tv [untitled] May 20, 2011 8:00pm-8:30pm EDT
a complex conflict one that's been going on for decades so as the u.s. acts as mediator get again between israel and palestine. over the border ever end with an agreement. but it's not only for those that aren't seeing eye to eye when it comes to the border fronts are starting to disagree too so as obama and netanyahu gather at the white house we'll explore how deep the relationship really runs between israel and the u.s. . the war during the war when it is inconvenient. that is not who we are but is it who we are today that was senator obama talking but as president obama
says these days six deep in the libyan intervention a deadline for ending the conflict is he now breaking the law. and is the end of the world as we know it at least some people seem to think so we'll show you how they're preparing for doomsday and that's tomorrow may twenty first. good evening it's friday may twentieth eight pm here in washington d.c. i'm lauren lyster and your watching our team now we've seen u.s. and israeli leaders give speeches and press conferences over the last few days everyone wants peace but no one wants to pay it's a reality that echoes in the chambers of the conflict between israel and palestine and what will payment be and how to collect remains central to the great debate but what is the role of the united states and why decade after decade does little
progress seem to be made well archies christine for south takes a look inside the many sides of this very complex conflict. it is a scene only too familiar in this region a protest on israel's border that lead. to violence was here it was the may fifteenth protest marking what palestinians called nakba or catastrophe the creation of the state of israel on this state in one thousand nine hundred because for israel it was a matter of security according to downhaul a co-director of the zionist organization of america i don't know what any country will do when people gather on your border and come across something violation of the law. but for palestinians it is the continuation of a seemingly endless fight for an independent palestinian state a fight in which u.s. leaders try time and time again to play a chief negotiator from president carter to reagan to george h.w.
bush to president clinton george w. bush and now the obama administration he said we believe the borders of israel palestine should be based on the nine hundred sixty seven lines with mutually agreed swaps. so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states an unusually blunt endorsement of an end to israeli occupation of arab land by u.s. president the idea was immediately rejected by prime minister benjamin netanyahu israel argues peace cannot come at the cost of its security with continued palestinian rocket attacks but there is one thing both sides actually agree on when it comes to the u.s. role as mediator it approaches they say is all wrong american policy is built on this conceptions a wrong view of the causes of the conflict and a prescription that doesn't stand up to even the most rational scrutiny of the
question is not right i don't we have a solution at this point but why on earth should we expect to have a solution with this system as it is their use of money you are with the jerusalem project says talk is cheap when the us says it's in gage's in the process of a two state solution but is funding and supporting behavior by israel it's simultaneously working against it somebody bribing somebody to change their behavior doesn't work when you spoil them rotten a recent example in november the us offered several billion dollars in military assistance to israel if it put off the construction of jewish settlements for three months through regardless a water bomb osaze or how he sees it and he sees that paper have been bullish but what he does is to say the costs of peace are high high cost abroad and at home pro israel many accounting for between one quarter and one third of all donations
to the major political parties a concern for many including former u.s. congresswoman cynthia mckinney they want the executive branch they want the legislative branch pro israel campaign contributors totaled nearly twelve million dollars in two thousand and ten far higher in other. major donors making increasing the pressure on israel a politically daunting prospect especially if elections eighteen months away we will see more of this is the order but with the need to show support for the arab spring and a reconciliation between the two palestinian factions u.s. leaders need to feel the pressure and we could put it again christine freezone r t . now looking back what do you consider them high points or low points in u.s. israeli relations we want to get a little more background so looking back to nine hundred forty eight israel declared independence on may fourteenth the united states and i was defacto recognition only minutes after the announcement but was independence for the
israelis the arabs called the nakba or the catastrophe now in nineteen fifty seven may have heard of the six days war between israel and neighboring arab states the us was neutral but the us saw an attack on one of its naval ships the u.s.s. liberty by an israeli air force jet fighter now despite killing thirty four crew members and a conclusion the attack was a mistake a case of confused identity was the determination some survivors and u.s. diplomats continue to dispute the official findings they alleged it was not a mistake this remains the only incident in u.s. history where u.s. military forces were killed but it was never investigated by congress and camp david of course was the site of agreements and breakdowns in one nine hundred seventy eight after secret negotiations the accords were signed by egypt and israel and witnessed by u.s. president jimmy carter that led to the one nine hundred seventy nine age of israel peace treaty and then fast forward to two thousand middle east peace summit where the u.s.
led by bill clinton right there israel and the palestinian authority leadership attempted to negotiate a settlement in the israeli palestinian conflict but bailed. now today for more on policies and the relationships in the middle east earlier i spoke with ambassador chas freeman the former ambassador to saudi arabia here's part of our conversation . well we're involved one way or another because of course we subsidize israel heavily with tax dollars. with weaponry. to conduct its occupation of these territories so even if we don't try to mediate we're we're there and we're involved. i think the cost of the conflict has become so. generating instability and terrorism. for for us as well as the region. it's become the key to our whole policy.
position in the middle east and we really don't have any choice we've got to do what we can so with president obama coming out saying what he did. doesn't matter what he says because as you mentioned money talks the united states has given more aid to israel than any other foreign country since nine hundred eighty five i think it's three billion dollars a year is the annual average that seems to say the united states will support israel and does no matter what's said publicly is that the case well that's been a problem because israel suffers from a moral hazard it doesn't have to weigh the consequences for itself in the war on terror and when it makes a decision in the present in the short term so it has made a whole series of decisions including putting all these settlements into what. is left of palestinian territory. and thereby making it almost physically impossible to have a two state solution the alternative to a two state solution is some sort of
a party that is second class citizenship in israel proper for its relation and no rights whatsoever. under occupation and that's not acceptable to anybody it is seems acceptable to some people that are complicit in the united states and also that see it very differently. and israel i kind of want to point to that you know you say the moral hazard and you mentioned some of these consequences but you know on the flip side. it's really prime minister saying no way you know obama united states leaders are not living in reality they don't understand our reality israel needs to be able to defend itself and it can't with what they're calling for they don't see it as. well actually what he said was areas in what he called. which is the occupied territories the settlements in their defensible but of course they're indefensible they were illegal from the beginning nobody in the world
outside israel accepts them and so that's really the whole issue so basically what he's saying is what the charter says which is that the palestinians cannot have an independent state they can have something if they want to call it a state even resembles an indian reservation they can do that here is a foreign minister coming to the united states. going to speak to the congress deliberately. to undercut a statement that he knew the president was going to be. organizing. in washington against the president the united states and that's really rather unusual what i mean organizing a meeting against the president i mean a pack the president speaking at it that's the point isn't it. talk about why it matters it matters a great deal because. of that particular lobbying group in american
politics they have the capacity. they're not alone in this to basically stalemate on capitol hill and this of course is part of the problem. is really they just don't feel any obligation to listen to the president whoever he or she may be in the future because. they're always confident that they can go to capitol hill and have a. congress. that's the problem ducking foreign policy where examples where because we do there are figures that support the power of the pie was real lobby if you look at money you know they spent for example eleven point nine million dollars in two thousand and ten on candidates and when you look at other ideologically driven. groups i mean they pale in comparison to the low to mid single digit numbers for things like guns rights human rights other foreign policy . you know factions so aside from the money where do we really see signs
of that influence i know that you have a personal story that you were very public about at a time when you were being looked at as the to chair the national intelligence for the administration so i think. particularly. rules largely by fear that is to say there's a lot on record for example financing opponents in elections for people like. there was a very famous instance. in an election almost. they have defeated. illinois earlier. they tried to defeat senator chafee john chafee. in rhode island so the fear always failed then when that seemed to indicate that it's not this power that it was that was the one you know lateral that was the one instance where
they didn't generally succeed. and they see the rate of success. is high so that it's very intimidating. so we don't really have much of. it is really. there was a former apac official who once. he can take a cocktail and ten minutes could get thirty five senators to sign it. what was your personal experience oh i was asked to chair the national intelligence council when they accepted it after about five weeks. i guess just because. of patriotic duty. for the paper for thirty years and because i have outspoken israel and concealed other people do
there was immediately. basically. the right wing of israel there are an awful lot of people who are afraid to say what they think because they're intimidated i think frankly the country policy and israel for that matter. kind of. the discussion of matters related to israel where they'd be better served with honestly what do you think the cost to the national security for the united states which is involved in three wars with arab countries and we've heard some military officials come out and say that israel played a role and then backpedaled why but but what is there a top u.s. national security yes i think probably in many respects we are paying a high price it's not just the wars that you mentioned which are related to which
were started by terrorism in the case of afghanistan and. iraq at one point. in the terrorism is clearly related. to israel's relationship with it so. it wasn't the only factor but it was a factor and so we've gotten involved in wars that are three trillion dollars. but beyond that i think probably. the failure of the united states to deal effectively with. the double standard. which we heard yesterday in the president's speech by the way what was the most tracking example that you would cite of the president made a very strong. that we should not tolerate civilian bludgeoned. by their rulers.
over libya but we do nothing when the israelis do all these things. just a few days ago. we were. credit number of them. so i think the cost of all the pretty high in terms of our credibility. internationally and that's not important because. they don't trust us they won't follow us when we need to. and now with freeman a former ambassador to saudi arabia now. u.s. intervention in libya a deadline to get out or get approval from congress by law yet no loud voice for anyone to enforce the law and few calls from congress seem to be falling on deaf ears so what does this mean for the rule of law in the u.s.
and the rules of us englishman in war. you know. i said at the outset that this was going to be a matter of days and weeks. to church in months. the battle rages on but in washington time has run out. and this rhetoric is running up against a real growth block thing gary you said you don't think in your power think there's a war powers act the war powers act a resolution that says sixty days marks the deadline for an american president pull u.s. forces from hostilities or get congress's approval for a formal declaration of war yet neither appear to be happening and according to the president publicly time seems to be the enemy only for someone else now time is working against gadhafi. he does not have control over his conference but it's
unclear who or what has control over this one the law or the will of the president the. president did not seek gratian of war begin with. nor really has there been much discussion of the war powers act nor does it seem there will be when pressed by the majority of congress not with leaders of the senate foreign relations committee saying there are no plans for action and top lawmakers like john mccain saying quote he's never recognized the constitutionality of the war powers act nor has any president which is only sort of true according to legal and political experts every president has expressed some concerns about its constitutionality but interestingly not a single president has questioned the sixty day rule hathaway says if obama does this would set a new precedent for combat by a president who campaigned on ending u.s.
wars and abiding by constitutional law. still when it comes to war powers there's enough blame to go around absolutely congress doesn't take it seriously and president seven take it seriously and us media take it seriously meanwhile u.s. drones fly over libya dropping bombs and the laws governing this type of mission seem to have flown out the window to it makes a joke of the whole idea of having laws that you can still go out and give beautiful speeches as the president seems to do an arc about peace and justice and principles. as the clock strikes the days sixty in the libyan intervention and the billions of reported three quarters of a billion dollars in the u.s. this third war with no congressional oversight or end in sight time is working against the rhetoric and the rule of law in theory in reality in the nation's capital though no alarm appear. it's been going on for lister r.t. washington d.c.
. and when asked about the law the white house press secretary jay carney would not comment on the passing of the sixty day dial deadline rather but he did claim that the president's actions have been consistent with the more powers resolution well not so said my guest earlier ivan eland he is a defense analyst who is senior fellow at the independent institute here's part of our conversation if it's illegal and unconstitutional and it's not the first president to have done it but it's clearly a move in the direction of more executive power and more. executive your soup ation of the. congressional war making power which is clearly in our in the united states the constitution the founders than a lot of time on this is the original convention is probably the most important issue they've addressed and it's very important to the republic and they want to
make sure that the executive branch. because they didn't expect that experience of the kings of europe taking their countries to war and all the costs falling on the . average person in blood and treasure so they put the requirements in the most important requirement of the constitution is declaring war and we don't do that anymore so yes so why doesn't anyone care is my next question i mean congress you had a few members you have six republican senators that sent a letter to obama saying you're breaking the law we have a few other outspoken members of congress but you have really no push from congressional leadership to enforce this well this has been occurring since one nine hundred fifty when harry truman was the first president to run a large on declared war and so people have sort of gotten used to it that's one from the second problem is if your congress man or woman you know you don't want to be tagged with responsibility for the success or failure this if there is that about abdicating responsibility why do you think that what's what's your evidence
that that well because people want to take credit if it goes well though praise the president or if it goes well badly they can criticize him but if you have a vote on a declaration of war anything sort of authorisation for that they have to go on record as either opposing it or supporting it and therefore you know they can get the land by their constituents one way or the other so just let the president take responsibility and will you know will be the kid that serves on the side and say he did a great job or he didn't do a good job and you know the constitution of course has always been important that is what this country was founded upon but it's seen this renewed resurgence where you always said lawmakers quoting from that you see the tea party worshipping it i mean there is a renewed obsession with the constitution so is this a. kind of sign that that matters less than politics well i think you do see some of the tea party like ron paul and rand paul worrying about
this but more tea party should get involved in this because they're more involved in taxes and stuff but this is a much more important issue for the republican we've. on way off the deep end towards you know executive rule and that's not a good thing for a republic and a couple things on that you know you mentioned that other presidents have had not followed the war powers resolution but from what i understand the only president that broke the sixty day rule was bill clinton during kosovo but even then he still went to congress for funding so he did at least go to congress is this the new president yes it is i mean the president that harry truman said the war powers was an act was in force then it came after vietnam when they got disgusted with lyndon johnson and nixon so yes clinton did that's exactly what happened but i think obama is in new territory since he's not going to get funding special funding approved like bill clinton did so he's well he's gone farther than clinton and of course
george bush for all his failings he did get congressional authorization for afghanistan and iraq and he was the champion of executive power but obama has really gone further in this case than bush ever went couple things on that why is he getting a free pass they don't feel like we're saying that much about it or criticism and what does this say about a president that campaigned on a not getting involved militarily when you weren't attacked and in u.s. wars and following the law i mean he had a sound bite that we played at the beginning of the show where he said that we will be ruled by law we will no longer violate the constitutional law that's not who we are as a country but it seems to be who he is as a president if this is an example well he's a constitutional law professor and he made the statement that you shouldn't we should be going to war unless congress approves unless we're attacked the country is attacked which is what the constitution said and the war powers act also says that so there's no excuse for him doing this and you know it is better and it's
just a case of he was in the opposition before when george bush was president conducting wars now he's that he was the anti-war president but now he has one more war than george bush. she continued both of bush's wars and has now started a third one so there's really no excuse for this at all and just bigger picture when you look at a country that is involved in three wars spends more money on defense than any other country has fourteen trillion dollars in debt with lawmakers unable to come to any consensus on how to tackle that where does this put the country on a trajectory on i mean does this put us in a place where we can just perpetually be at war because it seems that there's one after another of these laws when it comes to declaring war getting money for war getting approval for war that are either not enforced disregarded made ville so that they don't matter well that's what the founders worried about the doers become an empire which we have become an empire in the post world war two era and i think we could go the way of the soviet union the way of the roman empire the way of the
british and french empires. you know after world war two that was ivan eland senior fellow at the independent institute and i did want to mention that the professor from yale that i interviewed in the report that i did put a really interesting editorial about all this that appeared in the washington post and all tweet that if you haven't read it already it's definitely worth a read and if you haven't heard other big news the end of the world begins tomorrow may twenty first two thousand and eleven at the least a group of devout christian radio listeners believe that you may have seen the headlines it's kind of been everywhere but i would want to wager a bet that you haven't seen them this up close and personal anywhere else artie's don't deal in florida long on family radio's caravan and tells us more about the end of the world as we know. have you heard the awesome news watch watch watch one the world of sending death destruction that's all you can see tomorrow. morning
nine months ago eddie and jessica ramos hit the road to tell people just that so what i did is i shop a business now i. got the. tag you know basically the same way and everyone had theirs and you know and i think that this was the best way. to do what we're supposed to do sorting through what about was telling us to go to warn the people their three daughters travel with their i homeschooled along the way they were in school for a little bit and then now that it's towards the end we decided to pull down so much as possible and also give us more family time jessica any aren't alone there is just one of four caravans roaming the country preaching the apocalypse they believe the world is ending may twenty first and that it's their duty to warn the people harold camping the eighty nine year old founder of family radio used a series of biblical calculations to arrive at may twenty first two thousand and eleven basically we have a stake in the bible guarantees it
a bottle guarantees it that we have enough information now to show that this is going to happen although camping did predict the end once before in september one thousand nine hundred four campaigns prediction has since been branded on buses billboards t. shirts this is the greatest and the biggest advertising campaign in the world. there's never been anything like this before she's got previous world. the bible promised that everybody all nations will get this message before may twenty first world and everything in between including gary bombers s.u.v. she drives every day to his job at the department of homeland security this is a vehicle i had wrapped it was about two years ago i actually had the work done on it and it's a. pronounced in the lord's work of judgment day we actually have a depiction here this is actually the picture of the california plate actually sinking into the ocean as we walk around the vehicle on the hood to hood has
a theme want it on this this is a mass burial ground this side of the vehicle here is the opposite depiction of the far side this is actually depiction of fire and it's talking about how the lord is going to bring down fire and brimstone upon the earth and the day of destruction it's both both sides of the coin of the day of destruction according to camping the day of destruction will begin with a giant rolling earthquake at the international date line and travel around the world killing millions for that happens all the true believers will be caught up to deal with christ and they want to experience this going to happen here for months. sorrow suffering meanwhile those who know they'll be left behind like these atheists are already making plans of their own offering to buy on craigslist raptured people's possessions and dog sit for those called to have it here he says but he's still here tomorrow it means he's been left behind but he isn't worried to one.
Uploaded by TV Archive on