we all did. we are renters. my what we did not pay property tax. i said that we do and we make it payable on our check to the limit. i want to remind people of that. it is sucking money from the productive sector. one caller, then calling joe biden of a cheapskate with charitable contributions. i want to point felt that obama is also guilty of being too. he gave $800,000 taxable income, less than 1% of that. i will connect the dots. they all accused republicans of being greedy and not caring for people. it was dick cheney who gave 40% of his income for charitable contributions. . . pis also guilty ofbeing too. he gave $800,000 taxable income, less than 1% of that. i will connect the dots. they all accused republicans of being greedy and not caring for people. it was dick cheney who gave 40% of his income for charitable contributions. . . p driven by a religious coo-coos, in my opinion. and the problem is that you're used as a distraction by arabs to keep the minds of the peoples busy so they don't look at their own problems. but my question on israeli settlements is when he pulled these guys back, because i'm not for it. host: the president talked about a freeze on jewish settlements when he made his speech. is there any chance of this happening or how will the prime minister address this in his speech, do you think? guest: we should make a distinction between the sentiments, which is any jewish sentiment beyond the 1967 border. or the smaller settlements, which are what most israelis believe would be the settlement that would be removed in the peace process. the dissput actually regarding the question not if the settlement will be removed but as a first step toward the peace process will stop having houses in existing settlement. in the past, israeli governments agreed to do that. they never lived up to the agreement, but they agreed to informally try to have this new activity. however, as we mentioned, he does represent the more right-wing government than his predecessor, is saying, no, we can't free existing settlement. new babies are born, a need for more classrooms, more schools. we can't free that settlement. the administration said very clear that that explanation won't fly and it will go nowhere in washington. that is where it stands now. host: you are on the "washington journal" from oklahoma. caller: it is so entrenched in washington and has so much control of our congress, that they will do whatever they're told to do by the israeli lobby. barack obama will not change a thing in the middle east. we will continue to give israel 3 to $10 billion a year in money and american supplies until the american people wake up and realize that this money that the israeli lobby is putting into the various political campaigns gives them so much influence with our spineless congress in washington, that nothing will change in the middle east, which is the homes of the major terrorist attacks upon this country. host: is it in the prime minister's nature to make statements in his speech to address congress or will they be made specifically at the president? guest: this is an interesting question. in the past, the prime minister in 1996, he was known as a prime minister that tried use congress against the administration. it was the clinton administration over here. he chose to work with the republicans on the hill in an attempt to sideline what he saw as pressure coming from the white house. however when he was here in washington last month, i think he encountered a different reality, after hearing clear statements from the white house regarding some of the activity. he went to capitol hill and was surprised, according to his aides to find out at the hill and the white house they're speaking with one house and can't lean back on supporters in congress to do the work for him on the hill in washington. so i think, having said that, i think he understands now that there is no daylight between congress and white house and he will not be able to use lawmakers to insight any attempts by that administration to free settlements. host: david, on our line for republicans reporting from white lake new york. good morning. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. i would like to discuss with you american-jewish voting behavior and how it harms israel. the american-jewish community spurred on by such rags as you work for and that other broad sheet published in new york is top-heavy democrat. yet the democrat party has harmed israel, always. every time a democrat administration is in office, israel is harmed. host: give me a specific example of how democrats are harming israel? caller: president obama's speech in israel misstates history. he compares the palestinian problem. it was caused by arabs in 1948 when they attacked israel. they could have had a palestinian state. they attacked israel. the arab armies and palestinian irregulars. host: mr. guttman, your response? guest: the elections, president obama got a large percentage of the jewish vote, which is higher than any other faith group. however, when you look at polls, when you ask jewish voters when they base their decision on, they find it to be number six or number seven. jewish americans don't vote primarily by the staff in israel. the economy takes a higher place when you ask jewish voters how they make their mind up. one more point is when you look at polls of american jews, most of them support a two-state solution and most of them support the free sentiment activity and there are different views as to what does it exactly mean? so far what president obama has been saying is pretty much in sync with the views of the jewish community over here. host: on line pro-palestinian advocates say winds of change in washington. the challenges facing palestinian advocate s. positive views of israelis are shared by 71%. while almost half the respondents in the poll said they wanted to see obama steer a middle course. 9% would like to see him lean toward the palestinians. >> american public opinion. that is true for the last three decades at least is very much in favor of israel. as a palestinian issue never gained much traction here with the american public opinion. that is one of the things that this poll reflects. even at times, right now, when it seems america is more critical towards israel, there might even be a small shift in public opinion against that government, there is the remaining that the american government is a pro-palestinian. host: another tweet. one has to ask why he, the prime minister, is addressing anyone in our government. he should address those in israel, whose business it is. guest: he is addressing the israeli public as we said before. he's trying to walk a thin line between the coalition at home and to work with the united states to work on the iranian issue. one thing to understand is israel can't take on iran on its own. it can't threaten iraq. so if nuclear prospects in iran are israel's greatest threat, there needs to be cooperation with the united states. that is why today he will try to get with both the officials. heeds telling -- he's telling people at home we can't do everything we want because of the global position. and telling americans, i can't do everything you want me to do because these are the people that voted for me his presidency we have florida on the line. go ahead, please. caller: one of the keys is to create a two-state solution. it seems two problems are inherent with that. one is this the palestinians are extremely divided. you have hamas and gaza. and in the west bank, you have a division between the plo and fascia who are rivalling one anothers. one of the significant challenges is how do the palestinians come together as a unity. the second issue is whenever the palestinians have been offered an opportunity for a two-state solution at camp david and most recently with negotiations with omar where reportedly he was prepared to ... host: richard? caller: they refused to move in that direction. so how does those who propose to have a two-state solution, especially on an expedited basis, hope to accomplish that, given those two realities? host: please. guest: there is a good point to make. even if the sentiment issue were to be resolved they won't bring peace or a two-state solution. there are so many other difficulties on the ground. so many issues not dealt with yet regarding foreigners or the final status of jews or the refugee issue. there is a long way to go, even once we solve the sentiment issue. it is true one of the main problems is even if we go forward with the peace talks, who is the palestinian partner we're dealing with right now? is it faizah, more moderate, willing to sit and talk but controls only the west bank. we have to talk with the hamas, a terror group that is firing rockets toward israel? or palestinian authority that controls only part of the land? it is clear to most people that even if we start a real peace process now and start real negotiations brokered by the united states, it would still take a while before we can realize the two-state solution. one of the main obstacles is in the division of the palestinian side. you can't have a two-state solution before the palestinians have one side on their own. >> rose in tri-becca, new york. caller: good morning. good morning mr. guttman. i did say your name right? guest: yes. caller: the problem is -- this is the -- it is sad. first of all, with the hamas problem, i mean -- i'm not for them at all, obviously. but whenever they start blooming, it is when they're poor. poor people that have no jobs, whatever. they may just use conflict, you know, they have no schooling and stuff like that. you're not allowed to build houses. meanwhile, they can't get material to live in their own houses so they have to live in the ghetto-fashion. i mean, i feel like israel cannot -- i'm a jew, but i just don't think israel can have it both ways. they don't want hamas, but meanwhile, the people can't live like normal people. can't live in their own ghetto. and after israel made a clear agreement with the united states, will not have the settlements and stuff, the last 10 years, they have been doing it anyway. i don't feel, personally, that israel has, at this point, they just go beyond -- they didn't listen to any of our agreements. they have -- therefore, i don't feel israel has credibility. honestly, i think that the obama administration, hillary clinton, they're just sick of it. they're like no way, no more. i don't think no matter what he says, i understand the politics. you have to have the people in israel, you know what i mean, because you were voted in, et cetera. i understand it's a democracy. the thing is, i will tell you i can already see this happening, especially if hillary clinton says it, forget it. when the american people -- the obama administration including hillary clinton and the state department, then it doesn't matter if he does a fine line they're not going to change course, hard-line, no more settlements, no more natural growth and no more outposts and it's done. i think the american people including the obama administration is over it. it seems like oh, yeah, what are you going to do about it. like he said, what are you going to do about it? they're going to stop giving israel money and not help him with this iran thing. host: sir? gues guest: not living up to the palestinian settlement freeze. i'm not sure that is a good argument to make. that is what the israeli opinion is. in israel, both sides agreed to accept, but none of the players actually ever lived up to the agreements. about him using foreign aid to israel as a stick against the tanyau government, i don't see that happening right now. israel is one of the biggest recipients of assistance every year. of this assistance in military aid to israel, part of an american philosophy that israel has to have a qualitative military edge in the region. in that sense, the strategic pack pact that didn't change. it is hard to see the obama administration changing that part of the pact with israel purchase i don't see it playing in right now. one more thing on the broader question of can israel have it both ways, keep the sentiments moving forward with the world. i think it is clear, that the debate in israel over a greater israel or two-state solution is over. most israelis accept the idea that israel will not stay forever in the west bank. even though right now there are some debates on how do you call it a palestinian state or not. do you free settlement activity or not? in general the israelis may call a strategic decision and move toward a division of the land. the devil is in the top stories details -- details. the bigger picture is a solution. host: tell us the difference between this administration and the last time he was prime minister. if those changes might move this process forward to where the pal stinniance are satisfied -- palestinians are satisfied, the israelis are satisfied and. >> it was not very successful. he was seen as very extreme. as we tried alienate the israeli public. when he ran for reelection now, he tried to provide a unit. forthcoming to the peace process. some kind of reconciliation with the palestinians. however, in the coalition that he has, it is one of those from them to the right. if he is more moderate now, the government he's heading is just as hard-core as the government he had in 1996. so there is not much of a change in that sense. most israelis believe that since the palestinian state isn't at arm's reach right now, it was in fact get into the reconciliation with the palestinians, the main focus now is iraq. one of the reasons why israelis voted for it. believe he's a tough guy to solve the palestinian issue. they seem to be on the back burner for most. host: is it expected the prime minister will make a significant reference to the election in iran? or is that seen as a distraction at this point? guest: according to the press reports, he will make a connection to those in iraq. in trying to -- to iran. in trying to see what is going on in iran. this country will not change. it is not a democracy. we don't know what went on. it is another time to be tough on iran. iran is a real threat. iran is not becoming more moderate. they're not reforming. this is what we should focus o not the sentiment. host: republicans on the line from florida. caller: i have a couple of things i want to address. one of them is i believe that if he wants the respect from the rest of the world, he needs to stand strong on to his beliefs, stop giving in. israel head given in to every whim of every president and they have gotten nothing back. they gave up gaza unilaterally. they have terrorists on their border. what would united states do if they had rockets flying every day, day after day where they have to build underground schools and everything? that is number one. everything they have ever given the central palestinians -- i'm a little nervous. there is no such thing as a palestinian. it was palestine a long time ago. [inaudible] was a palestinian. anyone that lived there was a palestinian. these people are egyptians and jordanians. they no longer know how to live in peace. host: we will leave it, there ma' ma'am. guest: the debate over whether they're palestinian people or not. it is over the fact they want to live in peace in the region and they have to move forward with the peace process. they will accept the peace process in one way or another. residing with the fear of caving into american pressure. i think one thing we should keep in mind is israel does get a lot from the united states. we mentioned the foreign aid used. not only that, israel has the backing of the strongest power in the world. israel is after all with the military might is a small country in a hostile region. the fact it has the full strategic backing of the united states is something we should