Middle east alliances the Hudson Institute held a discussion on the changing alliances between israel and arab states in the middle east, examining the impact of isis this is about an hour and 35 minutes. Next, a discussion about changing alliances between israel and arab states. The impact devices and the iran nuclear agreement. This is just over one hour and a half. Good afternoon. Very nice to see a large lovely audience. Very nice to see a large lovely audience. Its for a really fantastic panel. I wanted to welcome our cspan audience who will be watching this excellent panel. I want to address, introduced our analysts. To my right is a colleague here at Hudson Institute. To his right is michael doran, also senior fellow. To his right, i want to welcome someone who is not been on our podium before. He is a colleague of mine and i think he will have a very interesting perspective. Thes not noted in identifications, but he is from jerusalem for forever. Anhink hell be able to give interesting Historical Perspective and a very interesting personal perspective 1967, which is what the panel is about, six days of fire in israel and the war 50 years on. Welcome. Away. T thank you very much. Thank you all for coming. Were here primarily to talk about the longterm consequences of the away. Thank you very much. War, and rightly so. Was to talkght it of the war itself and the situation on the eve of its outburtst. Im old enough to remember it from direct experience. [laughter] an to experience so dramatic and moving, it is hard to forget. I had reminders of it last week during a visit to israel, the annual celebration of the city. A natural starting point for considering the war is the situation of israel in the spring of 1967. There are a few reminders to that date. At that time, israel was a 19yearold experiment, an experiment in statehood. That was launched by the u. N. In november of 1947. In other words, israels establishment was authorized in the mode of international multilateralism, something which i think is forgotten about in israel. Nevertheless, it remained an experiment for several reasons. Its neighbors were utterly opposed to its existence. Even those who initially supported israels establishment, including the meritsame to doubt the of that support. Why . It was for reasons that were restated in the eve of the sixday war from the American Ambassador from damascus. We have israel, an unviable client, whose value to the u. S. Is mainly emotional. The full range of the strategic, commercial and economic interests presented by arab states. This is powerful in 1948. It anticipated the arab states on israels border eg and syria, lebanon others would seek to destroy the state. Israel is less an experiment than fools. Israel survived the arab war of 1948. Israels survival will not be in peace. For the next 19 years, the arab states continue to reject any peace with israel. Principally by terrorists and attacks. Ltimate aim was to destroy israel completely, to business th remoe shame of 1948. Aim was to destroy israel completely,until 1967, that aimd unfulfilled. It was thought to require arab armies that have been put together in 1948. Only then could israels arab enemies launch a fullscale attack and achieve their ultimate goals. 1967, it was not achieved and could not be. The most important reason was along with thept arab army could not be deployed to the borders. It cannot be because of the option of 1956. A war with britain and france against egypt. The end of the war provided supervised by the u. N. Peacekeeping force. It also provided for the right of allocation through the strait of tehran. Changed in the middle of may 19 to th67. A crisis erupted that lasted three long weeks and coleman aided in the sixday war culminated in the sixday war. Reintroduced it. It demanded and received the withdrawal of the u. N. Force. Its forces move closer to the israeli changed in the middle border. Egypt formed a military alliance a lot to dohich had with the instigation of the crisis. With a completely bogus claim. Subsequently, jordan joined the armynce, pledging its under egyptian command. This was a particular painful time in israel where jordan rolled the west bank. The location of the west bank width was only nine miles. An attack could sever israel and destroy its coastal cities. The attack came. The encirclement of israel was complete as it had been in 1948. The whole arab world was electrified by the prospect of a new war. Many countries rushed to join the fray, especially iraq which sent its forces into jordan. A final fateful step in the straits of tehran in israel. It was announced this was tantamount to a declaration of war and welcomed the war. Confident that he would win it. Its goal was forcefully stated by the president of iraq. Israel offs to wipe the face of the map. We shall, god willing, meet in tel aviv. Such division was repeated over andover by arab leaders remember vividly. The government delivered deliberated about what to do. Took a decision to go eventually to war lightly should just consult the record. That thehave no doubts prospects of war meant determination. Said it isf staff now a question of to be or not to be. Apart from making military preparations, it took definitive decisions. Some and the government thought that a peaceful resolution might be found. Israel might have to accept the new status quo. Egypts army on its border and it could not hope that status quo would be maintained. Thatab states concluded israel is afraid of a figh t, it could do it at a time of their choosing. Ill events and acceptable peaceful resolution dependent upon outside presence. Thus, israel undertook a major diplomatic effort which lasted throughout the three weeks. In general, the long wait of three weeks group increasingly painful. It was painful for many of those who sympathized with israel as well. Wonderwere obliged to if they were about to witness a new holocaust, some 20 years after the previous one. Confidence in the government faltered. Eventually, to restore confidence, a unity government was formed. There was a new minister of defense. Waits its own name the ing. Effortsnd, diplomatic were a total and complete failure. Israel and its 3 Million People found encirclement alone, totally and utterly alone. Several of the arab states have the soviet union as an ally but israel found it had no ally. Nce repudiated in old alliance with israel as well, as well as the 1957 guarantees. 1967 is not 1957. Britain was sympathetic, but often no help, and effectively left it. America too was sympathetic but not the ally it was going to be. Most of its tanks were british. The added to the president johnson and its principle advisers were warmer than the u. S. Ambassador. Cold logic the same augmented by cold war concerns, the possibility of direct confrontation with the soviet union. After much consultation, president johnson was willing to offer continued efforts of mediation and a warning not to begin hostilities. His repeated message was israel will not be alone unless it decides to go it alone. But, israel regarded circumstance in the absence of of america as untenable and rightly so. June 5, israel did go it alone. June 5, israel did go it alone. And prevailed all alone in the remarkable military campaign on three fronts. It was a spectacular victory by every mention. There have been many descriptions. Let me offer want of a wellknown historian of world war i who visited israel before and after the war. A people considered for centuries on three fronts. It was a spectacular nonfighted out in june against long odds the most nearly perfect military operation in modern history. Superiority in numbers and mounted armament, fighting alone and equipped by a major power and having lost the advantage of surprise, they accomplished of the rarest of military feats obtainment of exact objectives. Shattering of forces and securing lines with the absence of blunder. Not quite the absence of blunder but that is a longer story. We will now moved to a discussion of the longterm consequences, but i would like to close about the immediate israel at thatr time and going on. No doubt, israel would have preferred a less lonely israel t path to the security it achieved through the war. But having to go it alone, improved to itself two important things and maybe to others. An unviablenot state. It had a chance if, regrettably a fighting chance, to be a free people. Beyond survival, there is a special virtue to that. It will last 50 years. Israel has made the most of that virtue. Thanks very much. [applause] mike, if you would like to follow up. Michael thanks. I will say a few words about the egyptian role in all of this and then have a couple of reflections on the longterm meaning of the war. Theres a kind of enduring mystery about the outbreak of the war. Nasser agrees this is war. Who hass a historian never had a sympathetic word to say about israel. In his history of the arabisraeli conflict, even he cannot assign responsibility. It is impossible because at every stage of the conflict, nasser escalated. To borrow a phrase from president obama, offer him an offramp. He did not take it and he ke pt escalating. The mystery in all of this is why did he do it . At the time, the best units of his army were bogged down in a war in yemen so he was totally unprepared for this conflict, and could not have won it. He estimated at the point where, after he has remilitarized, he basically says israel has no choice i think we have put israel in a position where we have no choice but to attack. You either have to say he is totally irrational or he was playing a game we dont understand very well. Ill just give you a couple of thoughts about what i think the game he was playing was. Be one of this may the questions nobody will be able to answer, or maybe someone will, but it is kind of a mystery that continues to intrigue me. Perhaps and gives a little bit of selfinterest, i look at 1956. The key is 1956. Said it waseven about keep keep saying it is back to 1956. Nasser lost the war against israel, but he won politically. Britain, france and israel teamed up against egypt, defeated the egyptian army. The superpowers got involved and the unitedkeep keep saying it is back to states in particular sinai the israelis of with minimal concessions. The concession that nasser return the 1967, the placement of the United NationsSecurity Force in sinai. The guarantees in straight of tehran. That was nassers greatest moment. The rise of him being an unstoppable Political Force in in 1956. Rab world i think in 1967, he thought he could replay 1956. He thought he could escalate things to such a point that even if there was a conflict with israel, hed a conflict he might not win on the ground, he might still come out the political winner. Miscalculations, he made two in 1967. One of them was clearly the military miscalculation. The miscalculations, he israelis destroyed his air force in record time and did it alone. In 1956, they had the french to help them. In 1967, they didnt. It was ait alone and near perfect military operation. They obliterated his forces so quickly that there was not time for the superpowers to step in a victory. M snatch defeat from the israelis from the jaws of military victory. The second miscalculation he made was about the americans. Since he had encountered the americans when he took power in 1952, the americans have been completely allergic to association with zionism. They were afraid to be seen on the side of the israelis in a war against the arabs, and they were very eager to distance themselves from israel. Eisenhowers decision to roll them out of the sinai but in 1957, that changed considerably. There was some hesitation in the state department. Those attitudes were well represented. I had a discussion with harold Foreign Service officer who had been chief of staff under henry kissinger. He was the assistant secretary at one point. Saunders was among those that was very interested israelisnasn maintaining good relations with and believed the u. S. Association with israel was poisoning the relations with nasser. He told me that nasser gave a speech in 1966, i believe, in which he said, you know, it was full of fire and brimstone and defiance of the americans. If the americans do not like it, they can go drink the red sea. Take a flying leap. Saunders said from that moment i dont know why, i never researched the exact moment saunders told me from that moment on, the americans of the highest level were done with nasser. None of us could possibly put forward a proposal to woo nasser because he had so undermined his own position in washington. That was against the background of this war in yemen. The war in yemen was a superpower proxy fight. The americans, the saudis and the yemeni royalists were on one soviets and insurgents were on the other side. We saw it exactly in those terms. So, when nasser blundered into this war, he provoked this war for whatever purposes, he provoked it. The americans you find something very interesting. Right when the war ends, the u. S. , working with the soviets but an american idea, comes up with a u. N. Resolution. 242 is territory for peace. That is the basic idea for this day to make peace between israel and its neighbors. Its a very simple, commonsensical idea but it is a against the viewpoints in washington in 1956. Get out of sinai in return with no concessions from nasser. Once that idea eroded, that, way forves the the concept in the next administration. Sawn and can resen henry kissir israel as a military power, they prove themselves as an asset for United States in the cold war. We could use it to put pressure on the allies of the soviet union. If they want to relieve the pressure, they have to come to us. 1967,e not quite there in but that is the beginning of the benefit tosrael is a the United States and not a liability. That is quite an important turning point. A couple of other thoughts on the turning point and then i will toss it over. As you hear me talking, soviet union, United States and so 1 it was the height of the cold arena in thexy cold war. That world is gone. Something else happened in 19 to the seven. The67. The biggest winner in 1967 was not the israelis. It was the saudis. It is interesting to think about of where we are today, because after 1967, the air of leader arab leaders at a famous no recognitionad of israel, no negotiations with israel and no peace with israel. That was the public slogan. Worknd the scenes, the real took place and that was that the soptians they had been defeated by the israelis that they had to think about pulling out of yemen and they made a deal with the saudis where they agreed to end their propaganda and the saudis started giving them money. Until that moment, the egyptians were egypt was the center of the arab world, the dominant power. 1967 marks the moment where the saudis come into their own. That is the world we know today. Beingnk of the saudis the leading power. The other big change that takes place and then i will pass it off. Two others. One is, i have said it, this is effectively the end of nasserim. Sm. Nasser dies three years change s place and then i will pass it off. Two later, for the idea of egypt as the leader of the arab world and the leading power against the israelis has already started to shift. Auma for thege tr israelis and a greater existential threat. 1973 is interesting from the egyptian point of view because the goal was to get out of the conflict. To deal and big enough blow to israel that it will wake up superpowers to help the egyptians get out of the conflict. It was not to use the conflict for other purposes, it was really to get out of the conflict. I dont want to be too theological about it. Attrition. Patricia something shifts dramatically in 1967. The last point i will make is as the egyptians start thinking about how to get out of israel, the point that this conflict added the conflict between the israelis and palestinians. The question of Natural National determination than a conflict of egypt and arabism versus nationalism and israelism, so on than a cont. Arabs in general redefined it as palestinian nationalism versus about resolution 242 kind of being the premise. The United States would eventually look arabs at israela cold war asset. That is really interesting. Thanks. Applause. [applause] thanks. Familylee mentioned, my has been family has been in jerusalem for a while. They arrived in the time of the 1950s. Whichwhich means mainly that jerusalem syndrome has run in the family. Today am about to say will sound profoundly crazy, i hope, sitting next to my colleagues. The first thing that i would tad to say perhaps, a uncharitable, an event dedicated to the colossal meaning of 1967. It is that it actually mattered not a bit. Heres why i say that. I say that because i went to school in Tel Aviv University which was established in the ruins of the palestinian villages that were destroyed, abandoned in 1948. If you are looking for some sort of Vantage Point at which to start telling some meaningful story about contemporary israel the middle east and israels place in it. 1967 seems a bit arbitrary. For that matter, 1948 does well. If iot a betting man, but were i would say 1957 where the jews started the Real Movement to repopulate in a to the Promised Land with the previous inhabitants. Way what 1967 date was per did was provide this ajor distraction it as beautiful phrase but it have to do with multilateralism. I think it provided a deeply comforting prism to look at this conflict because we are looking at it see something that is solvable. Pouris a problem and we good enough gold will goo dwill, we can make this work because it is an negotiation between two sides for a solution. I think both people increasingly and understandably have a very different perspectivei think ane always had that perspective. Israelis may be looking at their neighbors and saying, remember these once mighty people. Israelis may be looking at their neighbors and they are no longer to be seen. We can wait. I think the palestinians are thinking do you remember the ottomans . They occupied this land too. We can wait because we to have all the time in the world. I think that is a much more organic way of understanding the realities that both peoplesthe. Had. 1967 have been this major 50 year detour where everyone is like, but this resolution, this process, how can we solve it . I think we are slowly climbing away from that. That isingly enough, not the really crazy thing i say. To the really crazy thing is sort of contradictory. It proves that you are crazy. Ery, very important and nontrivial way, 1957 mattered a tremendous deal. It mattered a tremendous deal because it is revealed i use this term say. The really crazy thing almostl to many israelis in a strange way. The true purpose of the National Project. Try asking today, 146 years howr, try asking italians many identify as garabaldists. They will look at you and say what are you talking about . At the same time, an overwhelming majority of jews strongly defined themselves as zionists. If you think about it, it is almost absurd. If you understand zionism as a Political Movement to if youreestablish the jewish hod in the state of israel. That mission has been accomplished. Sometime between 60 odd years ago or 50 years ago. That mission has been secured. What is the modern state of israel is establish so why we talking about ourselves as zionists . The answer i would like to give which is supported in a very is theok, the bible, mission of zionism has never booeen solely political, i am tempted to say not even mainly a little. Political. Fulfille o to keep jewish people as a people. This is why the movement attracted people through the condition of what state they would eventually establish. Marxists wanted this kind of utopia. You had religious jews, people who agreed not a lick about what type of policy would actually come to fruition when this big great miracle occurred. Yet, they comfortably banded together and continue to band together under this banner. The reason for this, and i will not get too philosophical, but the reason is because the contract, the reason for the return always had to do not just with the establishment of a National Homeland for purposes of selfdefinition, defense, etc. , but rather for the fulfillment of religious understanding, meaning that the ation did not just have to be nation, but a perfect nation. This is why when moses sent 10 spies and they return and they nation, but a perfect nation. Say not so much milk and honey. A lot of angry people who really want to kill us. Moses killed them because they failed to understand what makes the Promised Land is not some inherent quality. It is the probability to inhabit it and make it an exemplary place for higher type of living on earth. 1967, it was very easy for the majority of israelis to ignore this notion because indeed it sounds rather emotionally, mentally unstable. It was quite, possible to focus on what appeared to be real existential challenges of of building ing to kind continuing building continuing this experiment. 1967 unleashed all of that itause in a weird way removed the last it removed the last barrier towards the understanding of the project. It happened literally about a week and a half after the war. Rabbis got together in jerusalem and, sort of still shaken by this great and unexpected victory i know this because one of my relatives was they contemplated this miraculous occurrence. It was perhaps time to change the prayers that specifically speak of the disruption of jerusalem and our mourning for it. Whether it was time to remove these lines in the prayers. They decided almost unanimously which is very hard for jews on anything, especially on things like that, it should not be changed because the mission has not been accomplished. The indication of the city was not the end. It was the beginning. It was time to embark on the greater project which has always been the project of rabbis got n jerusalem zionism which is the creation of a more and more and more Perfect Union that expresses itself in such platitudes. Aloud a lot of67 people to continue to do that. It change in Israeli Society and politics has been radical. We are looking at all the wrong things. Well, what about the settlements . Do you move the settlements . This line or that line . Is it in accordance with the Geneva Convention . These are questions people have spent a lot of time debating with, but the bigger and more intricate an interesting change undeniableual, but very, very convincing shift that a huge swath of Israeli Society has experienced in the last 50 years. I dont want to say religiosity because that is an explosive term, but an increasing understanding that the nature of our National Project is not to build another paris on thec. Or mediterranean, it is something very different. Some deeply in intricate way with faith, jewish faith, and the way we understand it. This is why you can see all of a sudden hybrid, huge Political Parties like the jewish home, that have in them religious politicians and secular politicians, because the actual level of observance has never been the yardstick. It is the coming together over the understanding that we are trying to do something very different. We are trying to build a jewish state and understand it as such. That the project is a project that has been defined in not one june many years ago in sinai. 1967 unleashed that yearning. It has freed us to do so and the consequences of that are strangely far more outreaching thinknything that i anyone in this room can begin to fathom. Lee thank you very much. [applause] lee think anyone in this room can begin to i want to stick with you for a second and come back. Now, that we have led up to 1967, were in the middle of 1967. Now, i want to look a little past that and continue a little bit. We were speaking before about this. If you want to continue a little more on this, what it looks like post1967. In some ways when we were speaking last night and today, in 1967, everybody understood and it was clear what the project was. In washington and the u. S. Press, people looking at israel, is israel becoming more religious . What does it look like. Look at all of these people. Youre saying this became clear in 1967. What we are seeing nowlook at a. Is i ll leave it to you to explain. I will ask them to explain what the region looks like since ll leave it to you1967. And lets talk a little bit about how american policy has 1967 looking at israel and the region in general. I so, this is something learned a lot from mike. How much, if you think of america and how much of our political energies were consumed by the cold war and how the cold war made possible alliances between parties that on the surface seem to have very little in common. Traditional conservatives and traditional liberals coming together over what both could agree was a perceived threat and once that threat when away, all of a sudden both of these camps had to define the true essence of their ideology. Were seeing the outcomes of that right now. I think something similar happened in israel. Many, many kind of parties this is also poignant to big swaths of the American Jewish community almost above reproach, a narrative of experimentation. A 90yearold nation is attempting some type of david versus goliath thing. It is still sufficiently steep in socialist background or history or roots. People of very wide range of political some type of david versus goliath thing. It is still sufficiently steep in affiliations feel this deep affinity towards it. That simply builds huge coalitions and kind of created for whatps in support was understood to be the project in ways that were fairly unproblematic. When 1967 occurred, that kind of ceased to be the case because the questions was a far starker one. Ok, we have removed the last barrier, the last kind of big militaristic program. We have reunified jerusalem. What now . Portions,at big although i think they are diminishing daily, of the israeli public said now we are going to create a great nation state. We are going to do it by adopting laws that are universally, cosmically a set of laws that nationstates that are progressive pass. There was a larger swath saying, yes, we do have a Firm Commitment to democratic principles, but at the same time, we also have an idea that this really is and has always been and will remain a different kind of state. In a way, all sorts of conflicts that never existed before begins to bubble to the surface. Questions about what is the heture of businesses on t seveabbath . Questions about essential issues of defining what the state ought to be. Of process we are seeing rebels of that ripples of that. Abroad,ewish community i think that sent shockwaves worlds jurythe and america. One of the reason why you are seeing so Many American jews distance themselves is not because of the population. Believe there is a problem awaiting a believe there is a pm awaiting a solution. You can advocate one or another. I think the nation itself is and insufferable even to people whose identity is so thoroughly universal secular as to not process that is a thoroughly jewish project. Proudly, religious nationstate. That is a type of drama that in way is not that different from drama we see from brexit to here. The question of what kind of nation you want to have. Was brewedery it butsrael 50 years earlier israels answer was very decisive in one direction. Now we are moving on with this drama. Lee i want to gobecoming unreca second. A great transition because mike has written a very interesting article on europe with brexit. I know you have been thinking about this for a while, as well as your excellent work in the middle east. Europe and the United States and these different deals with nationalism, how they are playing out. Im curious to know if israel has been an example in this way. If this was coming out of 1957, as this was an instance part of the world is moving this way, globalization formed, massive borders. They were saying one thing and now europe and the United States. I think i can connect those things. So sorry. My fault. Ithael i think i can do without being too reductive. Two schools of thought which go back to 1967. Israel. Ca, about one school of thought says israel is a strategic liability to the United States and the other is israel is a Strategic Asset. The school that says israel is a liability also says at the same time it is a liability and it is thetral issue palestinianisraeli conflict is strategically the central issue. It is a liability because our association with israel is s, theting the arab muslims and the entire third world. It is alienating us, in these da ys, it is alienating us from the European Union and so on. There is a community of nations that responded to its concerns, therefore the job of the United States is the Peace Process. Is a treat usually strategically central asset of american policy. I think president obama, if you read his comments carefully, is pretty explicit. Our job is the Peace Process even if you dont believe at the end there will be peace, because this is the kind of outreach that we do. This is the way we show respect for the community of nations. Ofind that idea is the kind morersalist idea that otless cosmopolitan the cosmopolitanism of jewish youth in america today. The globalist community. On the other side, there are people who say that israel is not a liability and that it is an asset. That frame of reference, or that position, resonates very deeply with american nationalists, right . And, evangelicals, religious people. Wasunification of jerusalem a religious event for the jews. All along the way, from the beginning of the design of the project, there has been a strong zionism that has supported the project. The blackstone memorial, William Blackstone was a famous american businessmen. In reala lot of money estate. He made enough money to live comfortably were ever. He devoted himself to jesus. He wrote a book jesus in real estate. He made enough is com ing. Jesus was near. The book was a bestseller for years in america. Even in 1891, petitioned the president and said the Ottoman Empire is crumbling. This was four years before, that the Ottoman Empire is crumbling and it is the job of the United States to return the jews to the ro Promised Land. That was signed by the editor of the new york times, the editor to the Washington Post things have changed. The chairman of the house of Foreign Affairs committee. Rockefeller, chief justices of the supreme court. All signlectual elite that. That may have diminished somewhat in america, but it is still there. You dojust many of not listen to my company mike huckabee, it is still out there. Politicians are very much aware of it. It is in thesays interest of the united interest of the United States to support israel. And a lot of what we do in we take these different we take these different positions about israel, strategic positions about these arguments over settlements and everything are about bringing peace between israeli and palestinians. There is also a big cultural battle between two americans. One that is part of this globalist, universalist effort, and another one america by god. Lee what did that argument look like, the argument that mike is describing, what did it look like in washington since 1967, the argument from washington between american policymakers . Some are saying america israel is a strategic ally or a liability. How did that play regarding states andith Arab Muslim States . If i may, i think i will. Ecline me, in general over time, the Strategic Asset or strategic liability argument has gotten stronger. It has gotten stronger partially because of many circumstances. The ongoing collapse of the middle east due to violence and so forth has not made arrangements with the middle east attractive. Effectively were losing out on a chance to be c ozy with people who do not like israel looks less substantial. I want to comment on a couple of things which has been said which i think are quite important. Since the offerings i might call him reb mike. These are some separate points. Mike is correct in saying the crucial factor here was egypt. I think it probably traces the source of nassers approach to what had happened in 1956 or in 1948, he was a soldier that was captured by the israeli army. Im less sure that he did not think that the the egyptian army, and the arab forces in general, could win. I mean, he no doubt was not completely unaware of some of difficulties, but i think his confidence, the confidence he had came from the way in which what was wrong about israel in the first place. I referred before to the shame of 1948. 1948 was that jews had beaten arabs and muslims. That seemed at first impossible. Away twice,ined first in 1948 the same thing happened and 56. That argument was made and persuaded them. They had never faced a fair fight. He did, they could take them, or not are fighters. So whatever reservations he had stashed things went on in the crisis during the three weeks, everything inspired through give him confidence further confidence. Everyone is backing off. The defeat, first of all, he doesnt dispel that argument, that this survives because it has foreign dish european, becomesn, whatever more and more implausible. To theoes he said decline of nationalism altogether. And the rise of the saudis the rise of an which isve islamists. , reconciliation with the Islamic Forces in egypt in particular has been taken over subsequent developments. I think it always bears emphasizing that when they attacked and 48, and they were about to attack and 67, the goal always was to destroy the jewish state. Israel, it was not to establish a palestinian state. Had it and so, there would have been one and 48 after the fighting stopped. Had they won and 67 a thinkone as to them having established palestinian state that it would of done what they did and 40 at come at the very specters would have divided up the spoils. , it,ddest thing paradoxically, created a condition for the establishment of the palestinian state. Within the contours of what came to be the Palestinian Initiative of the United States. Cks on this observation part comell, in large i think you are correct. And you arethat also correct about the people who built israel, founded israel from say the late 19th century on, were very many there were great differences. They didnt share one thing in common the messianic or utopian not messianic, utopian. The masai would bring it was the but after that, there was considerable room for disagreement. In a novel together so easily read by all caps members of the far left party, im sure that they didnt, or their friends come there were fairly moderate in their views. Some of their friends certainly didnt see have the feeling the other utopian streams what they did have, and this is the project has reached a certain goal, the a real reality. Communists le, could fight shoulder to shoulder with religious guys 67 and 73, and so forth. Still they feel that bond. When i was in israel, i was with some friends. Y were are we back on . Ok, lets just wait for theyre doing a lot of building in the building. The trip to fire alarm. And issaid that probably a real fire now. [laughter] of the people still outside the quebec and . Ok, thank you. Sorry about that. Yes i believe thats probably construction. Pertains toion your remark about the divide between American Jews and jews in israel. In the course of creating a state, the created a different type of person. Was noticeable a long time ago that it was denominated with the term, auburn. There is a different type of israeli person. Inhink its also true general, israeli jews are different than other jews. All thetion first of experience of living in the having tolso of answer the question or have an answer to the question what is the mission of israel . Moderneally to having be a nationstate along the lines of or is it to have something deceptively jewish about . By the way, he said the bible and then the bible the getgo. Just. I to speak of outin israel, he works through living experience, and the United States, you get your choice. Yourself to one side of the equation them i described very well enlightened modernpostmodern, universalist and so forth, or live in parts of williamsburg that havent been taken over by hipsters. Choose in israel, thats not possible. I think i dont know how much israelis misunderstand they misunderstand that im just as american with jews misunderstand this. Simplythose arent alternative choices in israel. They have to be worked through. And will be worked through. Perhaps in the in thetion of the two, end, may look not so rep americansr alien to or American Jews, it will certainly be different. Of talked about a creation paris or london on the eastern really the other option is israelisalley effectively all religious persuasions gravitate towards that. That will see what emerges from that. Clicks and taking notes, did you have to respond to some of that . Its funny, i was telling the fire raged on. Fully i didnt even if i was speaking fully anticipate that these convictions would be and wonder now, he said in america you cant make a choice. In israel, its less clear. Wondering again going solely off the canary and call my area of history here, which is problematic, when that i dont fully subscribe to. If thetually wondering rest of the world has a choice are not. Im wondering if these big cataclysmic elections we are seeing now are basically the same in a way i dont think that building on the mediterranean is in any way incompatible with choosing to live out a nationalist rally i dont particularly accept the petition was over progress for all things good, true, and efficient. As the globalist part of the genius of israel. This takes you from point a to point b. To me thats a huge accomplishment. Theres tension the news release i agree with you completely by resolve is coming home across the world. Mikesme that was point. Ill let my cancer this. One of the things it seems to me my answers may be. But what israel has shown specifically represented, and the turmoil of the last few years, but rather of the turmoil more generally in the western world. With the globalist perspective, the idea that youre a citizen of the world, is nonsense. That, youve got a body, it sort of has to be somewhere. Has to have a home somewhere. Well have begun to feel that much more powerfully. The reasons or for that, im not entirely sure. You really will after all oreuropeans, or germans something very specific about themselves come by very specific place where they belong. If thats a trend, then it is has madethat israel play some role in the developments here would offer is a healthy way of resolving these. Is it is real easier for israel to assert the idea of a National Identity obviously were israelis because all of our neighbors keep telling us we cant cross the border, we cant go there we are the people who live here. Its a little easier obviously we know the cost of that, but if were talking about im just not sure that a lot of people i think a lot of location, theis actual this location, but its just not clear to me awaits, so it is globalism, thats what these guys in washington, europe, silicon valley, have in mind. It makes. Its goofy. I think a lot of people do feel the dislocations, but the actual the way some people argue about it, im not sure. Perhaps because we were just at the beginning, people the argument is not clear. By some in suspect Marine Le Pen is the difference between the struggle now and think she said theres no left, no right, theres globalists, patriots. I think whatever her inclinations are and on something, though the way people are beginning to feel that as a divide attention, a lot of people are drawn to the notion of patriotism. Now israel this is what struck the in being there last week. That 60,000 children arching flagstone the street, happy with their country, supportive of it, not many vicious way or so worth, thats the difference then the image people have of patriotism. Before we do this i want to ask mike about we are talking about your American Interest essay, how the what would my repent wearing it one way, the way you put it is were speaking about this peopleght somewhere and nowhere where people anywhere people. That,ld you talk about n will rip it up customer just in an effort to get a hello describing it seems to me that across the west now so severe from david goodt london try to make sense of british politics in light of the Brexit Debate he said brexit is divided now between the anywhere people and the somewhere people. Anywhere people are well educated, engaged in professions that they can do anywhere. They can move to london if they lose their job in london they can move to paris or new york. They work in the media, software development, so on and so worth. Placere people live in a they dont have a lot of mobility. The less mobile the less flexible. If industry leaves their town, there stuck in their town with no industry. The anywhere people make up two thirds the somewhere people make up two thirds, the anywhere people run the show, our politics. The same thing is true in america, this is with the trump election is. We have the anywhere people in los angeles and new york interpreting our politics and the media, to the country, then we have the rest of the country, predominately somewhere a somewhere place. They are not buying the presentation of our politics to themselves. Thats interesting you have connected this before for this language that you have now you have connected this before, in our conversations come these are the kinds of people will not just evangelicals, but the people who have strong feelings about their Country Companies are americans who attend to support israel. Whats to move it back to the 67 there is a way in which americans reject projected on fight about the character of we will take a dont know if this was the owner some because shared a lot of jewish donors their six jews driving a was youre welcome, from exciting and what in the middle of nowhere in texas a highway up on hell, there is a check as huge flagpole the top of the flag was an israeli flag, a guarantee that was not a jew living out there. Universities the profoundly uncomfortable with israel. Academic organization to vote in favor of the bds in the United States middle east or association it was the American Space association. Studyse are people that ,ransgendered Truck Drivers latino transgendered talk Truck Drivers. This is a ahead american studies. Israel t a map of an announcement in for the gods i couldnt even find it. They are not talking about its an exaggeration but theyre not talking about israel. The talking about america. In israel, it really is very hard anywhere when anywhere you turn there is a border telling you, absolutely not. Youre firmly a, somewhere. Cant cross the border, even if you right. Is makes holding in articular for the future of partially what you just said maybe its because people have a positive view of israel, or whether they just feel they have to defend it. Am reminded that there other israel not situation its a on the hall, israelis have tried to make a virtue of necessity and say, we have a decision for why we are different. You dont face threats in many parts of the world, your country isnt under attack, you dont have to serve as a soldier. That era may come to an end. Reason i think there for the rest of the world. Lets world, yes. Especially those parts of it that have gotten very used to thinking of themselves as safe, i think part of this relationship between the united has somethingael to do effects that america thinks it has to defend itself. Quite a few other people want us to fight that gives you a the,different outlook on somewhere or anywhere issue. Were going to run a few minutes late because of the fire alarm. In the meantime, with take a few questions. Canomeone with a microphone come down the center aisle here. Right here. Shawna, if you could identify yourself. I i would like to go back dont like to hear the word philanthropy there and relation to you and resolution 242 p is assumed that israel wants peace it has to give a plant. 242 and only doesnt say that, it converts the process. The arabs are required to give israel respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence. Interestingly, the our two countries that the better the two with peace with israel, thats egypt and jordan. All of this piece process stuff is backwards. Asking israel to do a variety of things to induce the arabs to give it piece, 12 for two says the opposite, then you make boundaries. If you want to and the 67 war, which really has them in ended, dont you have to go back . Mike, since he raised the issue, would you like to [laughter] very interesting, the idea that the 67 war has not ended. , i dontifferently think the 48 war has ended. [laughter] i think that the that theres, theres is 1897 over . [laughter] its too early to tell. [laughter] definee is an effort to if i understand you correctly, there an effort to define the conflict in very specific way, and there are a lot of people who for a whole host of reasons, some of which include that they really see it that way in the arab world they see it with that way, but there a lot of others that dont. Only need to listen to what hamas says and say in the syrian fans so on. To see that the armistice lines of 1948 are not really the issue. I dont know that this is that diplomatic formula is the kid bringing about peace. I gets part of a larger problem the nonacceptance of israel. Theres a gentleman over here , if you can hold on one second, then wait for the microphone. If you identify yourself please. Thank you so much. Im retired Foreign Service. 50 years ago i service on the israeli air force. I would like to share a few personal considerations. If you could keep it to a question directed at someone, that will move easier. Just quick observations. I will let you make one. [laughter] ok, the country for being under siege to becoming a regional superpower the country doubled population the increased by 2 Million People sides of the country quadrupled. The mood to change from anxiety consequence ofe the occupation, were not well understood at the time. Finally, the war started monday june 5, 8 00 in the morning with the entire area its really air force was launched. After a lower altitude of flying the right and left side of to hundred 903 hundred 40 egyptian planes were destroyed in the ground. In cant go on types after both jordan and syria joined the war, the tanks one more thing. Im sorry, i really need to move on to question. Thank you. Theres a gentleman in the back. Fife, a fellow here at hudson. You you raised all of you, attitude change in, in after 67. Rael, he will refer to it one way or another. , in theas treated United States, very favorably at the time of the six days war. A romantic celebration of israels victory in american magazine. I remember it as a kid, life magazine the big spreads, celebrating the israeli victory. That attitude obviously changed dramatic he rather quickly after the 67 war. The general idea that the arabisraeli conflict was the Europe States versus israel, that rather soon transformed into a few that the conflict was fundamentally between the israelis and palestinians. Im wondering if you could just reflect, i would be interested in your thoughts on how and why those transformations in the way the world the way americans come in particular, but the world general, viewed the airisraeli conflict from the point view of sympathy towards israel and the conflict who the israelis are fighting, why and when did it happen be interested in your thoughts on the transformation. Quickly. That i want to see if you can do one more question. I think as mike said before, israelf the site about and the end turns out to be a fight about ourselves, about us americans. That is clearest every four years at the Democratic Party convention, when president bush win a president bushs support of israel, either cannot get past it at all or is when a president pushes support of israel, they either cannot get past it at all or it is very weak. The big thing was the oil shock in the 1970s, but by now that has pretty much worn off. See two big trends. General wantes in to disengage. They see the continued conflict with israel as too costly. The israelis can really cost them a lot. Is a hugeown the suez economic blow to egypt. That goes beyond just the egyptians. They want a disengage, and they find a convenient way to disengage is to put the plo forward and say, its their conflict, not ours. Disengagement,l it is a partial disengagement. But there is also a savvy calculation behind this, and that has to do with the shift in the west and attitudes in the west, particularly in the United States, as a result of the vietnam war. Partners speech after notre dame where he is elected, where he says there is an inordinate fear of communism, what is the interpretation . The interpretation of the vietnam war is that this was a war of National Liberation its which theates United States, which the republicans in their vision of international politics, a zero sum game between good and evil, between the United States and communism, saw this more of National Liberation as a fight between the United States and the soviet union, and we militarized our Foreign Policy and expended our blood and treasure, and for what . We realized it was a problem if we had realized it was a problem of national selfdetermination, we could have come to an agreement. That template starts to become the template to which the american elite, and the Carter Administration in particular, on the left, is looking at global politics. We have been too muscular, too militaristic. The arabs recognize that and put the plo forward. The Carter Administration comes in immediately with two absolute firm convictions. The palestinian selfdetermination is the core of the conflict, and we have to bring the soviets in and we will work with them, and we will have a general conference and the two of us will solve this. Amen. [laughter] we will have time for the gentleman in the blue jacket. My question, sort of moving past the 1967 war and looking forward today, things i think are a lot different. We have israel as sort of a Regional Power militarily, economically, still a democracy, and then you have the Trump Administration and iran. If we can look forward, what is the global strategic view . Mike, if you could address that . Why dont we do a speed round as our final question. Mike, would you like to kick off the speed round . I am giving you 45 seconds. Lee is going to get a minute and a half. About what you think i just said, nixon to carter, you can map that on to bush, to obama. In, we militarized our Foreign Policy, we engaged in a thankless war, and we need to pull back and be less literalistic, and that goes handinhand with Peace Processes. We are showing the rest of the we want to find Diplomatic Solutions to problems without muscular america. Rump comes in trump is a hybrid between bush and obama. What trump said in the campaign was, im going to give you more with less. Im going to give you more than president obama gave you, because he was unable to use military force and flex americas muscles. You are going to see muscular america, but i am going to do it less than bush. Bush got involved with all these thankless initiatives like spreading democracy around the world. Not me. Im going to focus on narrow National Interests. You find there is a tension in the administration. The narrow National Interest people who are thinking like obama about pulling back, they a Peace Process and they are wary of israel because the support up got to cut you off. Aside from the extra minute you took, 45 seconds. Not a doran 45 seconds. Your mostly asking about iran. I would say [inaudible] mr. Doran i had an answer on iran, but you stopped me. Liel it boils down to this, iran will get a bomb and let someone stops them. Iranianhave not only an bomb, but further proliferation. No one has a clue as to what that will mean, how dangerous it will be. People have to prepare now for what is going to happen in 10 years, although it may not take 10 years. I have a little to add in the metaphysical sense. Attitudes are changing very dramatically. The, i think part of problem is that we have spent about 50 years looking for the penny under the lamp light, hoping that if we could only the competence in the correct way and only construct some sort of framework for reconciliation, it is just around the corner. I think we are moving away from that. Israel is moving away from that politically. Think america is, too i think the interesting way, it would open really new and helpful coalitions of people , notd the world necessarily in the united israel,but much of india, and china, has to do with a very similar way of seeing the world. To me, that is a dramatically helpful change. I think a lot of what we have seen courtesy of the last president propelled us into an era in which the chances of collaboration between israel and the saudis, certainly the egyptians, is interesting, to say the least. Re is a lot of interest and a lot of reason to be helpful, just none of the reasons we would have imagined five years ago. Coming. You all for [applause] fax. Thank you. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] tonight, a look at the future of the cable industry and issues it faces including viewership, broadband, and regulations, with American Cable Association president and ceo. The cable business isnt what it used to be because of the high cost, the increasing cost of not only cable programming, sports programming, broadcast programming, and as a business the it is failing. It is very, very difficult for a cable operater in many cases to even break even on the cable side of the business, which is why broadband is so important giving consumers more of the choice that we cant give them on cable through broadband. And Senior Vice President of government and Public Relations for media comcommunications corporation. The companies that are taking the risk borrowing the money to build the networks are being criticized whereas the companies that are making all the cash off the internet are being lauded for their wonderful innovation. And im not saying these are Bad Companies in the sense that they havent done amazingly innovative things. Im just saying they make a ton of money off the internet. For them to go scot free with no regulation suggests to me that maybe that thats not the right approach. Maybe we should look at who is making all the money and why are they able to take so much out of the system. Its because theyre selling your information. Its selling your information. Former f. B. I. Director James Comey Testifies thursday before the Senate Intelligence committee invet gating russian activities during last years election. Live coverage of the open part of the hearing at 10 00 a. M. Eastern. You can also watch live on line r listen live. In case you missed it on cspan. Veterans Affairs Secretary on the state of the v. A. 20 veterans a day are dying by suicide. That should be unacceptable to all of us. This is a National PublicHealth Crisis and it requires solutions that not only v. A. Will work on but all government and all partnerships in the private sector, nonprofit organizations. This is splitting communities and relates to the class split we have in the country. Mark twain whom you can go to for almost anything writes about this in his novel the guilded age. A few different languages of corruption that happened in the 19th century where elites start to say this isnt really corrupt. This is just the way we do things. And everybody else 19th says, y know, who walks like a duck, alks like a duck, its a duck. Call it a defacto tax on free speech. I kind of agree with them. I do agree that theyre being placed in a very tricky position when they cant invite the speakers that they want because there will be violence. To gregs point, i think that threats, ve in to when you give in to threats of violence, you basically allow the threats, violent agitators successful even before they land one punch. I think thats a very dangerous precedent to set when you prevent a speaker from speaking just because of the threats of violence. And Hillary Clinton talks about the 2016 president ial election and her upcoming book. You may think you know what happened and you may be right to a certain extent based on what youve perceived and how you process it. But im going to tell you how i saw it and what i felt and what thought, because you cannot make up what happened