Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hudson Institute Forum Focuses On Middle East Alliances 20170615

Black spouse. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern on cspans q a. Coming up next, discussion on the changing alliances between israel and arab states in the middle east. Well hear about the ongoing dangers of isis and the impact of the Iranian Nuclear deal. This was held recently by the hudson institute. Good afternoon. Very nice to see a really large lovely audience. Its for a really fantastic panel. Also wanted to welcome our cspan audience who will be watching this excellent panel which i want to address. First introduce the panelist. To my immediate right is hillel fradkin. A colleague here at hudson institute. To his right is michael doran, also senior fellow at the hudson institute. To his right i want to welcome someone who has not been on our panel before. Liel leibovitz and i think hes a colleague of mine at talent magazine and i think hell have an interesting perspective along with michael as well. Liel, i should say its not lets leave now. His family is from jerusalem. Is from jerusalem for many, many years for forever. So i think that hell be able to in addition to give an interesting, historical perspective, and very interesting personal perspective as well on june 1967, which is thats what the panel is about today, six days of fire israel and the june 1967 war, 50 years on. Again, welcome. Why dont we want to take it away . Hillel, if you would. Thank you very much. And thank you for coming. We are here primarily to talk about the longterm consequences of the sixday war and rightly so. But we thought it well to speak of the war itself and the situation on the eve of its outbreak. That is fallen to me. Among other reasons im old enough to remember it from direct experience. And it was an experience so dramatic and moving that it is very hard to forget. I had refreshed reminders of it last week during the visit to israel, most of all on jerusalem day, the annual celebration of the unification of the city. The natural starting point for considering the war is the situation of israel in the spring of 1967. A few reminders of its history to that date. At that time israel was a 19yearold experiment, an experiment within jewish state hood. That experiment was formally launched by the u. N. In november of 1947. In other words, israels establishment was authorized in the mode of international multilateralism that we now tend to regard as sank ro sank. Something i think has forgotten being israel. It remained an experience for several reason. The arabs has neighbors were utterly opposed to its existence. And even though who had originally opposed israels establishment, including the u. S. , came to doubt the merits of those support. Why . It was a reason stated on the eve of sixday war by youth meyers the american ambassador. To damascus. Quote, on the scales we have israel, an unviable client whose value to the u. S. Is primarily emotional. Balanced with a full range of the vital strategic political, commercial and economic interests represented by arab states. This view was powerful in 1948. It had anticipated that the arab states on israels border, egypt, syria, jordan and even implausibly lebanon and others besides would attack and cease to murder israeli state and its cradle. Israel seemed less an experiment than a fools errand. And the arab states did attack. Israel survived to survive the arab war of 1948 but israels survival did not mean peace. For the next 19 years, the arab states continued to reject any peace with israel and attacked it whenever and wherever possible. Principally terrorists, cross border attacks. But their ultimate aim was to destroy israel completely, to finish as they put it the business of 48, to remove the shame of 48. Still until 67 that aim remained unfulfilled and was not attempted. It was thought to require a grand coalition of arab armies such as has been put together in 1948. Only then could israels arab enemies launch a fullscale attack and achieve their ultimate goals. But until 67, these conditions were not achieved. And could not be. The most important reason was that the army of egypt, the largest arab army, could not be deployed to israels borders. It could not be because of the outcome of war in 1956, a war in which israel was allied with britain and france against egypt. The armistice that ended that war provided for the partial demilitarization of the peninsula, supervised by the u. N. Peacekeeping force or acted or supposed to act as a buffer and provided for the right of navigation for iz valely shipping. All that changed in the middle of may 1967. And fairly abruptly. A crisis erupted that lasted three long weeks and culminated in the sixday war. The immediate crisis was set in motion by egypt and its president nassar. Egypt reintroduced its army into the sinai. It demanded and received the withdrawal of theu. N. Force. Its forces moved closer to the israeli border. Egypt formed a military alliance with syria which had a lot to do with the instigation of the crisis with the completely bogus claim that egypt was about to attack it. Subsequently, your dan joined the alliance placing its army under egyptian command. This was a particularly painful blow to israel, jordan then ruled what is today called the west bank. The location of west bank means some places in central israel, israels width was only nine miles. The attack from this border could sever skrael and destroy its coastal cities. In the event that attack came. The encirclement of israel was complete as it had been in 48. The whole arab world was electrified by the prospect of a new war and many countries rushed to join the fray, especially iraq which sent its forces into jordan. Nassar took a final fateful step by closing the straits of teheran to israel. Nassar knew and announced it was tantamount to a declaration of war and welcomed the onset of that war confident that he would win it. Its goal was forcefully stated by president arraf of iraq. Quote, our goal is clear. To wipe israel off the face of the map. We shall god willing meet in tel aviv and hifa. Such a vision was repeated over and over by nassar and no other arab leaders and was can remember vividly available to people in the United States to hear. In israel, the government dlib rated about what to do. Anyone who thinks that it took a decision to go eventually to war lightly should just consult the record. It could have no doubts that it faced the prospect of a war of extermination. One point in the three weeks, chief of staff said its now a question of to be or not to be. But apart from making military preparations, it took no definitive decision. Some in the government hoped a peacef peaceful resolution might be found. But in that event israel might have to accept the new status quo. Egypts army on its border and could not hope that even that status quo would be maintained. Its arab enemies would conclude that israel was afraid of a fight and could still and probably would still attack sometime later at a time of their choosing. In all events, an acceptable, peaceful resolution depended upon outside parties and thus israel undertook a major diplomatic effort which lasted throughout those three weeks. For israelis in general, the long wait of three weeks grew increasingly painful. It was painful for many of those who sympathized with israel, as well. People were obliged to wonder whether they were about to witness a new holocaust. Only 20 some 20 years after the previous one. Confidence in the government faltered. Eventually to restore confidence, unity government was formed and hero of 56 was appointed minister. Minister of defense. Israeli memory, this period has its own name. The waiting. In the end, the diplomatics efforts were a total and complete failure. Israel and its 3 Million People found it faced the encirclement alone. Totally and utterly alone. Several of the arab states had the soviet union as an ally. Israel found it had no allies worthy of the name. Frances Charles De Gaulle curtly repudiated an alliance with the israel and the 1957 guarantees. A phrase at the time, 67 is not 57. Britain was sympathetic but offered no help and effectively left its own guarantees in obey yans. America, too, was sympathetic but not yet the ally it would come to be even in terms of armament. French and most of the tanks were british. The attitude of president johnson and his principle advisers was warmer than that expressed in the judgment i cited earlier, that of u. S. Ambassador smooit. But it was informed by the same cold logic augmented by cold war concerns. The possibility of a direct confrontation with the soviet union. After much consultation, the most president johnson was willing to offer were continued efforts at mediation and a warning not to begin hostilities. His repeated message was, and this is a direct quote, israel will not be alone unless it decides to go it alone. But israel regarded such a eventually regarded such a stance in the absence of real american support adds untenable and rightly so. In the end on june 5th, israel did go it alone, all alone. And prevailed all alone. In a remarkable military campaign fought on three fronts. It was a spectacular victory by every measure and there have been many descriptions of it. Let me offer one written by the wellknown historian of world war i, Barbara Tuckman. Who visited israel both before and shortly after the war. Quote, a people considered for centuries nonfighters, carried out in june against long odds the most nearly perfect military operation in modern history. Surrounded on three sides, facing vast superiority in numbers and a mount of armament, fighting alone against enemy supported and equipped by a major power, and having lost the advantage of surprise, they accomplished the rarest of military feats. Attainment of exact objectives in this case the shattering of the forces and the securing of defensible lines within a given time and with absence of blunder. Not quite what the absence of blunder but thats a longer story. Well now move to a discussion of the longterm consequences of this victory. But i would like to close with one observation about its immediate consequences for israel. At that time, and also following on. No doubt israel would have preferred a less lonely path to security, the security it achieved through that war. But having to go it alone, it proved to itself two important things. And maybe to others. That it was not a mere client state. Nor was it unviable. It had a chance if regrettably necessarily a fighting chance to be what it declares in its national anthem. To be a free people in its land. Beyond survival there is a special virtue in that and even a model in that and in the last 50 years israel has made the most of that virtue. Thank you, hillel. Thats terrific. Thanks very much. [ applause ] mike, if you would like to follow up. Thanks. Ill say a few words about the egyptian role in all 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 because everyone agrees that this is nassars war. When i say everyone, to prove that, theres the historian i dont know if youre familiar with him but hes never had a sympathetic word to say about israel and in his history of the arab israeli conflict even he cant but assign responsibility for the 67 war to nassar. And its impossible because at every stage of the conflict nassar escalated. When people were trying to borrow a phrase from president obama, offer him an off ramp. He didnt take the off ramp and he kept escalating. Thats good. And the mystery in all of this, why did he do it . Because 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 couldnt have won it. And yet, he escalated and escalated to the point where at a certain after hes remilitarized the sinai, he basically says, israel has no choice but i think we have put israel in a position where it has no choice but to attack. And so you either have to say hes totally irrational or he was playing a game that we dont understand very well. Ill just give you a couple of thoughts about what i think the game he was playing was. I think that we made this may be one of the questions people will not be able to answer. Maybe someone will answer it definitively. Its kind of a mystery that continues to intrigue me. And i think perhaps because a little bit of self interest i just wrote a book about 1956 and i think the key is 1956. I was going to mention that, also. That you have deep insight into about nassar from that period on. I have a tendency to see everything going back to 1967. Ikes gamble. Still able from book sellers. But in 56, nassar lost the war against israel but he won politically. Britain, france and israel teamed up against egypt. Defeated the Egyptian Army but the superpowers got involved and the United States in particular forced the israelis out occupied the sinai. They forced them out with minimal concessions. The concessions being the ones that nassar overturned in 67. Meaning the placement of the United Nations Emergency Force in sinai and guarantees shipping in the straits of teheran. So, i think thats the key. Thats the world in which that was nassars greatest moment. The rise of nassar as a kind of unstoppable Political Force in the arab world was 1956. America handed him this incredible political victory. And so, i think in 67 he thought he could replay 56. He thought that he could he could escalate things to such a point that even if there was a conflict with israel, he would a conflict he might not win on the ground. He bouwould still come out the political winner. So, his major miscalculation, he made two major miscalculations of 67. One of them clearly was the military miscalculation. The israelis destroyed his air force. You know . In record time. And they did it alone. So in 56 they had the french to help them. In the air. In 67, they didnt. They did it all alone. And it was as Barbara Tuckman said, a near perfect military operation. And so, they obliterated his forces so quickly that there wasnt time for the superpowers to step in and hand him a victory. You know, snatch defeat from the israelis from the jaws of the military victory. The second miscalculation he made was about the americans. Since he had encountered the americans back from when he took power in 1952, the americans had been completely allergic to association with zionism. They were afraid to be seen to be on the side of the israelis in a war against the arabs and they were very eager to distance themselves from israel. Thats what generated eisenhowers decision in 56 to roll them out of the sinai. By 67 that had changed considerably. There were still such impulses in the state department, for sure, absolutely. Mr. Smooit. Mr. Smythe. Those attitudes were well represented. I had a discussion with harald sanders once, former former Foreign Service officer who was very had been the chief of staff i believe it was to Henry Kissinger and he was among those who he was the assistant secretary for the near east at one point and saunders was among those who was very interested in maintaining good relations with nassar and believed that the u. S. Association with israel was poisoning the relations with nassar. And he told me that nassar gave a speech in 1966, i believe it was, in which he said, you know, in which was full of fire and brimstone and defiance out americans and he said a line in there and if the americans dont like it they can go drink the red sea. Right . So they can take a flying leap. And saunders said that from that moment for some reason, i dont know why, i never went to research the exact moment of that speech and why it had such an effect but saunders told me from that moment on the americans were at the highest level were done with nassar. Right . The idea he said none of us could possibly put forward a proposal to woo nassar because he had so he had so undermined his own position in washington. And that was against the background of this war in yemen. The war in yemen was a superpower proxy fight so the americans, the saudis and the yemeni royalists were on one side. And the soviets, the egyptians and the insurgents were on the other side. And yemen. And we saw it in those exactly in those in those terms. And so, when nassar blundered into this war if you will, or if you want to say he provoked this war for whatever purposes, he provoked it, the americans were not sympathetic at all and there you find something very interesting. Right when the war ends, the u. S. Comes up with you know, working with the soviets but its an american idea. Comes up with u. N. Resolution 242 and to the essence of 242 is territory for peace. This remains the basic idea to this idea about how to make peace between israel and its neighbors. And thats a i mean, its a very simple, commonsensical idea but its an thet call to the viewpoint that was dominant in washington back in 56. When it was, you know, get israel out of the sinai. In return for no concessions from nassar. We cant be seen to be using Israeli Military power to get concessions from the egyptians. That once that ideas eroded, that paves the way for the concept that you saw in the later saw in the Nixon Administration where nixon and Henry Kissinger saw Israeli Military power which was as hillel explained, you know, proved itself in 67 as an asset for the United States in the cold war where we can use it to put pressure on the allies of the soviet union and if they want to be relieved of pressure from the Israeli Military they have to come to us. Right . Soviet union cant help them with that. Only we can help with that. Now, we werent quite there in 67 but once you get to the land for peace idea, thats the israeli power is a benefit to the United States strategically and not a liability which is an incredibly important turning point. Just a couple of other thoughts about the turning point and then ill pass it over to liel. One is i mean, really as you hear me talking, saying soviet union, United States and so on, it was another world, right . Height of the cold war and this was a middle east was a proxy arena in the cold war and that world is gone. Theres Something Else that happened in 67. The biggest winner in 1967 was not the israelis. The biggest winner 1967 were the saudis. And its kind of interesting if you think about where we are where we are today. Because after 6, the arabs meet at cartume. The famous cartume pan arab summit which produced the famous three noes of cartume. No recognition of israel, no negotiations with israel and no peace with israel. That was the public slogan of cartume. Behind the scenes, the real work took place and the real work was that the egyptians made a with the saudis. They had been so defeated, so humiliated by the israelis they had to think about pulling out of yemen and cut a deal with the saudis where they agreed to end their propaganda against the saudi monarchy and the saudis to give them money. Which is marks the turning point. You know, until that moment the egyptians were egypt was the center of the arab world, the dominant power in the arab world. 67 marks the moment when the saudis sort of come into their own and the world we know today among the arabs we think of the saudis as being the leading of being the leading power. The other big change that takes place and then ill pass it to liel two others quickly. One is obviously already said it. In not so many words. This is this is effectively the end of nassarism. Nassar dies three years later. But the idea of egypt as the leader of the arab world and the leading power against the israelis, its already starting to shift here. We do have the 73 war which is, of course, a huge trauma for the israelis and many ways a greater existential threat than 67 was but 73 is interesting if you look at it from the egyptian vie point because the goal of 73 to get out of the conflict. To deal a big enough blow to israel to wake up the superpowers and make them come in to get the egyptians get out of the conflict. It wasnt to use the conflict for other purposes as the egyptians were doing in 67. It was really to get out of the conflict. Of course, we have the i dont want to be teen logical about it. You have the war of attrition and then 73 war and both of them very serious conflicts. But from an egyptian point of view you can see that something shifts dramatically in 67. And then the last point ill mike is that as the egyptians stop, move out of, you know, start thinking about how to get out of this conflict, they Start Playing up the point that this conflict at its essence is a conflict between the israelis and the palestinians. And that its a question of National Determination for the Palestinian People rather than a conflict of egypt and egyptism against imperialism and israel is an outpost for imperialism and so on and so forth. The arabbles redefine it. Which brings the plo to the fore and that leads us to the Peace Process that were familiar with from post 73 on which focuses on the palestinian issue. Thanks, mike. Thats terrific. Also, i never thought about resolution 242 as kind of being the premise of thats how the United States would eventually look at israel as a cold war asset. Thats real interesting. Thanks. Liel thank you. A round of applause. [ applause ] thanks. So, you know, as lee mentioned, my family has been in jerusalem for a while. They arrived sometime in the 50s. The 1750s. Which means mainly that, you know, jerusalem syndrome has run in the family for about nine or ten generations there so what im about to say today is going to sound i hope profoundly crazy, especially next to my two studious and serious colleagues. The first thing that i would like to say and its perhaps a tad uncharitable in an event dedicated to the colossal, historical meaning of 1967 is that 1967 actually mattered not a bit. And here is why i say that. I say that because i went to school in Telaviv University which was blishled over the ruins of three palestinian villages. That were destroyed and abandoned in 1948. And so if youre looking for some sort of Vantage Point at which to start telling some sort of meaningful story about contemporary israel, about the middle east and israels place in it, 67 seems a bit arbitrary. For that matter, 48 does, as well. Im not betting man but if i were my man would be on 1897 when the first major group of jews descended from the first ship and started the first Real Movement called the first alia to repopulate in a massive way the much too Promised Land with its previous inhabitants. I think that in a way what 67 did is provide this kind of major almost distraction. Hillel had a beautiful phrase im going to bungle and not going to try but it had to do with multilateralism. I think its provided a deeply comforting prism through which to look at this conflict because now were looking at it and we are seeing something that is solvable. Heres a problem and if only we poured enough, you know, goodwill into it, thinks john kerry before talling asleep at night, we can make this work because its two sides profoundly willing to negotiate some sort of solution. I think both people increasingly and understandably have a very different perspective. And in a sense, have always had that perspective. I think that israelis maybe looking at their neighbors and saying, well, do you remember the jeb sites and the hitatights, once mighty people and nowhere to be seen. We could wait and i think the palestinians looking at the israelis saying do you remember the ottomans and the brits . They were once mighty empire that is occupied the land, too. We could wait, too, because we have all the time in the world. I think that is a much more to use a favorite term, organic way of understanding the reality that both peoples had and in a way 67 had been this kind of major 50year detour in which everyones like, but, but this resolution and this negotiation and this process and how could we solve it. And i think we are kind of slowly, slowly climbing away from that. Interestingly enough, thats not the really crazy thing that i have to say. The really crazy thing i would like to say is sort of contradictory, of course, to the first thing. Will prove that youre crazy. Thats right. In one very, very important and nontrivial way. 67 mattered a tremendous deal. It mattered a tremendous deal because it revealed and i use, you know, i use this term in all of its i like that term. Almost theological awe. To many israelis. In a strange way, the true purpose of their National Project. Try asking today, 146 years after the resurge how many italians identify as garabaldists and look at you like what are you talking about . At the same time, an overwhelming majority of israeli joules strongly define themselves as zionists which if you think about it is almost absurd if you understand zionism as a Political Movement to reestablish a jewish homeland in the state of israel. That mission to quote another Great American thinker is accomplished, you know, sometime between 60 odd years ago or 50 years ago. That mission has been secured. Once the modern state of israel has been established, why are we still talking about ourselves as zionists . The answer that i would like to give and it has its origins in a very, very good book, almost as good as mikes which is the bible. Is is that there the mission of zionism has never been solely political. Im almost tempted to say not even mainly political. The mission of zionism has always been to fulfill. Here comes the crazy part. The messianic urgings that are at the very core of the historical thrust and religious belief that have kept jews as jews as a people. This is the reason why this kind of rag tag movement attracted people whose vision of what kind of state they would eventually establish were radically different. You had, you know, marxists who wanted this kind of, you know, utopia. You had religious jews. You had cultural jews. You had people who agreed not a lick about what type of pollty to actually come to fruition once this great big miracle occurs and yet they comfortably banded together and continue to band together under this banner. The reason for this and i will not get too philosophical here but the reason for this is because the contract, the reason for the return, the reason for the yearning always had to do not just with the establishment of a National Homeland for purposes of self definition, defense, et cetera, but rather, for the fulfillment of some deeper religious understanding, meaning that the nation did not just have to be a nation. But it had to be a perfect nation. This is why when moses sends ten spies and they return and they say, dude, not so much milk and honey. A lot of angry people who really want to kill us. Moses kills them because they failed to understand that what makes the Promised Land promised isnt some inherent quality. What makes the Promised Land promised is our ability to inhab it. And make it an exemplary place for higher type of living here on earth. And so, up until 1967, it was very easy for majority of israelis to simply ignore this notion because indeed it sounds rather untenable and rather sort of emotionally mentally unstable. Up until 1967, it was quite possible to focus on what appeared to be and indeed were i dont want to belittle them, real existential challenges of anything from strategic depth to, you know, kind of building this and i love what hillel used, continuing this experiment. 67 unleashed all that because it in a weird way removed the last barrier towards the understanding of the project. Something very, very interesting happened and it happened literally. About a week and a half after the war a host of rabbis got together in jerusalem and sort of still shaken by this great and unexpected victory and i know this because some of my relatives were literally in the room, they contemplated whether now that this miraculous occurrence is upon us it was perhaps time to change some of the prayers and classic jewish liturgy that literally speak of the destruction of jerusalem and our kind of mourning for it, whether it was time to remove some of these lines from the prayers. And they decided almost unanimously very hard for jews to do on anything, especially on things like that, that the prayers ought not to be changed because the mission had not been accomplished because the actual reunification of the city was not the end. It was the beginning. It was now time to embark on the greater project which is the project of zionism, a creation of a more and more and more and more Perfect Union that, you know, expresses itself in such platitudes like light unto the nations. And i think 67 freed a lot of people to continue and do that. And the change in Israeli Society and israeli politics has been radical. Again, were looking here at all the wrong things. The energy goes to, well, but what about the settlements . Would you move the settlements . Would they be beyond this line or line . Seizinging land . Ado accordance with the geneva conventions . These are questions people debate with but the bigger and more entry kate and interesting change is the gradual but undeniable and very, very convincing shift that a huge swath of Israeli Society has experienced in the last 50 years. I dont want to say towards religiousty because thats a highly explosive term but toward an increasing understanding that the nature of the National Project is not to build another berlin or dc or paris on the mediterranean. It is something very, very difficult. It has to do in some deeply intricate ways with jewish faith and the way we understand it. This is why you can see huge Political Parties like the jewish home that have in them both, quote on quote, judicial politicians and consecutive politicians. It is coming together over the understanding that we are trying to do something very different. We are trying to build the jewish fate and understand it as such. And 67 unleashed yearning. It has feed us to do so and the consequences of that are strangely far more outreaching them anything that i think anyone in this room can begin to fath fathom. Thats great, thanks very much. [ applause ] i want to stick with you then i want to come back. We led up to 1967, we are in the middle 1967 with mike and lee, i want to go past that and lee and i have been speaking before about this. What does it look like post. Sway as we are speaking last night and today you are saying 67, everyone understood and it was clear of what the project was and in washington and the u. S. Press, people are interested in israel and looking at israel and you know the different things, oh, is israel becoming more religious and what does it look like and is it the problem and look at all these people . You are saying that this became clear of 1967, what we are seeing now is i will leave it for you to explain and i will ask mike to describe the region and mike talked a bit about that and talk about how american policies have changed since 1967 looking at israel and the region in general. Leo, if we can stick with you for a second. You know this is something that i learned a lot from mike. If you think of american of how much our Political Energy were consumed by the cold war and how the cold war made possible alliances between parties that on the surface, you have liberals coming together over both could agree of threats that can be met. Both of these camps have to define the true essence of ideology of what we are seeing and we are seeing the outcome of that right now and this is november and grand apparatus fashion. I think something similar happened in israel. Before 1967, many parties and this is pertinent of a big american city. Here is this 19yearold nation thats attempting some sort of david verses golieth thing. It is socialist background or history roots for people who are very, very wide range of political affiliations to feel of this deep infinity towards it. Thats building huge coalitions and kind of creating these camps in support for what was understood to be of projects. When 67 occurred, thats kind of seize to be the case because then the question of israelis had to answer was a far okay, we removed the last barrier, the last kind of big military program. We are here present, what now . I think that big portions, although i think they are diminishing and dwindling daily of the israelis public. Now, we are going to create the great nation state and we are going to do it by passing laws that are widely understood, universal universally, cosmically to be in the sort of laws that nation states that are responsible and progressive pass. Wait a minute, yes, we do have Firm Commitment to democratic principles but at the same time we also have an idea that this is really is and always remain a different kind of state and in a way, all sorts of conflict that never existed before begin to bubble to the surface. Questions about, you know what is the nature of businesses on the set and questions about the role of the public life. Questions about really kind of essential issues of defining what the state ought to be or how it ought to be and that type of process and we are seeing ripples of that happening, still. That sends shock waves in much of the world and America American again, if you do believe that this is just a solution or a problem of waiving at solutions, you can advocate one or another. It is because i think the nation itself is becoming unrecognizable and in supportable to people whose identity is universalist and secular. That is a type of drama that in a way is not that different from dramas that we see everywhere from brexit to here, right . It is a question of what type of essential nation that you want to have. It is brood in israel about 50 years earlier than it did in the rest of the world. The answer is sort of one decided and one direction and now we are leaving out this drama. Thank you, fantastic. I want to go to mike for a second. Mike has a great transition. Mike written a very interesting article on partly have to do with brexit. I know you have been thinking about this for a while as well as your excellent work in the middle east, what about europe and the United States and these different ideas of nationalism and how theyre playing out, i am curious to know if israel has been an example in this way and if this is coming out of 1967, this is an instance that while part of the world is moving this way towards globalization, towards lack of borders that israel after 67 is showing one thing and now we are seeing both in europe and the United States. I would not have thought to connect up those things in this conversations but i think i can do it at the risk of i am so sorry. It is pmy fault. It is interesting. I can do it without being reductive. There are two schools of thought which goes back to america about israel. One school of thought that says israel is a strategic liability to the United States and the other one says israel is an asset. It is a liability and a central strategic issue in the middle east. And what makes it a liabili liability it is a liability because our association with israel is alienating the arabs and the muslims and the entire third world. The job of the United States is a piece of process. It is a strategically, central aspect of american policies and i think president obama if you read his comments carefully was pretty explicit about this. Our job as a Peace Process even if we dont believe that at the end of this process is going to be peace. This is the kidney nd of outrea that we do and the way we show respect of the community of nations. And behind the idea is the kind of universal idea that we say it is more secular, using the word of ruthlessruthless cosmopolita. On the other side people say israel is not a liability that it is an asset. That resonates deeply with american nationalists, right . And and evangelicals and all from the beginning of designing this project, there is been that has supported the project. 1891 of the black stone memorial. Black stone was a famous american businessman. He made a lot of money in real estate. When he made enough money to live comfortably forever, he devoted his life to jesus. He analyzed and showing the return of jesus was prophecy. That book was the best sellers for years in america. In 1891, he petitioned the president and saying the empire is crumbling and it is the job of the United States. It is the job of the United States to return the jew to the promise land. That letter was sign by ted by editor of the new york times. It was a change. The editor of the washington post. The chairman of the house, Foreign Affairs committee, jp morgan, rocker feller and Hughes Justice supreme court. So there is a strange and that may have diminished someone in america but it is still there. It is a real country. Many of you perhaps are not turning into mike hucklebee. It is still out there and politicians are aware of it. That america says that it is in the National Interest of the United States to support israel. So a lot of what we do in washington, we think of different positions that we are taking about israel are are strategic positions about, these arguments over settlements and everything are about bringing peace between israel. It is certainly that. There are also sign posts and a big cultural battle between two americans. One apart of this globalist and universal efforts and another one says america by god. If i can ask you, what did that argument looked like . The argument that mike is describing. What does it look like in washington for the last sin sincsince since 67. The argument between washington and american policymakers saying, israel is a strategic ally and a liability. What are the difference . How does that play regarding relations with arab states and Muslim States . If i may, i think i will decline okay. I think mito define the framework, to me in general overtime the Strategic Asset over the strategic liability, argument has gotten stronger and stronger partially because of many circumstances and the changes of the world and ongoing collapse of the middle east and violent has not made arrangements with the middle east to look all that attractive and therefore the fact that we are not, we are losing our chance on being cozy with people. Israel has looked less substantial. I do want to comment on a couple of things, israel and mike have said which is really quite important. And these are separate ones. Mike, i think correctly saying the crucial factor here was egypt and i think the source of nashvilles approach of what had happened in 56 for that matter and what happened in 48 when soldiers were captured during the war by the israelis army. I am not sure that he did not think the Egyptian Army and forces can win. Thats connected with no doubt, it was not completely unaware of difficulties. His confidence that he had were came from the way in which what was wrong about israel in the first place that i referred to before of the shame of 48. It was that jews have beaten arabs and muslims. The same thing happened in 56. If they did, they can take them because jews are not fighters. And, so whatever reservations he had as things went on during the crisis, everything inspired and given confidence, everyone is backing off. The defeat, first of all, it does not dispel the argument that israel always survive because it has had foreign european christians or whatever or support, it becomes more i am plausible. That as you said of the decline all together and the rise of the saudis but also and this goes along and stated and i am sure implied of the rise of the vision of what politics should be which is islamic. The last thing about is the shift of the palestinians is issues. I think it is fair to emphasize that when the arabs attack in 48 or 67. The goal was to destroy the j jewish faith and israel. Had there been so, there would have been one in 48. Had they won in 67. I think it is 1001. They would not have done what they did in 48. It created arabs would never have done it. In the west banks so it had that effect within the contours of what came to be the Palestinian Initiative of the United States. First of all, in what part i think you are krcorrect. I would say and you are also correct that the people that built israel founded israel from the 19th century on. There were great differences and they did share one thing in common. But after that, there was disagreements. My own parents were members of the far left party and i am sure that they did not and they were fairly moderate in their views and some of their friends did not see and did not have feelings with other utopians. But what they did have and i think you cannot forget that of the project have reached certain goals. The state takes on a real reality. Commonis communists fighting in 67 and 73 and so forth. They feel that. In fact, when i was in israel, i was with some friends and they were [ fire alarm going off ] what do we do . I have no idea. We do what we did in 67. Oh, you know what, they do a lot buildings and they tripped the fire alarm. Are there people still outside who want to come back in . Okay, thank you. Sorry about that. I believe it is probably construction on 12th street. The question of the observation is extremely important. Probably we cannot explore adequately here. I think there are two things that involved, and this particularly pertains to your remark about the divide between American Jews and individuals. In the course of creating this, they created a different type of pe person. This is noticeable a long time ago, it is a different type of israel personal. Israelis jews are different than other jews. It is a function of, first of all, of the experience of living in the country and also of having to answer the questions or having to answer questions, what is the mission of israel . Is it to be of the modern age or to have something distinguishly jewish about it . In the United States, you get your choice. Enlighten post modern, universalist and so forth. So, you can choose in israel thats not possible and i think, you know, i dont know how much israel is misunderstanding of this. Those are not alternative choices of israel and they have to be worked through and will be worked through overtime and perhaps of the combination of the two, in the end may look not so alien to American Jews. You talk about the creation of paris or london, really the other option is Silicon Valley and israel is effectively old religious concerning rather to that. Thats overtime that, well see what emerges from there. Yeah, did you want i saw you taking notes, did you want to respond to some of that . It is funny. I am telling, mike as t, as the rage on that in a way that i did not fully anticipate that these connections would be made. I am wondering in america, you can make a choice. It is less clear. I am wondering going solely off the coal mine inquiry theory of here. I am wondering if the rest of world actually has a choice or not. I am wondering if these collections that we are seeing now are basically the same. Being myself further on one seed seed side of this debate. I dont accept the assertion that, you know, and not as a Historical Movement but as a kind of devine charge lies or progress or things good to an efficient lies necessary with those advocating with universalists. The project got so big is that or the hurdles were removed of energy to go out is to do the kind of work that makes possible, a country that can both develop new and religious ways and it takes you from paint a to point b. Thats a huge accomplishment. I wonder to get back to the original midpoint if this tension that israelis, i agree with you completely by and large resolved is not coming at home across the board. It seems to me is the turmoil and elsewhere has a reflection and in a way of a global perspective of the idea that you are citizens of the world is nonsense and the reason for that is simple. It is just that you got a body and it sort of has to be some where and it has to have a home some where. And, that people have begun to feel that much more powerfully. What the reasons are for that, i am not entirely sure. They do feel in europe that well after all, frenchman or not europeans or journalists or rather than europeans, there is something specific about themselves and specific place where they belong. Now, if thats a trend then it is the case that israel may play some role in that development, as a healthy way of resolving these things. Yes, we are going to have modern democratic principles and certain kinds of understanding, we are also going to be living in some place and that place is our home. This regard, is it a little easier for israel to come back to the war. Yes, israelis, we cannot cross those borders and we cannot go there and it is easier. Obviously, we know the cost of that but if we are talking about i am just not sure that a lot of people and i think a lot of people feel this location and the actual dislocation but it is not clear to me that oh wait, it is globalism. Thats what these guys in washington or Silicon Valley have in miend. Yeah, that makes sense, i get it. I think a lot of people do feel the dislocation but the actual nature of someone arguing of it is i am not sure. Because we are at the beginning of those people and reflecting you are right. There is no left and right and it is globalist and patriots. Whatever information are, it is the way that people begin to feel the divide and drawn to the notion of patriots. Now, israel, this struck me being there last week and of 60,000 children are flagged down the streets are happy with the country and so forth. Thats a different thats different than the image of people having of patriotism. Before we open up for questions, i want to ask mike about since we are talking about how do i put one way and quoting le pen in one way, some way people and anywhere people . Same thing can you talk about it for a second . It seems to me across the west now. I stole this idea from david good heart and london trying to make a good sense of politics. He says it is divided now between the anywhere people. Anywhere people are well educated and engaged in profession that is they can do anywhere. If they lose their jobs they can move to paris or anywhere. They work in the media or work in Software Development and so on and so forth. Anywhere people are living in a place, they live in a place and they dont have a lot of mobility. They are less mobile and flexible. If the industry leaves their town, theyre stuck in their town with no industry. The anywhere people make up about twothirds of the population. The anywhere people run the show and our politics. I think the same thing is true of america. This is what the trumps election is. We got the anywhere people in los angeles and new york and interpreting politics in the media to the country and we have the rest of the country which is a predominantly a some where place. It is interesting how you have connected this before for this language that you have now. You have connected to this before in our conversations. You have connected and these are the kinds of people and thaeyr not just evangelicals. These are americans who tend to support israel. There is a way in which americans project their own fight about the character of america and onto the world of israel. If you take a position onto israel, you are taking on the position of the United States. Thats why fox news, thats why sarah palin when he was the governor of alaska, she had an israelis flag on her inner office. Thats not because she had a lot of jewish donors. It is sitting there of six jews in alaska. They have their own frozen chosen. [ laughter ] recently i was driving welcome for mike setting you up for that. You owe him. In the middle of nowhere in texas and off the highway and on the hill, there was a shaft with this huge flag pool and le and top was a flag. I guarantee you that was not a jew that was living out there. You have the university who are profoundly uncomfortable with israel. The first academic organizations to vote in favor of the United States was not the middle east study associations. It was the american studies. These are people that study, you know, the transgender, Truck Drivers and latino transgender and Truck Drivers. This is how you get ahead in america. If i put a map of israel in front to identify the guys, and the jews cannot even find it. It is an exaggeration. Some of them could find it. Theyre not talking about israel. Theyre talking about america. The amazing thing is to get back to what you both said. It is very hard to be anywhere when you turn like a border and telling uhyou oh no, absolutel not. Thats what i meant. You cannot cross that border. No. It makes the whole thing unpredictable. People have a positive yield of israel and whether they feel that they have to defend it. Israel, thats just a situation but i would say on the whole, israel trying to make a virtual virtual of necessity. Your country is under attack and you dont have to serve as soldier and so forth. That may come to an end and there is a lot of reasons. You mean that area for the rest of the world. Yeah. And theres parts thats gotten us used to thinking and so forth. Part of the relationship between United States and israel have something to do with the fact that some americans think they have to defend it themselves and quite a few other people. So that is a very different out look on some where or anywhere issue. We are going to run a few minutes late because of the fire alarm and in the meantime, lets take a few questions. I saw if you can if someone with a microphone can come down to the isle here. The woman right here. If you can identify yourself. I am from the george policy center. I would like to go back to the work. I was surprised to hear the word land for peace, two for two does not say that, it inverts the process. T spr interestingly the only two countries that did that was the countries of peace to israel. They have to give and you make boundaries. I am wondering if you want to end the 67 war which has not end it. Dont you have to go back . Mike, since you raised the issue, would you like t to to it is very interesting of the idea of the 67 war has not ended. Mike, if you will . I see it differently. I dont think the 48 war has ended. I think that it is too early to tell. There is an effort to define the conflict of a specific way and there are a lot of people for a whole host of reasons and they see it that way. I am talking about the arab world and there is a lot of others who dont. You only need to listen to what what the iranians say or the syrians say or his followers to see the alliances of 1948 are not really the issue. I dont know that this diplomatic formula or that formula is a key to bring about peace. It is a larger problem of the non acceptance of israel in the land. There is a gentleman over here so if you can hold on one second and if you would wait for the microphone. If you would stand and identify yourself, please. Abraham. Thank you for this service and your service. 50 years ago, i happened to serve the honorable lieutenant of the air force. Sorry, if you can keep it to a question that you direct at someone, thatll move a lot easier. Two oppositions . How about one opposition. The countries are being under sieged of becoming a regional super power for the war. The country doubled the population by 2 Million People of the size of country quadrupled and their mood change of anxiety. And finally, the contribution of the airport started on monday, june the 5th. 340 egyptian planes were skr destroyed on the ground and after that, the air force working around the clock. I am sorry, i really need to move onto another question, thanks very much. Gentleman in the back, doug. Hi, i am a fellow here at hudson. You raised, all of you discussed the change in attitude towards israel after 67, israel was treated in the United States very favorably at the time of the war. It was a romantic celebration of israels victory in american magazines. I remember as a kid, your life magazine having big spreads celebrating israelis victory. That attitude obviously changed radically, rather quickly after the 67 war. There was also and as mike was highlighting. The general idea that the arabs israelis conflict of the arab state verses israel that rather soon transform to view that the conflict fundamentally between israelis and palestinian. I am wondering if you can just reflect a little bit and i would be interested in your thoughts on your how and why those transformations the way the world, americans in particular but the world until general view the arabs of israelis conflict and the nape ture of the confli and who israel is fighting. Why did it happen and when did it happen and i am interested in your thoughts on the transformation. Mike, if you can answer that quickly, i want to see if we can get to one more question. I dont think it happens that quickly. It certainly has not happened completely. I think as mike said before, a lot of the fighting about israel in the end turns out to be a fight of ourselves, us americans. It has a lot to do with the development of riding the left overtime in this country, especially the left. Thats clearest every year now and every four years now of the Democratic Party conventional and resolutions supported israel cannot get back at all. So, really much more than what anything that happened in particular of israel. The one big thing was, of course, the oil stock in th the 70s. Thats pretty much going off. Mike . I see two big trends. The one that i mention, the arab state and not just egypt, they want to disengage. It is too costly for them. 67 showing the egyptians that israelis can really cause them a lot. Shutting it down is a huge economic. That goes beyond just the egyptian. They want to disengage. And say oh, it is their conflict and not ours. It is not a total engagement but it is apart of this disengagement. This is a saavy calculation behind this. That has to do with the shift in the west and attitude in the west in particular of the United States as a result of the vietnam war. Because if you think of carters speech at notre dame after he was elected, whats the interpretation . The carter interpretation of the vietnam war is that this is a war of National Deliberation of the United States which the republicans and mere vision the International Politics between good and evil and the United States and communism, war of nationalism as a fight between the United States and soviet union and we militaryize our Foreign Policy and spending our blood and treasure for what . If we were to realize that it was a problem of nationalism, we could have worked with the soviets and come to an agreement and everything is fine. That template is the template of the american elites. The Carter Administration is looking at global politics. We have been too muscular and the arabs recognized that and they put the po forward. So you find the Carter Administration coming in, immediately on day one with two absolute firm convictions. One is that the palestinians of Self Determination and of the core of the conflict. Number two, we have to work with them and well have a general conference and the two of them are going to sit down together. Leil. Okay. So well have time for the gentleman right here and the blue jacket right there and yellow. Thank you, my question is moving past the 67 war, and looking forward today. Things are a lot different, we have israel is a original Power Military economically and democracy and then you have the Trump Administration and iran so if we can start looking forward now. Whats the global strategic sort of view maybe, mike, if you can address that. Why dont we do a speed round here before our final question. Mike, would you like to kickoff the speed round. And i do mean speed round giving you 45 seconds leil is going to get a minute and a half. You threw me off on my game. Sorry. If you think about what i just said nixon to carter, you can map it on bush to obama. Obama came in and militarized our Foreign Policy and engaged in war and we need to pull back, Peace Process. Thats the key way that we showed the rest of the world that we went to find Diplomatic Solutions without nasty muscular men. The hybrid between bush and obama, what trump said in the campaign was i am going to give you more with less. I am going to give you more than president obama gave you and i am womening illing to use milite and flex americas muscles. I am going to do it less than what george bush did. George bush got us involved in with all these initiatives. Not me, i am going to focus on narrow, National Interests. So you find there is a tension in the Trump Administration, the narrow nationalists people are thinking like obama pulling back. They want Peace Process and they want and they are weary of this. I got to cut you off. I think you are mostly in a way asking about iran. Iran will get a bomb unless someone stops them. If they get a bomb then well have not only have further proliferation. Leil . I have a little to add on the physical sense. On the medical physical sense, i think things are changing and they are changing dramatically. To answer his first question, i think thats part of the problem is we have spent 50 years looking for, hoping that if we can only construct and define the competence and the correct way and only construct some sort of framework for reconciliation around the corner. I think we are moving away from that. Israel is moving away from that politically which is why you are seeing rise of Political Force there thats unimaginable there. In an interesting way that it would open really new and hopeful coalition of people around the world and not necessarily here but it is between israel and china. It has to do with that similar way of seeing and understanding of the longterm interest and to me thats a dramatic hopeful change, i think a lot of what we have seen courtesy of last president propelled us into an era and the chances of the collaborations and certainly the egyptian is interesting to say the least and so there is a lot of reasons to be hopeful. There is none of the reasons that we would have imagined five years ago. Leil, mike and thank you everyone. Thank you. [ applause ] tonight live coverage of this years congressional baseball game. 26 democrats and 33 republicans are expected to take part after yesterdays shooting during a republican practice in alexandr alexandrias shooting. It starts at 7 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan with the first pitch at 7 05. Early today, nancy pelosi, held her briefings at the capitol. She said today is not the day to have a conversation. Here is a look. Of the understanding that it is the time for prayers and the others. Could you comment on the possibility that this incident could be used against democrats or Democratic Party politically because the assailant was mow vaccinated by some kind of antirepublican sentiments. We have well, i think your question is an excellent one. I think the comments made by my republican colleagues are outrageous, beneath dignity of the job that they hold and of the respect we would Like Congress to command, how dare they say such a thing . How dare though . I cannot get into the whole thing. Probably as we sit here, theyre running caricatures of me. And threats in front of my grandchildren. I mean, really . Predicated on their comments and paid ads. This sick individual does something despicable and it was horrible for what he did and hateful. The sanctimony of it all, instead of being prayerful about all of this, that they would start saying, lets have this conversation another day, okay . And that was just part of what House Minority leader nancy pelosi had to say earlier today during her briefing with reporters at the capitol. You can see her entire briefing later on our schedule or at any time online at cspan. Org. This weekend book tv on cspan2 features a Panel Discussion on race in america on saturday, 5 00 p. M. Eastern, moderated by april ryan, Washington Bureau chief for American Urban Networks and author of the presidency in black and white. These two ladies right here, i remember being a young lady watching them march for us, talk for us, when we didnt have voices, and just basically let them know we count, we matter, at a time when many of us are not at the table. What did Shirley Chisolm say, when you dont have a seat at the table, bring a folding chair. Also wesley lowery, author of they cant kill us all, and julian malvo, author of are we better off. On sunday, David Mccullough speaks with former news anchor and journalist Charles Gibson about his collection of speeches on american principles. I began to think about the great president s down the years who have been avid readers of history, many of them wrote history, including john kennedy, and even those who didnt have the benefit of a College Education like harry truman read history all their lives. And realized that its essential to the role of a leader, whether its the presidency or leadership of any kind, not cause and effect. History matters. Go to booktv. Org for the complete weekend schedule. Sunday night on after words, utah republican senator mike lee talks about forgotten historical figures, interviewed by the acting solicitor general. They come to you gradually, i asked friends and other people i knew who they thought should get more credit than they get. And in the case of kanasataga, this was an indian chief who understood the principle of federalism because they lived it for centuries before we were our own country. I was intrigued because his is not a name that most americans know anything about. Yet he had a profound impact on our system of government. Hes the guy who enabled Benjamin Franklin to learn about federalism. Benjamin franklin was the conduit through which the rest of it flowed through our founders and made its way into the constitution. Watch sunday night, 9 00 p. M. Eastern, on cspan2s book tv. Earlier this month Stanford University held a conference to address the future of section 702 of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. We heard mostly about section 7 of the act, including section 702, which gives the Government Authority to monitor foreign citizens to gather foreign intelligence. This is about 40 minutes. Good afternoon, everybody. Ill give you a