Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140308

Come to israels aid if survival at risk, but use american leverage to get a twostate solution, and we suggest a powerful proisrael lobby would be a good thing if its supporting smarter policies that were in americas and israels interest. We were not saying anything other countrier had not said before. People like george ball, michael, and what we wrote was also exon knowledge inside the beltway. Bill clinton said apack was, quote, better than anyone else lobbying in this town. Politicians as diverse as lee hamilton, chris clollings, barry goldwater, and Newt Gingrich had written or spoken about the power in the past. Even passionate defenders of israel like Jeffrey Goldberg had written proudly about clout. We provoked an extreme reaction, partly because we provided more depails about the lobbys influence, and partly because we were both rather middle of the road boring figures from wellknown universities, partly because we were not left wing, we were not muslim, not arab, not married to palestinians, and partly because it was obvious in the wake of 9 11 and the iraq war that something had gone badly awry in u. S. Middle east policy. Now issue turning to what we didnt say. The rather hysterical reaction to the work confirmed our point. It was difficult to have a calm reasoned fact based discussion on the topic because most of our critics could not fine fault with our logic or fault with our elfed. They accused us of saying things we have not said, and in most cases, things that were the exact opposite of what we had written. Im not going to bore you with false accusations, but just for the record, heres what we did not say. We did not say that the israel lobby was a conspiracy part of a deep plot to control the world, and, informs, we said over and over it was nothing of the sort, but an Interest Group like so many others here. We did not question the legit legitimacy or right to exist, but defended it. We didnt blame israel for all the problems that troubled the middle east, and with didnt say that a northerly relationship with israel and a twostate solution would immediately solve all of them. We said it would help, but it was not a magic bullet or anything like that. We did not say the lobby controlled every aspect of u. S. Middle east policy or argued that it was the only reason the United States invaded iraq or has a bad relationship with iran. We did not accuse members of the lobby of disloyalty or either argued or hinted that some students should be done to limit the lobbys political power or marginalize supporters. Finally, we did not connect israel or the lobby to the 9 11 attacks themselves. We didnt say these things because we didnt think they were true; right . Thats important. We were accused of saying all of the things, of course, and people in the lobby made repeated and sometimes successful efforts to silence us, virtually every plaices we were invited to speak said they were pressuredded to cancel appearances, and a number of places, the chicago counsel on global affairs, google headqawrpts, the City University of new york, succumbed to the pressure, and campaign to silence us fail, book sold well, translated to over 20 languages, and john and i remained active participants in the debate on this and other Foreign Policy issues. The real question is what impact did this have . That whainged . What hasnt . I think the most dray maltic and obvious change since 2006 has been an opening up of discourse on the general topic. Discussions of middle east policy and u. S. Israeli relations are open, wider range of views expressed. Some evidence behind the claim. Tom friedman, roger cohen, and Andrew Sullivan write openly, and at times, critically about israeli policy, about american support for that policy, and the lobbys role in promoting it. Theres pieces that sound like us, although i doubt hed admit it. Articles about americas middle east policy in general mention apacks influence, its just no longer a big secret or stuck in the background of the peace. John stuart, you watch comedy central, hes done a number of segments that is making fun of apack as well. Looks like peter bineharts crisis of zionism, transforming the israel lobby, the recent genesis followed in our footsteps documented the role of the lobby in u. S. Policy. Other people like mj rosenberg emerged as articulate critics, and Max Bloomenthal published,s of israel eu9s. Websites now provide alternative per perspectives, and groups like jewish for peace and peace now and many others have become more visible and effective in presenting a view to the traditional lobby organization. Now, note, these groups are not homogeneous, they do in the all agree on every single issue. My point is simply theres a much wider range of views out there now, and they are getting notice. This development is, of course, not entirely our doing because a number of events in the real worlds have made the lobbys power hard to miss. The complete failure of Barack Obamas push for the two half state solution in the first term, crazen american response to operation led including the american trashing of the goldstone report. The spectacle of the 2012 election when the g. O. P. Candidates looked like fools trying to out pander each other in the g. O. P. Primary season and where adelson spent a hundred Million Dollars trying to buy the election, first for Newt Gingrich and then mitt romney. Because discourse was open and people were not aware of the lobby, people noticed them and put two an two together. The accusation of semitism is losing power to intimidate, and let me be clear about this, like all forms of bigotry, antisemitism is a dispickble practice, and everyone of us should condemn it when it appears. At the same time, using false charges of antisemitism to stifle debate and destroy reputations is a tactic that has no place in the democracy and people who use it in that way should be called into account. I think [applause] fortunately, this tactic has been so overused and used against so many people who are obviously not antisemitism, its no longer able to stifle discussion, and thats going to make it easier to have an honest conversation going forwards. The third change is that some of the policies, the lobby promoted, are increasingly hard to defend. Instead of a weak israeli surrounded by hostile arab goliath, theres a powerful israel maintaining a brutal occupation for more than four decades using its military power to dominate the palestinian population denied Political Rights. Apac and other groups lost several important fights in recent years. They could not convince the Bush Administration to use force against iran or support on Israeli Attack on iran. They could not derail the nomination of chuck hagel to be secretary of defense, yet groups tried to do so in ugly ways. Earlier this year, they could not convince obama to bomb syria, and more recently, apac could not get the senate to pass a resolution threatening greater economic sanctions on iran because it was widely recognized this would immediately derail possibility of a diplomatic deal. These episodes remind us that the lobby does not control u. S. Middle east policy, does not get every single thing it wants, especially when what it wants might push the United States closer to war. Thats a lot for any lobby to ask for, and it takes very special circumstances to hold Something Like that off. The events, i think, tell us that apac and company are not invincible. Now, those setbacks have let a number of observers to conclude apac in deep trouble, lobby influence broken, and let me say why its premature because theres a number of things that have not changed. First of all, special relationship is still in tact. We still give generous assistance even though israels a wealthy country and has clear military superiority over the neighbors, and we give aid unconditionally, theres no hint we might reduce our existence to get israel to stop building settlements to a viable state. Second, thats, of course, why the Peace Process continues to go nowhere. Remember, obama came into office promising a twostate solution in his first term and called for a settlement freeze in his famous cairo speech in june 2009. Hes been in steadfast retreat ever since, and he basically gave up on this in the first term handing the problem over to john kerry. But theres little evidence that kerrys efforts succeed,s settlements expanding all the while. It was noticed, by the way, a twostate solution may well be impossible at this point, but politicians in the District Of Columbia tonight to pretend it is the only american goal. Im a twostate person nyce, but im also a realist, and at some appointment, when one acknowledges the possibility were not going to gets a solution. Third, the lobby still gets enormous deference from american politicians. A few weeks ago, the left wing progressive mayor of new york city, bill deblasio was recorded telling an apac group that defending israel was part of the Job Description as mayor of new york city. If you were paying attention, earlier this week, a number of prominent american politicians, incoming secretary of state kerry, they gave usual flower speeches at the apac policy conference, and even today, theres no other groups to get to this kind of deference and attention here in washington. Discourse is more open now, it is still, i think, extremely risky for young, ambitious, Foreign Policy wanttobees to question key elements of middle east policy and especially the special relationships. You can did you have tenure at university. If you dont have your heart set on working in the u. S. Government, or if you are retired, but its hazard hard to find people inside the Foreign Policy establishment willing to say what you say on the issue out loud, and look at how chuck infamous power contorts themselves during the con confirmation hearing, and you see lobbies continued influence. Were a long way from a deal with iran or a twostate solution, and the lobby is working 24 7 to make sure that the United States doesnt do anything israel doesnt want. In short, reports smiezed reports were exaggerated, and given the fact and what to do about it. Lets give you four basic lessons here. Theres all the features that make an Interest Group powerful, and it yewses all the tools availability in a democracy, direct lobbying, financial contributions, grassroots organizing, pressure oned media, ect. There is nothing magical, nothing conspirator yal about this. They are all too influn enissue because they have not faced strong and well organized oppositions, and if they face greater head winds today, say on iran, its because others are starting to play that political game more effectively. Lesson two, its going to get worse before it gets better. The lobbys main goal is protecting the special relationship, and thats going to be harder to do as israel moves right where and as it becomes obvious is this is not a twostate solution. The control over the west bank is recognized more and more as a par tide, and pressure to give the palestinians Political Rights is going to grow, and one person, one vote is easy for americans to understand, and if you saw the poll, they favor a two state solution no longer favorable, and they favor onestate democracy. Getting the United States to back up states privileges one ethnic or religious group over others is a hard sell over time, and to try to make that sell, groups like apac have to do more to try to influence discourse, discredit critics, but the more strient, the more turned off over time. Lesson three, be realistic and build a big tempt. Reversing policies that have been in place for decades does not happen overnight, and you dont do it by writing a single article or book. What one needs is a big tent for people who want a normal relationship with israel and a middle east policy that conforms to a broad conception of the American National interests. That does not mine that every in the room has to agree on everything. Israel lobby is a loose Coalition United by a couple shared goals, and we should take a page from their play book while making sure our ranks are not filled with those who sow hatred or discredited conspiracy theories. If we write the book today, how might it be different . Well, it would have to be a lot longer. [laughter] a lot of information came to light since 2007 and argue the entire Obama Administration is case study of the lobbys continued influence, so, you know, we have to do volume ii, just as long as the First Edition was. To be honest, john or i would not change our central arguments at all because events since 20062007 have vindicated almost all of what we wrote. To repeat, we wrote the book to encourage an open discussion of the issues because we thought a more open debate brings a lot of additional truth to light and would be better for everybody in the ends. I think so thats precisely what has happened we do not take credit for it. I want to close thanks those of you who worked for many years long before we got into this to counter the lobbys argument and hasten the day when the relationship is guided primarily by interests and moral principles and not by domestic politics. When that day arrives, its better for us, but also better for israel and also neighbors as well. Thank you very much. [applause] wars, terrorism, oil, and with regards to the u. S. Israeli relationship, i charted the process using british and u. S. Archives becoming engaged and alive with israel from the declaration until the obama presidency. The book was published in 2010. Well, in the beginning, there was woodrow wilson. He had the declaration under political pressure from Supreme Court justice who was the american born son of chuck jews and president of the American Committee for zionist affairs. Wilson initially opposed the declaration because it contravenedded his own 14 points, particularly his emphasis on national selfdetermination, and, of course, roving around the middle east in the Crane Commission surveying 260 communities in palestine, none of whichmented jewish settlers or european powers defining their affairs, but be an american mandate because the u. S. Would never let anybody else run our affairs, but just let the majority rule. They showed wilson he gained politically supporting a jewish state. Between 1900 and 1914, a hundred thousand European Jewish immigrants came into the u. S. Every year, settled in compacts and in crucial cities like new york, chicago, cleveland, st. Louis, and senatety, and anyone who wanted to dominate the Electoral College needed these places. As the Second World War wound down, fdr struggle with the question of palestine. Theres the jewish settlers, refugees, and increasing the Jewish Population from a small amount to 30 of the total by 1945. Now, fdr did not worry about palestine that much because he had bigger things to worry about at the time, but he worry the about palestine because the king of saudi arabia worried and planned to make the oil reserve after the war, and he met with the king on the u. S. And the s org ez canal, attorney, one of the things that fdr said afterwards, i cant understand why he keeps going back to the subject of pal palestine. At the same time, reminded by a new york paper in 1945, and they would be in the review, and entitled to votes while only 266 elected for president. Whether its one party or the other will make a difference in 94 votes. Now, the same dynamic provailed in the other key battleground states of the time which were new york, ohio, new jersey, and massachusetts. They may swing to one party or another by a few thousand votes, and they are concentrated in doubtful states, end quote. They got the message loud and clear. Secretary of state, burns and marshall, and secretary of state, monitored and chabled by jacobson and max who they called the back room boys in the white house, and George Marshall trying to build a big cold War Coalition around the world saying this would weaken the coalition, rude, as he put it, the political purposes of the back room, and for their part, niles scorned the stripe participant boys in the state department and the Defense Department and showed them the mess. There are 5 million jews in america, 20fold increase since the 1880s and organized in pressure groups like the pressure groups of american zionist and Jewish Committee and vote. The back room boys demanded a House Cleaning and an appointment of somebody trustworthy on palestine matters. People at state are really pitching things up. He agreed saying critics, im sorry, gentlemen, but i have to answer to the hundreds of thousands anxious for zionism, and i dont have hundreds of thousands arabs amongst my con stitch wents, take k the portfolio away, and gave it to clark clifford, and niles, and it would be managed for domestic, political Dividend Strategy be damned. Lloyd henderson dismissed two arabists by the zionist lobby and sent off to be the am ambassador to india. Marshall told the president he was weakening the u. S. Globally by the support for zionist and marshall and he understanderson were for arab states in palestine. Truman in the back room boys wanted partition with the best areas, 55 of the total plan that to the jews. Which would, of course, explain arabs in any cold Car Coalition against the soviets. U. S. Policy marshall scolded the president , has to be based on u. S. National interest and not on your considerations. Three days before the british scud l in 48, marshall spoke the sharpest rebuke delivered to the president in the oval office when he told truman he was putting the great office of the president at risk by supporting the zionist against the arab majority of palestine. The president , marshall said, so boar nateing a crisis to a transparent dodge to win a few votes. They called the emerging state of israel a pig and a poke, a state with high strategic costs and few apparent benefits. On the 1948 president ial election, tom, projected to be the winner right up until election day, had a stout proisrael plank and says he could do no less, pledging full recognition to the jewish state despite the small numbers, half as many jews and palestine as arabs, and tolerated the brutal assault of the palestines inhas been taints in the 1948 war, creating the Palestinian Refugees number growing to 5 million today. In 1948 war, lick dation of the assassination internationalled the question to americas great disadvantage. Now all arabs in the region took the question as their touch stone and made it sort of the focus of all the relations with america. President eisenhower, who vowed to downgrade israel to improve americas total situation in the middle east, keeled over the pressure at home. There are 5 million Jewish Voters in the u. S. , and very few arabs, and before the 1956suez war, secretary of state dulles warned the israelis to make concessions to improve security and comet the existence of the free world. After the war when ike forced israel to discourt gaza, the israelis used concessions to fore close, forever, apparently, all talk of widdling down the 1949 borders for compensating refugees, a situation that prevails to this day. Senators of both parties, piled on for short term political advantage in 1956 decrying the policy of squeezing israel, the saim senseless rite rick of today. The british am base ambassador in washington was astonished by this, writing americans crave oil and space in the cold war, but refuse to coax confessions from the zionist realmlies loming them for efficiently, and meanwhile, the American Security guarantee without any sacrifice at all, unquote. That ambassador advised this for a usable price, land or refugee, but saying he couldnt saying with pressure and elections coming on, i cant any longer refrain from they started political factors as well as, quote, the terrific control the jew has over the american media, end quote. Reporting the americans guarantee israeli frontiers without sacrifice at all on israels part as we still do today. It made and makes no strategic sense whatsoever. In 1962, jfk had his own stab at a Peace Process, trying to pressure israel into accepting the Carnegie Endowment johnson plan, resettling in israel or cash compensate Palestine Arab refugees, number growing to 1. 3 million. Kennedy dissuaded by the white house desk officer for israel, a man named meyer feldman, reflecting immense growing power of israel and u. S. Decision making. He said disengage, mr. President , or theres a violence eruption domestically and in the relations with israel. Jfk not only disengaged, but rewarded israel will aid dollars, Early Warning radars, and punching a hole in the u. S. Em embargo on the sale of the weapon systems in the middle east maintained until that time. Characteristic fearlessness, israelis deployed hawks around the Nuclear Weapons facility as if to mock kennedys efforts to shut it down. Sky hawk in 56 and 68 set precedent of creating the relationship, and cutting edge weaponry, and joining exercising, and that multibillion dollar business has engaged the Defense Industry and dpecht congressman in the already robust lobby. It was shortly before his death, president in meetings in palm beach, characterized the u. S. Israeli alliance as noless i want mat than our relationship with great britain. Privately, however, he deplored the policy which disrespond, a palestinian liberation movement, and clo, this was now become the rallying cry of every Arab Government in the region, vastly complicating u. S. Initiatives and strategy in the middle east. Lbj, of course, paid little attention in the middle east, everything to do with the middle east must be subject to events in southeast asia. When he did pay tension a, he viewed the region like truman, a place to win jewish votes and u. S. Elections. Ive got three cones in the cabinet, lbj said, no one does more for zionist rail than i will. In 1965, u. S. Ambassador to israel Wally Brasher warned the idea which now towers over the arab rivals, must be presented for making any new annexations. Such argue in 1965 do damage to u. S. Interests. If israel attacks, u. S. Imposes merciless sanctions. Not enough to contain the arabs, but we have to contain both sides. Well, in the 1967, sixday war, israel launched the surprise attack on egypt, jordan, and syria, quadrupling territory and creating 3,000 new refugees alongside the old ones. Far from sanctions israel for the attack on the uss liberty, johnson sat on hands entrenching the forest fire forever war still sputtering in the territory. Instead l rolling back as ike had done in 1956, johnson approved them as well as the sale of sales to israel comments American Jews want lbj to spend the six weeks, but do not send a jew driver to vote thawm. Under attack by rfk and mccarthy for the 68 nomination, lbj did not dare, so alienate the lobby. From lbj on, they tolerated illegal israeli settlements in the occupied territory, a process called redeeming israels narrow hip, and were narrow, of course, because despite this, palestinians of the 1967, most stayed put in connection withing population from 2 00,000 to a million. U. S. Pressure on moscow in the 70s, i just have a little bit more to get through here, and i hope you indulge me, aimed with proisrael hawks like jackson, filling up the west bank, gaza sets lament with russian jews. 40,000 imgrants a year, 35 million a year in expenditures enabled by u. S. Aid dollars created new facts on the ground we deal with today. We disagree with the policy he wrote in 1971, but we say nothing to the israelis who assume acquiescence. The first secretary of state, william rogers, the first dip mat to use the term palestinian rather than refugees, tried to roll back refugees, but was stymieded drying a wedge between the u. S. Friendly government of nixon and that much rogers, another tried and true israeli gamet. Kissinger pa faired no better, throwing away the best opportunity to rain major Game Changing confessions in the yom yom kippur war. Nixon and kissinger had an air lift to telaviv. Rather than trading weapons for concessions, the courts advised by secretary of defense tee assume that israeli gratitude results in concession after the war. There would not be any concession. Before the war ended, nixon realized the error, making the israelis as he put it, quote, more difficult to deal with than ever before, unquote. During the crisis, he asked principles meeting the following question. Is there a difference between the defending israel and defending israels conquest . Everyone in the room said, yes. Well, then, he said, we should only ship the israelis soupbles, fuel and ammunition and hold back planes and tanks until after the war to use as leverage to pry israelis out of the occupied territories. Kiss l jeer assumed he was smarter. He said, no, if we kick israelis in the teeth, notice the language, over this, they never listen to us again. Makes no sense. Kiss l jeer, clearly, a smart guy, i dont know what was ailing him at the time, kissinger said he could manage the israelis. Across the suez canal, a cold war crisis. They cant do this to us again, nixon wailed. They did it to us for four years, but no more, as if. Nixon push pushed by key senators like jackson, church, and some of whom planning to run for president in 76, rewarded israeli intransigents after the war with 2. 2 billion in new military aid. Nix yon and kissing gore reenforce the kennedy policy. We have to let israel use weapons to possess security. The only way that made real goax or sanctions possible was to give them more stuff, harms and money, and merely hope they give a little to get more. Points made very well by steve wall and john in the books. Well, nixon followed this to the present day. The u. S. Israeli relationship continues with the same tail wag dog quality description, and Obama Administration has burnt its fingers approaching the issue of the peace settlement. Its been transferred to john kerry with tremendous ambition and energy, i suspect, insufficient to arrange a settlement that israel is so proficient at resisting. If there is to be a final settlement hinted rearlier this week, its less from an american diplomatic pressure, which the israelis routinely ignore and more from fears of the cds movement and from the calculation that with the middle east splinter the, they could join a Sunni Coalition against iran and clients. A palestinian state is the precondition for such a revolution, and, yet, in view of the history described, im not holding my breath. Thank you very much. [applause] knicks is professor of law at ohio state university, and author of a number of excellent books on the issue, and i believe hell be signing some books afterwards as will some of the others. Thank you. Special relationship has a very Significant Impact in terms of the position of the United States takes on the key legal issues involve the in the conflict, and, in general, they say our positions are out of step with the positionings of most of the World Community, and that its one of the major reasons for the negative perception of the United States in the region. That youve heard about this morning. I want to go through a number of key legal issues. The first, on this one, i think the administration is not quite as negative as youll find me saying than the others. Relating to the status of jerusalem, the Congress Passed a law a couple years ago to move the u. S. Embassy to jerusalem, and success of prosecute now resisted. Doing that, we have a general in jerusalem which reports directly to the state department. It has not been put under the embassy telaviv, and so as a technical matter, the executive branch has preserved positions that the status of jerusalem is not determined, and weve not given into the israelis position on that. Similarly, with respect to as passports, Congress Passed a law in two saying a person born in jerusalem who would be a u. S. Stts has the right being issued a u. S. Passport that israel placed in the little box as to place of birth. The administration has resisted that, and has refused to comply with that. This went to court, decide the quite recently here in the court of appeals for the dc circuit that its within the power of the president to decide on issues of diplomatic recognition, and, therefore, it was within the power of the president to refuse to apply that act. Okay. So thats the good news. That took about 35 seconds. [laughter] the question of territory is a bit bleaker. You heard this morning references to the 1967 war, and this is one on which the United States, you know, should have been taking the view that president eisenhower took in 1956 when the war broke out in 1967, but it didnt, and i think were living with the consequences of that to this day. The bkdz of the war and as mentioned briefly by general david this morning, that it was an attack by israel. Its commonly sought that israel justified the attack as selfdefense, that is egypt was going to attack. In fact, thats not what it said in security counsel. What it said in the security counsel was that egypt, had, in fact, attacked israel on the morning of june 5th, and the Israeli Military action was a response to that. That was the position of them all through the discussions in the security counsel in june of 1967. It was, of course, a story that had been invented because at a certain point, the israeli high command realized that the Egyptian Army was over extended in the troops brought up to the border, and that they had a pretty good chance of destroying the Egyptian Army if they attacked, and that essentially is what they did. They were in discussion with the Johnson Administration for about two weeks prior june 5th, 1967. They repeated communications and in treaties to the Johnson Administration saying, you know, we think that the egyptians are going to attack, and Johnson Administration kept responding by saying, no, its not true. The cia was analyzing on a daily basis and kept telling the administration i think accurately that there was no indication that egypt was about to attack. Egypt was concerned that israel was written to syria and wanted to detour attacks from israeli syria, okay, but that discussion came to a standoff, but johnson was fairly trong in telling israel not to attack egypt anytimely, israelis impave up and told him to come to washington to put to the administration a different way. He did not say please support us if we attack. He said, you know, were going to attack. What are you going to do . The sponsz he got from a number of of the officials that the u. S. Government keeps quiet, that is it would not do a repeat in 1956, and that it would let israel get away with it if it were able to be done relatively quickly. Went back, had a meeting on the night of 1967, and what he told as to the impression of the Johnson Administration and what it would do if israel went ahead and attackedded, he said, they will not shiver. Meaning they will not move. They will not be unhappy if we do it. He was right. When it happened, the administration immediately knew the stories that would be told were false, but they decided to keep quiet about it. We are living with that ever since, and after about early july, the Israeli Government stopped saying that egypt attacks, and there was a press conference, asked about the war, and he said, well, egypt was going to attack us, and thats why we had to attack. They implicitly, you know, acknowledged the story as it had been false, but this story about their having been under threat took hold, and thats the dominant version of the war. If you look at justifications given in a decade ago now for the bush document, when that was discussed, the policy about preemptive use of wars with the United States, those who trieded to write theoretical justification for the doctrines fished around to find president s for it, and the only one they found was the 1967 war, which, of course, a false precedent, but that was the only precedent they could find in recent state practices for the proposition that its okay to invade in substantial anticipation of an attack, against an attack that anticipated thats not close to being immediate. So on this issue, i think the administration is quite efficient, and ask the administration now, who was responsible for the 1967 war . You know, they are not going to give you a straight story on it. The other major issue is a question of palestines status and whether palestine is a state so an issue thats come up before the General Assembly as the u. N. And in the security counsel, and in particular, with the application for admission to the u. N. That was filed in 201 by the government of palestine, and as you are aware, the security counsel, kept it from coming to a vote and the palestine government subsequently applied for admission which is u. N. Specialize the agency and member is open only to a state, and there, there was no veto possibility, and it passed, so palestine was admitted adds a state, and then more recently went in 2012 to the General Assembly of the u. N. For a statement, essentially that pal stein is a state, and other states that have have that resolution, but have diplomatic relations with palestine, and if you had that number to the number that voted in favor of the resolution, you get somewhere around 158 states that have accepted palestine as a state. The United States resist that saying, realm, palestine cant be a state until it geshts that with israel, which, you know, does not make a great deal of sense to me, and suspect an accurate reflection of International Practice about statehood, i mean, when you dwet 158 states saying another entity is a state, thats pretty strong. When this resolution was adopted in the General Assembly, and this is november of 20 12, susan rice spoke in explanation of votes for the United States, the United States voted didnt motion voted against the resolution, and she said todays voting should not be misconstrued by any as constituting eligibility for United Nations membership. It does not, the resolution does not establish that palestine is a state. Well, the Resolution Says palestine is a state, technical matter, may be true that the resolutions are not in character, and whats critical is acceptance by other parts of the world, and you have it. Goes back, in fact, to the treaty that set up iraq and palestine and syria as states. If you look at that treaty, it refers to those three entities as being state detached from the empire, and the International Community accepted those as the states going back that far. The issue of settlements, another one on which the United States position has been very uncertain was you had analysis of this during the Carter Administration where the Legal Adviser came out very strongly saying that this settlement is illegal under the Geneva Geneva convention of 1949, and then you had president reagan coming in and saying something, realm, were not sure about that. Theres obstacle, but from that time, there was not much discussion of the legality of settlements, and when the bilateral process started in the mid90s, the United States position in the security counsel that it was not support any security counsel resolutions critical of israel and on settlements, and as a result, it began vetoing resolutions critical of israel and settlements, constructions in particular, around jerusalem. More recently secretary of state, she began referring to new settlements as being illegal, which implies that the prior settlements were okay. Now, we get a statement, this is now november of last year from secretary kerry who says, settlements are illegitimate. They backed off the word illegal, and i dont know what distinction they see between illegal and illegitimate. He was not that clear. He made a statement in a way it could have applied to priority settlements, but, still, its very ambiguous. This is, of course, to get the strong opinion of the World Community on the question of settlements a enat United States is also pressured the palestine government not to go to the International Criminal court. Which would be a way of dealing with the settlements, and to my mind, the only way within legal principle that the settlements can presently be dealt with because the negotiation and pressure from the United States doesnt seem to be very eskive. The interinarm criminal Court Statute defines war crimes, one of the war crimes with others defined as war crimes, one is transferring civilians into territory under belligerent occupation. Its a slam dunk with respect to the settlements in the west bank, and that, i think, actually should be pursueded by the International Criminal court even without any further action on the part of the government of palestine, but on the basis of the conferment jurisdiction that palestine did to in 2009 after the gaza war when it filed a statement with the International Criminal court saying that it conferred jurisdiction for any war crimes or genocide, crime against humanity, committed in the territory of palestine. The prosecutors should work on that basis, and go ahead and investigate it. Fortunately, the prosecutors first said, well, im not sure whether palestine is a state, and so i was mystified by that. I sent him an email in mash much of 2009 saying, by the way, palestine is a state, and you have every basis for this, and eventually other people started sending memos and the other direction, and so eventually, invited us to come to the hague and argue it out, and we went, and geld came and argued against jury diction, and eventually, unfortunately, the Prosecutors Office decided it was not yet positioned to make a determination as to whether palestine was a state. This is after three years of saying it was struggling with the issue that decided that it was not in a position, and that, in fact, led to palestine governments to go to the general asemibly and get the resolution adopted in november of 2012. Theres also the question of repatriation of refugees from 19 48. Ill finish with that. Here, the United States position used to be very strong. If you look at the proceedings of the u. N. General assembly in december of 1948, when the resolution was being adopted, calling on israel to repatriate. They shamed not be pawned of the a political settlement. The position was we will deal with the refugee issue when, and if we get recognition from the arab states, and, indeed, he was saying, no, this is humanitarian issue to be dealt with. The United States voted in favor of General Assembly resolution 194 that was adopted then, and every year thereafter when it was reiterated by the General Assembly up until the mid90s, the United States voted in favor of those reiterations of General Assembly resolution 194, and that, then, we stopped. Now, of course, israel has a Peace Agreement with egypt, with jordan, and it negotiates an agreement with israel, and the rationale, if that was the real rationale, they should be prepare to accept the refugees. This not pressed by the United States in the negotiation at all. It couldnt save it in the year 2000, and he did not take the question very seriously. Mr. Kerry, apparently suggested that maybe 80,000 should be taken back, that the rumor, but r clearly, we are not taking a strong position. Thank you. [applause] president of the counsel for National Interest and executive director. Thank you. [applause] thank you. Thanks. Thank you. [applause] there are 12 citations in the book for everything i say, and some will be quite surprising, so i want you to look at the citations if youd like. For most of my life, i knew very little about israelpalestine. I was deeply aware of the nazi holocaust, sympathetic to ids real, and saw the movie, exodus, but in the fall of 2000, the departure of my youngest child coincided with images of children throwing stones against tanks. I finally began to Pay Attention it a distance part of the world that i had thought had little to do with me and my family. When i paid attention, i noticed how one side of the News Coverage seemed to be, providing far more information about israelis than palestinians. I looked what the internet had to offer with a wealth of information directly from the region from palestinians, israelis, and others that revealed a far darker reality than our media was reporting, a reality in which israels massively powerful military, it appeared, was using extreme vines against the population largely unarmed, killing them and injurying most of these. The strategy i read in a report by israeli academic was to keep death below the world that triggers world outrage while maiming as many as possible. A common practice was for israeli snipers to target. In the first month alone, over 7,000 palestinians were injured incoming numerous children. I know little of this was reported by one of the main news souses, npr, and i began to know the pattern of media filtration that comets through today in which some facts are repeated and some never reported. While we repeatedly are told that rockets fired from gaza into israel, we are never told that in the over ten years of home made rocket fires killed a total of 29 israelis, and nor do we learn that during the same period Israeli Forces have killed 4,000. We tend to hear detail about israeli children who have been tragically killed. We hear far less often about the palestinian children who are killed first and in far greater numbers. It is my view that all of these deaths are tragic. After several months of researching the information, i finally decided i needed to go and see for myself. If things were truly as bad as i was beginning to believe. I quick my job as a small town weekly newspaper editor and traveled over to the region as a freelance reporter traveling throughout the west bank and gaza in february and march of 2001 long before rocket fire from gay gaza and took photographs of what i saw. When i returned, i began an organization to tell americans the facts on this issue. I also began to study it intensely. I was especially curious about the u. S. Connection, reading book after book by republicked authors and scholars. I was completely unprepared for what i found. I discovered an extraordinarily powerful and pervasive special interest lobby of which i previously had been almost entirely unaware. Even more surprising, i discovered that this was just the latest incarnation of a movement that had been active in the United States for over a century. A movement called political zionism, zionists, that have profoundly impacted my nation and others. Yes, Many Americans do not know exist. I discovered that political zionism, a movement to create a jew irk state in palestine had begun in the late 1800s, and that by the early 1890s, there were organizations promoting the ideology in new york, chicago, baltimore, milwaukee, boston, philadelphia, and by the 1910s, the number of zionist in the u. S. Approached 20,000 and including lawyers, professors, and businessmen, and was becoming a movement to which, as one historian put it, congressmen, particularly in the eastern began to listen. That was the 1910. By 1918, there were 200,000 zionists in the u. S. , and in 1948, nearly a million. They placated, the u. S. State department opposed zionism, believing it was coventer to both u. S. Interests and others. The zionist strategy will seek to involve the United States in a continuously widening deepening series of operations. Such members and reports go on and on from the state department and the pentagon and others. During this time, however, they were working strenuously and ultimately successfully to combat such wide recommendations. Implementing a wide range of strategies from open public advocacy to various covert activities. [inaudible] the majority of whom for many decades were either nonviolent are active zionists and who still today most likely are misinformed on what is being done at legibly in their name. In 1974 he zionist launch a political and Public Relations defense to capture congressmen, clergy, business and labors support. A directive order in every community, it an american cream untrained committee must be organized. And we reach into every department of an american flight. When britain failed to exceed two zionist demand at one point come in american rabbi implemented a plan to drop bombs on london and devoted to the paris police. Twentyfive years later with his terrorist past expunged from the publics memory from he became close to Richard Nixon and nixon jocularly called him i rabbi. Perhaps my most surprising discovery of so many surprising findings involved an extremely wellknown and highly regarded Supreme Court justice. According to a 1970 article in the respected scholarly journal by doctor Sarah Schmidt commence really professor of jewish history at Hebrew University of jerusalem and israel. Former editor of Foreign Affairs and the New York Times an associate of the jfk school of government at harvard, according to the sources and some others lewis was a leader of an elitist secret society. The society promoted zionism brought the United States. Initiatives underwent an induction ceremony much and he was told that we are about to take a step that will bounce you to a single cause for all your life. Until our purpose shall be accomplished, you will be a fellow of a brotherhood whose body will regard his greater than any others in your life. Including a family and a nation. The Supreme Court Justice Brandeis was the leader of that. The numbers we on a friendly basis, including action to further the zionist cause. As early as 1915, a leader went around suggesting that the british might have benefit on a formal declaration in support of the Rich National homeland in palestine. That sounds very much like the balfour declaration. Brandeis elected to use activities secretly through his lawyer lieutenants, another especially influential Supreme Court justice. Below you report that brandeis was someone who used his access to a advocate for the zionist cause serving with british zionists and the president. In fact some zionist leaders brag and other officials rightly or wrongly believed that they have played a significant role in the u. S. Decision to enter world war i. Both jewish and vigils and others attempted to oppose the zionist endeavors. One was ricky thompson. According to this, thompson was one of the most famous journalist of the 20th century. She had graced the cover of Time Magazine and has been profiled by americas top magazines and was so well known that a hollywood movie featuring catherine had hepburn were basen dorothy thompson. She had been the first journalist to be expelled by adolf hitler and raised this ahead of journalists. She had originally supported zionism, but then had visited the region in person and she began to speak about the hundreds of thousands of palestinians that israel had finally forced out to create a jewish state in the land that was already inhabited. Thompson was viciously attacked in an orchestrated campaign of what she termed prerecession asian and character assassination. She wrote that it has been boundless going into my personal life. Before long her column and radio programs and her speaking engagements and her family and her fame were gone. She has largely today been erased from history. In the coming decades other americans were similarly written out of history. Forced out of office, their lives and careers destroyed and history was distorted in the race than bigotry promoted and supremacy disguised. Very few people know this history. Excellent book that documented are out of print. The facts virtually unknown to the vast majority of americans. Instead, false theories have been promulgated with mendacious analogies and chosen author celebrated and others assigned to oblivion. George orwell once wrote who controls the past is the future. Controls the present controls the past. Perhaps by rediscovering the past we will gain control of the president and make a Better Future for all of our children. They do. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] i believe that scott is supposed to monitor the next session and i can introduce the first speaker. Are supposed to do question. Please tell me when this question. Much of them. I think we have people with microphones. Again, just a reminder that we need to question two states one minute as much as possible. We have a gentleman right here. And then he will be next, i think i see your hand next, the lady over here will be second. Theres a lady in the back. With ask the lady in the back. We will ask the lady in the back since i dont think shes had a chance yet. [inaudible conversations] the question is with all the other things on the table, like settlements and resettlement, why is israels Nuclear Weapons on the table . And what israel has between 75 and 400 Nuclear Weapons. That is much more than whats needed to demolish the world and why are we pushing back on that . Why are we only threatening iran which doesnt even have Nuclear Capacity for power. [applause] i would assume if someone wants to go into more detail, there are three words that i think answer that. That maybe someone wants to expand on this. I would just say that its the israelis would never use them responsibly, its a function of defense and deterrence. The historical record shows they had been aggressive and they have a safe repository of Nuclear Weapons and wants to take that issue on because it would go nowhere. And that is my short answer. Can this be part of an opinion in the legality of the settlement . Conceivably election happened and there was a decision as to whether a French Company was assisting with the settlements were acting unlawfully. But with respect to the possibility of criminal prosecution, that could occur. There are countries that do extend the criminal law to crimes against humanity and war crimes on a very broad basis. Irrespective of territory. Spain and germany have probably done the most prominent in that regard. It seems unlikely that that would occur. There has been pushed back against those countries for doing what they have done in that regard so are. So i dont think that it is likely to happen. But it very well could happen. Hello. I have another question for professor quickly. Im over here on your left. We shared in a leader of this morning. And my question is about legal status of israel itself. That is to say that there is a partition according to resolution 181, which was never implemented, as i understand. And the declaration or the proclamation of the state of israel was unilateral and simply accept it. And this may be the the way that states come into being anyway. But the question is what about the requirements of the state and the borders of such a state because israel has never defined exporters and i have certain obligations. So is it a legitimate state in the sense that the people of the region, including those that were expelled talk about its existence. Particularly whether israel is a state or accepted in the International Community and whether it has in the past committed the genocide and utterly horrible things, its unfair to all of its citizens and that is not relevant to the question of whether it is or is not part of this. And you can say that israel is a state and can raise this as whether it shouldve should have been a state. Which is really what youre going to. Which is another thing that is weak. Including selfdetermination. In 1994 possessed by the Clinton Administration to go to a backwater place in the southern part of russia called crimea. Doing some negotiating about the status of crimea with the ukraine and actually the leadership impressed me on this very strongly. Saying that we should have selfdetermination be able to decide on where we want to go. Coming out of the british mandate it shouldve been a solution for palestine that took into account the entirety of the population. But in a way once the International Community says a state is a state, then it is. And that question was not at all decided by the journalist of the United Nations. Hello. There was someone i said would ask a question. Jeffrey and others mentioned 1973 yom kippur war. According to Seymour Hersh and others, israel is prepared to use a Nuclear Capability when they were losing the war with egypt until they got them to send this massive airlift of supplies, which then enable them to win the war. But israel was, according to reliable sources, prepared to use that Nuclear Capability. Yes, that is what i found. And im sure we both do. So i dont think there was ever a serious preparation to actually use them and we shouldnt talk about how they were in danger during the war. They were losing badly and i was a long way from israel proper. And in fact the military battle actually turned before the american resupply operation took effect and the israelis have already stopped the advance rates one has to be careful about attributing this and having this be decisive in the outcome of the war and how close israel was using Nuclear Weapons. [inaudible question] i do not believe it was extortion. I dont think theyve done that subsequently. And thats not why we did it. On that point he says the egyptians made early advances because they had been on both stateoftheart weapons and antitank missiles and the israelis came out them. They lost a lot of aircraft and tanks to be the egyptians, they have been trained in a controlled soviet way and they sort of moved forward and had this in front and they couldnt aggressively pursuing to israel because they didnt have the doctrine for that. So they were never really in danger. It was all a lot of theater and they might resort to extreme measures and everyone in tel aviv new but they really wanted and then they got involved and it was a big deal. We were in the vietnam war. Santa was a miracle weapon and a Strike Fighter they carried 7 tons of bombs and missiles and still fly as an interceptor. Dozens of these unoffending them into israel at a time where they were counterattacking and winning in the rest of it was gravy. So it was a big thing. They were heavily involved in these decisions apart from their own states. So in most cases a lot of this stuff was smoke and mirrors intended to extort things from the u. S. , as much as possible. I disagree that they really were going to use regular weapons. Unfortunately we are on a tight schedule. The next panel is going to be after us. Well we will have to go to that. Excellent questions, all of you. On the next washington journal, faith and Freedom Coalition founder ralph reed looks at religion and politics in the 2014 midterm elections followed by usa todays call center in the discussion on the effectiveness of congressional ethics and then julia anglin talks about whether privacy is a right or a luxury good and she wrote in an oped in the New York Times. We have your calls and tweeds every morning on cspan. Saturday, we will have live coverage of this years final day of the Political Action conference including Newt Gingrich and ann coulter and Alaska Governor sarah palin. Watch them live at 12 40 p. M. He on cspan let us know what you think that facebook. Com for tweet us at with the hash tag. We do not have a criminal investigation role. But we have the most critical things the agency does, enforcing this to make sure wall street talks about the rules and we dont have this but concludes the approval of the commission and civil fraud actions and we cant send them back to jail, but we can assess Civil Penalties and theres some legislation to give us the ability to do that. We can require those two disgorge their illgotten gains and we have the power to bar someone from the security so they can basically live another day to defraud again. Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Mary Jo White on q a. More now on the situation in the ukraine and next steps for russia, United States, and the International Community. Stephen pifer is part of this hour and a half discussion from the brookings institution. [inaudible conversations] can everyone here may . Okay, thank you for coming thank you for coming to the Brookings Institute and hello to the cspan viewers. We are sorry to be late. We had some trouble getting into the event. [laughter] that we think of it as a tribute to security. So we are going to discuss the ukraine today. I would say complex and confusing crisis even by the standards of such things. Its interesting to note among the disagreements in the United States and russia, whether there has been an invasion of the ukraine who the president of ukraine is, whether there have been mass attacks on synagogues and churches in the ukraine, and whether hundreds of thousands of people have fled the ukraine, causing a humanitarian crisis. These are facts in dispute. Oakley we can bring some clarity to those and other issues. We have a tremendous panel to do that with here today. Perhaps not all the perspectives will be represented, but i think that we can shed some clarity on them. First we have feel the fiona hill on my right. The senate director and my boss. Please be nice to her. She is a former National Intelligence officer ordered eurasia and the author of mr. Putin, operator in the kremlin, which is a fascinating look into the identities of Vladimir Putin. It may come in useful in the future. On my left we have steve pifer and a former ambassador and former assistant secretary at the state department. To my right we have a senior fellow and author of more books than i have read in a veteran analyst of all of these types of crises. Lets kick it off and lets start with you, if you dont mind. Im wondering if you can give us a sense of what are the russians doing in the ukraine and what are they trying to accomplish. Are well aware this is a complex situation in crimea and the ukraine. The best evidence includes these conflicting views about this. And so this is a culmination and a longestablished interest in crimea, not just with a strategic relationship of the ukraine. If we all go back to the 1990s at a time when steve was one of our early investors in the ukraine. There have been a host of those at all different levels, including under boris yeltsin, the first president over crimea. Crimea is the one that got away with the postsoviet collapse. We have seen it all over the news. In 1954 by the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation to the ukraine, there is a great deal of discussion about the historical links between the russian states going back and the establishment of the rule of the russian empire which was different under the protection of the ottoman empire. Going back a long time in history. A longtime that was the end of the jurisdiction in the form of a today is than what then what was the russian entity within the russian empire. So it has been a great desire for the restoration of this bureaucratic state, the cursor family back in the 1950s to bring crimea back into the russian fold with various points talking about this. Including the Russian Parliament over and over again. Signing resolutions and bills about the ukraine and various points when american has talked about this in all parts of the russian population into crimea. Its what we are seeing on the ground is not that much of a surprise for many of us who have been watching things over the last 20 years. It was always a time of great crisis inside the ukraine since the assertion of the crimean population than those that have reasserted themselves and again after 2004 back in 2008. The same time that georgia made the same request it was very complicated as we get along with the discussion we should try to bring this up. Many of the population are russian speaking. And they therefore think that it should be part of russia and it was carried out by a crimean sociologists suggested that at the end of february with those interested in some form of unification with russia. And by virtue of the history, the resident have a whole host of different peoples. Particularly in addition to russian speakers and many of you will have heard more about them in the last several weeks and days and about 15 of everyone has to be part of these percentages. But it was in fact departed from the peninsula in the 1940s. For the russians this is primarily about crimea not questioning the ukraine to move further into the ukraine . Payment very similar to turkey 1974 structuring and other targets buy you might remember this but at the time there was a lot in cyprus and it was the similar situation that they voted in favor of reunification of greece. And also a triggered a response of the community in northern cyprus. But they moved beyond not just the turkish speaking communities but it was not normally seen as being part of the turkish community. It was used as a bargaining chip but for the next several years everybody would argue but forgetting that the fighters were there about what were seeing today and other cities with large russianspeaking populations polling shows theyre not interested to be a part of russia but when their real concern is about crimea but just as turkey with the cyprus as ukraine is in the future. We do not want to see it as part of the union did it has made that clear and the red line for russia was crossed. Very specifically with the situation of the overthrow and then the question of where the ukraine goes next. How low do the ukrainians see this what do they try to do in response . As the acting Prime Minister the Ukraine Parliament is now acting president he is thinking why did i take this job . They have a very long and busy to do list. A big part is due destabilize the new Government Debt is pointed out everybody is talking about the European Union and vladimir does not want that to happen. So what do we do internally . We have to get the government up and running and fill all the cabinet and make the turn rain on the trade runtime. Right now to become acting president as the of perfectly legitimate parliamentary procedures will live have the genesee so getting him in places important. Also to appoint governors. Going to the oligarchs that may be a doubleedged sword because they question we were trying to get rid of corruption we dont like this model. But do not manage the up coming financial crisis there having those discussions on the ground. But they will work out is the agreement which provides assistance in return for which it will really hurt. One of the good signs that the people in charge recognize that they had i have the head of kamikaze cabinet ministers because what we have to do will still be paid in full politically that we will all drive our political standing into the ground. They have to manage that. The third challenge is dont do anything dumb. It was then wise for the parliament the first day after yawn a coach fled the country to over turn but you can debate the law but right away a bit of concern this is what is coming to us so as the acting president could veto that because this government wants to be inclusive that the Eastern Ukraine feels comfortable. Also talk about the European Union. Someone was going to propose a bill about nato sessions that will provoke internal divisions right now that they dont need. But turning to the external challenges how they deal with crimea . Said it is a part of ukraine it is very complicated but the agreement recognized from 1991 when the soviet union collapsed each republic is a republic of its current order and crimea was part of the socialist republic so that is the starting point. The problem is for all its flaws they basically accepted that. Every time in the 90s with a Russian Parliament would claim they would do the right thing. We respect ukraines integrity the problem that it now has it is Vladimir Putin as president and he does not believe that. It is very important to but to keep the military restraint and they probably have 12,000 ukrainian troops of the peninsula. Several cases where they tried to provoke them but that is important. I think it is a little bit less tense with military terms than a couple of days ago. But russia and ukraine right now through the 20 yearold soldiers mistake and there needs to be some action some kind of the escalation having guys with guns standing across from each other is not a good idea. A and the decision yesterday by the Crimean Parliament to join russia. Although now there are reports out of 100 there are a number that said they were not told of the vote or denied entry so they could not cast the dash injury. The boat by not sure that they could pocket but they will try to delegitimize win that the referendum as against the law. When colleagues reported 2. 2 million was printed for the referendum because crimea only has 1. 8 million residents. The russians have refused to allow observers on to the crimean peninsula. Although it is not clear they have the tools to stop it. Then they need to keep pushing that they are prepared to talk. So for the russian attitude the it illegitimate government they still recognize yanukovich as the president. He gave us a tv interview a couple weeks ago i note the getty one knows where he is. I think president clinton it is a press conference said he has no political future there was some indication may be that economic dialogue. These are all big challenges for a cabinet that is eight days old and it will be a real test of the next couple of months. It is a tough job but comes with a guys house. [laughter] but just to clarify when i listen to your strategy on crimea i am not clear if there represents the actual attempt to hold on or just the attempt to have the soft landing while they lose it . I think they will push to hold on. The ukrainian point of view is not just about crimea. Because 60 percent of that population is ethnic russian but in 1991 and 54 voted for independent ukrainian state. So voting will be a little more interesting. So they will boycott the referendum but i dont think theyre prepared to give it up but it would be asking themselves if we just accept crimeas departure do we then set a precedent that the russians would try to not apply to other to pull off the Eastern Ukraine as well . I suspect they will stand very hard on this. This is a complex and confusing situation that the United States is typically good at insuring. What do you see as their response . Nice to be a part of the panel. I say a couple of things to frame the discussion at all dealing president obama should be influenced by the broader political debate whether somehow his Foreign Policy or uncertainty has provoked this. Probably not. He has done some fairly robust things that are underappreciated he may want to talk about how he rebalance the asianpacific to rebalance the budget increase still have 35,000 troops in afghanistan he may want to say those also think about fixing the policies such as syria but i dont think he should worry and is inclined to worry. The supposedly it needs to be proven wrong. The stakes are too high the potential for doing something wrong is too high. But what specific small military options . Not in the direction of the ukraine itself but we have a lot of nato allies and were doing some things to make them less worried like combat aircraft in the Baltic States are half a dozen more than we may have spent on a recent rotation. That is what we should be prepared to do because there should be no doubt. At this point it is they all compete in where we extend our alliance. If we have the general and blatant against the ukraine to help the military with assistance should be seriously considered. Was just reviewing the military budget it was only 2. 5 billion but russia is 70 billion. Almost a 20 one disparity in spending levels and eight one. I am not encouraging to suggest a fair fight it is always better at any point when it escalates this reasonable and appropriate to think at least to protect certain parts of the country if it comes to that i hope that it does that it wont. Budget the admiral that i admire said we should get the Nato Rapid Reaction force to mounter the stages of preparation to do something. He suggested was worth making the russians rory but i flat out to not agree to in fact, direct military suggestion of direct action in this crisis because i think putin will see them as symbolic and secondly i hope they are because i dont see any mission we could carry out in this context even if things got worse. But as one more point there is a lot to talk about with the issue of nato future role im opposed i would like to see us reaffirm the commitment of the reaffirmation to make it clear we are prepared to use economic sanctions if this gets worse but not talk about military membership kissinger had an oped that we may need to think about offering to putin to a college he is the bad guy which he is and i am not trying to suggest we cover or apologize that ways we could offer some faith and the indefinite postponement to be a reasonable thing. Now where we do need to be prepared if things stay as they are there is a referendum on secession in crimea and a version goes along with that but the problem is it is way too soon. I am not against the discussion personally official be independent but it has to be after tempers and fears have called. Putin likes to raise kosovo that was still in favor to recognize it but a least a took a decade and let things calmed down. That is the proposal of a referendum after a year or two. If they stay as they are ready to apply sanctions better her fall to the russian navy to not broadbased simply of the referendum with the potential and a station or go after their Energy Sector or the banks but his cronies and Vladimir Putin need to have restrictions on their Bank Accounts and pieces tuesday in place for years to send a message very clearly. Also permit the fed yvette to russia from a the g8 we need to make this a penalty in the event putin annexes crimea under the referendum. I would suggest strong measures will not consider general sanctions against all of russia unless things are substantially worse than even this referendum if we saw a large scale war that is where we come down like a ton of bricks economically and i would probably not even go there with the referendum necessarily. So that is a quick overview on the tools we have a and the initial take what to ann folk and at what stages. When we think about russia and putin would react to some of those steps i think we have to understand what position putin comes from to take these measures. In some of the commentary the notion that this represents a russian weakness rather than strength. That this invasion demonstrates he could not pull the ukraine in to a russian orbit and it guarantees to an ever is left will move to the west or to the succession agreement he tries to avoid. What do we think of this argument and how putin might react. We have to be very careful about categorizing as weakness or strength especially like this. We are seeing less from president obama perceived as being weak or the instigator. By we know the situation is much more complex and difficult but we cannot make these black and white distinctions but what putin is doing is taking advantage of the moment of weakness perhaps he is in a position of strength. Looking at what has been happening leading up to the crisis settled think anyone would have predicted in the way that it has but he hosted a very successful Olympic Games bill is much worse than the romney running again to london saying you are not ready but the Security Issues there was those structural disasters in to the key had a nice sunny weather and the snow melted. Then washington d. C. Gets it . [laughter] but then he got a huge pond in his popularity by his activity at home was on the cover trajectory. November december last year was 63. 4 . But putin is the only game in town politically. He was then 80 but now that is the drop. Budget the narrative of the ukraine in russia this demonstrates this. What putin is pointing to is a disaster, the chaos, nationalist extremist , a protest movement out of control with no leadership. This is the result of economic crisis. Putin was critical of yanukovich saying i would not handle it like this. His position at home is strong from the 1990s. I presided over coming into his second decade this is what you get if you miss manage the situation. But without any kind of purpose to overthrow the government. The vast majority with the eastern parts of the ukraine but what we are arguing about and on the ground i find it meaningless because it gets out in the immediate is the one size depiction. Said right now putin operating from strength while he has a bump in the ratings in a position of strength. He does not do it for us but for his Political Base at home. But crimea is a popular symbol it is something that russia lost. Not just a territory or a vacation destination it is all about speakers. Their left from the of Russian Federation in even the Baltic States are feeling nervous because of the past there has been a lot of questions about the russian speakers or those local elites who also spoke russian about their fate and disposition so this is about the soviet union but what the brits have been engaged in in the 80s were in 56 or the french this is post imperial hangover that a lot of people have felt very badly about. This plays very well at home if the narrative holds. But if it falls apart it has question arose of territorial acquisitions but in that historic state also the jennet empire east of the river in the 1860s and then it over three japan there were disputes that could backfire for putin over the long term but we should be right careful right now. As fiona hill just reminded us is over the past 20 years a unique system. And i am wondering for what theyre losing is since they always had the view that it is say nationalist country, will this invasion or a potential loss of crimea change that system moving forward . Will they be able to unite east and west . A big question here will turn on how competent or effective is this government . Is unable to be inclusive . They did not get off to a good start with the cabinet of ministers theres no one to say the eastern ukrainian it is unfortunate. They did offered cabinet positions that the president yanukovich old party and they turned the job down. That could be a smart political calculation if he calls the kamikaze cabinet perhaps you dont want to be a member. So maybe to show they can manage things and a confident, open, transparent way and lose the habits of the past. And passed to look different than the previous president s. And there will be challenges from russia. I think they will test. Now there is protest tourists because russians come across the border than the first thing they do was look for the quickest rally to go join or stir one cup. This is the model we probably saw in the crimea one week ago. Actually did not get a sense of the tensions with the ethnic russians and ethnic ukrainians. The koreans are still trying to find a place to live but not real friction. I think we went from that point to join the russian air of the referendum in part because there was an effort to encourage that. Had ration not wanted that to happen it probably would not. But that will be a challenger to Eastern Ukraine but remember crimea is the only part of the ukraine where ethnic russians are a majority. There may be English Speakers probably 45 percent uses russian as their first language but everywhere else in the ukraine, they are the ethnic majority. Sometimes we use eastern verses western ukraine but i think that has been blurred over 20 years even in the 90s traveling to the Eastern Ukraine i would give a sense of national identity. Not as deep in the west but the essence that they would see themselves solving most of the problems as ukrainians. That is important to bear in mind. Those all over crimea as well. But the question is going to be, how too ukrainians look at this . My guess is that support for drawing closer to the European Union, which by some polls in the fall was anywhere from 51