then nancy pelosi. >> you have my empathy. i have been interviewed by michael many times, you can see the color of my hair. it's never easy. a couple of ask you questions. there is a tendency when i listen to you to look at the palestinians as some sort of two-dimensional prop for a israeli morality play. they don't have agency, they don't have control over their own destiny, we are in control, but of course that is not true. palestinians have ultimate agency. they have walked away from
negotiations after israel released prisoners. they have gone to the u.n. and declared a palestinian state with the express intention of going and sanctioning us. that they have survived five israeli prime ministers because they don't have to stand for election. of iraq in syria unraveling, what chances do you think the palestinian state has with a corrupt, unelected , why would you put your trust in this? i understand the idea of holding a two state solution is a vision , but it is a pretty vision that is not a policy. agency,ave palestinian if you look that agency in the eye, what is your policy?
what is your initiative? where do you go? he will not come back to the do not freeze settlements everywhere, including not releasing prisoners from israeli prisons. the would say that underlying assumption in what you said, which is based on facts, except that i don't accept the idea that it is over. i don't think it is true. i definitely don't think it is true. i don't think that the fact that there is a palestinian leadership calls for me to ignore it. all of these comments about the arrangements without the palestinian leadership or the people, to me it seems futile. however there is a golden opportunity right now acceptable by all of you. is a unique convergence of interest that has been there for a long time that emerged throughout the summer with our adjacent neighbors, egypt and
jordan, both extremely distinguished. they are allies, and away. i think that one needs to understand that president sec -- ssisi is an important player. they need to work with him as abdulla. only king now we need to add to the equation the palestinian authority. and then you have a table with a ur.o fo egypt, jordan, palestinians, israel. they cannot work together? it needs innovation. it needs initiation.
question for the minority leader will come from the minority leader. question, itt be a will be a comment, again thanking the brookings institute and all of you, joining in and welcoming our guest from israel -- guests from israel. to you, mr. chairman, i could not let this one comment stand. while it is true that different parties in israel have different friends in the united states that they want to help them, with the presence of other members of congress in the room, i cannot uphold any notion that the united states government would be involved in an election in another country. we have fought that over and over again in the past and we would fight it if they had tried to be involved. it just doesn't happen. i don't know if it was a casual reference or a reference referring to private individuals
, but the united states government does not get involved in elections in other countries. that is our policy. thank you. atwe believe this program this point. members begin the day with morning hours, short speeches on legislature work will start. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., december 8, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable bradley byrne to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives.