Our website on all of these occasions and our inhouse guests to check your mobile devices to see if they are silent or turned off and for those watching online, send questions or comments email. Eaker heritage. Org mr. Phillips is Senior Research fellow. And he is a veteran Foreign Policy analyst and worked for heritage since 1979 and offered papers on Foreign Policy issues and testified before congress on a wide variety of middle east issues. Hosting and introducing our luke coffee who is director for center of Foreign Policy. E served in the United Kingdom ministry of defense to then secretary of state of defense. First ever nonu. K. National to be apointed by the Prime Minister. Prior to this, he worked in the house of commons as adviser on defense and Security Issues for the conservative party and he is a veteran of the United States army, having been stationed in italy and Southern Europe task force command. Luke. [applause] welcome everyone here to the Heritage Foundation this afternoon to discuss a very important and timely matter about israelipalestine crisis and the recent announcement about the movement of the embassy from tell aviv to jerusalem. The timing couldnt have worked out better. Its my pleasure to introduce ron desantis, a native floridian who has served in Congress Since 2013. He served as a j. A. G. Officer deploying to iraq in 2007 during the troop surge, adviser to the u. S. Navy seal commander in support of the seal mission in iraq and served as a j. A. G. Officer at guantanamo bay. And as a former military policeman, i know how important the j. A. G. Officer is. He is a Lieutenant Commander in the reserve component of the u. S. Navy. In congress, he has been a leader on issues pertaining to National Security and been an outspoken advocate for the state of israel. As the chairman of the National Security subcommittee and as a member of the Foreign Affairs committee, he is deeply engaged in developing policies to combat foreign threats supporting our allies in the middle east. The congressman has been the key player in the discussion surrounding the relocation of the American Embassy from tell aviv to jerusalem. And launched the israel victory caucus on the challenges faced by our nations. So it is my pleasure to welcome in ongressman and join me welcoming the congressman. Ron its great to be here. One of the things that i think you learn around here is that there are a lot of things that get repeated and that people will just say, conventional wisdom that has no basis in fact and proven not to be true over and over again and one is the subject of this forum, you will never have peace in the broader middle east until you solve the arabisraeli conflict. And until you do that, you cant do anything else. I never bought into that from the time i got to congress and i think that there are very few members of congress who really think that that view carries water and the Trump Administration is showing that that view is not the view that represents the reality on the ground in the middle east. Its important to think about what this administration had inherited when they took over. You had a middle east that was in chaos. Was flushst regime in with money due to the Iranian Nuclear deal. There were problems in yemen and funding groups like hezbollah and defacto control of baghdad in iraq. You had the emergence and growth of the terrorist group isis that happened after american troops pulled out of iraq in 2012 and of course the deepening conflicts in syria and yemen. And really israel isolated in the world stage in part by u. S. Actions such as the Obamas Administration pursuing u. N. Resolution 2234 at the end of the administration, which really, the u. N. I dont know what they do other than afack israel. They did 24 resolutions and 20 of them were against israel. By the u. N. s very low standard, resolution 2334 was a disgrace and said that even things like the western wall were considered occupied arab territory and that would have been something that i think almost any administration would have vetoed. And so the obama approach was first and foremost empower iran. They believed in reproachment and ben rhodes idea that they are going to turn over a new leaf, thats what they said publicly, and people admit that was nonsense. They believe if you empower iran, that will be better for the United States in the middle east. They also did things like failed to embrace leaders who may not necessarily be our cup of tea domestically in all areas like president al cyst si in egypt but are strong by the threats and someone like sisi, wanting to be pro western and challenging the radical clerics in egypt to reform some of these teachings that incite violence against other countries or other faiths. They prefer groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in egypt to president al sisi and blame israel for every problem in the region. So that was one aapproach. I dont think it was a successful approach. I was very much opposed to what the Obama Administration was doing from the day i got into congress, but i can tell you, i wish i would stand here and tell you i was wrong, but i think the results have been suboptimal to say the least. The Trump Administration has come in and pursued a different approach to the arabisraeli conflict and i think when the president did the press conference with Prime Minister netanyahu, he basically said look, we want to be for israel. Well stand for israel. Were good with. Much different posture than saying this whole problem of middle east conflict is because someones building an apartment in parts of jerusalem or in other parts so, that was refreshing to hear. Now they are trying to broker a peace. I dont know whats going to happen with that. I dont know if that was worth spending capital on. But it was done on a proisrael prospective. If you look at trumps tweets last week about palestinian incitement in support of terrorism, i dont remember very many people, and some of us in the congress have been willing to use the power of the purse so we are penalizing bad behavior instead of rewarding it. But trump said we need to stop doing this. Why arent we insisting on better behavior . We send hundreds of millions of dollars, but yet after all this time, they still incite violence and hatred against the state of israel and actually pay families of terrorists who murder israeli jews in public places, after terrorists who commit heinous acts. You think about, is that something that is causing them to change their behavior if you keep sending the money . So i would think we should condition the funding on better behavior and you reward Good Behavior and penalize bad behavior. That was not in the Prior Administration. Trump has come out and done that and made those statements. I think that would be very, very fruitful to do. When you talk about the conflict between the arabs and the israelis, the number one issue as why there is a conflict is the palestinians arabs do not recognize israel to be a state. The land and all this other state, they dont view israel as having a right to exist. They want potentially a deal at some point only if it is a stepping stone to israels ultimate destruction. So for us backing anial eye like israel, we shouldnt be pressuring them to do a deal. So i think that how the Trump Administration has gone with this and it was flushed out when the president made his jerusalem announcement is to look at the conflict and twump put this in his tweet, we put jerusalem off the table. I think that makes it more likely that you get a deal because they are not going to be under any illusion. But with the Embassy Decision that the president made, i thought it was one of the best speeches that i can remember an american president making. It was something that i was invested in from the beginning of the president s term because you had other president s said we are going to move the embassy. They say American Jews support it and American Christians support it. Theyll talk to evangelicals and we are going to move the. I h and clinton and obama hardly believe he meant it. But i think he said something along those lines. Well, trump made that promise. And i think the president is somebody who he does not want to be somebody who is not following through with his word. It matters to him, his campaign and he is going to deliver. So i thought that history would not repeat itself. I thought he would make the change and willing to lead on the issue. I organized a letter in the beginning of the year where we got over 100 congressman, mr. President elect pull the trigger, lets do this and shake up the middle east in a positive way and show your leadership. So he got that. I can understand why he didnt do it on day one. There werent too many people at the state department who supported recognizing jerusalem. I understand that. I took a trip on the national ski chairman for oversight and we do a lot of embassy issues and we went and identified the potential sites where you could establish an American Embassy. Big question about whether trump was going to sign it in may or recknies jerusalem. In that trip that could insided the 50th anniversary of the liberation of jerusalem that he could do it then. He decided not to do it then. We werent deterred. A big hearing with great guests like ambassador bolton highlighting why it would be great to recognize jerusalem. And there were a number of components to that. One that is being borne out in the arab world, if you are acting swiftly and with strength that is something that makes a big impression on those leaders. If you are the strong horse, thats something they respect. If you are backing down and be a weak horse, even if you are doing it in a way and taking a position they agree with, that causes them to wonder whether you can keep your word or not. For trumps personal press iege it was important. The way the decision was coming and people was asking questions, another media event and the president to his credit and all of his advisers except maybe the Vice President were telling him, no, just sign the waiver. We dont want to ruffle feathers. Being briefed by people on the ground, i did not find a Single Person in the Career Civil Service that said recognizing jerusalem would be anything other than a major disaster that would cause the middle east to erupt in flames. I didnt find one person. They were all saying that this would be something that would cause all these problems. I think that was reflected in the president s senior leadership, because that was the information they were being given. They expected that. And the president said, no, we have to deal with this. Whats the plan, lets do it. And his decision to recognize and he ended up signing a waiver and recognized jerusalem and ordered the state department to get this done. I thought it was a debate act of statesmanship and if the plans that are being discussed now end up being implemented we could have a temporary embassy open sometime this year. Instead of saying next year in jerusalem, at least for the embassy, this year in jerusalem, which would be nice. That posture of support for israel, i think has been very, very important. And i think he had the freedom to do that because the administration took a different posture toward the Islamic Republic of iran. Trump said it was one of the worst deals ever negotiated, that it was a disaster. Same things happened with the embassy. You have to recertify. He did it and did it again. Why am i recertifying this . And finally, he told them, so that decision to where he wasnt going to certify under domestic law showed that this is a president that understands the threats posed by iran and iran nuclear deal. That is music to the ears of the gulf states places like saudi arabia, the united emirates, they fear irans influence and do they want our embassy moved to jerusalem . No. But are they going to cry a river over that when they need to work with us and israel to combat iranian influence . Of course not. Their interests were to align with the United States and israel to combat the iranian threat. And there is a lot of discussion what to do with the nuclear deal. My view is that it was a bad deal and cant going on because it leads to an iranian bomb, either they cheat and get a bomb because we dont have access to their sites or abide by the deal and get the bomb in the neck decade. You have to do something different. Other targeted sanctions and other provisions that have a different policy. And i still believe that. But i can tell you this, what is going on in iran right now is potentially historic. And if i could pick one thing to have happened, you know in the world, i dont know if i could find too many things that would be better for peace in our time than having those protestors overthrow this regime, which is an illegitimate regime which has suffocated the persian culture for decades and spends money on promoting terrorists. The president has come out in support, much different than the Previous Administration because the Obama Administration effectively sided with the regime in 2009 because they wanted this deal. I think whatever tools that are disposal that can be effective and do it smartly and strategicically. But i dont think we can miss this opportunity to stand behind those protestors against one of the truly evil regimes in the world. Just imagine if that regime were to collapse. North korea will still be an issue. But the most likely purchaser of arsenal is iran. So threat would go. Hezbollahs money starts to dry up. And baghdad could turn. Yemen will cool down. Syria may be able to be dealt with in a positive way. Israel would lose a threat to its existence. The dividends from that would be absolutely phenomenal. So i hope the administration gets more engaged in this. You dont want to do things that are going to undercut those protestors. The decision on the nuclear deal now, im against the nuclear deal entirely, but i would make that decision with an eye how its going to effect the factors on the ground. But this is an important, important moment and we all need to stand by them. I just think where we are now, it is this outsidein approach and i think it is much more effective. There is a lot that need to be done but cant look at the world right now after one year of Trumps Administration in the middle east and say that we are worst off than we were when he took office. I didnt mention caliphate and isis crumbling. But that is a major deal. It has been an exciting year in temperatures of International Affairs and i think the president has gotten his sea legs after making these tough decisions and we could do a lot more. Its an honor to be here and going to take some questions . Thank you for that great overview of the Current Situation in the middle east, especially your depth of knowledge of not only the israeli issues but issues facing the region. We do have time for a couple of questions. Please identify your name and affiliation and keep your question short. Gentleman in the front and i go to the gentleman behind the gentleman. You first. Im from the Heritage Foundation. Just a question regarding north korea, can you comment on that . Whats your take . It is really serious now. Ron i give the president for engaging in the issue. The Prior Administration just neglected it. Its not going to go away. The fundamental issue is kim jong un his arsenal is his ticket for survival. I dont think it has been sufficient to convince him that his current course is actually more dangerous for survival. But were not at that point yet. And i think its a dangerous situation. He talks are fine. But we are not snipping on negotiations on the nuclear program. The gentleman here. Very disgraceful and sad that official. S an elected they offered 76 and one was related. You can doublecheck your facts. Ron i dont think its much up for dispute. How do you see the negotiations happening between palestine and israel . Do you see with the u. S. As a third party, we as a broker between u. S. And palestine or Multi Lateral form . Ron we shouldnt be a broker because our interests align with the state of israel and i think we have more affinity with israel with both our interests and our values and doesnt mean you cant work constructively but we shouldnt take the posture of brow beating israel to be offering these concessions when the palestinians will not recognize israel as a jewish state. That would be a precondition or negotiations. Could you please state your name please. Inaudible] are you representative of u. S. Congress or presenting israel or interests of israel . What i see the damage that has done to [indiscernible] do you represent the u. S. Ongress . [indiscernible] just one question. You have had your say. So thats enough. He mentioned my background. Im a military veteran and sworn an oath to the constitution and i represent my constituents and americas interest. Its in americas interest to have a Good Relationship with countries that share our interests from a security perspective and that share our values. And israel does both of those. There are other countries this the region that share our interests and may not share our values and if you listen to what i said, i said you should be working with people like sisi and saudi arabia to fight iranian influence. If we share neither interests nor values, its very difficult to have any type of relationship with those countries. Its all from the perspective of the United States and i think your question was somewhat ridiculous. We have one final from the lady. I want to thank you immensely, immensely, thank you and thank President Trump who i once doubted. There are millions of us who are thrilled at what hes doing and what youre doing. Two questions. One question. How is the state Department Taking this . And what do you do about a state department that has clearly been on the wrong side of history for a very long time . Its a good question in the sense that you have the permanent bureaucracy and then you have Administration Policy and political appointees and permanent bureaucracy. They offer resistance from time to time and you probably had close to as unanimous as possible an opposition. Im not saying every single one. If theres not, there are people in the congress that can conduct the oversight and make sure that the policy is being followed. The state Department Works for the american people, not the other way around. When we have an election and have policies implemented, its the job of the department to implement those policies and shouldnt matter your personal views. In kabul on election night, 2016, the state department at the embassy, they had a trump pinata to break open and thats their views and thats fine, but you have to follow the policies that are handed down. If you are doing that, then it will be good. But i think they have at least have to have perspective about the lack of followup they had predicted. The fact of the matter is all of the predictions i was told, not one of them has come true from people who have been studying the region for a long time, who work in the region and work in the u. S. Government for a long time and whether its group tanks and its not just the state department but other agencies. Great, im afraid thats it in terms of time. I thank the congressman on behalf of the heritage tounges foundation. Please join me in thanking the congressman. [applause] well proceed with the rest of our panel at this point. Let me introduce the panel, the Trump Administration, like many administrations before it has committed itself to fostering peace treaty between israel and the palestinians. This goal has become the holy grail of the american presidency, as President Trump has called it the ultimate deal. Yet there has been little progress on peace negotiations since the possess negotiations broke down in the 1990s. Is peace possible . And if so, what should be the role of the United States in creating the conditions for such a peace . We are fortunate to have with us today two of the more distinguished conservative experts on the middle east and ill introduce them. Our first speaker iselle yot abrams, a senior fellow of middle Eastern Studies at the council of foreign relations. He has carved out Public ServiceDeputy Assistant to the president and was in the administration of george bush where he supervised u. S. Middle east policy and National Security council. He was an assistant secretary of state in the Reagan Administration and received the secretary of states distinguished Service Award from secretary of state George Schultz. In 2012, the Washington Institute for near east policy gave him the scholar statesman award, educated at harvard and before joining the Bush Administration, he was the president of a think tank here in washington, the ethics and Public Policy center and was a member of the u. S. Commission on International Freedom rising to become chairman of the commission in 2001 and later served a second term as a member of that body. From 2009 to 2016 he was a member of the u. S. Holocaust council which directs activities of the museum and he is a member of the board of National Endowment for democracy. He teaches u. S. Foreign policy at georgetowns university and author of five books including realism and democracy, american Foreign Policy after the arab spring and he spoke about this at heritage last fall. Gives me great pleasure to welcome elliott back here again. [applause] pleasure to be here at daniel and be with price. We went to college together. I think you asked the right question is peace possible . I say that because frequently the way the question is asked how do we get to the twostate solution. The right question is how do we get to peace . The twostate question is derivative. If it helps peace, its a good thing. If not, it needs to be rethought. U. S. As we are saying has been engaged in the Peace Process for decades. We invented the term middle east Peace Process. And its probably a lot of writing about this partly the american legalization of policy. Awyers that i meet involved in policy, lawyers like process, so you have the Peace Process. And keeping the process alive has actually become over the years more important than whether the process actually achieves anything. We have had carter and camp david and oslo and the current process since 1991. We had bill clinton at camp david in 2000. We had annapolis in 2008. 2007 and the negotiations that followed. So the process has been going on for decades. But it hasnt produced peace. And i would have to say in my view, it is unlikely to do so. Because in a way, the goal hasnt been peace. We fixed upon a goal early on, even if it wasnt announced of an absolutely sovereign state and thats what we have been pushing for rather than saying whats up, what is happening, what is the condition . Also the case its very difficult to get to this achievement if the palestinians keep saying no. And actually they have been saying no for before 80 years, starting from the preworld war ii discussions when the palestine mandate was in the hands of the british. Arafat said that liberal proposal in 2008 just before he left the Prime Ministership where president abbas said no. I think the window for this was open widest from roughly 2000 to 2008. But i think it is closing. Why is it closing . For one thing, the palestinian refusal to admit the reality defeated. Ey have been but with the support of many in the arab world and muslim world and some in europe, they refuse to acknowledge this. If you refuse to acknowledge reality of their defeat militarily by israel, then you are going to have attitudes and approaches in the negotiations that are unreal. So thats one reason. The refusal to acknowledge reality. The outside support particularly from the arab world. Third reason is terrible leadership. Sometimes you get lucky. And you have mandela. And sometimes you dont get lucky and you have arafat. The level of leadership has not been what anyone would have hoped for. Would a palestinian state be viable . Thats a question we should ask if our policy is going to be support to support palestinian statehood. Think about this experiment. Lets assume you create a palestinian state and counter factually there is no security problem. There is no security problem. No terrorism. It has been removed from the face of the earth. The palestinian state that you have thus created has no port. It has no air port, it has no currency, it has no natural resources. It has no productive economy. So i would think that the logic would be that that entity is going to be tied to, you might israely fall upon, admit or jordan for survival. And the logic of it, i think is the logic that existed decades ago, it makes more sense for it to be related to or in the form f a relationship with an arab muslimsunni state than a jewish state. The logic. The major city you turn to is amman. People say its unrealistic, unrealistic today. I dont think its so easy to say it is unrealistic 10 years from now. The jordanian population itself is changing. There is a population of four million. Quarter of million who did not go back to iraq and that is realistic. Ver a million syriansunni refugees, are they going to go home or another big change in the population of jordan. The middle east is changing in many, many ways. Seems to me that the notion that outcome is a le truly soverage independent palestinian state needs to be thought about again. It shouldnt be so shocking actually. That would be a change in the american view point. There have been other changes in the american view point. I worked for George Schultz in the Reagan Administration. The policy of the United States as to oppose the creation of a palestinian state, clear stated policy. And then we changed. So the notion we could say, we changed since the world changed. So we want to have another look. We could change again. In the short run, it seems to me next five or 10 years, i wouldnt predict much of a change. We all know that the the line. The Israeli Occupation is unsustainable. 50 years is a long time for something to be sustained. It strikes me if we do this back in five years, will you invite us, please. Things will not have changed all that much. Things can get better. The Palestinian Economy can get better. Governance in particularly the west bank can get better. The attitude of the United States and more broadly donors can improve and help improve palestinian politics. We see this in the taylor force act, which is a statement to the palestinians that the world is tired and no longer permit paying money to people who have committed terrible crimes of terrorism for those crimes. You see moves on the hill which suggest that the United States congress is getting tired of a tuation that perpetrates the palestinian, quote, refugee crisis, closed, quote, rather than doing what we do, which is to try and solve a refugee problem. And timely the and finally, the problem which needs to be addressed, because over time one does want to create a much greater chance that israelis and palestinians, whatever their political relationship, can live together peacefully. During the Bush Administration there was that famous phrase, which actually was meant for domestic purposes, soft bigotry of low expectations. Palestinians have suffered, i think, from the soft and sometimes not so soft bigotry of low expectations. We should have Higher Expectations and we will get, i think, and they will, and thats the important part, they will get a much better outcome. Thank you. Thank you, eliott. Our next speaker is dr. Daniel pipes. He is the president of the middle east forum, which he founded in 194, to promote american interests in the neverending debates over middle east policy. Hes one of the worlds foremost analysts on the middle east and muslim history. And hes been far ahead of the curve in diagnosing policy problems, particularly in identifying the threat of radical islam, long before 9 11. The Washington Post has called him perhaps the most prominent u. S. Scholar on radical islam. The boston globe concluded that if pipes admonitions had been heeded, there might never have been a 9 11. And those are strong words. Hes a graduate of harvard university, seems to be something very common here. With both a b. A. And ph. D. In history. And hes been recognized as one of harvards 100 most influential living graduates. Hes taught at harvard, princeton, chicago, the u. S. Naval war college, and pepper dean university. Hes worked at the state and defense departments, held two president ial appointed positions, testified before congress and worked for five president ial campaigns. Daniels a prizewinning columnist, formerly for the New York Times d syndicate and now writing independently. Hes also written 12 books and his writings have been translated into 35 languages. His website, danielpipes. Org, is among the most accessed sources of specialized information on the middle east and muslim history. He has a stellar record of anticipating middle east crises. For example, in 1993, within days of the signing of the oslo peace accord, he wrote, arafat has merely adopted a flexible approach to fit circumstances, saying, whatever needed to be said to survive. The p. L. O. Has not had a change of heart. Merely a change of policy. Enabling it to stay in business until israel falters and when it can deal a death blow. In 195 he wrote about radical 1995 he wrote about radical islam, noticed by most westerners. War has been unilaterally declared on europe and the United States. Al qaeda invited him by name in a september, 2006, video to repent and enter into the light of islam. [laughter] he declined. [laughter] saying, and he said, i am faithful to my own religion, to my own country, and to my civilization. I thank you for being such a faithful exemplar of all those. Ladies and gentlemen, gives me great pleasure to turn the floor over to daniel pipes. [applause] mr. Pipes thank you so much, jim. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. What he didnt mention is i worked here for a summer in 1984. And what eliott didnt mention is that last time we did an event together was 1971. In reply to the question before us, President Trumps ultimate deal is israelpalestinian peace possible, my answer is yes. But i would like to propose a completely different approach. I do not think that the existing approach, which goes back 30 years, of Peace Processing, about which youve heard quite a bit now, is going to work. It can be improved, perhaps. Which i think the Trump Administration is doing. Its improved version. But it ultimately will crumble because it depends on palestinian acceptance of israel, which has not come about. And is not coming about. And therefore that is the topic that needs to be addressed. That cannot be addressed in diplomacy. That needs to be addressed in a very different way. So id like to take a step back before proposing an approach. Ill start by giving you three dates. Actually six dates. First,. The first three are 1865, 1945, and 1975. The end of the civil war, world war ii, and the vietnam war. All of those were conclusively ended wars. It ended. There was nothing more. The south never rose again. The germans didnt rise again. And we didnt try and go back to vietnam. Let me give you three other dates. 917, 1953, and 1967. Im sorry, 1918. The end of the first world war, the end of the korean war, and the end of the sixday war. Those were inconclusive. Any day the korean war could restart. Any day there could be hostilities between arabs and israel. The difference between these two sets of dates is the sense of defeat. In the former, there was a sense of defeat. It was over. In the latter, there wasnt. Simply to lose a round of a war is not to have a sense of defeat. Giving up on ones war goals means being defeated. Thats what we americans experienced in 1975. Victory, i would define as imposing ones will on the enemy. The enemy gives up. Youve prevailed. When you take this and apply it to the palestinianisraeli conflict, what one sees is that for 45 years, from 1948 to 1973, the israelis were seeking victory. After that, since 1993, since the signing of the oslo cords on the white house lawn, they have not been seeking victory. They have been trying various different fancy approaches, appeasement, unilateral withdrawal, putting out brush fires, but they havent been seeking victory. The Peace Process has been dominated, has been dominant in those years. The emphasis on diplomacy, unassuming that what arafat said on the white house lawn in september, 1993, was valid. That the palestinians now accepted israel. The war was over. But it wasnt. And it isnt. It continues. So what is needed is an approach that confronts this irreducible problem of palestinian rejectionism. Palestinian rejectionism goes back a century. It means saying no to zionism, to jews, to israel. No, no, no. No political contacts, no economic relations, no personal relations. No. Its fractured. Its no longer as strong as it was a century ago, but its still there. Palestinian rejectionism is the core of the problem and it is what needs to be confronted. And as eliott pointed out, theres this delusion, due to bad leadership, due to international support, i would add, islamic doctrine, Israeli Security services, mentality, there is this delusion that exists among the palestinians that they can defeat israel, that they can cause the jewish state of israel to disappear. That needs to be confronted. That is what we as a great power, looking at this conflict, need to deal with. So, what im suggesting is that the u. S. Government should adopt a policy which encourages the israelis to win. To win. 1975. 865, 1945, to end the conflict. By winning. By causing the palestinians to understand that the gig is up and they lost. Its over. Done with. When theyre really upset they write a very strongly worded letter to the editor saying were unhappy. Ok. But enough with the u. N. Resolutions, however many there are. And there are very many against israel. Enough with building up militaries. Enough with the enough, over, its done. Im hoping that some president , this one or a future one, will say to his staff, yeah, diplomacy isnt working. Weve been at this for decades. Its not going anywhere. Is there some other alternative . And yes, there will be another alternative. Which is what we call israel victory. And as you heard in representative desantis bio, he is cochairman of the house israel victory caucus. There are now 32 members. There are 26 members of the knesset israel victory caucus. We began it a year ago. The director of the middle east forum, and e. J. Who is the head of our israel victory effort in washington. Were building the Political Base for it and were building the intellectual base by giving talks like this. Having studies, commissioning studies. Bringing this up as an alternative to the existing paradigm. Let me emphasize that it is an approach. It is not a number of policies. Were not saying two state or not two state. I have my own opinions. But thats not the point. The point is that israel needs to convince the palestinians that its over. The conflict has been resolved by the fact that israel is a flourishing, powerful state. The palestinians have a very oppressive and weak policy that isnt working. Its a longterm effort. The goal is not to change policy in the next few months. But it is with time to put Something Else on the table that fits the historical pattern. You dont end wars through negotiating. Think of vietnam. It didnt end through negotiations. It ended by the north Vietnamese Army coming in and taking over. Thats how wars end. Wars end when one side gives up. And we have close relations with israel, as representative desantis said, we Share Interests and a moral base with it. It should be design the side we want to win. We should help it win. And the ironic thing is that once the palestinians give up, then they can go on to build something good. When they give up this foul goal of eliminating the jewish state, then they can build their own economy, society and culture. And so in the long run, the palestinians will actually gain even more than the israelis. Yes, the israelis will not be murdered on the way to the pizzeria and will not phase this barrage of hostilities. But they lived a good life. The israelis do. The palestinians dont. They live under oppression. Backwardness. They will be able to build once they give up this rejectionism. Once they move on to something thats more constructive. So, i hope you will join us in advocating for this approach. With members of congress, intellectually. I think it offers a new paradigm that pulls us out of the mire of this endless processing that goes nowhere. And in fact is even counterproductive. I would argue to you that palestinianisraeli relations are worse today than they were 25 years ago when the oslo accords were signed. So we need something new. We need new thinking. I offer this to you as new thinking. And as a way for the ultimate deal to be achieved. Thanks. Thank you. [applause] i will open up to the floor after i ask one question. The thing that troubles me is that in a lot of the analyses of peace prospects, theres an assumption or a presumption that the Palestinian Authority is the be all and end all. Mr. Phillips i think many analyses dont take into account what i consider to be the malign hammer lock that hamas has on exactly what kind of negotiations are going to produce. And i would say even if you could assume that tomorrow the Palestinian Authority and israel negotiated a Perfect Peace deal that satisfied all their various prerequisite, whatever they may be, that the next day, hamas could explode it with another round of rocket terrorism. And to me it seems like peace really is impossible until the palestinians themselves come under a more unified government. And i wonder if what either one of you or both of you think of this triangular and then now we have the Islamic State moving in, to challenge hamas and gaza. I mean, how can there be peace given all these cascading radical movements . Analysis over the past century, 80 of palestinians have been rejectionist and 20 ave accepted israel. Mr. Pipes and the goal must be to expand that. The not nothing. Dont start at zero. Start at 20 . And that 20 has been very important over the century. My goal is to encourage, increasing number of palan palestinians, troys that the conflict is over. I must focus on leaders. Im less focused on hamas and the p. A. I think you want to a change of heart. You want to get people to recognize that its no longer worth their while to engage in, say, suicide attacks, because its futile. So long as you think that you are part of a movement thats going to lead to the elimination of the jewish state, well, its worth doing it. But if you see this futile, youre not going to do it. Im looking much more at the populous than at the leadership. With leadership, i think what youre saying points to a real problem which is, somebody has to do that negotiation. Mr. Abrams whether its tomorrow or 10 years from tomorrow. And the palestinian Leadership Today has a declining legitimacy. This is partly because they wont hold elections. Because of hamas. I mean, that is president a bass was electriced in 2005 abbas was elected in 2005. The parliament was elected in 2006. And those were the last elections. And fat arks the fattah party fattah, the fattah party is not confident that it will win elections. But that creates a situation where you have a palestinian leadership, whose democratic legitimacy has been severely undermined. And which is looking over its shoulder at hamas, knowing that, let us suppose it signed a compromise, we know exactly what hamas would say. Yasser arafat wouldnt sign, you signed, youre a traitor. Thats not obviously going to be very practical proposition for anybody in the Leadership Today. So that makes the possibility that this leadership will sign such a deal much lower. I would add to that that the Palestinian People have not been prepared for the compromises that any, any agreement would require, so that you get arafat backing away in 2001 and you get abbas backing away in 2008. I think because they genuinely wonder whether, i dont know whether those numbers are right today, but they worry that in fact the majority of palestinians would reject those compromises, which would, of course, be rejected by hamas and the Islamic Jihad and other groups. Mr. Phillips ok. Lets go at this point to the floor. Well ask this gentleman here and then this woman. On behalf of the american