interests, although we do both seek a region where families and children can live free from the threat of violence. it's not simply because we face common dangers, although there can be no denying that terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons are grave threats to both our nations. america's commitment to israel's security flows from a deeper place, and that's the values we share. as two people who struggled to win our freedom against overwhelming odds, we understand that preserving the security for which our forefathers and foremothers fought must be the work of every generation. as two vibrant democracies, we recognize that the liberties and freedoms we cherish must be constantly nurtured. and as the nation that recognized the state of israel moments after its independence, we have a profound commitment to its survival as a strong, secure homeland for the jewish people. we also know how difficult that search for security can be. especially for a small nation like israel, living in a very tough neighborhood, i've seen it firsthand. when i touched my hand against the western wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, i thought of all the centuries that the children of israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland. when i went and saw the daily struggle to survive in the eyes of an 8-year-old boy who lost his leg to a hamas rocket and when i walked among the hall of names, i was reminded of the existential fear of israelis when a modern dictator seeks nuclear weapons and threatened to wipe israel off the face of the map, face of the earth. because we understand the challenges israel faces, i and my administration have made the security of israel a priority. it's why we've increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels. that's why we're making our most advanced technologies available to our israeli allies. it's why despite tough fiscal times we've increased foreign military financing to record levels. and that includes additional support beyond regular military aid for the iron dome anti-rocket system. a powerful example of american/israeli cooperation. a powerful example of american/israeli cooperation which has already intercepted rockets from gaza and helped save israeli lives. so make no mistake. we will maintain israel's qualitative military edge. you also see our commitment to our shared security and our determination to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. here in the united states, we've imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the iranian regime. and at the united nations, under our leadership, we've secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime which have been joined by allies and partners around the world. today iran is virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system. and we're going to keep up the pressure. so let me be absolutely clear, we remain committed to preventing iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. its illicit nuclear program is just one challenge that iran poses. as i said on thursday, the iranian government has shown its hypocrisy by claiming to support the rights of protesters while treating its own people with brutality. moreover, iran continues to support terrorism across the region. including providing weapons and funds to terrorist organizations. so we will continue to work to prevent these actions. and we will stand up to groups like hezbollah who exercise political assassination and seek to impose their will through rockets and car bombs. you also see our commitment to israel's security and our steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize the state of israel. as i said of the united nations last year, israel's existence must not be a subject for debate and efforts to chip away at israel's legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the united states. so in the durbin review conference against anti-israel sentiment, we withdrew. in the wake of the goldstone report, we stood up strongly for israel's right to defend itself. when an effort was made to insert the united nations into matters that should be resolved through direct negotiations between israelis and palestinians, we vetoed it. and so in both word and deed, we have been unwavering in our support of israel's security. and it is precisely because of our commitment to israel's long-term security that we have worked to advance peace between israelis and palestinians. now, i have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties. and i indicated on thursday that the recent agreement between fatah and hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. no country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its disruption. and we will continue to demand that hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace including recognizing israel's right to exist and rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements. and we once again call on hamas to release a prisoner who has been kept from his family for five long years. and yet no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. the status quo is unsustainable. and that is why on thursday i stated publicly the principles that the united states believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict and all claims. the broad outlines of which have been known for many years and have been the template for discussions between the united states, israel and the palestinians since at least the clinton administration. i know that stating these principles on the issues of territory and security generated some controversy over the past few days. i wasn't surprised. i know very well that the easy thing to do, particularly for a president preparing for re-election, is to avoid any controver controversy. i don't rahm to tell me that. i don't need axelrod to tell me that. but i said to prime minister netanya netanyahu, i believe that the current situation in the middle east does not allow for procrastination. i also believe that real friends talk openly and honestly with one another. so i want to share with you some of what i said to the prime minister. here are the facts we all must confront. first, the number of palestinians living west of the jordan river is growing rapidly. and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both israel and the palestinian territories. this will make it harder and harder without a peace deal to maintain israel as both a jewish state and a democratic state. second, technology will make it harder for israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace. third, a new generation of arabs is reshaping the region. a just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two arab leaders. going forward, millions of arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained. and just as the context has changed in the middle east, so, too, has it been changing in the international community over the last several years. there's a reason why the palestinians are pursuing their interests at the united nations. they recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process or the absence of one. not just in the arab world. in latin america, in asia and in europe. and that impatience is growing, and it's already manifesting itself in capitals around the world. those are the facts. i firmly believe -- and i repeated on thursday -- that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. no vote at the united nations will ever create an independent palestinian state x a, and the united states will stand up against efforts to single israel out at the united nations or in any international forum. israel's legitimacy is not a matter for debate. that is my commitment. that is my pledge to all of you. moreover, we know that peace demands a partner, which is why i said that israel cannot be expected to negotiate with palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist. and we will hold the palestinians accountable for their actions. and for their rhetoric. but the march to isolate israel internationally and the impulse of the palestinians to abandon negotiations will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. and for us to have leverage with the palestinians, to have leverage with the arab states and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success. and so in advance of a five-day trip to europe in which the middle east will be a topic of acute interest, i chose to speak about what peace will require. there was nothing particularly original in my proposal. this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties including previous u.s. administrations. those questions have been raised. let me repeat what i actually said on thursday. not what i was reported to have said. i said that the united states believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent palestinian borders with israel, jordan and egypt and permanent israeli borders with palestine. the borders of israel and palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. the palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their potential in a sovereign and contiguous state. as for security, every state has the right to self-defense. and israel must be able to defend itself by itself against any threat. provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism to stop the infiltration of weapons and to provide effective border security. and a full and phased withdrawal of israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign and nonmilitarized state and the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated. now, that is what i said. it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion's share of the attention including just now. and since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps means. by definition, it means that the parties themselves, israelis and palestinians, will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on june 4th, 1967. that's what mutually agreed upon swaps means. it is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. it allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. it allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. the ultimate goal is two states for two people. israel as a jewish state and the homeland for the jewish people and the state of palestine as the homeland for the palestinian people. each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition and peace. if there is a controversy, then, it's not based in substance. what i did on thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. i've done so because we can't afford to wait another decade. or another two decades or another three decades to achoiee peace. the world is moving too fast. the world is moving too fast. the extraordinary challenges facing israel will only grow. delay will undermine israel's security. and the peace with the israeli people deserve. now, i know that some of you will disagree with this assessment. i respect that. and as fellow americans and friends of israel, i know we can have this discussion. ultimately, it is the right and the responsibility of the israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed. and as a friend of israel, i'm committed to doing our part to see that this goal is realized. i will call not just on israel but on the palestinians, on the arab states and the international community to join us in this effort because the burden of making hard choices might not be israel's alone. but even as we do all that's necessary to ensure israel's security, even as we are clear-eyed about the difficult challenges before us, and even as we pledge to stand by israel through whatever tough days lie ahead, i hope we do not give up on that vision of peace. for if history teaches us anything, if the story of israel teaches us anything, it is that with courage and resolve, progress is possible. peace is possible. it teaches us that so long as a person still has life, they should never abandon faith. that lesson seems especially fitting today. so long as there are those across the middle east and beyond who are standing up for the legitimate rights and freedoms which have been denied by their governments, the united states will never aband understand our support for those rights that are universal. and so long as there are those who long for a better future, we will never abandon our pursuit of a just and lasting peace that ends this conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. this is not idealism. it is not naivety. it is a hard-headed recognition that a genuine peace is the only path that will ultimately provide for a peaceful palestine as the homeland of the palestinian people and a jewish state of israel as the homeland of the jewish people. that is my goal. and i look forward to continuing to work with aipac to achieve that goal. thank you. god bless you. god bless israel. and god bless the united states of america. thank you. ♪ >> president obama just wrapping up his speech to aipac, the american/israel public affairs committee. this a speech not going back on anything he said on thursday but further explaining it and why he wants to set the 1967 pre-war borders with land swaps as a basis for israeli/palestinian peace talks. bringing in our matthew chance now, the president spent about half his speech essentially saying our commitment to israel's security is ironclad. and the other half of his speech explaining what he meant by his 1967 border statement and what it means, i got a huge sense of urgency from him about now is israel's time to act. is there that same urgency in israel? what will they hear from this speech? >> reporter: well, i think they'll hear those two things you just pointed out. first and foremost, these reassurances that the israeli government and israeli people, in general, will be looking for at this speech, reassurances that the bonds between the united states and israel are still strong. he described them as unbreakable, some reassurances that the united states would not jeopardize israeli security and that, of course, is the main concern of ordinary israelis. it's the main concern of israeli politicians as well. president obama going on, though, to restate that belief, that proposal that he made earlier in his speech about the region that the 1967 borders, the pre-'67 borders should be used as a basis of the two-state solution is absolutely right, that this is something that's been proposed privately for many years. it's been discussed by all the parties for many years. and he simply restated it publicly and for the first time adopted it as washington's official position. and so that's something he attempted to explain here. but there are a number of nuances that i've noticed. first and foremost, he stayed away from this idea that withdrawing to those '67 borders should be the basis of negotiations. that's been something that's been very controversial here in israel. israelis who support that idea only want to see it as part of a final status agreement. there's a lot of concern that a withdraw to the '67 borders could be an interim agreement. that's something of concern. he's not said anything either that's going to appease prime minister netanyahu who's already said he's opposed to this concept delivered by president obama on thursday. back to you. >> thank you very much, matthew chance, for joining us me. "state of the union" will have much more analysis of the president's aipac speech starting at noon eastern including an exclusive interview with israel's ambassador to the united states, michael oren. we'll also get reaction from the chief palestinian representative to the u.s. now, a reminder that "fareed zakaria gps" can be seen in its entirety at 1:00 p.m. eastern. again, with my thanks to matthew chance, up next, "reliable sources" with howard kurtz. there's a lot of talk, much of it justified, about how the media have gone tabloid. but sometimes, as we're reminded this week, there's a tabloid world to cover. arnold schwarzenegger admits to fathering a child with a household worker, a story he kept out of the press for more than a decade. we'll have the only national television interview with the "l.a. times" reporter who broke the news. and this question, should the media now give maria shriver and her family some privacy? in politics, nutd gingrich's campaign in a tailspin after a "met the press" interview and donald trump mesmerizingly choosing "the apprentice" over presidential politics. and mitch daniels, the favorite candidate among elite columnists not running for president. i'm howard kurtz, and this is "reliable sources." the first scoop in "the los angeles times" was big enough. arnold schwarzenegger and maria shriver splitting up just months after he stepped down as governor. but that was a mere prelude to the bombshell that he fathered what the tabloids call a love child. that story, of course, exploding across the media landscape. plenty of questions ahead. but first, mark barriback broke storys. i spoke to him earlier from san francisco. mark, welcome. >> hi, howard. >> let's take a look at your reporting on this story. when you called the former housekeeper, she denied that this was arnold schwarzenegger's baby. she said it was her husband at the time who was the father of this child. at that point did you consider not publishing the story? >> no. at that point we knew the story was dead-on factual. we would not have gone and knocked on her door. we would not have put in calls to governor schwarzenegger or ms. shriver if we didn't know that it was true. we were not at that point setting out to confirm anything. and i want to take just a second to say, you give credit for my story, this was very much a team effort. there was a group of reporters at the paper who worked on it. i want to see that they get credit as well. so, again, we did not set out to contact the woman or anybody to confirm or to deny or to substantiate. we knew the story was true when we reached out to these people, we were ready to go to press. all we were looking at that point was some reaction and some comment. >> and so the fact that the key person involved was saying to you no, this was not his baby, you felt you had enough evidence from your other sources that you were absolutely confident the story was true? >> absolutely unequivocally. we knew it to be -- as sure as i'm sitting here talking to you, we knew it to be true. >> and if the former governor had not issued a statement to "the los angeles times" acknowledging paternity, would you still have published the story? >> you know, i'm going to sound like a politician here, that's a hypothetical. we knew it to be true. we would have dealt with that if it had happened. we also reached out simultaneously to ms. shriver. you know, again, a hypothetical. it didn't come to that pass. you know, when we called the governor and his folks again, we said, we're not looking for any sort of confirmation. we're giving you a statement. i want to give them cred