>> again, we are standing by for conversation on the israel and hamas were and how public opinion towards israel and gaza has evolv.>> hello

everyone and welcome. i am a distinguished fellow here working on the middle east. when i scheduled this many weeks ago i optimistically thought that we would be talking about the end of the war in gaza and that israeli hostages would have been released and there would have been a massive humanitarian effort underway to deal with the catastrophe in gaza. unfortunately, the war is still going on. almost six months now.

this is certainly the longest war that israel has far since itsar wit is obviously very difficult even if we had a cease-fire, it would be difficult to talk about th after even if the fighting stops now, thousands more palestinians, especially are likely to die of hunger and disease. jared kushner may envynt, but it will take eight years just to remove the rubble from the current conflict. let alone begin to rebuild. it is unclear will govern the territory and who will pay for reconstruction, and how society and politics will recover and evolve. it is a pessimistic not begin, but it is important to take stock of where we are and try to see a little bit into the future.

we have assembled hopefully four speakers. the r rating what -- we are waiting for one who is reversed. i will pose a few questions hen we will take a few questions. those online can submit questions and we will get to as many of them as we can in the next hour and a half. we will try to keep this discussion as simple as possible. we know that there are a lot of emotions, but we want to be civil and constructive. she has had some technical so i'm going to go to someone i have followed through many years and who is well knownnd respected in"sshington. the professor for development at

the university of maryland and director of the critical issues pulled. i would like you to give us a brief update on the situation on the ground, as we see it and talk about the shifting public opinions that we are seeing about the war, particularly the u.s. >> thank you for having me. i am pleased to join the panel. opinion . it really goes to the heart of the matter in terms of what president biden has been facing at home and now as he is waging a election campaign. not think he could have expected where we are nearly six months into the war and where the american public is.

i want to start by referencing may 2021. it was only a few months after biden had come to office. he came with an empty agenda that highlighted democracy and human rights and was backed by a lot of young people and different segments of the democratic party, in supporting him. he faces a major crisis in may 2021, when there was an attempt to force them out. ba gaza, resulting in more than 2000 dead and that episode. bull during that crisis in comparison to

what we now face, it is considerably smaller, but what was obvious at the time was that the president was clearly out of touch with american public opinion even then. you could see that at the time, he did not condemn what to many people called war crimes. he did not work hard to end the conflict quickly. mainstream members of congress in his party were against. they basically pushed him to make more efforts to join the conflict. i think what happened at the time did -- i wrote two

articles about it. one for the brooklyn institution and one for the boston globeabout how that conflict actually hurt him. i thinke are not prepared to listen. especially more importantly, a large percentage of democrats including nearly half of democrats that disapproved of that is the time when we find that nationally, the president's numbers start to decline. immediately after the gaza war. there are many reasons wnumbers started declining. what is interesting is most of

the drop in 2021 came from democrats. d reason to think that it was probably correlated, even then. problem, he has had a problem with the constituency even before the horrific attack on hamas on october 7 and then the bombardment of gaza by israel. i think one of the things that they since october is initially when you had civilian casualties. the first two weeks, it was mostly focused on the hamas

attack and the israeli casualties. repeating a question we asked over the years about whether the public wanted to lean towards israel, the palestinians or either side. we saw an obvious spike. a spite of for israel, including among democrats. it was the largest single spike we had observed in years. in mind that the spike happened across the board. that is except among young democrats when there was no support for israel after thewe also keep in mind the majority of democratsindependents

wanted the u.s. -- even as the minorities he wanted the u.s. to take israel's side increase and those who wanted to take the other side decreased in the first few weeks. we conducted another poll on this issue. what we found was much of the csupport that israel had gained had really disappeared and declined considerably to weeks later. obviously, there has been a lot since then. showing on this issue, particularly as the

war went on in horror in became clear. >> if i can stop you for a attention to a poll that came out today to get some perspective on this. thery have been angry over certain wars or other incidents but this is a new poll that showed americans disapprove of israeli actions and only 36% approve. 75% disapprove. as somebody who has been doing this for so long, have you ever seen numbers like that? >> i have not. i have been studying this for decades. to some of them for the first time in the late 1980's. ataken place over the years with more

democrats walking away from supporting israel. still overwhelmingly, democrats are evenhanded. largely from young people, especiallyou democrats, but even the young evangelicals. we have not seen it before. i actually have not seen that pole this morning, but i want to say sis really relevant. in our own discourse we have seen huge demonstrations from hundreds of thousands of people turning up. very often they labeled as muslim and arab americans. that is not really what is happening.

of course there are a key constituents and obviously we have than one, but this is far more pervasive. hispanic americans, women, the kind that we have seen over the years more motivated by social justice and human rights issues than strategic issues. that is one poll not released yet that shows two thirds of americans want the u.s. to champion, to goal of the policy. when you ask them advocate to push for human rates relying on international organizag a model for the world. those are the top answers not just for democrats but also republicans.

we go to minnesota and there weren protest. yes, they are. that is% of the entire minnesota population. hundreds of thousands of people in the streets with dozens of organizations have nothing to do with them and still labeled. obviously, i think the administration and the president's campaign are getting a little bit of sense of it. something big has happened.

let me stop you there for a minute because i see we have been joined by the generalist. i want to go to you and the events are dizzying. obviously, a much better place to tell us where we are in terms of the actual conflict on the ground. we see that the cease-fire had broken down. and what are the political dynamics? if you could briefly tell us where you are, we would be grateful. >> apologies, especially to the audience that i am late. i thought it was a seven hour

did not account for daylight savings. i'm glad i made it in time. there is a lot to cover. ll give you a picture of where we are now. basically, israel, as we have heard, does not have a good strategy for what to do once it ated or largely removed hamas. what we are seeing in the gaza strip is a holding pattern. from the israeli approach, they are committed to removing hamas governing power. they continue, but it will take a long time. when someone like me analyzes the situation, i do not see those breakthroughs happening but they time and that it will take

a regime change. my ana not going very well for them, but regardless, israel has not had a strategy. the mass starvation and the suffering that we are seeing it as a result of this inability to find an alternative. even if israel agreed to the biden doctrine of having some kind of resme issue. even if israel paid lip service to serve certain interests and de-escalate the situation, some people think that is primarily because he is interested in dragging it out, which he is. he is interested in an endless war, but i think thatategic challenge that israel faces and gaza and the reason israel never went into gaza in the first place, it is because it does not

have a good solution or answer. unfortunatelyee another way of it going other than prolonged occupation of gaza have, depending on how bad the situation gets there. i do not think it is as bad, butif it ts that bad, there might be a situation. we must start administering the day-to-day life there. i think they are confused and frustrated. leadership is not serving their interests, but they also do not have good answers right now for wh to do in gaza. everyone understands that israel has military power and they can e. they have destroyed gaza and made it uninhabitable. now they are dealing with the

consequence of that. as far as the cease-fire talks they are stuck. i think israeli public is interested because the price would be too high to pay plausible but also not interested because any cease-fire would allow for time to refocus efforts on getting him out of office. most of the country wants him out of office. israel is stark. in some, domestic crisis overshadows the crisis in gaza. there is much more attention to how israelis are supposed to regain their security and political leadership that they believe in. on the cease-fire talk, the situation s beenuiteconsistent. they want to have freedom of

operation. a full withdrawal of troops and a timeline for an ending to the ward. that is a real sticking point. that remains, as far as i can see, the main issue here. >> if you could say a word or two. are they benefiting from this? for the first time, does that help him or hurt him? >> he thinks it helps him. he thinks he is projecting power. he probably understands that after 70 years of impunity, he does not believe there is a real price to pay. ?xb.i do not think the u.s. will abandon israel in the north were elsewhere. he has that leeway.

it has in pandering to a political base that has this illusion, but thta u.s. is a projection of power. he said the reason i am doing this is to send a message to hamas. that is how he is positioning himself. more isolated israel becomes the more the far says the whole world is against us. we need to fight harder, longer and stronger. that is kind of the reaction. whether it will help him, i do not know. >> they covered israel alone, which is not exactly true. despite the various signs of irritation we have seen between the u.s. and israel, an expert on that topic is our next beaker who has taught me so much on

this topic over the years. as is an officer and previous director for peace feel free to react to what they have said. i want to get a sense of your reaction. especially on capitol hill. was it a leak in that chuck schumer. a stunning speech. he has obviously gotten some flak for that. where do you see u.s. israel relations now in terms of your expertise in washington? >> thank you for the question and thank you to the previous speakers.

i think a lot has been said about this. the question of where u.s. public opinion is seems to be pretty subtle.democratic public opinion has clearly moved beyond understood was happening. i think this has weirdly taken them by surprise. analysts viewing this without a preconceived idea of what public opinion has to be, we are not surprised. if you look at the protest, they are not just palestinians and palestinian americans. this is rights and values of social justice. it has been coming for a long time. it is related to what a generation, multiple younger generations of americans see as a question of fundamental value and not having a anything, including israel. that took a lot.

i think it took them by surprise. it does not necessarily translate to any certain policy so far. it is importantthough she were speech is a good example. it is a powerful speech. i will that this is not dissimilar to what the biden administration previously did when they had their order for they know well that they are unpopular. the voters that they care about the most. most settlements are not a popular issue. having a policy and putting sanctions on settlers, maybe

they thought letting off steam without taking on gaza. it is challenging whether bb is a good ldeif you look at the actual over a week ago. i do not want to say silver linings in the way that was framed but itevery expert for security says there is famine or incipient famine. the congress borrowed aid for the only organization that has the capacity to deal with this. in parallel, that same bill gave unconditional military aid to israel.

direct funding for which they can buy weapons and other things including a chunk of it in israel. ration agreements. >> that is part of that 10 year agreement. >> it is but that does not mean that in the context of ongoing genocide being committed that congress could not put some reports on that, some limitations. the language suggestingthe fact that congress right now and democrats in congress are jumping in with both feet, joining in with republicans in what is a clear targeting of academia, of the liberal views that they hate in congress. they are framing it asagainst anti-semitism.

by making it about anti-sitism, demtsocrabiden was quoted yesterday. you get a sense that they are trying to give some breathing room. seen that it is yet going to translate into any shift in policy. i do not think it makes a difference. were seeingictures now of children starving to death. there cannot be a famine. we are seeing them now. we do not see anything yet to suggest that leadership or congress is lead -- listening to theirues.

they are pushing hard for this and have been for months. they immediately framed that language that destroys bun security resolutions. they are binding. it does not mean that they are enforceable. you do not have to be a lawyer to understand the difference between binding and enforceable. they tried to destroy the entire idea of accountability and it is baffling. in parallel, the issued a finding that israel was not in any way violating u.s. law. you cannot give aid to a country that is blocking the movement of humanitarian aid. the u.s. decided, they answers from israel, so they are ok with it. i will say one more thing.

the part that is most maddening about this, for anybody engaged in this, it feels like the biden administration learned all the wrong lessons. as opposed to the lesson being tven a little bit you will take the exact same cost and political capital as if you actually had a policy, defended it and did something meaningful to defend security. there is another way right now. biden administration shift policy. the price they would pay and outrage from israel, are framing this as abandoning israel, even though we are doing everything the same. the republican party isdemocrats or so-called democrats tweeted out they will never vote for biden now.

i do not know if he was before, but he tweeted that. you are paying the same price as if you had shiftedicies. it is too late to do six months -- undo six months of death. i do not think that will change, but for those looking and saying, i cannot vote for you knowing that if i do, i am voting for four more years of support for absolute -- an a shift in policy to say, if you vote for me, i am putting some backbone into a different approach could make a diso far it seems like they think that they can manage this with some cosmetic lan continue, full steam ahead provisioning genocide, defending genocide, not allow do anything to prevent further death.

>> what i like about you and always have is thatwaste time and you get straight to the point. in defense of chuck schumer, who i went to co khaki pants and blue blazers in 1970 -- he already knew reggie was going. but he did say something that i thought was very important. i wanted to give him his due. he said in his speech, it was were in danger of becoming a pariah state. i had it and i lost it but he basically said we must be better than our enemies, lest we become them. that was -- it may just be words -- >> if you are a palestinian or someone who cares about palestinian lives listening to that, it is basically more she. it is saying that the

palestinians are horrible while you are literally engaged in a war that destroyed 75% of the houses and has the population facing famine. it aimar race. do this because it is good for israel is the framing. >> all right. i wanted to pull away a little bit from that focus. the senior advisor to the president. someone whose judgmentissues. while this is going on, we still have skirmishes we had a spate of attacks by militia groups.

americans, the death of three americans. it seems to have subsided terwe still have the shipping in the red sea. what is your sense over whether this terrible war is going to become a regional war? well iran allow that to happen get dragged into it were sucked into it? you very much for organizing another fantastic discussion. it is good to be on a panel with laura. i think -- there are two pieces of good newss of bad news. the main actors do not want an

expansion of the conflict. even without coordination or confliction these actors have made it clear through direct and indirect channels of communication that they do not want this word to expand beyond gaza. heard that there have been to meetings. once in january and once in march. i think that is -- apparently. that because i think it allows for both sides to figure out ways of bringing down the temperature. avoid misunderstanding or miscommunication, which often happens when you operate through inteiarmednews is, if you look at

where de-escalation has happened, it is where iran has more influence, more command and control over some of these actors that a the iraqi government. incident, iran was able to pull the plug and bring them in even before the u.s. retaliated. we saw the u.s. retaliation a degree of consciousness to respond in a way that was much more assertive compared to previous retaliatory acts, but in a wayd escalation. there are actors.

they have a long track record of annoying advice. -- ignoring advice. we might wake up and find that they have done something that is not coordinated with iran and has resulted in the kind of casualties that would be difficult to look the other way and would result in uncontrolled escalation. the last piece of bad news is that we are not out of the woods yet. yes, we have had six weeks of relative but imagine in the best case scenario, we get a cease-fire in gaza. probably a temporary one. with that result israel turning its attention to the north? hezbollah has said if there is a cease-fire in gaza, we will stop our attack. israel has not said the same

thing, in fact they have said the opposite. if hezbollah is not pushed away from the border, israel will continue its attacks to allow citizens displaced from the north to return to their homes.that is an unworkable formula for hezbollah. whether that would change later on, we doot but even a cease-fire will not guarantee that the northern border will be quiet. they have said that they would stop if there was a cease-fire, but they have learned that they had a very powerful tool in their hands. human conflict has its own dynamic, so it is possible that we would see escalation there. in a scenario, there is and encourage -- guarantee sitting here without any doubt, you would see resumption of attacks.

this cease-fire that we have right now on that front is not permanent. it is temporary. is because the conflict in gaza remains tragic, but if you look at the number of daily deaths on it has plateaued a bit. there is justification for them to say that it makes sense to allow the iraqi government to negotiate to washington in a few weeks, so it makes sense government time, but if there is a campaign that results in more atrocities, i think it will be very difficult to keep these groups at again, there are plenty. >> i was meeting with a senior official who was extremely concerned about the prospect of an israeli war. depending on how that went, it could reignite the popular

mobiliza in iraq, which stood down for now. i want taro inging in questions. there are a bunch online. some of them are morein fairness some of them are talking about how hamas cannot be trusted to distribute aid. i think we have to understand that there are very strong feelings about hamas. this is from one who writes that they are a fanatic group. do americans understand who israel is up againstre seeing shifting public opinion, there are many americans who also see israel as éñjustified and what it is doing

in response to the hamas attack. i want to make sure that we reflect those feelings as well. let's start with some questions the audience and i will go to the -- over here. say if it is addressed to a particular person. >> this is addressed. whenever there is an outrage against palestinians and it is criticized in congress, they by talking about how palestinian and payment and hatred etc. i wondered for a longulling in israel. how demographics and israel become so right-wing? we saw in our communal clashes

the outpouring of hate and violence on both sides. there was a study of textbooks back in 2008 or 2009 orthodoxy achievemenbasically, it later absorbed report. there they dehumanized each other but gave their narratives and strong form. talking about before october 7 wanting to deprogram those i have worked with. how did we get here with so many young people in israel who now comprise the both of the idea?

like let's separate the question of incitement from the question of the positions of young people one very obvious reason is israel itself. the larger of the jewish population in particular. we can actually see very large among israelis in especially israeli jews, where they are broken down. you have the different groupings within the jewish community. they have the hardest position about the nature of israel and their attitudes towards arabs.

that is a big part of it. but it is also something more it goes beyond strategy. in part, this is something that goes beyond israeli and palestinian conflict. it is in every conflict. it is whether you have to start preparing for or if it is a constant conflict. it leads to demonization. demonization, i think it is believed tied to help people read the prospects of peace and war. that is on both sides. if you look back to when peopleew hopeful, very few people among the jewish

community palestinians supported acts against israelis. when the prospect was reduced began a significantly different view of the public, it ispeople read the conflict. barbara mentioned comments from the and how people see hamas. no matter what, there are laws that have to be obeyed, no matter how bad your enemy is. ñ@that is why those laws were written. the fact that you have a powerful enemy does not justify breaking the. it goes for everybody. the question about hamas and its influence, sure. a lot of people did not support it.

a lot of people do not like what it stands for. history did not start with october 7. you already had despair among thein the west bank. many of us were predicting violence no matter what. that does not mean -- when you have hopeful outcomes and there is no despair when hamas does something harmful, they say stop it, yours hurting our prospects for getting out of thi a desperate and you see no layout and somebody does something awful you may look the other way. that is what happens. i think the administration's initial idea that palestinians and arabs would say, hamas is horrible, so let's blame them. israelis would say, this is what we got.

i think it is naive. i think the policy was very naive about the opinion. i'mot surprised by any of this. we see it pardoning positions them, but also supporting policies and no cease-fire going on, continuing the war. it is what we expect. it is tragedy. >> and wanted to go to you. you treated al a very upsetting incident. you are at the dentist with one of your kids and i think the dentist or the dental hygienist comments that you found very shocking. i do not know if you want to repeat the anecdote, but it

gives a sense of where a lot of israeli sentiment is. >> the receptionist was talking captured the palestinian that they held responsible for planning the kidnapping of the three teenagers in the in 2014 that then sparked the operation in the west bank and in gaza. it is just an anecdote. it was offensiveyand i just kind of said, i do not think torturing would lead to a better security situation. she said that it had. but it is not like we engaged in a substantial conversation. i think it is emblematic of the fact that israel has gone with a strong military might approach over and over and has not come out with a better result.

you could argue that there has be sustainability. if you look at how it happened some would consider that a success. whether it is a long-term sustainable solution, i do not know. but that is the mindset. in the specific paradigm where you have escalation and possibly attrition that could go on for a long time that is what they understand.it has never been the go to for israel. it is going more right-wing. if yavin with a conviction and a strategy, that could change. i think israelis would go with a different vision, if it was

properly disseminated. they have not had that for a long time the international community has sent a clear message that they can build settlements. has had a real toll on how israelis understand. they do not understand that there are consequences for they can get away with things. it is that simple. >> trying to understand how the body of politics moves. what she just mentioned, the impunity. that is part of it. most of thed almost their entire lives under that government. and those governments have, each time they say, this is the most right wing their history. they have been more and more

right-wing. lifetime, but i also want to make the point that it is not just the impunity. the entire peace process. i say this as someone who worked in the department for years. the entire process is based in part on dehumanization and denial of palestinian rights. for israel, not because palestinians have rights. you end occupation because it is better for israel security. from the perspective of anyone who has grown up in the peace process era, you have an entire structure approved by the u.s. and the politicians of your that says, we are doing this because if we do nothappen to us and if we do it, better things will come. they have set for years, if we

do not do it, nothing bad will happen to us and we can still get all the great stuff they are promising without doing it. and there iso such thing as palestinian rights. it is fundamentally dehumanizing. you have generations of israelis who do not see the west bank. they do not see occupation unless the heirs -- they are soldiers. they believe they are defending jewish rights against terrorism. the politics of the current government -- it is very absolutist and it is natural becauseeven in the peace process era. the biggest argument used by the left was the demographic threat. if you do not make peace, they will have many more babies and then they will outnumber us. it was oum w s tondtéame trump.

they will either sit at home and not vote, not be mobilized, not good at recruit people to vote for biden not contribute to the campaign, or vote for third-party candidate as a protest, not for anything else. so it could hurt biden significantly and we have already seen that in some of the reactions in places like michigan. it is not the central issue of the day, but it is an important issue of the day and because of the scale of the horror we are witnessing that goes to what we stand for the country, as a people, as a democracy, what values do we cheri, all of that is wrapped into it and tied to our assessment of the character of the president of the united states. so it is going to matter. how much? we don't know. moderator: i have a very tough

question that has been submitted by a guy named roy who is a former journalist someone i have known for years. i believe one, a for covering famine in africa back in the 1980's. he has a really tough question. do all members of the panel agree with lara that israel is committing an ongoing genocide? i wouldn't use that word, because i do -- the effect may be genocidal, but i do not leave that the intent is genocidal. that is my own personal view. i don't see it asto the houthis and the tutsis in rwanda or the nazis elimination of 6 million jews. >> the definition of genocidal law doesn't require it to meet that bar.

the international part of justice in looking at this on the probable case for probable genocide based on -- a probable case, based on the intent. it doesn't have to rise to me trying to kill every member of a race ie bar for international law even though it is intuitively what a pathetic of. "it can't be genocide it anybody." that is not what it means in international law. moderator: does everybody want to talk to that? >> i would just say that only intent, actually, it is more debatable becauseve heard coming out of israel. but without getting too much in the weeds, i am not an expert on the legal definitions of am aware of what is happening in the hearings, but in some ways, it is important to name it what it is. i am not saying it is not, but at this point, it is distracting from what is happening on the ground, which is a disaster of epic proportions.

rael has been doing to the palestinians for decades, it is just on a larger scope that it has a lot more legitimacy to do it because 7. the dispossession, the disenfranchisement, the dehumanization. just preventing them from living. . there's different levels ofth. different peaks to that. some call it genocide, some don't. i don't think that is the issue here. it is an issue, but the real issue is, how do we go to a place where people can live with unity and freedom? moderator: and eat. e time, i think, for one or two more questions. this gentleman has been very patient. let's go to him. >>i am a filipino, catholic american and have lived in town since 1952 that i have seen u.s. presidents come and go. lobbyists are still here there

have been. their kids are. basically, this is addressed to you all andr yis paying your salaries. [laughs] basically, when will the west, including america, and you could throw in israel there it being a socialist democracy, by the way, when will they ever learn that were crimes and genocide has consequenc thought here in the 21st century, we would be getting away from the sentence of the 20th century. if you don't care to answer that, what would you advise the next presistates whether it be donald or joe biden, concerning the middle east? that was the same question that d to henry kissinger in 2015. moderator: what did he say?

>> he also answered putin he said that the west, america needs to prepare for the redrawing of the map of the middle east, and he also said, the west needs to prepare for a post-putin russia. and if that didn't send a single out to every single other country in the world, i don't know what did. does anybody want to offer any policy prescriptions for the next president>> if i may, i have an article in the current issue of foreign affairs, called the two-state mirage. the the two-state, i have been a supporter of it before itork hard formally and informally to make

it happen. but rather, that my worry is that the talk of two states now or reviving diplomacy at a time devastation and the horror, whatever you call it, it is an unacceptable humanitarian catastrophe that is not human-maid. it is one that is not likely to lead to any prospect of peace especially given the kind of psychology israel and the palestinian community but also what is required on the ground. and therefore, my fear is that it would distract from providing humanitarian aid and looking for a humanitarian the road therefore, our recommendation was not to use

the premise of two states as a smokescreen, but rather stop being complicit. one of the questions asked about the role of the u.s., part of the problem, whatever you call what is happening in gaza, whether you call it genocide atrocities, and violation ofrnational law, were crimes, it is in a horrific scale. let the lawyers hammer out what lubricate for legal reasons, but it is an acceptable -- hammer outwardly will label it for legal reasons, but it is unacceptable. it goes against international law as we understand it, i guess inte law. part of the problem is that we have been complicit in the united states of america the government has been complicit in these events. when there are no consequences when the u.s. does not follow principles, you are essentially

supporting them indirectly and making them happen. therefore, our recommendation has been to start holding violators of international law and those who carry war crimes to account. and the international court of justice, if it decides what is happening is genocide, then that has implications for the united states. who should be judging israel and the palestinians on the behavior not on some prospect of an outcome that is not likely to materialize. if you can't solve the problem on your own or with others, stop being part of the problem and start being part of theolby ensuring that there are consequences. moderator: final thoughts fro panelists?

shibley, when you say consequences, do you mean going as far as stopping certain kinds>> absolutely. when you are saying or observing rights even american law, let alone international humanitarian law, and you don't condition military aid on behavior, what do you expect? that that is something that is essential to assert american influence events down the road in the middle east. moderator: let's see. one more question? go for it. then we will close. >> even as the u.s. and israel negotiate with hamas for the

cease to ease hostages, there is rhetoric coming from both administrations that hamas can't be part of the negotiations for long-term peace . i guess my question is, given the fact that that sort of rhetoric that denies agency to palestinians to pick their own leadership has resulted in the growth and popularity of hamashow realistic and pragmatic is it to think that hamas can be eliminated from the long-term negotiated settlement? moderator: i will pass that last hot potato to mairav. >> i think it's a good question, and we are seeing that -- the way to win with hamas is not the way israel is doing, not to militarily pummel them, that is not going to be the answer.

even if we forsake and agree that israels war is right, the question is how to get there. the u.s.and others, it is not the way israel is doing it, it'll have to be a political diplomatic solution. we call it the israel-gaza it's the israel-palestinian war. so what happened when they elected hamas in nobody in the world is going to support elections at this point. so you are stuck because the palestinians need political representation, they deserve a leadership to represent their interests. and they haven't had that. the world has not let them have that. i think clearly, the strategy has to change. if you want to beat hamas, you need level, into a future post-war scenario. that is just a practical way regardless of their moral standing. moderator: alright. i want to thank my guests. these topics are not easy. and obviously had

brilliant solutions, we would be telling them right now, but i think s it i shifts not just in the region, but also here in the united states. i thank you for coming, i think those of you online, and i think mairav shibley, ali and