this thursday, a conversation on how supporting taiwan america. watch live coverage at 10:00 eastern on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including mediacom. >> we believe that when you are here orin the middle of nowhere, you should have access to fast, reliable internet. mediacom supports a providers giving you a front reaow saccoming up next, the discussion with middle eastnalysts on the impact of the is hamas war. they examined the biden administration's handling of the war and weigh in on chuck schumer's call for new elections in israel.

hosted by the stenson center in washington, d.c.. this runs one hour and 30 minutes. >> hello everyone and welcome to get here, working on the middle east. when i scheduled this event many weeks thought we would be talking about the end of the war in gaza and what would follow. in gaza and what would follow. 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. it is almost six months now.this is certainly the longest war that israel has far since its war for independence and the bloodiest. it is obviously very difficult

even if we had a cease-fire, it would be difficult to talk about the day after even if the fighting stops now, thousands more palestinians, especially children are lnger and disease. jared kushner may envy their beachfront, but it will taket to remove the rubble from the current conflict. let alone begin to rebuild.r will govern the territory and who will pay for reconstruction, and how society recover and evolve. it is a pessimistic note on which we 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 ri will pose

a few questions to each of them and then we will take aew 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 we know that there are a lot of emotions, but we want to be civil and constructive. she has had some technical difficulties so i'm going to go to someone i have followed through many years and who is well known and respected in washington. the professor for development at the university of maryland and director of the critical issuei 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. let me start with public 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. i do not think he 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 in may 2021, when there was an attempt to force them out. israel bombarded gaza, resulting in more than 2000 dead and that episode. what was really the bull during that crisis in comparison to

what we now face, it is considerably smaller, but what was obvious at the time was 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 own were against. they basically pushed him to make more efforts to join the conflict. i think what happened at the time, i -- i wrote two articles aboutone for the brooklyn

institution and one for the boston globe abouhow th conflict actually hurt him. i think these people are not prepared to listen. especially importantly, a large percentage of democrats including nearly half of democrats that disapproved of his handling of the war. that is the time when we find that nationally, the president's numbers start to decline. gaza war. there are many reasons why his numbers started declining. what is interesting is most of the drop in 2021 came from

democrats. there was very good reason to think that it was probably correlated, even then. i think the problem, he has had a problem with the constituency even before the horfic attack on hamas on october 7 and then bombardment of gaza by israel. i think one of the things that they see october is initially when you had civilian casualties. the first two weeks, it was mostly focused on the hamas attack and the israeli

casualties. 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 spikea spite of sympathy for israel, including among democrats. it was the largest single spike we had observed in years. still, keep in mind that the spike happened across the board. cept among young democrats when there was no support for israel after the hamas attack. we also keep in mind the majority of democrats and

independents 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. another poll on this issue. what we found was much of the support that israel had disappeared and declined considerably to weeks later. obviously, there has been a lot since then. showing a partisan dividen this issue, particularly as the

war went on in horror in gaza became clear. >> if i can stop you for a minute i wanted to draw your that came out today to get some perspective on this. there have been times when they have been angry over certain wars or other incidents but this is a new poll that showed many 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.

a remarkable trend has taken place over the with more democrats walking away from supporting israel. still overwhelmingly, democrats are evenhanded. largely from young people, especially young jet -- young democrats, but evethe young evangelicals. we have not seen it before. i actually have not seen that pole this morning, but i want to say something that is really relevant. in our own discourse we have seen huge demonstrations from hundreds of thousands of people turning up. very often they arethat is not really

what is happening. of course there are a key constituents and obviously we have seen that in more ways than one, but this is far more pervasive. hikind that we have seen over the years more motivated by social justice and human rights issues than strategic issues. that is one poll that i am not released yet that shows two thirds of americans want the u.s. to champion, to make human rights the goal of the policy. when you ask them what is the best way to advocate to push for human rates relying on

international organizations and being a model for the world. those are the top answers not just for democrats but also republicans. we go to minnesota and there were 19% who voted in protest. yes, they are. that is 1.5% of the entire minnesota population. hundreds of thousands of people in the streets with dozens of organizations have nothing to with them and still labeled. obviously, i think the administration and the president's campaign are getting a little bit of sense ofsomething

big has happened. >> let me stop you there for a minute because i see we have been joined by thei 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? 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 difference, but i did account for daylight savings. i'm glad i made it in time. there is a lot to cover. i will g. basically, israel, as not have a good strategy for what to do once it has eradicated or largely reved hamas. what we are seeing in the gaza strip is a holding pattern. from the israeli approach, they are committed to removing hamas as a military power and a 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 insist it will take a long time and that it will take a regime change. my analysis is that it is not regardless, israel has not had a strategy. 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 restructuring, there would still be the same 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 dragt, which he is. he is interested in an endless war, but i think that strategic

challenge that israel fa reason israel never went into gaza in the first place, it is a good solution or answer. unfortunately, i do not see another way of it going other than prolonged occupation of gaza. it might have, depending on how bad the situation gets there. i do not think it is as bad, but if it gets that bad, th situation. we must start administering the day-to-day life there. i think they are confused and frustrated. they feel like the is not serving their interests, but they also do not have good answers right now for what to do in gaza. everyone understands that israel

has military power and they can pretty much do what they please. 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 sentimentd[is interested because the price would be too high to pay, which i think is plausible but also not interested because any cease-fire would allow for time to refocus efforts on tting him out of office. most of the country wants him out of office. the mood in is stark. in some ways, 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 has been quite consistent. they want to have freedom of operation. of troops and a timeline for an ending to the ward. that is a real stickinthat remains, as far as i can see, the main issue here. 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. bly understands that after 70 years of impunity, he does not believe there is a real

price to pay. i do not think the u.s. will abandon israel in the north were elsewhere. he has that leeway. pandering to a political base that has this illusion, but that standing up to the u.s. jehe 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 right 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, not exactly true. despite the various signs oftion

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 president, she is an officer and previous director for peace now. feel free to 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? >> tha 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 what the biden administration understood was happening. i think this has weirdly taken them by surprise. political analysts viewing this without 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 about rights and values of social justice. it has been coming for a long time.

it is related to what a generationnger generations of americans see as a question of fundamental value and not having a valued exception for anythining 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 important. though she were speech is a good example. it is a powerful speech. i will note that this is not dissimilar to what the biden administration previously did when they had their order for sanctions. well that they are unpopular.

the voters that they care about the most. most settl issue. having a policy and putting sanctions on settlers, maybe they thought letting off on gaza. it is challenging whether bb is a good leader. if you look at the actual policies, that speech was a little over a week ago. want to say silver linings in the way that was framed but it is a famine. every expert for security says

there is famine or incipient famine. 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. actual cooperation 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 suggesting concern. 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 as a fight against anti-semitism. by making it about anti-semitism, democrats are joining in. biden was quoted yesterdayyou get a sense that they are trying to give some breathing room. i do not think from what i have seen that it is yet going to translate into any shift in policy.

difference. we are seeing pictures 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 their colleagues. they a 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 beand the difference between binding and enforceable. they tried to destroy the entire idea of accountability and it is baffling.

in parallel, the issued a findinthat israewas not in any way violating u.s. law. you cannot give aid to a is blocking the movement of humanitarian aid. the u.s. decided, they have easter 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 this, it feels like the biden administration learned all the wrong lessons. as opposed to the lesson being if you try to stand up even 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.

pay and outrage from israel, they are framing this as abandoning israel, even though we are doing everything the same. the republican party is dining out on this. democrats or so-called democrats tweeted out they will never vote for biden now. i do not know if heed that. you are paying the same price as if you had shifted policies. it is too late to do six months -- undo six months of death. i do not think that 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 absolute -- an actual shift in policy to say, if you vote for me, iputting some backbone into a different approach could make a

difference. so far it like they think that they can manage this with some cosmetic language while they continue, full steam provisioning genocide, defending genocide, not allowing the communities to do anything to prevent further>> what i like about you and always have is that you do not waste time and you get straight to. in defense of chuck schumer, who i went to college with and i remember for wearing 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 not just that they were in danger of becoming a pariah state. i had it and i lost it but he basically sai 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 shade. it is sans are horrible while you are literally engaged in a war that destroyed 75% of the houses and has tfacing famine. it aims at a narrow part of the democratic race. do this because it is good for israel is the framing. >> all right. i wanted to pull away a little bit from focus.

the senior advisor to the president. someone whose judgment on the issues while this is going on, we still have skirmishes across the border. we had a spate of attacks by militia groups. americans,americans. it seems to have subsided after a vigorous response. we 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? >> thank 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 news and two pieces of bad news. the main actors do not want an expansion of the conflict. en 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. now we have heard that there have been to meetings.

once in january and once in is -- apparently. that is good news because i think it allows for both sides to figure out ways of bringing down the temperature. it helps to avoid misunderstanding or miscommunication, which often happens when you operate through intermediaries. the bad news is, if you look at where de-escalation has happened, it is where iran has morentrol over some of these actors that are not even necessarily funded by the iraqi government. and after the 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 way that would not result in uncontrolled escalation. there are actors. they have a long track record of annoying advice. -- ignoring advice. find that they have done something that is not coordinated with iran and has resulted in the kind of casualties that would be way and would result in uncontrolled escalation. the last piece of d news that we are not out of the woods yet.

yes, we have had six weeks of relative quiet imagine in the best case scenario, we get a cease-fire in gaza. probably a temporary one. with that result in 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 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 do not know, 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 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 -- an incursion. i can 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. it 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 istion for them to say that it makes sense to allow the iraqi government to negotiate in terms of withdrawal

of u.s.the prime minister is coming to washington in a few weeks, so it makes sense to give the 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 bay. there are plenty. >> i was meeting with a senior offiabout the prospect of an israeli war. depending on how that went, it could reignite the popular mobilization unit in iraq, which stood down for now. i want to start bringing in questions. there are asome of them are more comments and questions. in some of them are talking about how hamas cannot

be trusted to di aid. i think we have to understand that there are very st this is from one who writes that they are a fanatic group. do americans understand who israel is up against? despite we are seeing shifting public opinion, there are many americans who also see israel as justified 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 addressed.

whenever there is an outrage against palestinians and it is criticized in congress, they always have to balance it by talking about how palestinian and payment and hatred etc. i wondered for a long time and you do pulling in israel. how did the younger demographics and israel become sowe saw in our communal clashes the outpouring of hate and violence on both sides. there was a study of textbooks back or 2009 orthodoxy achievements. basically, it later absorbed report. there was not much difference. 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 incitement from the question of the positions of young people in israel. one vebv reason is israel itself. the larger share of the jewish population in particular. we can actually see very large

among israelis in general, but 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 complicated. it goes beyond strategy. in part, this is something that goes beyond israeli and paleiait is in every conflict. it is whether you have to start

preparing for or if it is a constant conflict, and escalating conflict. it leads to demonization. think it is believed tied to help people read the prospects of peace and that is on both sides. if you look back to when people were somewhat hopeful, very few people among the jewish community -- very few palestinians supported acts against israelis. when the prospect was reduced began a significantly different view of the public, it is all about how people read the conflict.

barbara mentioned comments from the audience and how people see hamas. no matter what, there are laws that have to be obeyed, no matter how bad your enemy is. that is why those laws were written. the fact that you have a powerful enemy does not justify breaking the law. it goes forbody. 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 to oc had despair among the palestinians and in 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, people know that when hamas does something harmful, they say stop it, yours hurting our prospects for getting out of this. if you are desperate and you see layout and somebody does something awful you may look the other way. that is what happens. i think the administration's initial idea that somehow 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. ihe naive about the opinion. i'm not surprised by any of

this. we see pardoning positions between 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 made some comments that you found very shocking. i do not know if you want to repeat the anecdote, but it gives a sense >> the receptionist was talking about how israel had just captured the that

they held responsible for planning the kidnapping of the three teenagers in the settlement in 2014 that then sparked the operation in the west bank and in gaza. it is just an. it was offensive because they were kids around. and 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 been some sustainability. if you look at how it happened

some would consider that a success. whether it i sustainable solution, i do not know. but that is the mindset. in the specific paradigm where you have escalation and possibly a war of 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 you have a leader who comes in wh 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 and the international

community has sent a message that they can build settlements. it has had a realthey do not understand that there are consequences for actions, like a child who thinks that they can get away with things. it is that simple. >> trying to e youth today have lived almost their entirer that government. and those governments have, each y say, this is the most right wing their history. they have been more and more right-wing. that is their entire lifetime,

but i ao want to make the point that it is not just the impunity. the entire peace process. i say this as someone who worke d the entire process is based in part on explicit dehumanization and denial of palestinian rights. you do this because it is good for israel, not because palestinians hav 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 byd the politicians of your that says, we are doing this because if we do not bad things will happen to us and if we dothey 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 is no such thing as palestinian rights. 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 believee defending jewish rights against terrorism. the politics of the current government -- it is very absolutist and it is natural because this has been the policy, even 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 never, it is wrong for us to systematically deny pthey are angry at israelis because the schoolbooks are

inciting them. we have to ralkids in gaza. the fact that a 15-year-old in gaza right now is five wars old and envisioning a great visual of how many wars old they are -- i'm sure that is not what makes them hate and resent israelis, it is because their books told them to. that is the world we're are living in and that is the paradigm that they have authored and continued to endorse. the only benefit that can accrue. anyone watching on the ground can see that this will explode not because of anti-semitism or bloodlust but because this is untenable. people here is really say back. >> we have a lot of questions in the room. this is from a former u.s.

official, a very distinguished gentleman. he wants to know if others have stepped up to fill the gap and whether the 12 month band has gone into effect. in january, suspended funding. >> yes. since the allegations by israel of a small number, i think it was 12 people out of 13,000 being directly involved.there has not been evidence produced, but a lot of people cut off aid and most of them have resumed aid, based on the fact that israel still has not given evidence of a pervasive -- even if it is true, it does not show that. but also because there is a famine. that is why u.s. policy, i wrote it was a moral obscenity that right now you are cutting off

aid. the aid is now restarting from other countries. >> the u.s. is giving it to the u.n. world food programme, i mentally being able to distribute it on the ground, anybody who has watched chef jose andandres, world central kitchen, the hero right now. there is no way to distribute. israel is assassinating officials who are involved in disturbing underground based on the argument that they are hamasearing in mind that the past 16 years, hamas has ruled. it is like a de-baathification of iraq, we will kill anyone who had a civil service position. unrwa's capacity cannot be replaced on the ground. nobody else can do it they do. and the funding crunch continues. >> right there with the beard.

[inaudible] >> do we see ignorance strategic footprint years from now, as you mentioned you said fear of the popular mobilization forces being ignited in the region and also the houthis there is a record of partnership in terms of both entities. and also in the information space, you see credibility being established for these members of the iranian proxy groups. and on the domestic side, they have been their lowest turnout in elections as well. keeping out of these bits and parts in mind, how do you see iran's role going forward in terms of managing its proxy networks? >> that may add on another thing

we had tked about earlier which is iran's nuclear program and whether you think the situation in gaza, if it expands, could actually finale effect on whether or not to create a nuclear weapon. >> this experience in the past six month has been a mixed bag firearm. on the one hand it has been able to demonstrate that this network which was created primarily to deter attacks on iran soiled actually has the capacity that iran was looking for to turn any kind of bilateral confrontation with iran enter original one. the power to project through the mediterranean ocean and the red sea is impressive. a number of actors who can work more or less with higher coordination with one another it is real power. however, it also in the process iran has demonstrated how reluctant it is to use these

groups for anything less than defense of its own land. so this is not a formula which you have all for one and one for all, they are willing to sacrifice a lesser member of this axis like hamas, and iran is not willing to sacrifice hezbollah for hamas or the palestinians because hezbollah is a crown jewel for its defense policy and for preserving iran itself. so it is a medand in the process i think there are other points of vulnerability that have come to surface. if you look at the kind of retaliation the u.s. has engaged in, for instance killing very senior officials. what israel has done in syria in the past six months, we have at least 11 that have been assassinated by israel in

syria. this is such a break from the pattern of the past failures, because we used to have -- past few years, because we used to have lots of iranian assets in syria but there was this tradition of giving itself into personnel on the ground so they would know that an attack is coming to minimize casualties. but now attacks are aimed at killing iranians and irgc. and you see that iran cannot retaliate in kind. en the rhetoric of revenge that we used to hear from iran when the u.s. killed general qassem sol0, one of that is gone, because iranians understand the limit of their power and they. a huge price. the u.s. has also killed people. the network works on personal relations, so when the u.s. killed someone in iraq, this was a man who had been operating in that field for more than three

decades that had lots of personal connections. of course you can say it's the price of doing business in at the end of the day, everybody is replaceable, but you lose a and losing personalities who have networks. the risk here, which is something i don't see anyone thinki about much in the u.s. or in israel, is that in a scenario which we moved in a direction that this mixed picture changes and becomes actually quite negative for iran's original attacks, right, we might end up in a situation where iran might try to compensate the lots of security that is to get through its forward differencer option available to it? its nuclear capability. it is closer than ever to nuclear weapons. so in a scenario where we have a confrontation between israel and hezbollah, which is going to be extremely costly and disastrous, no doubt about it, of course

israel will prevail at the end we might reach a new degree of deterrence. but in the process hezbollah's capabilities will be diminished, no doubt about this, right of this is the reason israel wants to engage in that confrontation to weaken hezbollah. if you are iran and the original deterrence has bn weakened and also you're in a situation where you don't see any possibility of using your nuclear leverage at relief, than the most obvious option is to go for the alternate attack. so i am afraid that the more weakening iran's original deference the more it feels in creating an even bigger problem for itself. ir behind a nuclear shield, it would be in the same situation russia is in today everybody can help ukraine but nobody there is catching russia.

>> that is such a depressing thought. i did want to read this one positive note, don't forget, -- was a right-wing leader, he was considered a terrorist in 1948, and he signed a peace agreement egypt. don't lose hope. so there is, i suppose, allows the possibility of a shift. i wanted to askv, i know that one of the sticking points in negotiations over a cease-fire has been the release of palestinian prisoners. has anybody been able to see a list of who might be released by israel? i know there has been referenced to people who have blood on your hands, which would suggest perhaps baguti might be among them. >> i think at some point hamas announced he would be one of the prisoners they would want releed. those in the negotiations are. but i know that israel claims it has actually become more flexible and would release larger numbers of prisoners.

and of some of those prisoners, it would be demanded that they be remain either in gaza or the west bank. i really think the prisoner issue, even though the idea is that hamas is always -- has always operated in a way of attack in order to release its prisoners --[inaudible] to have that be a priority. in tit is a major issue. the most easily sellable issue it is a point the far right can play up very much and opposing ho deal, which they oppose anyway for all kinds of reasons. but i don't think that is -- >> so the main sticking point is hamas's demand that israel agreed to a permanent cease-fire and withdrawal from gaza. >> yes, and it has been consistent from the beginning. there is also the issue of returning gazans who are displaced back up north into

northern gaza which is what they are demanding and israel, for various reasons, is preventing. although in some ways, if israel wants to operate in rafah and have some kind of legitimacy to do that, it has to move that population back up north. in some ways, israel is in the corner and not able to really do something that would work for anyone in either scenario. >> he has been very patient. if i can get the microphone to him. yeah. >> thank you. i really appreciate the ideas of the two beautiful scholars in black, which gives us hope that there is still some good to come from the united states. my question very frank question, one is that thomas

hamas is a terrorist. but the state of iran killed way more people does the state of israel killed way more people that hamas did on october 7. secondly, i would like to ask, since most of the political and military muscle that israel uses to conduct its crimes against humanity is given by the u.s., would it be fair to call the usa state sponsor of terrorism? i think your question actually contain answers within it. let me, let'sttle history here. as the person online noted the former prime minister of israel had been a terrorist before the

creation of the states. we know that yasser arafat and the plo were considered a terrorist organization for many, many years. then in 1988, mr. daines had a meeting in algiers, which i actually attended as a journalist, where they recognized israel's right to exist. of course, they were late, they recognized the 1948 partition 40 years too late. have a horrible situation where their prospects for peace which have become frustrated, looking down there is individuals and organizations for actions that are terrorism frankly. but as get us any closer to a solution because often, those same people are the only ones who the popular support necessary to actually make peace. so arafat was able to agree to the oslo acc out for a variety

of reasons, among them, bibi netanyahu's terrible leadership, a number of failed peace summits, we had a second intifada that broke out and the israelis imprisoned yasser arafat's headquarters in ramallah. he eventually became very sick and died. instead of yasser arafat, we got mahmoud abbas, who is now considered tor a long time has been considered to be incapable of really serving the interests of palestinians or negotiating any kind of permanent peace. so there has to come a point in time when you stop labeling people and start being pragmatic and dealing wi those w have the ability to make decisions that can be supported by their populations. states, you know very well, especially since september 11 2001, we have made an industry out of terrorism designations, sanctions, and it hasn't gotten us, it seems, any

closer to a peaceful solution that we seek. so that is my editorial. please. >> thank you for a great program and a great panel. my question is, how effective is foreign policy in a presidential election? the average american goes to april, to think about foreign policy but it is gaza, or the iranian nuclear deal, when they vote for president? isn't this what other points bibi netanyahu is counting on, that it will not make a difference what happens? >> that a question for shibley but i want tiece to it, and that is, even donald trump, representative republican -- the presumptive republican nominee, has said israel is damaging its reputation and it should finish the work, which i thought was an interesting comment, from trump. yea, does foreign policy typically play?

how do you seein the past, and now? >> it has always played a role. the question is, what are the public priorities? one of? the things to understand is that even when the issue itself may not be a priority in the public mind, the assessment of leaders are tied to wfor example, one reason why young people are angry with biden, they are angry withbecause his behavior since he came to office, as i said, even dating back to mid 2021 has gone against what they assumed about him, his own character. so it undermined his own character as president in their . and foreign policy in this particular case, particularly when it comes to the gaza war it is kind of a prototypestands for. and this issue of gaza is a

prototype for a review of human rights further kind of world we want to see. so yes, it does matter, and i think that one of the things that banking on, and some of it is true, is that as many of us who are angry with biden on this issue, when push s to shove and you have biden versus trump, the people are going to say, i am not going to let some trampoline. that people will put aside their anger gaza and probably vote for biden. most people would some independents some republicans. moderator: biden. [laughter] >> the question is whether there will be enough sentiment that

says, cannot bring myself to vote for biden even if i don't like trump. they will either sit at home and not 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 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 cherish, all of that is wrapped in 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. ough question that has been submitted

by a guy named roy gutman, who is a former journalist someone i have known for years. i believe one, a pulitzer 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 not -- the be genocidal, but i do not leave that the intent is genocidal. that is my own personal view. i don't see it as equivalent to 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 probgenocide 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 in the world, that is not the bar for international law even though it is intuitively what a pathetic of. "it can't be genocide if it doesn't kill anybody." that is not what it means in moderator: does everybody want to talk to that? >> i would just say that only intent, actually, it is more debatable because of the rhetoric we have heard coming out of israel. too much in the weeds, i am not an expert on the legal definitions of genocide, obviously i 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 hapground, which is a disaster of epic proportions.

this is not new, what israel has been doing to theis just on a larger scope that it has a lot more legitimacy to do it because of october 7. the dispossession, the disehidehumanization. just preventing them from living. . there's different levels of that. 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 awhle with unity and freedom? moderator: and eat. we have time, i think, for one or two more questions. this gentleman has been very patient. let's go to him. >> hi. i am a filipino, catholic american and have lived in town 1952 that i have seen u.s. presidents come and go.

lobbyists are still here there have been. their kids are. anyway, the question is this, basically, this is addressed to you all and your bosses, whoever is paying your salaries. [lau basically, when will thea, 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 consequences? i thought here in the 21st century,wo from the sentence of the 20thif you don't care to answer that, what would you advise the next president of the united states whether it be donald or n, concerning the middle east? that was the same question that

i posed to henry kissinger in 2015. moderator: what did he say? >> he also answered it, concerning 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. so. moderator: doesriptions for the next president the second-term biden or trump? >> if i may, i have an article in the current issue of foreign #1affairs, called the two-state mirage. the idea is not that we oppose the two-state, i have been

a supporter of it before it was popular and her work 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 when you see the 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 opsychology israel and the palestinian community now but also what is required on the ground. and therefore, my fear is that would distract from providing

humanitarian aid and looking for a humanitarian solution down the road therefore, our recommendation was not to use the premise of two states as a smokescreen, but rather stop beingone 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 of international law, were crimes, it is in a horrific scale. let the lawyers hammer out what they will lubricate for legal reasons, but it is an acceptable -- hammer outwardly will label it for legal reasons, but itit goes against international law as we understand it, i guess international humanitarian 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 when the u.s. does not follow through in defending those principlesyo supporting them indirectly and making them happen. therefore, our recommendation has been to start holding violators of international law and those who carry out 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 behaviorotme prospect of an outcome that is not likely to materialize. even if you can't solve the problem on your own or withothers,

stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution. by ensuring that there are consequences. moderator: final thoughts from our other panelists? shibley, when you say consequences, do you mean going as far as stopping certain kinds of military aid? saying or observing the kind of violations of human rights even american law, let alone international humanitarian law, and you don't condition military aid on behavior, what do you expect? there is no question that that is something that is to assert american influence and to 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 fire and to ease hostages, there is rhetoric coming hamas can't be part of the negotiations for long-term peace . i guess my question is, given that that sort of rhetoric that denies agency to palestinians to pick their own leadershipted in the growth and popularity of hamas how 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. has experience in this 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 war it's the israel-palestinian war. so what happened when they elected hamas in 2006. 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 to think about how to integrate it on some 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 if we had brilliant solutions, we wo be telling them right now, but i think it is important to look at the 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 lara for their candid and forthright remarks. thank you all. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy visit ncicap.org] [indistinct conversations]

ow a a online at c-span.org. ♪ >> c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 years. here is amoment. >> the space program has been a marvelous program for america to expand its and it will continue to be so in the future. as long as man has the thirst for knowledge, we will continue to press outward and in the risk. that risk is taken by each one of us every day. and that risk is understood by

all the members of a crew that climb into a loaded spaceship. >> c-span, powered by cable. >> is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> koolen-de vries syndrome is extremely rare. but friends don't have to be. when you are connected you are alon along with these other television providers giving you aal d spmastio