[inaudible] >> which is to reach peace with the palestinians. i'm part of the fact that so many young leaders are gathered here in washington. i want to congratulate dear friend jerusalem and wish you the best in this very important conference. on both sides of the ocean, israel and the united states, they find themselves asking questions and under attack. they believe in civil liberties in peace and coexistence in the equality among human beings feeling threatened and therefore this is the opportunity to say we are strong together. in two months time we've been marking the israeli pic to read in the 1967 war, and victory which is trained but as floods devastate the years with an open question. what do we do with our palestinian neighbors? the records that the israeli cabinets in 1967, asking his cabinet members do not have to reenact, but how do we do with 2 million arabs. that's how we asked that question. the only answer out or can do during all of the elements is separate and pursue the idea of a two state solution whereby palestinians will have their own state living side-by-side with israel and of course a clear understanding of security concerns. in 1947, the u.n. general assembly has adopted a resolution calling for two nations, tuesday. this is about time after the years that we pursue this option aggressively. despite the impediment, despite terror in order to pursue this comment in order to preserve israel as the nation's date of the jewish people. israel is faced with two major threats. one from the house right, iran. the vile enemy which destabilizes the region supports our worst enemy with the sunni moderate nations who want to go on a regional opportunity and on the other hand, the other threat from inside is the option which has been raised recently in the possibility of a one state solution. the idea that there'll be an arab state rather than preserving zionism, which is the jewish people. this is the real risk we are facing. we facing. wished object vehemently to any option other once they've solution. we should object to an arab state. we should preserve the option of the nationstate of the jewish people israel side-by-side with the palestinian state and it can be done despite. for this, we need you. yes i call upon you. i tell you talk about. all moderate forces in israel and the united states commerce -- that the jewish community should work proactively to pursue the option of the two is a solution. that's the wealthy and security of the state of israel forever. thank you very much. shalom to you and good luck in your deliberation. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the chair of the jay street national finance committee, diana schaub clark. ♪ >> good morning. my name is diana schaub clark. i'm a member of the national chairman of the national finance committee. i wanted to thank the leader of the opposition for the wonderful inspired remarks. more than a year ago, the track comprehensive plan of action was successfully implemented and barked one of the greatest diplomatic achievements in a generation, successfully blocking iran from developing a nuclear weapon to diplomatic, not military means. we owe it largely to the leadership of legislators like senator chris murphy went privilege to introduce today. senator murphy had been at the connecticut politics for a decade before his election to the united states senate in 2012. the election brought him international attention and the senate were in relations committee. in a few years since, he's taken a lead in promoting a diplomacy first approach to managing our conflicts abroad. as ranking member on the u.s. senate foreign relations subcommittee on the near east, south asia, central asia and counterterrorism, senator murphy was one of the senate's most eloquent and informed advocate for the main agreement. during his robust and spirited floor speech, touting the merits of the agreement, senator murphy invoked israel's negotiations with palestinians. and during assertion, it's never easy, but history almost always judges that it's worthwhile. a year on with iran's nuclear program successfully defanged and unprecedented inspections regime in place, the words prove entirely apt. senator murphy's arguments come in armed and persuasive support for human rights and preference for diplomacy over belligerence has one hand are in favor and the national constituency. it is what i hope all of jay street shares is that senator murphy's approach to foreign policy, one that is highly principled and pragmatic will shape the future of american leadership in the world. with that again is my privilege to introduce to you, senator chris murphy. [applause] >> well, thank you. thank you very much, diana. thank you or that kind introduction. you're really in for a treat today. i was back to asia senator palace at max. they'll do a fantastic job. my effort largely years to get out of the way so you can hear friends real talent. i want to thank you in senate thanks to jeremy and dylan and every one at jay street for being such friends of mine during my coming-of-age on american foreign policy and our role in the world for inviting me here. jay street is an important ally for those of us in the united states senate who can better ourselves friends of israel and friends of the u.s.-israel relationship. you're a critical partner for those of us who still believe in the transformative power of diplomacy. you are a vital contributor to the debate over the future of the middle east and i'm really here just to applaud you for all of the work you have done and continue to do and really the remarkable growth you have seen over a very short period of time. he now comment these days a lot of us days a lot of us in the senate are talking a lot about to print or politics. i've been thinking, both in the context of that and in preparation for today about maybe my most favorite jurist as a young law schools didn't. i loved reading oliver wendell holmes. i thought about them as i was thinking about what to say here this morning. during his senior year in college, he voluntarily live enlisted in the massachusetts militia in order to join the union army during the civil war. frankly, few soldiers saw more action in the wilderness campaign. he was at chancellorsville. he nearly died in a hundredth of his friends and fellow soldiers fall to vicious injuries. he returns to boston scarred deeply by what he saw in his experience in the civil war is deeply affected his view of the law as professor and later as the jurist. in an era where the revolutionary era natural law still abounded, holmes said this. he said men make their own laws. these laws do not flow from some miss here is omnipresent in the sky. with his own itu seen the horror of the civil war, were beachside do not capitulate because they believed in a natural basis for their cause. holmes founded a new vehicle school of what is called legal realists and, understanding and love with pace and power and politics. i think about holmes a lot when i'm told that all policy that flows from the buzz them of a just cause must be in another south just as well. i think about holmes when i'm told that if one thing is microwave, everything else that flows from it must also be black or white. america's support for israel is absolute. it is a black-and-white issue. my belief in the righteousness of a permanent jewish state in the middle east is unbreakable and i suspect in this hall today, you believe the same. but the man who will likely be the next ambassador to israel called my work on behalf of israel anti-semantic simply because i don't agree with his particular position on the future of israel and i wasn't alone been on the receiving end. he called the president's action anti-semantic as well and i don't have to tell you what he called all of you. mr. friedman gave a remarkable performance for the foreign relations committee upon which he effectively recanted it. almost every strong statements he has made castigating those of us who support israel without parroting the statement of the current israeli government. and though it seems more than a little coincidental that this epiphany happened to occur at the exact moment of his confirmation, i will be telling the truth. i truly hope you regret these words. because our nation's support for israel cannot be questioned. we do have to ask some questions about what it means to say that you support israel. in this legal writings, homestake is to consider all opinion. not to be so closed minded to shutter debate are refusing to see all sides. into the civil war was just cause, but the inability to see the other side's first active doomed the war to last too long, taking countless unnecessary lives. jay street demands this go to the pro-israel, passionately pro-israel, to understand if you are for israel you don't have the blind to the cause of the palestinian spirit to understand where for israel, you don't have to reject the genius of diplomacy. [applause] i don't support settlement construction is that the general accepted rounders. i don't support inside the general accepted boundaries inside a future palestinian state because i support israel. [applause] a two state future is essential for israel's long-term survival. it's a hoot or rock explains that you put in one room all the former head in the israel defense thursdays, or the 90% would say it's simpler to protect israel from a border that assures our security interest next to a palestinian state can protect a greater israel with millions of palestinians living under his control. [applause] putting up more and more settlements makes a sustainable palestinian state less likely. i was one of the first senators to announce my support or the iran nuclear agreement because i support israel. [applause] a nuclear iran would be a disaster for israel. the first year of this agreement, there is no doubt that it is working. israel safer because of it. two thirds of their adventure pages have been removed. 90% of the enriched uranium has been shipped out of the country. the iraq reactor has been moved with cement. the most intrusive inspections ever negotiated giving the iaea necessary actions to iran is happening now. iran is complying with the deal. i thought it was a horrible dangerous idea for prime minister benjamin netanyahu to speak against the agreement in congress because i support israel. [applause] his visit to congress in order to influence a domestic legal debate only served to heighten the growing politicization of this issue, the issue of israel in congress. they made it look falsely like republicans to the israeli democrat and his speech didn't affect the outcome of the debate. it served to help republicans who wanted to turn support for israel into an election-year wedge issue. finally, i oppose president trumps muslim band because i support israel. [applause] last week i stood at the new haven area jewish community center talking about the fear that is sweeping across communities in connecticut and across the nation because of this vicious increase in hate speech against. how can we effectively push back against the hate speech when our government is proposing hateful discriminatory policies against another religious group. [applause] we need to urgently come together to oppose the anti-semitism that has come roaring back into public view. just this past weekend, a dozen more swastikas and racialist or is drawn on cars and buildings in buffalo, new york. we need to come together, republicans, democrats, liberals and could do that is in their government is to be morally consistent against all religious groups. [applause] and so, i am thrilled to be here with you today to be a member of the foreign relations committee at the center of what is a very perilous moment where the world. as the fires that the middle east continue to burn, i am watching the end length of the united states shrink in real time as the trump administration frankly fumbles its way through its initial forays into international creations. the only thing consistent about this administration's the soap are his bed every day it changes. that is bad news for israel frankly and other allies across the world who rely on can distinctly of american and length. but what is also bad for israel is a debate in the united states were some people try to say there is only one of the tallest is that is considered to be pro-israel. as is always been the case, there has to be room for debate within the pro-israel community about what u.s. policy best serves long-term security interests of the jewish state in the middle east. that's what it stands for. creating the room for debate and making sure there is a place and not debate for progressives, pro-israel voices. i know that this seems like a more difficult endeavor today than it has been in the past. and it is frankly. your work is going to be more difficult over the next four years than it has been before. you are here because you know this. it is also going to be more important to you invest in this debate over the next four years than it ever has been before. i'm just going to leave you with some closing words from justice holmes. if you ever have a chance to read a brilliant speech he gave during memorial day and after speaking about all of the factors that are outside of one's control of and trying to take on a just bit difficult cause. he reminded his audience that the one and only success which is his to command us to bring to his work on mighty, mighty heart. having worked with jay street since its beginning, having seen your power, your influence, your command here grow, knowing the urgency of the cause to which she was to describe, i know that when it comes to a mighty heart, g street has this group is eighth and i'm so pleased to be an ally of yours. thank you for joining me here this morning. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome our moderator and adult "new york times" columnist, thomas friedman, and dr. robert malley and michelle flourney. >> good morning. great to be here at the conference of presidents of major jewish organization. [cheers and applause] the actual heart and soul of the american jewish community. my name is thomas friedman. as we say at "the new york times," no relation to david reedman. [laughter] we have a great panel this morning. bob malley, senior writer, michelle flourney, secretary of defense, former everything important on the middle east. for several administrations. i want to begin by posing a question to all of you. what strikes me about this moment if someone like the three of you followed this conflict most of my adult life is i haven't been here before. i haven't been to a time and place for israel was more free to do whatever it wanted to be. i can't imagine a time when the countries surrounding it are weaker, when europe was more distracted and when we have an administration in washing and that either didn't care or wouldn't care. martin, start with you and go down the pan all. what do you think this means? what do you expect to come out of this really unique situation for the israeli government right now? .. in terms of the strength of israel's economy, the strength of its military, the strength of its relationship with major powers, china, india, europe, even though those are often under strained but they are well-established. and, of course, with the united states. israel has never been stronger and more capable of taking risks. and given the imperative of resolving its conflict with the palestinians for the sake of its own future, as senator coons outlined -- murphy, excuse me. clearly, what better time when you have the president of united states saying whatever you decide, i'll support. and certainly congress will, too. so if not now, when? [applause] but, unfortunately, and i say this with great regret as somebody who strongly identifies as a zionist and someone who cares deeply about the jewish state and the jewish people, something has gone very wrong and there is a deep state operating in israel today that will make sure that piece for the palestinians if it involves giving up any kind of territory in the west bank, simply will not happen. and instead, they see the opportunity to take advantage of this rise of populism, greater nationalism in the united states and around the world to advance their narrow national temper with annexation of the west bank. we know where that leads. that will lead to a binational state, not a jewish state. and yet they are determined to press on. they have the prime minister of israel politically, and there is a great danger that in this permissive environment, they will achieve their objectives. i think that really underscores the need to do everything we can to, first of all, see clearly what the agenda is here, and called him on it at every step of the way. >> martin, a quick follow-up. because of your experience, what does it mean to have an american ambassador to israel who will be to the right of the israeli prime minister? >> look, one shouldn't exaggerate the influence of the ambassador. [laughter] he's going to be in jerusalem. he's not going to be in washington. he's not going to be in the white house. he has his channel, of course, but his ability to actually influence policy when his job is to implement policy shouldn't be exaggerated. if we fixate on ambassador designate treatment instead of focusing on the policy as it's constructed in the white house, we are looking at the wrong place. what's important in that regard is that notwithstanding ambassador designate freedman's boasting about how he's going to move the embassy to jerusalem, it didn't happen. and that just underscores the point. why didn't happen isn't interesting issue in itself, but the point is that they clearly, included expected the embassy is going to be moved, and it didn't happen. and i predict boldly since very few of my predictions, i predict that donald trump will not move the embassy to jerusalem short of an agreement between the israelis and palestinians. >> and just between us, is that because the prime minister a visual is telling him not to? >> no. the prime minister of israel would not dare to tell him not to for fear of the political consequences if at all if that were to be late. so bibi says of course we want the embassy, great idea. no, it's because it seems that the theory of the case that jared kushner has is that, as a way to achieve regional peace, to bring the sunni arabs into the tent of peace and that will somehow facilitate and lubricate the deal. and once he started down that road he heard from the sunni arabs, don't embarrass us. you want us to play, don't create problems for us. and if that is, in fact, the reason, i have reason to believe it is, why they delay, they will continue to delay because that reason is not going to go away. >> michelle, you serve in a senior pentagon position and you saw this from the security side. give us your take on what you think is going to involve out of this very unique moment when israel is home alone more than it's ever been in terms of its diplomatic options. >> when i was in the pentagon i did spend a lot of time on the question of how do we bolster israel's security, working in particular on validated and military edge issues and so forth. and i must say i am more worried now about israel's long-term security than ever. i agree with martin that the idf is stronger today than it has ever been, and the u.s. commitment to israel's security is as rocksolid as ever. but what disturbs me is this administration has so sort of cavalierly walked away from a u.s. commitment to supporting a two-state solution, that every administration, republican and democrat, has held onto and has advocated for decades. and the reason for that is as was referred to by the senator, the only way that we can ultimately secure peace for an israeli state that is both democratic and jewish is with a two-state solution. [applause] and this administration said well, we don't really care, whatever they decide, without really delving into the details of could a one state solution ever be secure? and as mentioned, every security professional on the israeli side, almost every company i do% plus, say answer is no. we as a think tank have done a lot of work on the question of the could you secure a two-state solution? bringing american and israeli military officers together to design what that would look like. the only thing that can secure israel long-term is a two-state solution. so the fact that that is somehow now in question, i find that more disturbing than anything i've seen in all of my years working on the israel's security issues. >> i was going to bring up your work at the think tank. give us the highlights of the security plan, if you could. what is it about, why should we understand that there is a way for israel to have a secure separation agreement with the palestinians? >> we undertook the study because we understood that paramount issue for israeli is the question of security. and we wanted to demonstrate that that question could be satisfactorily answered. and what is involved as a multilayered security system where, for some foremost, we give the israeli state the capacity to defend itself by itself to every extent possible. we also do serious capacity building work with the new palestinian state. but very important is the role of the neighbors. so what role for jordan, securing the jordan valley? what role for egypt and helping to secure the sinai? what role for the united states and the international community as guarantors of the arrangement? so it's a very detailed report. it wasn't just a bunch of americans. we have former idf and intelligence officials from israel being part of the design team. the report is to publish. you can find it on cdnas website we're also using this to have a series of conversations not on here but in israel with the jordanians, with the egyptians and with others to try to build consensus around this approach spewing thank you. spirit rob, wendy trump transition team sat down with you all and said what can we learn from what you learn in a previous eight years, what did you say to them? >> what made you think that conversation took place? [laughter] >> i want to start first because it's my first time speaking to the j street since i joined administration. i would want to thank you. thank jeremy, real shout out when we're fighting for the jcpoa, we knew we had all of you behind the effort. we knew we couldn't do it without you. it's a deal i think as we just heard that in our view does tremendous good for the united states and for israel. prevented iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb, avoided the war, opened the door to multilateral diplomacy and to the critique that this was done and gave iran $100 billion, first of all, it's at most 50 billion. second of all, it's their money. so whereby iran is using its own money to prevent itself from having a nuclear bomb, if trump is really the art of the deal man, he should appreciate that outcome. but again, thank all of you for everything you've done over the last several years. [applause] >> the truth is there really wasn't much of a transition, passing the baton on the middle east. i can't really answer that. i could answer though -- >> talk about this moment though. what do you expect, you know, from an israeli government now that really is more free than ever. will they miss obama? bibi used obama a lot to say just gambit at times, i suspect i would do this except obama won't let me spin i'm going to take a slightly heretical lean on this. i don't mind what president trumtrump's said for the followg reason. let me ask a question. if it's that i believe in a two-state solution, how may people in the show he actually would have achieved it? okay, i don't see too many hands go up. what he said, martin and i and many others tried under the clinton administration, didn't succeed, and then president bush tried to achieve a two-state solution. didn't succeed. president obama and secretary gary are as committed as anyone i ever knew come ever have down to try to reach a two-state solution. they didn't succeed either. i think it's time for the palestinians and maybe for israel to ask itself some honest questions as martin said about where they want to go, what direction do you want to head in and not look to the u.s., either said look to use either for salvation or for protection or for cover. the fact that cover is removed, there's some benefit to it. there's an honest conversation that now has to take place. israelis have to ask themselves that question. without either the illusion of a peace process which didn't produce before the notion of an american restraint which didn't restrain all that much, and ask themselves what future do we want? how are we going to secure our future as a jewish and democratic state? if it's not a two-state solution, what is it? [applause] >> is it too late for that conversation? >> is it just too late? >> i'm not sure what that means. >> even if they had that conversation, as martin referred to, is it just too strong that basically nothing can happen? >> if i were to reach that conclusion i would be doing something very different these days. so maybe it's just for self-preservation i'm not prepared to say what is been built through political decisions can't be unveiled through political decisions. these are decisions. it's not an act of nature. it's going to be difficult and the politics are going to be wrenching for any israeli prime minister but i don't know what the mathematical form is it that tells us that two-state solution is dead and buried. it's a matter of political will, energy, courage. ultimately the u.s. and the rest of the world, but i'm not a property knows when we reached that tipping point -- a profit. >> martin -- >> i think it's dead. >> let's talk about that because when asked about the weather, but if you think -- [laughter] >> climate change. why do you say that? >> well first of all, it's important to understand come in the holy land is a difference between being dead and being dead and buried. [laughter] [applause] >> that doesn't mean it doesn't get resurrected. [laughter] and i do imagine there are circumstances under which they can get resurrected. look, i think we all at this point understand a number of realities. the first is the one i already described. the second is that doesn't reach the solution. the alternative to this two-state solution, and one-state solution, are not solutions. they are just recipes for continued conflict. it may be quiet now but it might be quiet for ever. it's impossible to imagine that peace between israel and the palestinians will be achieved through anything other than a two-state solution. for the time being there is no way in which i can see that the two-state solution can be achieved. certainly not with the current configuration of the israeli government, which is the most right wing in history, and most opposed to a two-state solution such as the prime minister isn't even allowed to say the words when it comes to washington. but also on the palestinian side, let's be honest, divided policy with a weak leadership, doesn't feel he has the mandate to make compromises on palestinian rights that makes it impossible to move on his side. and the notion that somehow the sunni arabs, because of a real common interest that they have with israel in combating the hegemonic ambitions of the iranians, somehow leads to them being willing to, in effect, compromise palestinian rights and take the risk of being accused of doing that by the palestinian leadership which they will be accused of it, there's no egyptian leader is going to take that kind of risk. so given all of those realities, with all the will in the world, jared kushner, donald trump are not going to be able to achieve a two-state solution. and as i said, and one-state solution isn't achievable either. so what are we left with? the people who are pushing for a one-state solution, pushing against the two-state solution, are the people that have the bit in her teeth now, take on the israeli side but also advocating for one-state solution. they are pushing it politically, gaining strength in the west bank, consolidating their control in gaza. so it's like the era of the triumphalist one state solutions. that's where j street and everyone else who cares about the future of israel and the palestinians needs to redouble your efforts, our efforts. because in these circumstances if the one stators are the only ones are out there pushing, they will drive off the two-state solution for a long time, and it will eventually explode. it's not come in the short term, it looks sustainable and so we have to watch out for the outline that we always use, that it is not sustainable. it isn't sustainable but in the long term it is not sustainable and it will have, i fear for te consequences for israel. we must never give up on the effort to maintain belief in the two-state solution, even though today it doesn't look possible. >> if jared kushner were here, the president son-in-law, and seemingly designated the next martin and dick of this administration, what would you tell him? >> i would stop him here. no. i would tell him first of all, read tom friedman support. >> thank you, thank you. [applause] >> by the way, i'm not just telling you that, i don't mean to flatter you, because that's what i tell everybody who was new to the middle east. spin to add one thing to the question. he does seem to think they rediscovered the wheel, the idea that we'll have the arab states come in. i mean, those of us in a something about the saudi peace plan, i mean -- 20 years ago. spoon but why do say read tom freedman's book? it's true because you unpacked for the naïve american solution this who comes into the middle east bazaar believing that in the good old american way, every problem as a solution. sso, therefore,, try low different, outside in, bottom-up. what you explained in the book is that they are all just waiting for you, israeli and arab leaders like. >> have we got a carpet for you spirit and they are all expert at selling shoddy merchandise and dreams of peace and nobel prizes to naïve americans at twice the price and no peace in the end. and i say that as a naïve american who went through the experience. that's why i wrote my book called inner cycle but innocent abroad. that's what we are. we keep on doing it. every time, every administration. i guess that's who we are. that's the beauty of us as america. don't be naïve. don't be fooled by those who whisper ideas into your ear about how we ca could do it this way or we can do it that way. they're just designing a rabbit rabbit hole for you to go down. that's true of all of it, equal opportunity. they are all great at it. so secondly, do something what you think actually give them credit for this, is take your time to listen to everybody. they need to be talking more to the palestinians. jared kushner i don't think as any exposure to the palestinians. he needs his assistant in this, jason, who is clearly going to have a role there. so i think that listening, taking the time to listen to get a sense of what actually can be done realistically before they decide what to do is really important. thirdly, they've got to get the structure right. this can't be done without the state department, pure and simple. cannot be done out of the white house. [applause] >> why not? >> first of all, jared kushner has got a hell of a lot of other things to do, so we can be the envoy. it would be a terrible mistake if he was of the envoy. it would just be his father-in-law setting him up for failure, so i strongly recommend you not be the envoy. that he give it to donald trump's real estate for your, mr. greene park, maybe that's right thing to do. my dates to be in the state department. the idea, and michele and robert can speak to this, the white house is conducting its own diplomacy will lead to bad results in the end. because of this problem is so complicated and especially going to try to bring the arab states into it, so its all tied in terms of an engagement and necessary engagement with them that the structure of it, to sustain an engagement is going to be very important. then get to see what can happen. i do think this is something michele and i have worked on with a group of other foreign policy expert both republican and democratic and we just put out a report on friday but in the middle east what we said, a bipartisan strategy for the trump administration. we said you need to spend some time rebuilding the relationships, key sunni arab states, and working with israel and them to deal with iran in a sophisticated way, an out of that make him a better understanding of the way in which they can then help with the israeli-palestinian dimension of the policy. but i think first things first, rebuild your relationships, establish an understanding of what is possible, and then see what can be done. >> you remind me of the central story there was when i was living in beirut with my wife in the early 1980s, we used to walk by a carpet store on congress street everyday. they had this beautiful blue persian carpet in the window. we admire it everyday. one day we said let's just go in and see what it costs. we go in and the owner takes it out of the window. he lays it down on the floor, and it takes out a high incidence of it and puts it on top of it so we can examine the thread which is beautiful. we then said, would you flip it over so we can see the threads on the back court he did come in the second he did that there was a power surge which often happen in beirut, and high-intensity lamp exploded. burning shards came down on the back of the carpet, and without missing a beat, he said, sometimes they are worth more this way. [laughter] spin i never forget -- that' tht sister i would tell jared kushner. michele, martin really set you up, i think from what can he is really important question, and that is iran question. that so far there's been a lot of talk by the administration but no action about getting rid of the iran deal or adopting a more aggressive posture toward iran. what do you expect to happen out of them, knowing the characters? we talk about mcmaster and mattis and tillerson. and what do you think should happen, vis-à-vis the american iran, that would actually enhance the possibility, as martin alluded to, to actually advancing the israeli-palestinian peace process? >> so i think the good news is that jake the '08 did at least take -- jpo eight did take the nuclear question of the front burner with iran. the program is halted. several back in some very important respects that were described before. at least a decade or more. so with the focus is now is really on iran's other destabilizing activities in the region. it support for proxies. each use of the quds force to try to undermine regimes, to stoke civil wars and gain position whether it's in syria or iraq or yemen, and to gain power and influence in the region. i think that concern is real. i think this administration right now is speaking loudly and carrying a small stick, when all know the right and just speak softly and carry a big stick. but if they wanted to push back on iran harder, i think it would be probably the right course of action would be in quiet intelligence and special operations, interdiction kind of activities between the united states and israel, the united states and other golf partners and so forth. our expense has been with iran that when we actually put up some resistance to their behavior, not with a lot of public threats but quietly they sort of a u.s. wall, they often back off. so we need to do that but we need to do in a way that does not create so much tension and so much, doesn't create a crisis than undermines the very important progress we've made on the nuclear site. so it has to be delicate. i think our people inside the administration like secretary mattis understand that, ike h. r. mcmaster. the question is will they be listened to. who's going to drive this train at a time when you really don't have an interagency process, you have a national security council process that is leveraging the talent and experience you may have in your cabinet and in the departments to actually inform the deceased are being made by the president. >> rob, can there be a successful and sustainable israeli-palestinian peace process without a successful and sustainable sunni shiite peace process? >> i think i was a one makes the other much more complicated. if i could sell a bit more about iran, three points. first, martin made the point about how we need to repair relations with the region. i'm not going to deny that the obama administration had some rough relationships, but there is a good amount of owning, may be bad management in some case i would say is mitchell. they were real substantive differences. there's a difference on the peace process with israel. there's a difference with israel on iran, and with our neighbors wondering. there were not in favor of the jcpoa. it were differences on, with them, elections among the muslim brotherhood to govern and the role of democracy. so there are real differences. it's not going to be easy and less and maybe the company message will put all those to the side but it wasn't easy to keep the relationships in the state that one would like them to be, given a substantive differences which are very real and i think part of the obama meditations approach was to clarify these relationships by making clear the u.s. dance for democracy in the region. it stands for two-state solution. it doesn't want to get, intervene in syria and if that will create problems with allies will have to manage those problems and not sacrifice that use the administration. point number two on a rant, i think michele just alluded to it, it's going to be very hard to crank up, i don't always understand what people say push back against iran. tell me concretely, what does that mean in iraq? what doesn't that mean in syria or yemen? how are we going to push back? does it mean military, other steps? does it mean reinstating some of the sanctions that a been listed under the jcpoa? in which case of support iranians may say what's in it for us? we did it for the sanctions be lifted and now you're imposing them on the ground because our regional activities. i think you could quickly come to a point where the deal unravels. my third point is i think in terms of iran, the trump administration is going to face what i call a trilemma. there are three objectives that president trump in the campaign and then when he was elected said that he wants for the middle east. crush isis, crush iran, but america first meeting keep our present in the region to modest levels. you could have two of those three, any two of those 381, i have my first preference which i would choose, you can have all three. you can't simultaneously say that the priority is to defeat isis, keep our present on the ground modest, at the same time say you're going to go after iran and iran has many ways of retaliating against our presence in iraq, in syria which will make the fight against isis impossible unless we increase our troop presence to the point where we can wait to two front war against isis at iraq. that's a real conundrum and i think that's where the iran question is going to loom largest both in terms of whether we can come of the top administration wants to preserve the deal. that means being careful about how far you push and a confrontational you are. and also what i call the trilemma. you can't have everything. it's not an menu where you can eat everything you want. you will have to choose two of the three. the obama administration chose to. at this point it's not clear to me which to the top administration is going to pick up speed in the administration chose crush isis, keep a modest american presence, in effect kind of a standstill with iran. >> with iran the gamble was i would argue that it was pretty well achieved, not entirely, to the jcpoa, through continued sanctions come through multilateral diplomacy, through simple engagement. you can keep them in place where it's manageable. it wasn't a solution. the jcpoa didn't address the concerns that we have about iran. that was not part of the deal and it hasn't been part of the do. it would still be negotiated today. so it was a compartmentalized deal. i would argue everything else would be far worse if iran were rushing towards a nuclear bomb. that was the deal because the rest, it wasn't that people didn't think it would be great if iran wouldn't continue its ballistic missile program or its support for hezbollah or its other regional activities. it's just that you added that to the next, then the negotiations would go on a decade or more. >> what do you say to her sunni arab allies when they say you guys have not taken the iran threat seriously? iran is doubt influencing power in for arab capitals, but rude, damascus, baghdad and sinai? >> first lifestyle as if this happens all of a sudden. they were as you know, they had, they were in the root, damascus, in baghdad. i think yemen is kind of a different case and the look to anyone who wants to govern there. listen, i do want to belittle their concern. i think we, the united states, has to make a difference between understanding the concern and buy into the notion of sectarian war or the war between arabs and persians, or dismantling the deal. there's a line there and i'm nt sure the purpose of a lot of our allies was simply to keep iran in a box. some of them have far more aggressive agendas. and that's what i think the obama administration begin, it didn't complete it, and to get on the to admit where we fell short there needs to be a clarification in our dealings with israel and with the sunni arab states. what exactly do we see as a future of iran? it's not going to go away. we are not going to defeated militarily because it is proved, it knows the middle is better than we do, and just an anecdote. when i met a lebanese, this was before, just when the uprising began in syria, and lebanese who is close to and i was talking to him about what happens if assad goes and assad will not go, don't even think about it, but after i pressed him for some time he said okay, let's assume you americans get what you want. assad is gone, things are going better. who is better at dealing with chaos, you or us? afghanistan, look at iraq, look at syria, look at lebanon. we just do it better than you. you can go ahead and get your political objective but ultimately we, hezbollah, the iranians will be better at understanding and in manipulating and dealing with chaos and uncertainty and confusion. i think we have to be clear about what is the role iran going to play in the region, and until we have that sort of meeting of the mice between us and our allies, we're going to be a bit, i'm talking more about the obama administration now than the trump administration, there's going to be a gap because what they want, what if you want is not the same as what some of this year and the obama administration want. >> let's pick up on that. i will enlarge the question are repeated in the giveaway which is can we have an israeli-palestinian peace process without an iran-u.s. peace process? the iran-u.s. cold war has distorted it seems to be the middle east and our policy there. as much as anything else. wouldn't the interesting radical move for trump the apply the art of the deal to the iranians? >> i think that's a very good question, and there is a way that donald trump could actually approach this. but let me say first of all, that understand from the perspective of tehran, they see as coming, always. they are very smart. they understand the relationship between the arab-israeli conflict and their hegemonic ambitions very well. and so now if they wil they werd against them and they're going to try to promote the palestinian base as part of this, they will make sure to start something in the israeli-palestinian arena that will prevent that from happening. so one of the consequences, unintended consequences of all of this talk about regional peace is that the chance for conflict either between hezbollah and israel or hamas and israel, palestinian and islamic jihad, they will still geit up in one way or another. spin the minute we proceed down the track spin right. always be aware of unintended consequences as you will be the first to know. in terms of the art of the deal, so here's the thing. rob i think put his finger on it. if the iranians see that trump, under the influence of bibi netanyahu, is going to congress with his automatic support, for ratcheting up the sanctions, they've already started down this road, and particularly ratcheting up the financial sanctions, then the iranians have got to get to the point where they say hey, that's not the deal that we made. it was sanctions relief for our nuclear program, not our nuclear program plus increase sanctions. so i think that's part of the calculation is that my ratcheting up the sanctions, the iranians will be actually the ones who walked out of the deal, not the united states. that could lead to very bad consequences, which i don't think that president trump actually wants. i think he likes to be able to trust the deal that, you know, in terms of description, but actually to maintain the deal because he understands that it buys time. if he, god forbid, has eight years will still not face i run with any nuclear weapons if the deal holds. so better i think, along with answering a question, better for him to start to reach up quietly to the iranians and say the following. look, we can up the pressure on you with sanctions, but instead of doing that, let's talk about a deal in which we will actually remove our bilateral sanctions. that's what we are prepared to put on the table. now, here are the things we need from you. first of all, you're going to have to back away from exploiting sectarian tensions in the region. we can talk about the details of that. secondly, you're going to have to back away from your efforts to subvert israeli-palestinian negotiations. and thirdly, mo some poorly, we need to talk to you about extending the deal. we want to talk about the sunset provisions of the deal. in other words, to take the things that the critics of the deal says is wrong with the deal and fix it by offering, not increase sanctions, although it's out there, hanging out there as a sort of -- but rather take the sanctions all. that gets to your point about how maybe, just maybe with a smart negotiator you can actually get the iranians to the point where you want them to be, not through confrontation, that through negotiation. >> very interesting. [applause] >> there's a domestic parallel to that. you could actually make the point if trump wanted to be successful, there's sort of a mood out there, this admission reflexive and you sought in brexit, of what i call with it, don't fix it. you know what i mean. i use a different word for the first part, it starts with an f. but that is kind of the revolutionary mood out there. obamacare, with it, don't fix it. i ran deal, with it, don't fix it. nafta, rip it don't fix it. that's going to have it were to pursue all those enormously negative i think implications. that the really interesting move would be to actually on obamacare he should have called schumer and said look, usage or three negotiator i'll send mine. we'll send them all to camp david. let them come up with a fix of this thing. we'll both get credit. i'll get more but it will be okay. you would be 70% of the polls right now instead of this. michele, martin knows i have figural submittal is reporting that nsa somewhere that one day when i'm long gone i will publish because they're so politically incorrect the first one is that any u.s. general appointed to operate in that they should have to take a test. the test is very simple. it's just one question. do you think the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? [laughter] if you say yes, you can serve in korea, okinawa, japan, germany, but not in the middle east. for all the reasons martin just gave you, that kind of perfect, you do, scratch or left it with your right hand approach. so take what martin is talking about, applied to moscow, to putin. this administration has this bizarre relationship with the russians, which we do not know the bottom of, and nothing disturbs me more than that. but as you think about putin right now, ukraine, syria, influence iran and iran deal, how do you look at the u.s.-russian relationship evolving? let me add just one codicil here. does the fact that we have all of these unanswered questions about trump's relationship with the russians, questions that go as deep as wondering whether they have compromising material on him, does it actually limit his ability to collaborate with russia going forward, and what might the implications of that be? >> well, the easy question. you know, i do think that until we have a full independent investigation that gets to the bottom -- [applause] -- of russian interference in our domestic political process and the role of people in the trump campaign and around the trump campaign, there will be questions about any agreement that he negotiates on any topic when it comes to the hill and to the american people for support and potentially ratification. i think the first step is we have to a full sum independent investigation, let it go where it goes and get to the bottom of this. but when it comes to rus russiad the middle east, i think that putin has played a relatively limited hand very, very well. he has wanted to reassert russian as a world power. one of the ways he has done that is stepping into what he saw as a possible vacuum in syria he's done it without a lot of cost, and he's put himself in a position of being a real powerbroker in whatever negotiations ultimately occur to try to end the catastrophe that is the syrian civil war, and so forth. i think the thing i worry about in any sort of trump/putin deal, if trump goes into the negotiation thinking the objective is to lower tensions, we'll get a very bad deal. it would be nice to have a less tense relationship with russia, don't get me wrong, but we are very clear u.s. objectives in the middle east and that's what we have to protect. and oh, by the way, israel has a real stake in the kind of deal that comes out of the syrian negotiations. if it ends up with iranian proxy forces in the golan heights, that is not a good deal for israel. so israel really has to care about how this comes out. the other thing i would say is that, it's very difficult to separate all these issues, even what you were talking about with martin. if trump really does want to make substantially more progress, vis-à-vis isis, you have to worry about iran. because right now i ran is pushing baghdad to maintain a hard line against the sunnis inside iraq. as long as the approach of marginalization continues, we will have a very hard time even if we are successful in mosul with iraqis keeping isis out, keeping you from coming back again and again and again like a terrible, terrible weed. same is true in syria. you cannot follow the isis problem -- sol -- unless you get a solution to the broader syrian a problem that doesn't completely marginalize the majority of the population, which is 70. these things are going to be connected. and again this is where i worry that a sort of simplistic approach to a deal that says let's reduce tensions with russia vote actually deliver on the very real secret objectives that the mr. sasse in the region. >> very important. i want to get your take on that. both questions that michele raised, one is does donald trump's really odd and unknown relationship with the russians limit his capacity to do any major deal with them? and then does his, what i was struck me by the naïve approach, we want to work with the russians to extirpate isis, when russia's allies are his -- has ball and iran. when i read did not go to see to extirpate isis but to reinforce a genocidal dictator. is there any sort of u.s.-russian deal to be had? >> so first i think the answer to question is there toxic lead at least for the time being yes, i think does constrain the administration. it's notable that at having spoken about how they wanted to work with russia on syria, nothings happened so far as far as we know. the u.s. has not even sent a high-level delegation to the talk. part of it is and it makes sense that they just don't want to give more validity to the notion that there is something untoward in the relationship with russia. i think the answer is yes. i spent most of the last two years of dealing with the russians on syria. on the one hand i would say the u.s. is not going to be able to resolve syria. if rush is not part of it. there has to be deal at some point. i make no apologies for that even though we failed, many reasons that explain that. the question is what the deal looks like. the problem right now is that within the four corners of syria itself it's hard to see what the u.s. gives russia russia doesn't already more or less happened. so the question is whether you're going to expand it to. i don't deal with, fortune for now ukraine and others, which is dynamite. but if i'm putin what i want for the americans in terms of getting a deal on syria is not syria related because i base of had i the way i like. i want to cooperate more with u.s. against isis, that would rehabilitate russia make them look like they are close superpowers in the fight against terrorism, but the real payback if it is going to be in other spheres, mainly the european theaters and i'm not sure this administration particularly because of the concern and constraint that you raised is prepared to contemplate for now. >> go ahead, please jump in. >> much of this is about cooperation with russia in syria. it's important to understand that russia, rob can correct me if i got the phone, but rush is not fighting against isis but it's fighting against the arab, sunni arab opposition to a side who is in the client. and objective in syria is to keep aside in power, not to defeat isis. -- assad. what will we partner with them to do? what you will get out of any partnership is the assurance that assad is there to stay, and that means, as long as that's the case, there can't be a solution in syria because the sunni arabs that he has killed, so many displays, so many millions more, will not accept that. on the other hand, what happens in that kind of deal, who's the great beneficiary is not just assad, but i ran. right? because iran and hezbollah, the assad regime is in effect their proxy. syria is for them the linchpin in the path you are describing between yemen and iraq and syria and lebanon. so recognizing this, some in the trump administration have already said oh, well, the part of the deal will be we will wean russia from iran in syria. unit, good luck with that. i don't think that there's any chance the russians will turn against the iranians in syria, because they know the consequences of that. firebrand, it's of poor interest before everybody else it's just good to have, but syria is critical to the iranians. so they're not about to give it up in this kind of way, so if the russians were prepared to go down that road, fuel the confrontation, but i think there's a fundamental misconception. what we need to be doing in syria is weaning turkey away from russia, not russia away from iran. turkey and nato allies can and want to play a more assertive role in syria, and we need to concern our approach within a special in the east if we are to succeed in defeating isis. >> rob, i want to jump back to you for one second, and, because this issue has been out there. should we declare the muslim brotherhood a terrorist organization? >> no. >> why not? >> first of all the legal foundation doesn't exist. it says there has to be proof you engaged, leadership is engaged in terrorism in a way i'm told you can't make the case. the muslim brotherhood is a vast organization. some of their branches or networks are terrorist organizations. hamas is a designated terrorist organization. others are not. they have ties to organizations that have nothing to do with terrorism. part of the reason what even though it was on a list of executive orders that conversation is going to roll out, it hasn't happened because some coal of my template that it it it just, we can't do it. we don't know what to draw the line. what do you do with turkey? the akp is a philly with the muslim brotherhood. what do you do in countries like tunisia where their partners and government cracks what he do in country like jordan and morocco? i think that whole notion is again, part of the misconception that come up in trying to place domestic and foreign constituencies. but hopefully reason will prevail on that. it would be another long goal after the executive order on muslims emigration. >> when i listen to you as we, to a close and all of these issues and the complexity and irreconcilability of dealing with them, i'm reminded actually of my favorite quote, an interview with robert strauss, the great texas lawyer, negotiator who was briefly sent out to be the american middle east negotiator. he had never been to the west bank, so they came to israel and the israelis give them a helicopter tour of the west bank. and afterwards he gathered at the king give hotel with a group of reporters and they said, what did you think of the west bank? and he said, i couldn't tell you. they said, what did you think? i couldn't tell you. come on, tell us what did you think? he set off the record? yes, off the record. i don't know why one of them wouldn't want and why the other would just give it to them. [laughter] and so i think that what i think of the job of being secretary of defense for secretary of state today for national security advisor. and i want to close with each of you talking about this, did each a chance. is this not the worst time to be responsible for american foreign policy? that if somebody comes to you and says, martin, michele, rob, i'd like you to be secretary of state. when you really sit i had my heart set on agriculture? [laughter] the cold war was all about managing power to the post cold war all about american power. and the post post-cold war is all about managing weakness, hours, our allies, weak, collapsing states and that is helen wheels. martin? >> i'm going to let michele go first. >> it's about managing the chaos that is all around us in the world. i think what i would say is, you know, i don't think, given our historical role, architecting the post-world war ii order that has provided the basis for stability, economic growth, incredible peace and prosperity in a number of regions of the world, given the pressures on that order, the frame of the order, discipline report that martin and i participate in is all about, and america has to lead. we don't get the choice to step back and say we don't have an interest in how the order, whether the order survives, but it's adapted to deal with new realities. to do that is to throw away not only historical legacy, but any hope that we're going to get a better future that's more conducive to both interests, our values and our ability to continue to be a force for good in the world. >> i wanted michele to lead on this because she says it so much better than me. but there is an international order out there that is now being threatened. it was already being challenged before donald trump came along. but donald trump has around him people who consider that this is a teardown, not a renovation job. take your f-4 and -- f word and rework them. [laughter] so that is the challenge here, here yes, it's difficult it's always difficult, but the united states has huge ability to lead the world. there still a great deal of desire for american leadership. when the president of the united states says we're going to put america first, it sends a signl to everybody else, let's put our own interests first, everybody else, particularly the larger powers like china and russia who want to do that anyway. the rest of the world looks to the united states, not just to put its own interests first, but to put the interests of its international order, freedom, rule of law and protection of smaller states against the stronger ones, and promotion of all of the -- >> slow down. i'm writing my next column. >> and multilateral agreements and institutions, particularly and climate change, but in so many other ways in which for the last 70 years the united states has constructed a world order that serves not only american interests, it definitely does that come that serves the interest of the vast majority of humanity. and if we give that up -- [applause] >> if we give that up now for some sense of narrow, selfish purpose, we will, in the end, reap the whirlwind. we will pay the price in terms of our interests in the world. and so, not only is it any content important that you push back on the separate state indigent and preserve the idea of a two-state solution and the future of a jewish democratic israel, but it's really important. .. [laughter] [applause] >> well done. let's think that's great and all. [applause] ♪ ♪ .. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome richard to jay street board, richard o'connor. ♪ >> good morning. i am a founding member of the board of j street and cochair of our political action committee. [applause] ambassador of the two state solution was scheduled to join us today. unfortunately, we learned just a few days that he is unable to make the trip, but we are very, very grateful that his colleague, ambassador maen rahid areikat, another grace down a gray street -- jc was able to join us on short notice. ambassador areikat chief representative of the general palestinian liberation organization to the organization united state and has dedicated his life to bring in about a two state solution for israel and palestine. let me just say that again. a tuesday solution for israel and for palestine. [applause] at the pro-israel american jew, it is an honor to introduce them today. ambassador areikat has served as a negotiator with peace talks and representing the palestinian people in countries around the world. last fall, ambassador areikat on a joint speaking to her in the pacific northwest, a first of its kind between an american and palestinian leader, speaking to packed houses and meeting with jewish and palestinian communities come to seattle and san francisco help showcase the value of open debate and working together to find common ground for progress. the ambassador wrote together in the seattle times come in these discussions allow us to recognize their common humanity and interests. they are vital if we are going to move our towards an acceptable solution that both sides can claim. our main focus must be the future and how we can finally reach an arrangement that will satisfy the national aspirations of those people. ambassador areikat no-space negotiating compromise in cheesemaking or built unprincipled disagreements in critical debate. that hasn't stopped some figures in the american public and the pro-israel organizations associate with him and other leaders i somehow outside the tent. ambassador areikat, on behalf of jace reid, i cannot think of anything more important for the pro-israel pro-peace movement than continuing to engage with you towards our common purpose. that is why we are so honored to have you here to be with us today. so in the spirit of our shared commitment to peace, please join me in giving a warm welcome to ambassador areikat. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. i don't invalidate my glasses. good morning to all of you. and it's an honor to be here today. unfortunately for some unforeseen reason, he could not make it to this conference. so it is an honor to speak at your sixth annual conference, congratulate you. a few years ago, not too many people thought that you had last that long, but here you are doing. [applause] doing what you have to do, which is to serve a course that case between palestinians and israelis in the middle east. [applause] i know how much criticism has been direct good towards inviting pla officers and palestinian officials to speak future venues and activities. my dear friend jeremy came under attack on our tour last october from the usual source of criticism for associating with me and onto her that took us to seattle to san jose and san francisco. the role of j street explained today is very short. we do not agree as palestinian with everything we are advocating. however, there is a very strong agreement between us, which is there is no way out for this conflict between palestinians and israelis, that the two state solution. [applause] now, this seems to be getting difficult every day. unfortunately, the current policies are the policies of the israeli government is making things more difficult from the ground to realize the object lives of two states, palestine and israel living side-by-side in peace and security. the israeli government, the current israeli government is acting within purity, defying international law, defines find agreement with the palestinians and also undermining the creation of a palestinian state that would put an end to the conflict and what put an end to all historical claims. this is something people tend to forget here. president areikat has repeatedly said the agreement we are seeking what is real will not only on the conflict, but also all historical claims between the two people. this is very important for you to remember. [applause] this shows a better object to about creating a palestinian state is a strategic objective. when we made the historic compromise in 1988, to accept the creation of a palestinian state in the west bank, the gaza strip with east jerusalem as its capital, we accepted the creation of the state on 22% what used to be historic palestine. that was a very eventful compromise for us. we still are committed today to that compromise. however, we cannot compromise on the compromise. [applause] i enjoyed what the panelists are the guests who are here earlier, very fine group of people whom i had the pleasure of working with. ambassador indyk, i met him the first time in 1993, 1994 when he worked for the clinton administration, on two occasions. they both spoke about one state versus two state. now, if this current israeli government is supported in this country are do not want a two state solution, what do they want? they want a one state, equal right. if this is what they want, we are willing to accept that and the solution to the conflict. however, you all know it's not that they are exactly seeking to achieve. they are trying to prolong comment to sustain the status quo and to continue building and continue to swallow more palestinian land and once and for all to destroy any possibility for the establishment of the palace indian state. now this is an outcome that neither you nor as are working to achieve. today, despite on the ground, we continue to be committed to a two state solution because what we are having today is one state with two systems where we have an occupation, a settlement enterprise and the population that does not have any control over its life and is still under military occupation. so when we talk about tuesday and wednesday, we have to be careful because the alternatives to a two state is not going to be favorable for either israelis or palestinians. that is why we shared that with j street and we commend you for your courage. the work that you are doing among the american jewish community, the work you are doing the congress, with the government to continue to drive this message across and to continue to rally support for the two state solution. true underground is fading away. however, again there is no other solution that will put an end to the con let and allow both palestinians and israelis to develop their national identities and to be good neighbors and to turn the page and order a new chat during their lives. [applause] now of course we cannot ignore the recent changes that took place in this country, the new administration. the confusion about one state, two state, you know, everybody is confused. here we are confused as much as you are. it is going to be difficult to predict the cause of action that this administration is going to take. however, as palestinian, we have not been approached yet by this new administration. they have approached arab countries in the region. they have sought the face of arab diplomat in this city about the future of the region and they still are calculating or waiting for the right time to approach us. we have had in direct talks with them through third parties. the highest level meeting that took place between us and the new administration was with cia director visited the west bank two weeks ago and met with president abbas. however, we are ready to engage this administration. we are ready to engage this administration based on mutual respect, international law, long-standing positions that do not condone or support of settlement activities and does not turn their eyes away from any violation or action that israel takes to undermine the prospect of peace between palace demands and israelis. [applause] so the talk about the imagery from tel aviv to jerusalem. now, jerusalem is a sensitive issue. jerusalem is important to arabs, muslims, christians, jew and israelis. our vision of jerusalem on as palestinians, a city of peace that will be okay and to all the followers of the religion, that all religions have their right to protect and preserve. this is our vision of jerusalem. not a divided city today were east jerusalem is a different set to. but we envision jerusalem to eat is the capital of all-caps-off for both israeli and palestinians. our vision for jerusalem is a vision of peace and that is what we want to continue to promote. the united states cannot take any unilateral action to undermine an issue that is a great between palestinians and israelis to be decided in the final steps of the negotiations. neither west north east jerusalem are recognized in a country in the world as the capital of palestine or israel. so we really need to sit down, palestinians and israelis in order to sort out this problem. any emotional decision to move the embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem is going to have very, very negative repercussions and could seriously complicate and undermine any future after is to resolve the conflict between the palestinians and israelis. we have made our position clear to the new administration directly and indirectly. and i hope that this administration will be wise enough to understand how sensitive and delicate is the issue of jerusalem and leave it to the parties to reach the final agreement on the future of the city. you hear many top about outside in, inside out. they spoke before about the economy first. they spoke about security first. they spoke before about peace with the arabs first and now we are hearing this once again, that they are trying to first make peace with arab countries and i don't like the description that was used as sunni countries. and as sunni muslim. but i never really thought of myself as sunni muslim until recently when we started talking about shiites, sunnis. i am a muslim. [applause] any attempt, i urge people here not to further the divide among muslims by describing some to be shiites and some to be sunnis. it is time that we stopped back. if you look at the arab countries, 22 arab countries. 20 of them are sunnis. iraq is not divided. the population is shiite and sunnis. lebanon is a different situation with christians and muslims share the country. so what is the purpose of continuing to describe between being divided between sunnis and allies. i reject that and i urge everybody to be careful about these descriptions. we don't want more religious sect tyrian strife in our region. we've had enough. [applause] and this is an issue here that many in that administration think it could be done. let's bring the saudi's, amorous, both countries and try to make them sends this common danger with the country, regional power power in iran and hopefully maybe israel can manage to convince them to accept to make peace before they make peace with palestinians. >> this has been tried many times before. it did not work. even if there are different circumstances who want to do that in the region, it is not going to happen. it's going to be difficult to justify two arab people in all these countries why their governments are making them lasting peace with israel before the palestinian conflict is not resolved. instead of doing that, instead of circumventing the arab peace initiative, but pushed the arab peace initiative which will enable israel to have peace not only with 22 arab countries, but with 57 arab and muslim countries and end the conflict with the palestinians, normalize relations between israel and its arab. this is the best approach to resolve the conflict. [applause] now, i don't want to talk much, but i want to touch on the issue of anti-semitism and tell you all if you don't know that i am a semi. you have to understand i am a muslim samite and we have two all work together to make sure that these are good, racist, anti-semites, his lama phobics do not succeed in this country. [applause] we know history. we know history very well. it is not a surprise when the first to calm our american jew in this country. and it is not a surprise to see muslim charities raise $100,000 last week to jewish cemeteries. this is a fight that we would like to see our brothers in this country also join us. there is no place, no room for bigotry. anti-semitism, his lama phobia and does who are exporting fear should not succeed. we want this country to continue to be the example of tolerance between different legends, different ethnic grounds and i respect senator chris murphy. it should not be only because he supports israel. it violates your values. [cheers and applause] it is not enough to say i am doing this because i want to protect israel. i want to protect the existing of israel. undermined the very basic foundation that this country was based on. [cheers and applause] so jeremy, do you gasp and friends here, we will continue to work with you. we will come under attack. you will come under attack, i will, under attack. however, we do have the fundamental shared value to see an end to this conflict between palestinians and israelis. we talk about your children and my children. i want out indian children and israeli children to have the better future and a better life. and we only can do that if we put an end to this perpetual conflict based on a two state solution palestine and israel. a viable sovereign democratic continuous palestinian state that can live side-by-side with israel and security because we need security. this is not a slogan. believe me it is not a slogan. this is a very solid commitment on the part of palestinians, the plo, the palace indian leadership to continue to work with you to promote our message and to achieve our joint objectives. thank you very much. [applause] [cheers and applause] ♪ >> i heard rumors about this guy's lifestyle for a while. so i sort of wanted to wait and see if anything out became public about this guy. about a year later i started looking into his life and into his campaign donation, his spending and what made him one of washington top lobbyist. >> the u.s. had been expected to gather in shortly. in half an hour from now, lawmakers will hold a vote for ben carson to be new hud secretary of the trump administration. after that, they will continue work on the former texas governor rick perry to head the energy department. voting this confirmation expected tomorrow. now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by sharad h. creasman the campus minister and advisor of the president of brevard college in brevard, north carolina.