examine the legacy of keeping hearings. exam events surrounding the 1972 break-in at democrat national committee headquarters at the watergate completion in washington, d.c. the investigation led to the resignation of president nixon. saturday on c-span 2. >> c-span is your unfunded view of government. >> the world has changed. today the fast, reliable internet connection is something no one can live without so wow is there for our customers with speed, variety, and choice. now more than ever, it all starts with great internet. >> suprt c-span has a public service along with other providers, giving you a front

row seat to democracy. >> aaron david miller is with the caron get endowment of international peace, serves as their senior fellow, thank you for being here. months complicated the issue? guest: three october seven, the israeli-palestinian issue had reached what i call a strategic cul-de-sac. the prospects of significant breakthroughs in pursuit of a conflict ending solution were basically undermined by the absence of leadership by either side and the sheer impossibility of reaching agreement on border security. that this conflict would bring

to a settlement of existing claims situation with difficult and fraught well before october 7. now, we've taken the israeli-palestinian conflict to a place it's never been before. the traumatic impact of october 7 and and the israeli response is created extraordinary trauma primarily to civilian populations especially in gaza. it has created a sense that when this phase dies down, as it will, israelis and palestinians will not sit with one another. the problem is not that we don't understand one another, the problem is you know each other only too well and if that transpires, i think the future is going to be truly bleak because there will not be any space, any space in order to

create what is required first to stop conflict and then somehow to end it to a better pathway of negotiations leading to what i believe is the least worst solution to this conflict and that is separation through negotiation into a palestinian state living in peace and security alongside israel. the processes are slim to say the least. it's clear what happens in gaza also does not stay in gaza because you now have a situation where even though the regional conflict has been somewhat contained over the last six months between israel and hezbollah, we see iranian strikes against u.s. military and the recent escalation between iran and israel has taken us into new, dangerous and very uncharted waters. host: in the short term, what

are possible aftereffects of what we saw a couple of weeks ago concerning iran? guest: there are two or three questions we need to ask that are clear to me. answering them will be difficult. has the attacks on one another's territory which is unprecedented , certainly attacks that were overtly claimed by both sides, unprecedented. will these attacks lead to a greater risk readiness on the part of iran and israel? could this somehow become the new normal all or turn it to, will this lead both of them to scale back and understand how close they came to the possibility -- which i think neither of them once frankly -- and that is taking another step or two of the escalatory letter, something the middle east is

never experian's before which is a regional war. number two is the issue of how will each side compensate for the loss of deterrence which i think has been clearly demonstrated by the fact that there was very little compunction in striking the territory. for the iranians, this may well lead to a decision to ramp up their nuclear program. with the israelis have struck iran if tehran had a deliverable nuclear weapon? iran strike israel full well knowing, even though it is not acknowledged by u.s. officials or the israelis, that israel possesses not one deliverable nuclear weapon but quite a few. i think those are the two questions. if in fact there was some mechanism, some de-escalation process that would somehow work

with both parties and diminish the prospects of conflict, i would feel more sanguine about what the future holds but the reality is the competition is a strategic rivalry. it is a zero-sum game in which both parties believe that the stakes are existential in nature. when it comes to those sorts of conflicts, i look at the last 27 years of my experience from the late 70's to the early oughts, 2003 is when i left the state department. when parties in conflict believe their vital interests are at stake, these outside parties are very limited. the middle east is literally littered with remains of great powers who wrongly believed they could impose their dreams and schemes and ambitions on smaller ones. i'm afraid.

i don't have a whole lot of positive prescriptions either for the israeli-i must warrant gaza or the regional competition between tehran and jerusalem. host: our guesswork to the state department as a middle east analyst and negotiator and republican and democratic administrations and currently at the carnegie endowment for international peace here to take your questions, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats and independents (202) 748-8002. to the role the u.s. plays now, what is the best role? guest: the question is what does the united states want to achieve? i think it's ending in containing the conflict in six months income i think the biden administration finds itself in what i call a strategic cul-de-sac. it's politically weekend,

dealing with two parties, the government is israel in the islamic resistance of hamas with no urgency now in either side frankly to ending this conflict and is now faced with the prospect of a serious escalation that could without much of my nation -- without much imagination could go into a war. there may be a lot of leverage on paper. six months in, the administration for any number of reasons, we can talk about has basically been reluctant to impose what i would describe and what normal humans, let's assume u.n. me would describe as significant or serious pressure. that's as far as the israelis are concerned. with respect to hamas, i don't know where the levers start. u.s. doesn't have any and

countries have limited access and they post the hamas external leadership. the architect of the october 7, what his true calculations are, is this and end of days strategy for him in this cosmic world or does he believe that he can survive this using time, tunnels and the tragic situation of hostages. there is the expert initial rise in deaths of palestinians with who had nothing to do with this conflict. 30 or 40% of women and children to which hamas expose them to retaliation to destroy hamas as a political and military organization. neither israel nor hamas right now are on the cusp of realizing their objectives and that poses

a huge problem. i think the administration thought and maybe it still believes that it could create the environment for an israeli-hamas hostage exchange that would buy six weeks of quiet, returning 134 hostages, 34 of whom the israelis believe were killed on october 7 and the bodies taken to gaza. that leaves 100 hostages. even if that deal was consummated, hamas would still retain 50 hostages, almost certainly israeli soldiers and male soldiers and male civilians. what they want is a comprehensive cease-fire and withdrawal of the israeli forces from gaza but that's clearly not going to happen. i don't see how it will happen. israel is bent on continuing its campaign to destroy hamas.

to be quite honest, i cannot provide you with an rx had to get out of this. i don't think the u.s. is in a position to use the leverage it has. i think we have very little leverage when it comes to hamas and that's where things stand. it's not encouraging. host: this is our first call from richard in michigan on our independent line. good morning, go ahead. caller: i'd like you to confirm and pedro i'd like you to make a pledge and have the host of c-span, whenever someone says that israel is committing genocide, is a blood libel canard because let's just say 35,000 people were killed, at least half of them were soldiers

and fighters and if israel wanted to, they could kill hundreds of thousands of people. they've destroyed 50 or 60% of the buildings and only killed that few people, they are either pretty poor aims or they are really not trying to kill everybody. host: that's richard in michigan. guest: the international court of justice and it will take them another two years if that to rule on the question of whether the israelis are committing genocide in gaza. if genocide -- there is a definition of it and i'm not an international lawyer but i look at the situation. what the israelis done in an effort to destroy hamas as a military organization has involved the deaths of scores of thousands of innocents and yes, the 34,000 of the hamas-controlled ministry of

health has calculated includes 12-14,000 hamas fighters and combatants. i think this is a just war but i think it's been waged with an expansion of israel's rules of engagement. i think there is no question about that. is it genocide? i don't think is genocide. i don't think the israelis willfully determine as the khmer rouge in cambodia where the nazis were in germany fundamentally extinguish socially, culturally politically an entire people? i don't think that's a what's going on. we wouldn't even be having this conversation if october 7 had not occurred. host: sorry. guest: i think these discussions and debates, i understand the emotional impact but frankly in

the end, i think they don't deal with the practical reality that in effect we face. those practicalities are so galactic right now. this conflict shows no prospects between israelis and palestinians of coming to an end and i don't see the mechanism by which that will happen. it certainly will not happen by adjudication in the international criminal court or court of justice were in the corridors of power. it has to be somehow ameliorated by the influence of parties working with the israelis and key states that have influence over hamas and somehow create another path forward but right now, i refuse to engage in hypothetical discussions of this or that solution. we are six-month into the work and we have yet to see a

compelling pathway for how both sides get out of it. frankly, right now, i don't see it nor do i see the international community which in response to so many examples of mask killing, where do you want to start? the holocaust, cambodia marie wanda -- rwanda, the international commute including the united states needs to focus the power and intent and motivation to deal with these issues and right now, as we talk about gaza, we are talking about catastrophic levels of violence and starvation in places like sudan. again, i don't think united states is a potted plant. we can use our influence but right now i don't see how given the circumstances. that includes the political circumstances that will be -- that won't be terribly effective

to end this conflict. host: alan in indiana, democrats line. caller: thank you for having me on. i appreciate "washington journal " and i'm a big fan of yours. much kudos to you and good luck. i have to add some odds with just observati i think this is a simple situation with a very simple solution in the occupation. 76 years and this did not start on october 7. 76 years ago, palestine was invaded and occupied by 200,000 displaced european jews. because of our american and british imperialism, it was a protector britain and britain did a lousy job protecting them. we decided to dump the people there because we had no thoughts about palestinians even though we had a ban on european jews

coming to the united states. we didn't want them but we would dump them in palestine. they had a good run for about 76 years just like south africa but it's time to end the occupation. the second question i want to ask you, does israel have nuclear weapons? i guess we should all know the answer to that because in my mind it's yes but if you look at the signing 10 amendment which was created back in the 1950's that said any country that develops nuclear weapons will not receive financial aid or support from the united states. we should follow our own laws. we are so hypocritical on foreign policy. we know they have nuclear weapons and we should immediately stop supporting them . israel does not have the right to exist as they are an invading occupying force. guest: the first question is not

a question and not a prescription. this is not one hand clapping. the conflict has existed for decades and we don't have the time nor do i have the inclination to try to unpack and unwind this. even if i tried, the caller has a clear view of who is to blame. you have two choices in this conflict. i work for 27 years to try to help israelis and palestinians. you can work for your own team and decide one part of the conflict has moral superiority over the other and it is more just than the other side or you can look at this and say it is a conflict as persistent and the consequence of israeli and palestinian behavior but it's also a conflict in which both sides have competing needs and requirements that need to be addressed. that's the basic reality here. as far as nuclear weapons, i

think i address that in my opening remarks that the government of israel has never declared that it possesses nuclear weapons. you won't get a u.s. official to comment on that. i will give you my opinion that israel has developed nuclear weapons. as far as the signing 10 amendment and the notion we should terminate our assistance to any country that has nuclear weapons, the five-member security council, two of our key allies britain and france both possess nuclear weapons. so to the indians and the pakistanis. we have relations with both of them. i'm not a fan of nuclear weapons and i think they shouldn't exist but we -- but they do. i would argue that it be terrific to figure out how to get rid of them but in the meantime on planet earth, instead of in a galaxy far, far

away, we have to figure it had to contain the issue of nuclear proliferation and ensure that powers like north korea which has declared nuclear weapons and iran which is a nuclear weapons threshold state, it has all the elements that are required to actually weaponized should it make a decision to do so, we got to figure out a better way to contain this. i'm not terribly optimistic when it comes to looking at the pathway the israelis and iranians seem to be on now with respect to their regional competition. host: we saw the house pass the supplemental package for israel and the senate is set to take it up today. even in the passage, some democrats voted against and criticized the move. what do you think about the back-and-forth in congress over this additional aid to israel? guest: i think there is no question that the u.s.-israeli relationship which has been driven over the course of decades by two primary drivers.

number one is value, the notion that israel in the u.s. share common values and the other is common interests. the u.s. and israel share a high degree of coincidence of interest. over the last 15 years, there is tremendous stress on both of those. and israel come you have the most extreme government in the history of the state of israel, to ministers who are openly racist. i would call them jewish supremacists and their pursuing policies clearly with respect to the west bank in their annexation everything but name only. there are generational differences now in this country. congress has become more diverse. you have democrats were calling to openly sanction israel and more than a few mainstream democrats want to impose consequences on israel. someone who is a support of the u.s.-israeli relationship when

the relationship in fact is maintained equitably and doesn't become exclusive, i think it can be used in a way that benefits both the interest of the state of israel and the u.s. but i think it's under great stress. 37 house democrats is my math right? they basically voted against the national security supplemental with respect to israel. they have legitimate concerns about restricting military assistance to israel. in a different time and under different circumstances, i think the u.s. and israel can sit down and figure out a way to actually win israel off american military assistance. it's an extremely wealthy country with incredibly high gdp per capita. it's an extraordinary place. it really doesn't need $3.8

billion per year. we can continue to research the israelis and they can have access to by our high state weaponry but this military creates a dangerous dependency. i think it complicates the relationship. at some point, down the road at some point, there ought to be serious discussions between the two governments about how to reconstruct the better relationship when it comes to the issue of military assistance. i want to make one more point on republicans and democrats. i've the voted for both. in my judgment, the line for an effective foreign policy is not between left and right or liberal and conservative and not between democrats and republicans. it's between dumb on one hand and smart on the other. the only thing matters is what

side you want america to be on, the dumb side or the smart side? i believe in the national interest all my life. the national interest that transcends partisan politics and party affiliation and what you just saw even in our dysfunctional political system with this pernicious polarization, which is on congress over the last several days is an extraordinary demonstration even amidst that dysfunction of a fundamental belief that support for israel, tie ukraine and humanitarian assistance for the palestinians and others was in fact a national interest of the united states. i think democrats and republicans need to sit down and think very hard about how to turn the m in me upside down. then it becomes a w. in we that's the key here. it's my hope although i can't

say i'm terribly optimistic that would be a great direction to head. christine on our independent line from michigan. good morning and thank you for accepting my call. caller: thank you mr. miller for letting me speak to you. i'm in my late 70's and i've been watching this and paying attention for decades now. the holocaust was horrible. i know, i visited auschwitz. i know how horrible that was. the palestinians did not do it. in 1947, we decided to create an israeli state, why wasn't there a palestinian state also? you kick those people off and you wonder how this happened. and we will not kill hamas because it's an idea.

you can't kill the idea. got to do something diplomatically. these days, i agree with you, israel and they been doing the west bank settlements for years and we in the u.s. keep saying you shouldn't be doing that but we allowed them to. yes, they are a rich country but yet we are giving them all this money. that gives them the right and the fact of the matter is, both sides are wrong. both sides are wrong. i don't know how this can result because now it spilling over into our college campuses. all of a sudden, everybody has decided that violence is the only means. our politics, the colleges and everywhere and violence is what destroys everybody. thank you for listening. host: thank you for the call. even on the front pages of many

of the papers today, what's going on college campuses as far as protests. if you can weave that into your response. guest: i spent seven years in ann arbor non-from ohio to have to live down michigan beating ohio state three years in a row. every time i go home, i don't have to grieve for my relatives and friends. what's happening -- let me start this way, i was in ann arbor during the vietnam war. i have not ever seen any foreign policy issue without exception rural american politics and college campuses in the foreign policy issue as the gaza war has and frankly, i'm not sure i fully understand it. think about this -- not even when the united states was

deployed in afghanistan and iraq , when american men and women were dying, when we were afghans and iraqis, do you see the kinds of polarization and irrational debate and emotion and passion which often involves into hate speech, islamophobia and antisemitism that we are witnessing. i am a smart guy but i don't get it. i don't understand why this has happened. it has driven people to their corners in a way i have not seen. it has created a situation with no civility. when i say civility, i don't

just mean a conversation and the fact that i can listen to you without screaming and yelling or walking away. i am not talking about that kind of civility. civility is the capacity not just to be policies -- polite. it is the capacity to listen to what they are saying so that just maybe while you are listening to the other one, they might say something of value. not only to make the argument better but maybe to build a bridge on which the two of you can somehow begin to agree. that is gone. it has disappeared. it has gone the way of the dodo. i don't understand it. i have been to several universities. the campus is that i have been

on including the university of michigan, terrific reception. whether this is prevalent across the united states on every single college campus, i very much doubt. the fact that it is happening at yale, columbia and university of michigan, it is a very dark moment. if you cannot figure out a way to have these discussions on a university campus, where will you have them? there is a time in the educational process where you are free from otherworldly issues. people struggle with college loans. if you cannot debate the issues in a serious way, which is part of the purpose of a college or

university education in this country, where do you get the time or the inclination to do it? i am pretty discouraged about this. host: some of the papers this morning, photos from new york university of demonstrations taking place. this call is from wayne in pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: how are you all doing? i would like to ask one or two questions. you are a knowledgeable person about the situation that is going on. everybody is talking about the hostages. you have destroyed my cities, towns, brothers, uncles. i want to ask you this but you will probably not answer. dui he believed that the hostages are still alive -- do

you believe that the hostages are still alive under all of that rubble? can you answer that? you might not want to answer it. if i was a military person or if that were my country, the terrorists would not be alive. host: that is wayne in pennsylvania. guest: we talk about palestinian grief and suffering and catastrophic starvation. thousands of palestinians, drawing attention to october 7 where what you saw was an indiscriminate, sadistic and depraved killing spree. no distinction between men, women, children. -- it has not been confirmed.

hostages, 253. there was an exchange for palestinian prisoners out of israeli jails. i only look for what i have gleaned from other sources. 134 hostages alive and dead in gaza, covered by hamas and probably the palestinian islamic jihad. 31 of those the israelis believe are now dead. their bodies taken by hamas to gaza to trade for palestinian prisoners. or they died in captivity. there are some estimates, i interviewed the former israel prime minister on a show "carnegie connects."

at least half of the hostages are dead. it is impossible to know. but one thing is clear, the longer they are captive under extremely -- if you listen to the stories of the freed hostages, particularly the women , it is a very grim outcome. while the hostages are not the most important element i am told in the way israelis are approaching war, they are the most urgent element. in the six months and counting, under extremely difficult circumstances. i am tired, frankly, of one side or the other managing to want to capitalize and monopolize their pain. both israelis and palestinians

have suffered. while i do not expect them to understand or be empathetic or sympathetic to one another, what i do expect as i expect of myself, is for humans and americans thousands of miles away from this, to be able to understand the pain and the suffering and the trauma both on israelis and palestinians. the inability to basically recognize this on a human level, again, i don't know. i had an extraordinary mother. she taught me care about other people. she taught me to think about other people and be empathetic and sympathetic. we are bound together in certain ways but i do not understand why it is so difficult for people

thousands of miles away from where the conflict is taking place in the security of the prosperity of this extraordinary problem, that they cannot understand the pain and suffering on both. why is it necessary to trump one another? i don't get it. but i put it out there because i think if people embraced the alternative in the way that they felt about both sides and did not turn it into every -- into a morality play, we might actually be able to engage with one another in a much different way. i have been in the public conversation for a long time. i am impressed by the capacity that people actually do have to understand one another. i just think it is missing here. host: i apologize.

let's hear from jacob in maryland on the democrats line. caller: over the past 20 years or so, i think the israeli government has become one of the most extremist and repressive governments at least in terms of the history of israel. netanyahu has this famous line of we control the height of the flames and so on. it is no surprise to anyone that october 7 is an awful tragedy and there is a lot of pain and suffering happening in the region. no easy solution to this. my question is why has biden seemingly not really done anything to stop the netanyahu government from continuing its current means of oppression. we have a 25-1 ratio of israelis

to palestinians. why has biden done effectively nothing to stop the current israeli administration from doing what they are doing and slaughtering the people they have killed in palestine. thanks. guest: i will offer you an explanation. i am not here to advocate on anybody's behalf. i'm here for three reasons. six months in, there was not a single consequence that you and i would consider serious. there are three levels to the administration that could have

conditioned the military and introduced their own counterrevolution. they could have abandoned the notion of an israeli-hamas negotiation. simply said, we will deal with the hostages later. we just need to stop. hamas needs to stop. need to stop. we need a complete succession, a cease fire. the president has not been willing to do any of these things. i think for three reasons. i think his emotional identification with israel was deep. i watched bill clinton grieve for the late prime minister of the -- joe biden support for israel, his regard for the

security of the israeli public, the idea of israel, is deeply ingrained on his emotional and political dna which brings me to the next issue which is the politics. yes the democrats are outraged. yes, in a rose -- close election that could be determined by three states under 1000 votes, youth president would have course corrected. he also calculates that sanctioning israel, restricting military assistance and getting tough with israel will cost him. on the conservative democrats as well as the republican party, because it is true that is the israel can do no wrong party. i think there is a political

angle to his willingness to expose himself by toughening up. finally, i think he also deeply believes that the only way you will free the hostages, the only way you will be able to send humanitarian assistance into gaza, the only way we will be able to de-escalate the situation for six weeks or six months is with the support of the current government. i think he also believes this is not just a benjamin netanyahu's. he has a stake in prolonging it. if he loses power, he will face one of two outcomes. conviction or a plea deal which drives them out of politics. it is not just netanyahu's war.

the israeli public. it is not just biden going to war against netanyahu figuratively. we have these three reasons which if combined -- which have combined to make it extremely difficult. this is his power -- his policy. very hard for him to bring himself to do that. they are considering right now invoking military assistance and training to any military unit that receives it that is accused of gross violations of human rights and they are now looking at a battalion -- the israelis are opposed and arguing. the administration may follow through on this. i think you have moments and

instances where the administration is willing to be much tougher. by and large, this is a good issue for biden. it is a hard -- it is hard for him to bring himself to draw from any of these three baskets. host: let's hear from peter in tennessee on the republican line. caller: there was a caller earlier that said he was on the palestinian side. even people who do not believe in god but look at the bible as a historical document, they will tell you that is god's chosen people and he gave them israel. why, i don't know. even scientists and archaeologists, they use the historical document, they have

done discoveries. i have watched a lot of our military people even use it for the tactics used by the israeli soldiers from moses on up. these people hollering that the jews through them out of there is bull. i don't know why these people believe that. even if you don't believe in god , they are his chosen people. it is a historical thing. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: the notion that jews have no claim to jerusalem -- the most extreme annexations are wrong.

the question is whether or not you can find a way to reconcile the legitimate needs and requirements of palestinians with the security and the needs and requirements of the state of israel. that's the issue right now. rights are important. claims are critically important. in the end, this will polarize waste on practical reality. whether or not two people between the mediterranean sea and the jordan river, 15 million people between the mediterranean sea and the jordan river can find a way, with outside help. i believe the u.s. can, with the right attitude, and committed on the part of the israelis and palestinians, can find a better pathway. i continue to believe in this. i have two kids in their 40's. i cannot mortgage their future.

i cannot mortgage the future of israelis and palestinians by saying this cannot happen. i think it can happen. it requires the one thing we have not talked about and that his leadership. where are the leaders in israel and on the part of the palestinians who are not prisoners of their ideologies? leaders who are willing to compromise and who are willing because they believe it is in the best interest of their respective peoples and one another to make the key decisions on the five issues that need to be resolved. border, security, refugees, jerusalem and end of all conflict and claims. there is a chance to do this. certainly not now. surrendering to the forces of hopelessness and despair is not the answer. retreating into your respective corners determined to prove your

side is right and the other is wrong, good versus evil is wrong as well. you need to understand the needs and the requirements of the other and be courageous enough and empathetic enough to support the idea that negotiation on both sides can get what they want. maybe they cannot. but it is critically important for their security and well-being and for hours as well that we try. host: the website for the carnegie endowment for

president biden is also expected to attend and me remarks. live coverage from inside ballroom begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington. live and on demand. keep up with live streams, floor proceed, and hearings from the u.s. congress. white house events, the court, campaigns and more from the world of politics. all after your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "wall ofwashington