tv Book TV CSPAN November 24, 2013 6:00am-8:01am EST
that you are talking about. but it does seem that people drive by there and they have cameras and they turn the sprinklers on for people to stop by and they don't like people poking in and it's almost like a compound. >> what you are talking about is actually the international headquarters near hemet in southern california. formally an old spot.
my husband knew him. they worked together in 1958 the glacier park, montana. >> guest: you worked with whom? >> host: janet? janet, i apologize. i'm going interrupt you. janet, i didn't understand who your understand worked with? >> caller: they were working in glacier park in a lodge in 1958. >> host: who? >> caller: hebert. >> guest: okay. >> host: janet, very quickly, go ahead. >> caller: anyway. we wanted to know. you had earlier talked about him being in this compound. has anybody seen him? is he okay? that's my question. >> guest: yes. he came out recently for a funeral of a family member, and apparently talked to his
brother. but then his brother told people about what hebert said. i think they cut off communication. but, you know, he's alive and he's healthy, apparently. but he has -- >> host: is he being held prisoner? >> guest: you know, it's hard to say because if you went in -- this is what top-level executives told me. they told the fbi if you were to open the door and say you're free, they would say we're here of our own will. there was a night where david came down with a jam box and played musical chairs, and the idea was the last person sitting can stay. everybody else you're thrown out. you are out of here. husbands and wives are going to be divorced. he had airline tickets printed and u-haul trailer. he was offering them freedom
essentially. they were fighting each other, tearing clothes, breaking chairs in order to stay. in my opinion, there is nothing more exsemifie the hold of scientology has. >> host: the church is headquartered here in florida; correct? >> guest: there's the spiritual headquarter is in clear water. >> host: and david, what can you tell us about him? does he go out in public? he active in the local community? >> guest: well, he divides his time between the headquarter in california and also in l.a. and then in the clear water. he essentially is closeted in the church confine for the most part. he's not public. he doesn't, you know, you -- i don't recall seeing him in public in a long time. he's certainly not giving
interviews, i can tell you that. and he's not responded to my requests on multiple occasions. so scientology has a huge presence in clear water. a vast number of properties and they have tried to make that community feel a little more at ease with their presence, but it's been difficult because at one point, for instance, they tried to frame the mayor with a false hit-and-run and at one point they did the same thing with him trying to pretended he had an affair with somebody. it was, you know, they have not made themselves welcome there. >> host: lawrence wright. "going clear: scientology." here is the cfer of -- cover of the book. thank you for joining us in miami. >> guest: thank you. >> host: it's always a
pleasure. the next panel coming up live from the miami book fair. one on the dwo. -- development of america. two historians will be up here. nathaniel philbrick and brenda wineapple. "ecstatic nation: confidence, crisis, and compromise, 18-48-1877" this is live coverage on booktv as we take you back to chatman auditorium. [inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪ >> good afternoon. hello, everybody. welcome to the 30th miami book
fair international and our presentation this afternoon. we're very grateful. i'm diane king. i work here at the school of engineering and technology, and i'm pleased to welcome all of you. and also, to express gratitude for the support of hoh american airlines, and many other generous sponsors. and also, our friends at the book fair, thank you for your support and for being here. at the end of the session, we'll have time for questions and answers. and the authors will be autographing books as well out here on the floor. you can purchase books and have them autographs. at this point, i would normally ask you to turn off your cell phones. right now i'm going ask you to please take them out and to help us keep the fair going for the next 30 years, we're asking for you to text your support to the miami book fair international. and the way you do that is to
text to 41444. and text "mbfi "miami book fair international and the amount you would like to donate. then we'll follow up with you. in this way, we can assure that the book fair will go on for another 30 years. it's now my pleasure to introduce to you mr. david lyons who will be -- introdewsing our guest authors and producers. thank you. [applause] good afternoon. i'm sure you have a number of welcomes to the book fair. i'm going give you anyway. we are glad you are here. this is a discussion about two of the most significant periods in american history. the revolutionary war era before america's birth as a nation, and
the runup and the aftermath of the civil war. when america experience near-death as a nation. in bunker "bunker hill: a city, a siege, a revolution" nathaniel talks about boston. and the bloodiest battle of the revolution, and the point of no return for the rebellious column nists. he's a native boston and trained journalist. he is recognized authority on the history of man tuck et. he told an interviewer i don't think it's possible to have the death of the island's rich history. he has previous books that include "may flower." the finalist for the pulitzer prize for history. "in the heart of the sea" he won the national book award for fiction. "revenge of the whale." one of the hornbook aware. --
award. he holds a bachelor in english from brown. independent book sellers association. perhaps his passion for the subject can be demonstrated from the july 21st block postin connecticut when he attended the launching of the newly restored charles w. morgan's america's only survivorring 19th century whale ship. the picture he posted was quote taken at the moment of impact as a kristining bottle containing water from all of the seas. next i would like to introduce brenda wine apple. a non-fiction writer. a "new york times" reviewer in august noted that brenda takes
the reader on a different road traveled by many other histories of the sifm war. the growing gulf between north and south. and suddenly a multicar pileup the civil war. but instead of that usual ride wrote the reviewer she takes us on a different ride. the monaco grand grand pri x. it's history in real time. the fisa the friendship of emily dickinson and thomas wentworth. "haw thorn." she's a regular contributor to "the new york times" book review and the nation and editor of the
selective poetry. in 2009 she received a push cart prize, a glueingen heim fellowship, and two national endowment for the humanities. last year elected a fellow of the american academy of arts and sciences. a former director of the leon center for biography at the graduate school in new york. she teaches in the msa program at the new school university in columbia university school of the art and taught cor are a lawrence college in new york. where she was washington irving professor. please welcome brenda wineapple and nathaniel philbrick.
[applause] >> on my way over here, nathaniel, i talked about how both of these subjects are, you know, obviously the most, you know, among the notable eras of american history. how could we characterize, you know, a comparatively between your book and brenda's when it comes to, you know, intensity and relevance, you know, where both in the revolution and with the civil war there wasn't very much of a clear future in any era. >> yeah. well, i was thinking about this question, actually, when i heard about the great opportunity to be paired with brenda. and my "bunker hill" begins and ends with john quincy adams, it begins with him at 7 years old, standing on a hill with his mother then in her early 30s on
june 17, 1775 watching the battle of bunker hill from a hill about 12 miles away, and later in his life he would record in his journal it was an experience -- an unforgettable experience. both of them were weeping as they watched the british navy unleash cannon ball on the patriots gathered on bunker hill. what hit him the most was learning a few dais later that their family doctor, dr. joseph warren, had been killed at the battle of "bunker hill" during the last british charge. it was devastating for john quincy, whose father was not spending more and more time away. he was then at the second continental congress 300 miles away in philadelphia, and it was the death of joseph warren that he --
that moved him so deeply for the rest of his life, he would refrain from attending celebrations the battle of bunker hill in charleston. and so my book begins with that, and joseph warren is a major character one i think a lot of us don't know a lot about. we think of the other adams, the john quincy's dad and samueled adams but the bookends with john quincy adams 68 years later on june 17, 1940 -- 1840 the bunker hill monument has been built on bunker him. once again, he refused to attend. yet, he watches yet once again from the family home where he sees the smoke of a cannon go off and it reminds him of that
time. at this time in his life, john quincy adams, a president, is now a lowly u.s. congressman who has taken up the fight against slavery. what he realizes is the work that his doctor -- dr. joseph warren and his father worked so hard for is not over. we segue to brenda. >> it's interesting. first of all, it's a pleasure to be here. thank you for the introduction. it's great to be here with nathaniel philbrick and feeling a baton has been passed and the baton passed from bunker hill -- and it's not necessarily a name he's not necessarily a name we con jour with him. you think of i don't know washington and jefferson and madison and later, of course, lincoln, and even later than that grant and going forward. john quincy adams was not really known for his presidency.
he was more known for what happens as nathaniel says for his post presidency when he actually goes to the house of representatives. he's known as a man refusal and that word is interesting to me because one of the very last words that he uttered was no. a word of refusal. my particular book starts with the death of john quincy adams standing up and saying no. and the particular issue that was a vote on whether or not to give more medals to mexican war veteran. john quincy adams had been opposed to the war. he was opposed to decorating generals who fought in what he felt was a greedy re blank not
look good for the country. here a man who served his country well both as president and then in the house of representatives uttering no and ending his life at that particular moment. for me, that was a water shed moment. not just because of the mexican war, which is ends in 1848. because john quincy adams was the descendent of john adams and founding fathers. we enter a different world now. we are not in the revolutionary era. we can't look back in the same way we are look forward. what we have to look forward to is a series of refusal for good and ill that come to be known as the period before, during, and after the civil war. so it's very interesting. kind of continuity in that particular way. that we see history as also being embodied by humans who
have such a direct and powerful response to it. >> -- and the other genre contribute in a way toward your decision to -- >> right. absolutely. haw thorn, i'm interested in the fact that nathaniel haw thorn, a man who died during the civil war in 1864 was also a man -- we often associate with salem in the early witchcraft trials with really, you know, 17th century america not 19th century america. her he was a man who met lincoln. he called him one of the homeliest men he ever met, as a matter of fact. and if that wasn't enough, one of his dearest friends was a president of the united states not one of the ones we conjure one, as i mentioned before, but franklin pierce. we think of the writer, the
recluse, salem, hester print and scarlet letter. we don't think of politics. he was involves in politics, actually. it was a very political time. whittier just to finish off. he was at quaker poet from montana. we are both from montana. i grew up in massachusetts where whittier was from. i had whittier rammed down my throat and didn't like him much. when the library of america called me to do the book on whittier, i thought, all right. i reread him and he was marvelous. i was too young for him. besides being a good poet. he was a wonderful man in many ways and was a long time abolitionist. he was more than antislavery. he wanted slavery enended. he didn't the president in a gradual way. i was interested in literary figures whom we know as literary fill your and their history.
>> we come to history from a similar literary place. my graduate degree is in american literature, and i live on man tuck et largely because i like mobby dick. [laughter] and he does. >> i wrote a little book about that. and -- >> i'm a fan. and -- like wise. continuing and i was actually named for nathaniel haw thorn. wasn't it said that his biography of franklin piers was the greatest work of fiction he had ever written. >> yeah, it was said that. and he dedicated. when he dedicated a book to franklin piers. raffle -- ralph waldo emmerson took it out.
he wrote a poem called "the exile" which describes how thomas macy, who was the founding english settler of nann tuck et -- just down the street from where we live is the house where supposedly he wrote "the exile ." >> that's interesting. nantucket has a long standing quaker community. and frederick douglas before well known lived on nantucket and the american antislavery meetings were held there. i never -- i don't remember. i wasn't there. but i feel like i remember he spoke in nantucket. >> right. we're proud on nantucket that frederick douglass the first time he spoke before a white
audience was in nantucket. his wonderful book, the narrative of his life, ends with that scene. on nantucket, we take great pride. >> and credit. >> right. >> yeah. >> looking at some of the figures who are known to people as established players, when the revolution finished and the civil war, you know, was completed, george washington, for example, 1775 seemed to be somewhat of an outlier as a future player of -- can u yo go in to that? >> yeah. it was fascinating. when i came up with the idea of this book, one of my concerns, oh, washington, you know, he's the walking marvel man. and what is he going to really, you know, be a buzz kill once he arrives on the scene after the battle of bunker hill. anything but. it's just fascinating to see washington. a man from virginia, arriving in
new england, a couple of weeks after the battle of bunker hill where -- and this is a new england army. these are people whose idea of diversity is, okay, i'm from massachusetts. i'm willing to serve in an army with someone from new hampshire. [laughter] to have this -- plantation owner arrive and he realizes, you know, this is an army that because they have grown up with the new england town meeting, which is, you know, a wonderful form of government in which basically people argue until finally they come to a decision. the soldiers in this army when given an order would say, fine, that's -- we understand that's what you want us to do. we'll discuss it before we agree to do that. and this drove washington crazy. because he arrived with the misplaced hope he was going whip the people to a professional army, and it was -- god bless him, he stuck with
it. it was not pretty. but with washington, you see the beginning where this very ingrown group of new englanders begin of think of themselves not just from massachusetts or new hampshire, but begin to realize, wow, you know, we have to think of ourselves as americans. >> and i guess a similar question for a period you cover 1848 to 1877. there were individuals who were kind of out of place, you know, going in -- >> right. >>well, you know, those figures insight, the opposite in some ways of washington, the man of marvel. what are you going with him you come out as a rider? i had lincoln, which is the opposite in the sense he's not a man of marvel. he's headliner in movies. it wasn't the case -- my book was finished. but he certainly was before -- he's known, he's quoted,
beloved, and i thought to myself he can't possibly be as good as people make him out to be. i asked the discovery for the book -- there were many for me, one of the discoveries lincoln is bottomless and brilliant, as much a figure of history as a figure of literature because he's a wonderful stylist, and in many ways i think we wouldn't remember certain things in the way we do if it hadn't been for his great literary achievements. at the same time, there were those outlyers, as you're calling them, people who have been forgotten from history in a sense, writers like lydia maria child who was abolitionist for a long time. when i grew up in massachusetts she was known for poem. "over the hill and through the woods to grandmother's house we go." sort of thanksgiving poem,
something like that. which was fore said. i wanted to run away from that as possible. i find out not only was she an active abolitionist, but she fought for women's rights, and indian rights. but she actually wanted to go down to harpers ferry to virginia in 1859, and take care of nurse john brown, in fact, and john brown, i think, wisely told her not to come. but what she did was engage in a series of public letters with the wife of the governor of virginia, and they were published, and it was -- these were letters about slavery. they were talking about what john brown had done in virginia and, you know, the woman in the south was saying, you know, how -- you don't care about your workers in the north, but you care about southerners and what,
you know, -- aren't you a mother. she wasn't. don't you care about children and lydia maria child say yes, i care about children but we don't sell our children. it went back and forth in this particular way. you find these are people, in some sense, have been lost or sidelined and they're so very, very important. they were so famous in their own day. which is fascinating too. >> umm, the news has obviously been -- the 50th anniversary and the discussion that look back to the kennedy assassination. in 1865, after abraham lincoln was killed, who was it that took us forth in the wake of the assassination to essentially bring forth social policies that take up to the end point of the
book 1877. >> well, one couldn't have avoided -- probably didn't want to, the last week of commemorative programs about assassination of john f kennedy, and some of you have probably heard or have read robert's most recent work on johnson, and one of the things he talks about i find very interesting is the transition of power from, of course, kennedy to johnson and the fact that was such a seamless transition, because you have this horrible event and suddenly -- and the government doesn't crumble. and of course, when that's going on, i, who lived in the 19th century, think about the lincoln assassination and the transition at that particular time to another johnson -- andrew johnson from tennessee, who is put on lincoln's ticket in 1864 election. i don't think anyone would have thought or maybe they did --
lincoln was always thinking morbid thoughts understandably, but andrew johnson would be president. there was a great deal of talk he was drunk at the inauguration. so there was a transition, which was right after -- days after, it's hard to imagine days after the war. there were some people in the south and west who were fighting. they didn't want to stop fighting. andrew johnson is the new president. ..
>> reemerge in a new way and washington was an incredible leader because he had the unusual ability to realize i have to change course here. i think lincoln could work with that and had a pragmatic sense that this is the right thing. but to achieve it we will have to make it work. and that is so unusual. that you combine a real ideal t idealistic vision and how we use that to make a higher good happen. and those kinds of leaders are so rare. and i think one of the amazing
things about american history is they seem to appear when we need them. >> hopefully. one can only hope. but daniel, the wonderful word he uses is useful and that is impr improve and bunker hill and revolutionary era wasn't stable. you don't know what is going to hap pen next. especially during the time of the war, no matter the war, you don't know how it will turn out and you are suddenly left with a whole different political climate perhaps. i was thinking about sherman taking atlantic and in some sense that -- atlanta -- that
secured the lincoln's election. and we can go forward and not u negotiate the piece. >> i have a question and i know my books are about iconic things whether it is the mayflower or bunker hill we know how it will work out. but when i am writing the book and in there and a chapter where everything is up for grabs, in that space i am feeling like what is going to happen next. do you get that kind of sense of, you know, i am in there and this could go anywhere? >> yes. first of all that is a great feeling i have when i read your books and mean it because in the sense we know how things come out and hwho won this war and
that war and that washington becomes president. so the trick in writing history and write it like you don't know it. and when you are on the ground and that is what i mean about living in the 19th century. i think it is because we tonight think of outcome. we think of process and how tee get to that outcome. so i am fascinated and i sit and i read the congressional globe which is like theater. it is like reading plays because this is thadious here and it ha been clean upped but there were no tape recorders there. and you feel people are thinking on their feet and you forget about the outcome and you are involved in the way people see events in realtime. >> that is completely it.
as a writer i was trained as a journalist and what i am finding is for me in journalism we come up with a sense of how life is lived in the presence and my relationship with the past follows that. i'm trying to figure out what happened as best as i can. and given the fact that sources are, you know, not always there and there is also questions of evidence and all of those things, but that is what you are trying to do: get a sense of what it was like when all of this was happening and peel back the sense of destined people and realize it could have gone another way. with each book, i don't come away with this is how we should go in the future, we are as confused as they were then.
but the question is what you do when you are in the middle of it. >> and you start to ask difference questions. for example, about a war, for me it was -- i could tell you what happened at bull run, but i am not a military historian and it doesn't move me. but it occurred to me how do people know what happened at various places and who are the journalist on the ground. how did they get stories? how did that dispatch them? were they captured? you know? there were a lot of questions. was the coverage of the south the same as the north. so when you start asking those questions and motive questions you find pathways into the past and as i said you begin and certainly see this and you begin to live there with him
>> and so often, we are both writing about well-known topics. what amazes me is how little i know about every topic i begin with. in fact, each book, out of my ignoran ignorance, i want to figure out what happened. you find that testimony and for example on bunker hill, i was describing the day after lexington and concord and everything is going great the patriots, but in the town of boston, everyone is terrified and some people cannot walk literally because of fear. i found the journal of a woman who was there at the time and that was her situation. she and her female friend were terrified and wanted to get away from the british soldiers.
her husband took her out and put her in a carriage and off they go. but you been to realize the emotions people were feeling comes as a revelation. it isn't just connecting the dates. you realize the human cost in terms of lives and how traumatic. you look at john quincy adams where he sees the battle at b g bunker. >> we have approached and come upon question time from the audience. if you have any questions go to the microphone. >> we should be astatic to have
you here. and across the street we have another author who is brilliant and anyone from the sunshine state should be reading this book. in reading your books, i think there is one constant theme that struck me and that is racism and how deeply rooted it in. for example, in the mayflower and how quickly our forefathers turned against the native americans. i thought it was interesting to see the number of families that owned slaves in boston. i think you to do a great job tracing racism and i think your book will be recognized as a landmark in history because you
provide continuity between many things and you did a brilliant job putting it together. it is not only race, but it is the threat of the vote. of extended the right to vote to non-whites and to women. my question is this: do you have any thoughts in terms of what are the root causes of that r racism? and the theme is alive in what we are finding in many states, including ohio in trying to restrict that right to vote. thank you. >> i think you can generate it to intolerance. the pilgrims came to worship as
they wanted and wanted to make sure everybody else did. they were bumping heads with the native americans who kept them from dying that first winter. and with bunker hill, you have to look at where america becomes america. it is washington realizing that on november 5, 1775 all of the officers want to celebrate something called poke night. it is an anti-catholic demonstration and in boston the north and south end had carts with the devil and the pope on the other one. and you would steal carts and beat up as many other officers. and washington writes a resolution that says are you
kidding? here we are in the midst of this war. we want catholic-france to come in on our side and you have the audacity to pull something like this. and he is saying it is old prejudices that will not work. and slavery is the ultimate one. and american is a process of grinding those down hopefully until we look at each other as human beings >> and creating america is a process of making a nation as natha nathaniel says. you see it in the 19th century and it is more complicated with who is a citizen and when you emancipate the black population in the south, how do you make them citizens?
what are the qualifications and if they are extended to black men, what about black awoman -- women -- and white women. i have understand the racism is a sense of a fear of the others. and you see that in nativism. you have the know-nothings and they were based on nativism. and they were anti-catholic party in that sense. so we hope these prejudices are
grou grou ground down but the idea of voting rights is something we have been discussing for a long time. and it is being reconsidered and refigured and you see that in the context after the civil war between when black men are pitted against black women and white women about who gets to vote. it is interesting and creepy in a sense that you see the same kind of, you know, faction when clinton was pitted against obama. formula displeased with both of them wanted to see them as adv r advasaries. it is part of our
legacy, but any place is being reinvestigated as well. sorry to go on. thank you. >> could you discuss the role or lack there of among political opponents among compromise and how it relates today to political fraction. >> i think you should answer that. >> crisis and compromise is a subtitle of my book. we heard about these compromises but the word was being banded about. and you have people shouting in the senate or house of representatives i will not compromise or william lloyd saying no compromise with slave
holders. and the whole issue was con tended in the same tense it is today. because you could argue someone like garrison is taking a morale position. and what about positions that are not absolute? when are you pragmatic? that is when lincoln comes in. he was willing to compromise and that is why people thought he was slow with regard to emancipation but he was working slowly so you could get a real lasting piece and abolish slavery. so it is sometimes pragmatic,
sometimes work, sometimes necessary and sometimes so floridflac flac flacid and meaningless. so when you have a contested election, and we have an interesting moment in history where the poplar vote wasn't won but many people in the south were not allowed to vote. so the compromise was to get him into office as long as he pulled out the troops. so we are debating the issues today. and there are no easy answers for them. >> you mentioned lincoln's bottomlessness and i was wondering if you could say little more about that in terms
of the evolution on his views of slavery. and given the comment all times are messy when you look at them in the present, what kind of perspective does that give both of you in terms of so many people feeling we have a dysfunctional government and how do we go forward with the perspective you have from generations that looked hopeless as well, what does the future look like? >> i am amazed at the dysfunctionali dysfunctional times we think are resolute knowing where they want to do. but congress didn't know what to
do. do we make an army? we don't trust armies but we need them. my only take away and it is dangerous to make close parliament -- parallels -- with the past because the whole sense of reality was different. but you have to be humble about the president and not think there is anything who has it figured out. in terms of leaders, you need to find the people who can do the juggling act of pragmatically achieving things that are for a greater good. it is not, you know, it can't be this standoff i am right/you are wrong. it has to be let's begin a conversation and resolve it as the main aim. and that is the one thing i saw with this revolution.
they had to resolve it because they were in the midst of a war and it is a wonderful -- what it does is create and requires people to come up with something oth otherwise it is over. and that is why our two books exist. >> the only thing i would add back to lincoln in that context is one thing he represents and is able to do: he is able to empathize and even hawthorn who wasn't a republican at all found in his brief meeting with lincoln a man of real kindness and people said that often. what that mean was he was able
to empathize with people from different walks of life, color and circumstances and be able to see their point of view. and i think that was in large to him and the country. and i think we write history and think about it and we don't have predictions and what is significant is the ability people could -- the better people, the interest in people, the people who made the changes are people who have a capacity to change their minds. and i think one of things that people say about going back to lincoln because you asked about him, was the capacity to grow. and grow means changing your minds and revisiting the points you had earlier and being able to see that perhaps they were time bound or bound by where you were, but you are willing to say
i will move in a different direction. and i think that is what we need always. >> well, that ends our time with nathaniel philbrick and brenda wineapple. thank you very much and best wishes to both of you. >> books are available outside for purchasing and across the hall to sign your books. thank you for coming. >> and you are watching live coverage of the 30th annual of miami book fair on the north side of downtown miami. this is booktv and our 15th anniversary and we have been
covering this festival for 15 years. you can see the c-span bus is down here. we have big production set here. many call-in opportunities and many authors have been on the call-in show. tomorrow we are live and we will talk two more authors tomorrow. you will hear from many others as well books on the presidential election of 2012. that is a taste of what you can see tomorrow. go to booktv.org to find the full schedule of events. and you can get schedule updates from the festival on twitter. twitter.com/booktv or on
facebook at facebook,.com/boofa. it is our 15th anniversary and before the next panel starts. and there is one more on the middle east. they will be speaking in about 15 minutes or so. but since we have been covering the festival for 15 years, 15 anniversary, we want to show you the past coverage and here is a portion of another program we covered in the past. >> today, all around the world, we will put 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the that thin shell of atmosphere surrounding the planet. and all of the global warming pollution is trapping a lot more
heat in the earth's atmosphere. 25 million of those tons go into the ocean every single day and they are making the ocean more acidic and corrupting the forming of coral reefs and everything that makes a shell has an osteoperosis now. the co2, which is the principle global solution, along with methane and others, all of that together trap the heat and raises temperatures. the plant has a fever. if you have a young child and they start running a fever, you may think it is a 24-hour bug, usually and often it is.
but if it keeps going up will you go to the doctor? and if the doctor says we have done the test here. and the bad news is it isn't a passing bug. we are going to have to take action here. but the good news is if we take action we can fix this. you don't say, well doctor, i was listening to talk radio and i think you are full of hot air. you may want fto get a second opinion. and we have done that. 20 years ago, the united nations set up a body of 3,000 finest scientists in the world specializing in the disciplines that have to be brought to bare this crisis. and now they have issued four
reports and the last one showed the evidence was unequivocal and they are shouting from the rooftops saying we have to take action because the temperature continues to rise. and the build-up of the global warming solution threatens catastrophic damage that thre s threats -- threatens -- human civilization itself. it is hard to get our mind around how big the crisis is. and that is partly because we confuse the unpresidezidesideun. this is one of the exceptions and it is unpresidented because
what happened in the last hundred years or so is there has been a radical change in the relationship between humanity and the ecololgicgical system. we have quaruplled the population. we are at 6.8 billion people and that new relationship and the surprisingly fragile eco spear of the planet. more importantly the technologies in use an are mill n times more powerful than the ones our grandparents have. whether it is genetic engineering or all of the powerful machines we use.
... than we ever have before. and when the scientists are virtually unanimous in saying, hey, this is unequivocal, we've >> they are vi's a real challenge to our moral imagination. first of all. and into our ability, get our act together and make the changes that are necessary to do something about it. and most of the changes, andge their outlined in this book, our changes that we should be making for other reasons in way.anges h in addition to the climate crisis, remember reasons.
and we have an economic crisis, remember and recall that this is a way to we have to get this under control. getting this under control of the foreign dependence on oil per. >> that was al gore in 2009 from the miami book fair. we can see this here on the street in miami if you are in town you can come pick up a book bag. we will be here tomorrow and right now we have one more live panel from chapman halter show you. and that is scott anderson. they will be talking about the middle east. scott anderson's book is the making of the modern middle east and my promised land, the
triumph and tragedy of israel, this panel will be starting in just a few minutes and a reminder that we will be live again all day tomorrow, some of the authors include george packard and bill ayers, debbie wasserman schultz, and here is the last panel. >> welcome to all of you for this 30th anniversary session of the 2013 miami book fair international. the book fair is grateful for the support of american airlines and many other generous sponsors out there. and we would also like to acknowledge the friends of the book fair. thank you for your support. at the end of this afternoon session, we will have time for questions and answers in the authors will be available to autograph books and we will have the books for sale enabled be available for you.
normally i would ask you to shut off your cell phones and i'm actually going to ask you to take them out, please come and we are going to ask for your support so that we can continue presenting the miami book fair for another 30 years. so the just the way you attack this to a friend, for 1444 and that is 41444 and text that to the miami book fair international and then to the amount that you would like to donate, suggesting that $30 for our 30th anniversary, what whatever amount that you're comfortable with is very much appreciated and will help us to continue offering this book fair to you and now it is my pleasure to introduce mr. allen kluger, who will introduce all of our authors. and we thank you.
>> remember to shut them off. >> okay. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good evening, everyone. it is drying up and it's getting nice outside and this is going to be a very interesting to authors that you're going to hear tonight. can you hear me in the back? okay, thank you. scott anderson and i both wrote a book about the middle east and different people at different times, but as you're going to hear from scott anderson and
from us, the more that things change, the more that they remain almost exactly the same. and i'm going to introduce both of our authors today and they are each going to speak to you for about 10 minutes, and then i'm going to moderate a conversation with them and take questions from the audience. so write down your questions and when you ask them, directed to the two of them and that is fine if you want to address it to one of them, that is also fine, just let us know. let me first go ahead and introduce to you the author of my promised land. he is an author and a commentator in one of the most powerful voices in this political thought realm today.
like many israelis, he started out as a paratrooper and then ended up studying philosophy as a major at hebrew university and that is what living in israel and being this guy is. he is one of 2013 and he has won a polk award. his grandfather came to israel at the end of the 19th century and you'll hear the inflection in his voice of the british still out there all these generations and he was a founding father and his father was a chemist who worked on building israelis alleged nuclear program and from his purge, the land, he has moved, like many of us, he has moved to
the political center from the left. he asks in his book, is there anyone to talk to, really, as he goes through each issue. as a friend of ours says, we have a beautiful house in a very bad neighborhood and my promised land is about his personal family story, the history and in the end of the book is his prophecy. and that is also what i'm going to ask him to spend some time talking about with us. his vision of where he sees israel in the future. our other speaker is scott anderson and scott has a book that launched in arabia the making of the modern middle east and it is absolutely fascinating. a story not only of te lawrence,
if you didn't read the book but saw the movie. it was a complicated man whose knowledge of military history in the middle east was unprecedented for the time and he grew up in east asia, his father worked in agriculture as an adviser for the american government and he is a novelist and a journalist in a war correspondent in the places that he has corresponded from, lebanon, israel, chechnya and northern ireland, actually went online to see a list of places that the state department says he shouldn't go. [laughter] and those are all the places and the movie triage is based upon his novel and hunting party starring richard gere was based upon his work in bosnia. and what you don't know about him and what you won't read if he is part owner and his partner
in the bar is sebastian young, the author of the perfect storm and it is in chelsea which is now a the hottest area of new york and i've asked him how long ago he opened it and he said 14 years. so my grandfather used to say that it is much better than being small. [laughter] >> i would like to introduce as our first speaker. [applause] >> thank you very much. that is such a pleasure in such an honor to be here today. it was worth while writing a book just to come to miami for the first time in my life, and
from the moment that i landed, actually thinking of miami, really i felt at home and it was something warm and sensual and passionate here which i recognize and i love and i'm looking forward to getting to know the city a bit, but i already like it very much. and so why did i write my book about the tragedy of israel. well, there have been so many books written about israel and very good books and many of them, most of them, biographies, polemics, histories, but my feeling was that for a long time, a very long time, there has not been a book that was a
personal and deep and soul-searching to try to understand what this nation is truly about. where is it coming from and where it is going. and i think that that is no accident. i think that the reason that such a book has not been written for such a long time was because we israelis have lost our narrative. but not only we have lost this narrative, but the people that care and the people talking about it and the people criticizing israel and the people hating israel, they lost the narrative as well. we are bogged down to the
details with the everyday tension of the events and we are so much in a sense corrupted by the internal debates and the tribalism and the hatred, all the venom that goes along with a discussion by this country that all of us lost sight of the big picture and my book deals with history but it's not a history book. my book deals with politics, but it is not a political book. my book has repeated insights and it deals with social matters, but i'm no sociologist and though strategists and no general. but i thought needs to be done, to write a story that brings down all the things that we are dealing with back to the human
level to enable us all to have a fresh look at what is going so that we have a better understanding of it that is more reasonable and more realistic and also more fair. i think that this kind of situation to quote the individual who wrote about my book, that you have either that israel can do no wrong approach where they can do no right approach and it is ridiculous. it is flawed intellectually and morally as well. and in a sense, i wanted to write a book that takes israel the cliché and makes it into a real entity. the book that enables one to love israel done but in a realistic and critical and more aware.
so i will not tell you all that is there and i hope you will read it. i have begun with the arrival of my great-grandfather in april of 1897 coming from london and i basically asked myself why did he come? why leave the prosperous and comfortable victorian london where he was a very successful salesman or and go to the desolate and remote wasteland that palestine was at the time. and in my conclusion, there were three striking features to his journey there. there were two brilliant ideas where that he shared with his friend and other founders as
well and what do they understand , what was so remarkable about this endeavor? in 1897, these remarkable individuals realize that the 1940s were going to happen, and they tried and they did not know that they would be in awe schlitz or there would be this. but they realized that europe was going mad and europe was becoming a death threat to jewish population. and when you think about their insight, that we saw a problem that was decades away and they started and they tried to create the most erratic revolution one could ever imagine. but transferring people from one land to another, creating a nation, providing a language,
all to save the people there and in an attempt to save the jewish people and they partially succeeded. the real flaw is that they were too late and therefore they did not save most of the european jews. but there adventure was definitely remarkable than the other insight was relevant to american aspirations and world aspirations today and that they realized that post-ghetto and postreligious judaism is at stake and the brilliant jewish idea that worked for 2000 years was to live with an intimate relationship with god within the walls of the ghetto. but once these two great jews were weakening, the relationship with god changed and the laws of
the ghetto's cell and is included becoming endangered. so they did not know that there would be a report. but in a sense, they tried to realize that if we wanted to save this civilization, there is a need and in these two ways, these two motivations that brought my great-grandfather to the land, they were remarkable and they created a great successful nation that had to be established and in this a sense, they are endeavor was a heroic one and in many ways ingenious. but there was a flaw. the flaw was that my great-grandfather and his peers and colleagues did not see that there was another people there as well.
they do not see a half million palestinians who live on the land. and i am a zionist and i believe in our right to the ancient homeland and this is no colonial project. but it was our obligation to see the people who are occupying the land and in need of my great-grandfather and his friends in that land was so deep that they did not see it. and that blindness that began with that very first moment when he and his friend set foot in palestine, it was with us to this day. so what you see are these two pillars of israeli existence and on the one hand, the brilliance, the need, the justice to create the nation, and then on the other hand, the tragedy that is built into that project. it is not only a conflict and
education, it is not just about something that happened yesterday. the conflict is built in because of that tragic flaw but is there from the very beginning. fast forward and the goal through all the developments of over 100 years by telling the dramatic and amazing stories of individuals who made that journey and the great drama that evolved in every decade of every generation and because time is running short, when we look at what we see today at the outcome, my last chapter, which i like very much, is a journey that i am taking in the footsteps of my great-grandfather. and i go throughout the country and look at what was achieved and what did we create and so
what i see is on the one hand a nation that is threatened like no other nation is threatened. and i plead and i ask all the critics of israel and its government and its policies who have a lot of justified criticism always to remember the context of the existence of that country and our nation. and we are intimidated because many muslims do not accept the existence of a jewish state and we are intimidated because many arabs problem that we are having in non-arab nations with that treaty and intimidated because many palestinians did not acknowledge that we have a right to be there. we have been intimidated and so many internal threat, so it's
not only iran that is talked about, which is a major threat, but there is an element in the life of constant danger that is built into the basic israeli condition and on the other hand, and this i want to stress more than i do the first time. within that semi-tragic situation, and not endangered nation, what you see is a remarkable and vibrant society and if there is something to be very proud of what was achieved and, is that while the original hope for a perfect utopia and a society, that was not achieved. but what was achieved is the building of a robust and vital society that is probably one of the most vital ones that i have ever known.
israel is so vital in so many ways and economically, technologically, scientifically, the arts and culture, we have more babies than any other country. tel aviv is one of the best cities in the world. it is a passionate and when you take all of this into perspective and you think of the people that either survived before the holocaust or after the holocaust, some of them, the people who are the ultimate victims of the 20th century, those who did not become suicide bombers and who did not go into a kind of violent revenge of any kind. those who did not adopt hate as their way of life, but turned her life into their greatest revenge, they turn to the celebration of life as their greatest victory and this is what you see there.
this is what makes israel so completely unique. because it is a nation on the edge. it is a people that lives dangerously but this life on the edge did not bring about pessimism and passivity in this whining approach life in the country. it is rated as one of the most amazing spectacles and then you see the people that have come in are surrounded by the threats of death, celebrating life in such an intensive way and i think that there is much to be admired and i am so proud to be one of the nation that is so criticized and so -- bringing out these feelings are so many people. my one hope is that we will bring israel's criticisms in
every way needed and that we will see it and i do hope that the result of reading the book will create a new kind of conversation with israel that is both loving and caring and critical and moral and realistic. i thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much. our next speaker is the author of the modern east, scott anderson. [applause] >> thank you so much. i have been covering war around the world for a very long time,
about 25 years. and when you cover it in the modern era, you spend a lot of time in the middle east. so from a time very early on, i discovered that whenever i have a serious conversation with someone about the problems of the region, it doesn't matter your political background, but invariably people trace the roots of their problems back to the piece that was imposed on the region at the end of world war i and it was always in my mind at some point that i would like to get out of the streets long enough to explore that time in history. and that desire was piqued further by knowing that this individual played it is role at this time. i was very enamored of this individual and i knew that there was a great deal of controversy of what his story was true and
what was a legend, so i resolved with warrants to explore that period of history. and as soon as i made that decision. an obstacle immediately presented itself, which is what you say that is new about this, there have been 70 or 80 biographies written on hemp, three movies, one is considered a classic and what could i say that wasn't just a repeat of what everyone else had done. the answer came to me by pondering by what i feel is the central romantic riddle of warrants, which is essentially how did he do it? how did a 5-foot 428-year-old oxford scholar without a single day of training, how did that guy at go off to arabia and become a battlefield commander of not just a rebel, but a muslim rebel army? and the answer came to me,
obviously, something a bit less dramatic and it really came down to, no one was really paying much attention and this was a period in the midst of world war i and certainly for the british and the french, 95, 90% of their treasure was focused on the western front. so this eccentric oxford scholar could go cause problems for the turks, well, okay. so when i had that kind of realization about warrants, i thought, well if that's true about britain, which was by far the biggest interior player at the time, it must be true about the other powers as well. and what i found after quite a bit of digging was a small cast of characters, three other men with resumes very similar to warrants. actually, the only american
field intelligence officer in the middle east in his late 20s, a man that was also secretly on the payroll of standard oil and some things never change. [applause] and a jewish settler from romania who settled with his family who is perhaps the greatest agronomist of his time and at the beginning of the war he worked for the turkish regime and he came to the realization that the only salvation for the jewish settlers in palestine was at the british took over, so he set up to aspire with two dozen jewish settlers throughout palestine with information in egypt and finally a german scholar two years older and he was 30 years old when the war started, and he came back to the region and became the chief counterintelligence agent for
germany during this time in the war. but within this small consolation of characters, once was still at the center stage and i think for a very good reason in the british were by far the biggest players in the region during this war and they also dictated the peace. so going into what happened at the end of world war i and the peace that was created, is really truly is the root of so much that was to come later on. between the british and the french at the peace conference in paris, the balfour declaration and 30 years on, of the british trying to walk away from this declaration, eventually it led to the creation of the state of israel. and warrants, as an official in cairo, was privy to both the
secret between the british and french of the region and leading up to the balfour declaration as well. at the same time, he was aware of the promises that the british have made to the arab rebels, and those promises were for sweeping through the middle east and a few enclaves put into the reserve. and as he was fighting in the battlefield, he increasingly fell this tremendous divided loyalty and he was an officer of the british crown in it he also felt the loyalty that the man that he was recruiting were fighting and dying alongside of him for a promise that he increasingly new as the war went on was almost certain to be betrayed in the end. and so while you have this cast
of characters, that are so remarkable for the minimal resumes that they have at the time, it also indicates the consideration that the european powers were giving to this region and what is going to come after, the british foreign office, the officials during this war referred to the ottoman empire as the great blue because what they imagine they were going to do, they would have a great carving up of the region. and i think that warrants was aware of this and constantly trying to subvert what his own government was doing, it is the essential tragedy of his life and i'm often asked about this, what he would say if he came back today almost 100 years later.
and the answer that always occurs to me is that he would say i told you so. because he was it was incredibly pressing about so many things in his warnings about what was coming in the middle east with the british and the french and those powers trying to impose their will and i think that what we are seeing today in the region is something along the lines of what he was hoping for 100 years ago, it was a united arab nation and i think instead what we are seeing is the exact opposite of that. i don't even know if i would have felt as safe even six months ago, but it's clear to me now that what we are seeing playing out in the middle east is a disintegration back to the borders that existed under the ottoman empire and we are seeing a final collapse of the colonial
borders that were imposed and libya today is essentially three countries. no one will admit it, but it is essentially true and those three countries and borders, those many states, almost exactly follow the lines that existed under the ottoman empire of mesopotamia that existed at the time and libya as well as now rapidly becoming three countries. so again, they existed under the ottomans. so i think ultimately that my story is sort of the story of what happened in london. and it is a prelude as they work together in some way. and i thank you. [applause] [applause] >> i was going to have a conversation with the two authors, but i think that your questions will be better than mine are. so if you want to line up at the
microphone and we can start to take the questions, i would really like to hear from people in the audience. >> thank you both. could you say something contrasting your perception of criticism of israel on the one hand and the state or nature of anti-semitism on the other and how those things overlap and the distinguished and then also what is your vision going forward? is it just a status quo in terms of israel and the west bank and all the rest? and what would be eventually possible? >> well, this is really incredible is a coincidence. because you know the agronomist that you're talking about, was my other individual, and it was
torn over this ring. so it's quite an astonishing ordeal. and quite an astonishing coincidence and also a my great uncle worked with the british intelligence. by the way, it was fascinating and definitely that was fascinating and the fact that in many ways, something in defense of israel, for many years the claim was that zionism was an artificial movement creating an artificial state and the arab national movement was supposed to be authentic and real and we were like the western construction of the area and what you see right now, the arab nation states that were actually
created, they are collapsing and it's actually disappearing. probably the only one that will remain as we know it is the job that has like a deep-rooted identity. but all of the other arab nation states, there are no syrians, as you very well know. there are no syrians. there are sunnis, there are no lebanese. there are christians and muslims, and the libyans, as you just said. so the irony in this sense, when you look at it, you see that the movement that was betrayed as an artificial western movement, when you look you see that there was a need to do this thing exists and is kicking an and alive with all the difficult circumstances after this time in such a way, it is no mistake. these people needed this place
and the huge terminations around, some of them are so wealthy are disintegrating and so i say it with sadness because i want peace with our neighbors but ironically right now, we are becoming very very close and never were we so close to a sunni and jewish alliance as we are in these days. but there's something troubling about the fact that while the entire world is moving forward, everywhere, south america, east asia, large parts of africa, everyone is moving forward, and this stretch of land is bogged down old tribalism and fanaticism and i have no explanation for it. but it saddens me so much. and quickly to the question, it is very convenient for israelis
and jews to attribute it to anti-semitism. being israeli born, i must say that one of the advantages are many advantages is that you are a bit free of this complex. we are so sure of our identity, that we do not live in constant friction with others in this way and in a sense for many years i was naïve about it, and late in life i discovered how serious anti-semitism is even in britain, that i love and i go back there all the time. yet i suggest not overplaying this because i think that there are deeper reasons and i think israel is treated unfairly in a very short way. israel should not be doing a lot of the things that it is, so they are playing into the hands of its enemies and there is this thing with the jews, i would not
call it anti-semitism, but there is an expectation that the jews should be saints and if they are not saints, they are demons in that kind of thing, holding israel up to this, when we were doing this, we were nearly drawing that. and that was fine. and so there is some unfairness in that respect. but i think that there is a deeper reason and that is that much of the western world, including europe and parts of america, the conclusion, people came out of auschwitz with the new human rights religion and peace above everything, individual rights, human rights, that was the big conclusion and we came out of auschwitz with the determination not to be
powerless again. because we were so righteous for centuries and we had no power and we abused nobody and we only cared about morality and we ended up going up in smoke. and so our deep conclusion is in contrast with the conclusion that europe drew from world war ii. so the tension there is a fascinating one. but i would not reduce it down to simplistic anti-semitism. i'm trying to answer the questions, but i definitely don't support the status quo of the west bank. were dealing with that. >> thank you. i would like to ask you about another division in israel that we happen to have a daughter that lives there and we have nine grandchildren. and so we go to israel a lot in
over the last 20 years, and i am very disturbed about the deep division between the secular jews and the orthodox jews and there is a sexist tel aviv and as, it was getting maybe a little bit easier for israel, given the way that all the air of enemies are fighting amongst themselves, what about these five internal animosity that is caused by this? >> you are absolutely right. i relate to that in the book and i didn't have the time to deal with us now, but the internal challenges facing israel, there are a number of them. one of the most important ones is the growing ultra-orthodox and i am a secular person, but i
am, on the other hand, i am not an orthodox hater and i see it among some of my friends and peers where they have some sort of complex with jewish history and background and my grandfather, his religion was so beautiful and romantic and humane and moral that all that i got from judaism from him was beautiful and i have no wisdom resentment and i try not to have a resentment in general. but what troubles me is that israeli politics work in a bipolar way. we either surrender to the orthodox or reheat it or both. and i think that we should develop a different approach. basically the challenge is very simple. and as the minority is growing, we have to be, on the one hand we have to offer the opening of our hearts and minds to accept
that as individuals and they should be equal and they should have full rights and we should recognize their special needs as a community and a minority within israel, but there are two things that we should not allow. and that is we should not allow them to impose their values on our state and society and we wanted the progressive democratic israel, we cannot accept anything like segregation of women or anything or anything disgusting like that. so on these issues, we must fight really hard with no compromises whatsoever in the other issue is to genuinely let them join our society, taking political responsibility and we have to offer them a kind of deal, you have grown up and you're much too big now and you have to live and work and pay taxes and we have to do it in a gradual process not to push them.
beyond being fair and right for israel. because my main concern, you talk a lot about iran and houston. and i think that iran is very dramatic and i think that palestinian has to be like this. but the third is an existential challenge for israel ended is the relationship between you and many of you in the audience who happen to be jewish. there is the gap between the american jewish communities, especially the progressive parts of the community, and especially the younger part of the community and israel is, in my mind, an existential threat to the jewish people, both here and there. so if israel is to survive and succeed, it needs the help of american jews and it needs young american jews to like it and
love it. if they are embarrassed by it, if they see it as some dark theological entity that is embarrassing them, if we lose them, you will lose them and we will be in jeopardy. but on the other hand, we have to create, israel has to become attracted to this. this is one of my hopes as i publish the book and i began talking. the book will be a kind of launching pad not only in a new conversation as i described. but i would like a new fresh discussion with young american jews and i would like to tell them his real story that they have not heard and i see it as my duty as a journalist and a citizen to fight any darker side of the israeli life and it is our duty for our own liberal society to maintain his relationship with a liberal and
vital part of this situation. [applause] [applause] >> before you ask any questions, i would like you and i would like to hear from the both of you on that. i would like to know what your ancestors would think. and i would really like to know what lawrence once would think about three things. number one, syria and the whole nationalism issue and a ron and also the fact that israel is a democracy and we spoke about this in the middle east and some have attorneys and others do not. and so do the vibrant democracy is israel and i would like to know historically whether that would be a surprise. >> i don't know if it would be a
surprise to warrants. he had an interesting take on israel and it was in early 1916 declaration came a year and half later and so when he first started hearing of this declaration was coming, he just felt like this was a double whammy of sorts. but first the arabs would have to reconcile themselves or fight against it, that they would be divided up by the colonial powers, and then second is part of this as well. and what he said was, when he first heard about this declaration, he said that the jewish presence in palestine, he didn't stay say a state, the
jewish control of palestine can only ever be achieved by force of arms and be maintained by the force of arms. and yet, as the law progress, certainly what he saw as the existential threat to the middle east was the french and british colonial rule and he also recognized the declaration was a feat accomplished. so what he did on the eve of this paris peace conference, he was talking about the main error delegate at the peace conference and he got the guys together and they made the faisal agreement and that agreement was in return for a very large jewish immigration and ultimately control of palestine, being the zionists and the jews that recognize the arab dominion in syria. until lawrence was very kind of
-- he was a tactician and he recognize that palestine was a feat accomplished. so let's turn that for the control of syria. so it didn't work, obviously. but i think that if once today, looking at syria, i don't know if he would be very surprised. what he was always very aware of, he really understood the plan and the tribal structure as well as any western european of the time and this was always his clearing call of the warning to the imperial powers that you cannot go into this area and carve them up and cut across these tribal and ethnic lines. as you have done in africa, for example. so i think that he probably look at syria today and say that this
was kind of guaranteed to come. and iraq is a great example and the british impose a rule in 1920 and once predicted almost a month of 1919 when the full scale revolt would break out their and he was off by just a couple of months. but it was very relevant and i think that having -- i think what you're seeing now is actually playing this out, as was said. the region is falling back into these sectarian and tribal clan affiliations and i think what once was always trying to do is figure out, is there some way that it's not a european nation concept, but is there a way that you create a state where these
areas have a great deal of autonomy but it is a larger kind of cohesive whole. and i think that any chance for that was destroyed with it after the war. >> i don't quite know about my great-grandfather, but my family, all of my grandfather and great uncles, they are all peacemakers of different kinds. and many of them very cultural figures in different ways, from british sides, they spoke arabic and in many respects, they were naïve because basically what happened because of that
blindness of the earlier generation that we described, the result afterwards was that it was the people on the extreme right and extreme left who still reality it is. because the ones on the extreme right saw that they were not afraid of it and they did not endanger their values and the people on the left hoped there would be peace. and they were fine. they had an intricate contradiction because they could not -- there was a contradiction between their progressive and moral values and the brutal reality and there was a need for it this, that it was going on for a long time. but you mentioned this and don't tell anyone, but this is one of my next topics.
because it's very important. because now within this mess, with an the chaos of the middle east, there is unprecedented opportunity, and i really hope that the people navigating the policy in washington and elsewhere will please look at this. in my mind, the old ways of trying to make peace have failed and gone god for bid will fail in the future. but they are great opportunities to make different kinds of peace and the fact that the sunnis now see that the iranians are a threat and they see the islamic brotherhood and the extremist sunnis see this as well, and their disappointment, justified or not, about american and european leadership of support, it leads them to a kind of intimate relationship with
israel but we have never known in the past and if we would work wisely with that, i think that we can go back to the agreement that never materialized and i think there is actually opportunity, but you have to understand what that means, there's no way that that saudi king can agree to a division of jerusalem or to make all kinds of ideological or theological concessions with a jewish state with designs. it doesn't have the legitimacy to do that or the internal strength to do that and he will make a thousand under the table deals. so i think that if we approach an under the table piece, it might actually be a much more sound piece than some of the declared pieces that we have tried with and failed. we have been for years, from 1970s to 1994, 24 years, we
have had these purposes, the best possible and i think that we can go into that kind of relationship with the egyptians and definitely with the jordanians and many others in the regions and ironically, my grandfathers and grandparents, they were naïve, and i think that the kind of peacemaking that we are listening to might actually succeed within the regional director that we receive at this time. >> my question is you have mentioned where this came from and from my extensive study in judaism, my question is that this nation has composed, people
are becoming a nation in egypt and that is my first question and my second question is that you mention the flawed intellectual and moral people and i am asking whether this is the reason why from what i have studied, six powers have taken these people that are deemed chosen, captive and then the u.s. is about to turn in the affinity is becoming weaker. >> my question is why would these people taken captive by this power and now they have gotten deeper in the u.s. and this nation is composing this in egypt. >> can you repeat the question? [laughter] >> you asked where this nation came from.
is this nation composed of egypt? >> at the nation with a very long history. >> written in the bible. >> yes, initially. and at this moment, the affinity with israel is becoming weaker with the u.s. power now. >> ma'am, it's a question and answer and let him answer your question because there are people behind you and just go ahead and let him answer. also, i want to tell everybody that this session is supposed to end at 6:00 p.m. and it is on c-span2. they are going to cut it at 6:00 o'clock, but both of the authors have agreed to continue
to answer the questions if you would like to stay. >> if you want to be able to get your books autographed, we will have to cut it off in about another 10 minutes just to let you know. thank you. >> okay, this question is about the secular population amongst the arabs is decreasing as time goes on, which is the opposite is what is going on elsewhere. and most of the people that are part of this, the fact that the secular population amongst the arabs is decreasing and it has been replaced by a more zealot populations? >> okay, so what is the question? >> if it's a concern to you and the leaders of israel to try to come to a peace agreement as soon as possible, because the people will be dealing with will be less willing to come to an agreement with you because of
religion, i guess their main concern is opposed to the secular people that exist in the leadership now. that religion is not an important thing to them. >> i think that we should always be realistic, but also do the right thing in and the middle east is the land of the unexpected and when things are going very well, people worry because something unpleasant is going to happen in tngs so i don't think that being worried about what will happen like in 10 years in that sense, we should look at things as they are in do the right thing. >> this is for ari. this is for ari. i've always considered myself a very liberal peacemaker but i'm also very realistic that most of the arab world are not friends
of the israeli people. i've never have blinders on flex some of my friends have, you know, of the kind of sanctions of the palestinians. but just from a realistic point of view, i don't understand for the last 20 years, and it's been harder and harder for me to defend sometimes the actions of israel to my liberal jewish or non-jewish friends, i don't understand oslo with a few exceptions. .. ..
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on