Good afternoon and welcome to the Washington Institute im delighted to welcome youut all to this post labor day gathering, a celebration of the publication of this timely, important new book by my colleagues. When you are a leader and you get your face chiseled into Mount Rushmore is not because you did nothing during your time in office. Or you waited out the term, it is because those were the decisions that affected the fate of the nation often at moments of great crisis often decisions that were unpopular or that risked this would be your last from an office. But decisions that reflected your vision of the vision of the people and if you made it to rushmore or on a coin it is n because decades later your people look back and said thank you. To have the boldness and courage to take those decisions and remarkably a strong selfconfident country for many reasons its too complicated to go into them just for this event but to be blessed with rushmore leadership from the founding of the state over the past 70 years. And those moments that demand rushmore like decisions have not gone away. And that in a nutshell is what this book is all about. Those that rose to the occasion and who met history head on and to remind us in the lives ofns all nations and those that are still with us to hope that rushmore like leadership will rise to the occasion again to help the people of israel deal with those questions. It is such an enormous service as were all busy on our iphones tracking the ups and downs of the latest headlines of yet another Election Campaign of 2019 in israel. To remind us of the really big picture so thank you dennis and david for doing this service from thousands of miles away to remind us of the big picture and to countries around the world and certainly applies in israel. So with that, i want to do thisis plug on the global live streamed audience how israels most important leaders shape their destiny. And what challenges remain for rushmore like leaders. I want to congratulate both of you. I have a very special programam today in addition to having dennis and david talk about their fantastic new book, we have through technology to guests joining us. After david speaks dahlia is has a presentation who is the daughter that serves in the knesset and Deputy Defense minister and chair of the rabin center. After her pretapedta presentation we have rel sharons son live author of the bestselling biography of his father. He manages the family farm the past 30 years and still a member of the party major reserve duty elite army unit. We will go from david to dahlia and their perspective of their fathers and then to bat cleanup dennis will close the opening presentations and then we will turn the floor over to your questions. So first im pleased to bring to the podium my long time colleague who is the distinguishedti fellow director on arab israel relations and has had careers in journalism and scholarship in government and the Second Obama Administration serving as Senior Advisor for israelipalestinian negotiations and congratulations for this fantastic achievement. [applause] thank you very much. First i want to thank the institute and board of directors and senior staff who really helped to facilitate this. There is a bunch of researchse assistance gathered around but i want to thank all of them for all of their support to make this possible. Now why did we write this book . So we thought lets trace that met the bar of history i like that rushmore decision like middle east Mount Rushmore they leave legacies behind them. What doesnt mean they were Perfect People or every decision we agree with but this was achievement to into were. How do they make their decisions and what is the political courage they have even to confront longterm allies to make those decisions. I will focus as we divide this book up i focused on those two figures so im sure he will have a lot to say about everything including those two chapters. So what are the lessons and what made thesee people great . Each of these we could talk forever about but the question trying to be as telegraphic as i can for purposes of time, we focused on what was truly important. He had a central miss and to end homelessness after 2000 years. Not an easy thing tons take on he was tactically agile to achieveli that objective he what is zionism to britain in 1939 with the white papers and then phased out jewish immigration and then to start all over again with United States he actually lived here at the Hamilton Hotel on k street. This is the goal parkway thought it was the achievement now we have to change. He believes you need a mindset for the institution to link the people with the land. So immigration was the oxygen of zionism of unrelenting focus if you wanted to compromise on that issue that was the rubicon and the red line he would not cross thats why he breaks from britain in 1939. His belief was to achieve tha that, immigration was central because you were a minority at the time for equal rights for all but they have to have immigration and was not willing to compromise on that. He was also big because he understood not just inside out but outside in how the world events would impact zionism he was extremely well read he spoke 13 languages and taught himself greek during world war ii blitz and then they had a leader that could communicate to the public the way churchill did. He was prescient in this regard looking at world events. That doesnt mean he succeeded. I think he was a failure in h the thirties because he saw this as a race of zionism and hitler would take over europe he predicted after he got a hold of the munich train estation and said this could be a world war in a few years. The ground is burning that was central to him. He set i have no right to compromise on immigration because all these people will be killed in a few. Years. He didnt sense the enormity of the gas chambers but he failed because in a the thirties it was not enough but he understood world events were greater than anything else. And that was very important. Also ahead of thehe curve to say whats the next challenge . The arab states will go to war. And the main defense institutions there will be a war with countries. I was know who runs tank formations . He ended up restructuring the peoplermy and favored world war ii in the british army because they have experience. He got into a huge fight internally over this. So by the way in the 19 sixties said the soviet union will collapse in 30 years and it was 31 years. He was right but not always but he always looked outside in. He was not afraid of making a momentous decision. But once he locked in the Country First you cannot move him and he was a rock. This chapter is about his decisions to establish a state but bringing 835,000 tubes jews from the arab states so we think there is over 3 million americans in terms today. He accepted german reparations and people said you are dealing with the devil. And then the whole idea of the state itself against all odds. But then two days before when he gets the bad news from George Marshall to say i won world war ii you did not your generals are intoxicated they open the beach to jerusalem and he tried to argue with charette not to declare the state but then he came back and said at least agree to a three month extension. They did not agree that marshall said forget that but charette was not there but that threemonth truce he was there. But at that meeting golda meir comes back and says yes i told you would not win the war but i cannot keep my promise we are now a coalition of five. He gets the word theres been a massacre with the israeli settlement and then each one of these things we could talk about but we dont have timeme but then his own generals say maybe its not such a bad idea to wait three months. He said in the army they talk about that which is all true but its hard to believe 40 percent to the former chief of staff recently and said its amazing how far they have come from that moment. They always settle taken the information but through the analytical lens. His sense was a ceasefire will not be applied evenly. The un will monitor the ceasefire at jordan and iraq and syria and egypt . Know. They will not our biggest resources are our weapons and vemoney and immigrants we have been fighting now we have our moment in our justification so in the british are leaving in two days. Its now or never so having that sense of timing was critical. So bengurion was detached but always pushing for decisions that was ignoring it but he had that Analytical Framework based on his unswerving goal. Now if bengurion wanted to end you wish homelessness then the other was to jewish victimhood that they will never be victims again. He also had the equilibrium between values and interest and believed zionism had to be consistent with the Civil Liberties and that there was martial law in the arab communities. Thats wrong there are citizens there cannot be martial law i know the surprises 95 percent but you read in the cabinet debate and we have, went through hundreds of pages with a cabinet transcript after the 67 war and the one guy who wanted to give they palestinians we have to give them the vote. Is not people to his left or right but his framework was 19th century european liberals the germans gave the french citizenship that was 1967. And he had a very brief period of a honeymoon with jimmy carter and a sense that right about the time of december 77. Vague and and others another thing that he had was a sense of the justice of the cause had to be subordinate to national unity. But then hunting because of the things done by the british and another said start killing the people and held up a piece of paper and said you can have a just cause but it is a thin line b between a just cause and a contaminated one. You all know the story of the ship and the weapons coming in. We dont have time to get into details but people wanted to take revenge. Because they said you can be sovereign unless you are a monopoly with use of force but with fagan would say lets go after bengurion and then we could start killing them and fagan said no. And that defined him. And with the german reparations debate to hear the statements and not the actions but he was very proud no matter the justice of his cause of the ideological attachments did not overwhelm the broader commitment to the Country First. And then the last point about fagan is the biographer of the carter. In the eighties wrote their memoirs first he was very narrowly defined he got what he wanted with peace with egypt but did not giving up on the palestinian issue. Understand their point of view but in the eighties and the 1993 every israeli leader wasnt accepting the legitimate rights of the palestinian authorities but fagans move on autonomy and then not go far enough i in 2019 by setting the template could use him for political cover to go forward with the palestinians otherwise it was a sense of action and inaction but with bengurion for him that list of inaction was missing the moment he felt he couldnt miss that moment that it was too great to not give up the sinai, hit that there could been another one with egypt that risk of inaction was greater it caused factions against him and demonstrations against him everybody had umbrellas but he was attacked but he betrayed a cause and he felt when all this subsides the achievement of peace will endure. That is the point we forget that pease hashe endured. The point is look at what survived. It survive the assassination of sadat, two wars in lebanon , the brotherhood government in egypt and no one has been killedho in those 40 years that we just celebrated earlier this year march 26th of the peace treat treaty. So i think vague and deserve some credit and i hope we do another book on the heroic arab leaders or other key arabs to make key decisions that i think the fact that t peace endures people forget and what is that mean . 30 percent of israels gdp went to the military today it is about 5 percent and if you break it down with gdp my calculations is a 130 billion difference perca year that israel could put into roads and schools and clinics they have long foresight of all of these attributes and just for the purposes of time i will not but i hope i conveyed the sense that they have the foresight to say whats the legacy . I was rereading kennedys profiles of courage and we see this a book about israels profiles in courage he quotes whitman the great columnist kennedy does in 1956 and says the role of leaders is not to do what is popular but to do what is right. We the book conveys a sense here is a leader who had the political courage and did what was right because even if they have unpopularity at the time their legacies and achievements into her. Thank you very much. [applause] thank you david and now we will turn the house lights down and turned to dalia rabin. First of all i would like to congratulate you for your new book. I was very very content to see the choice of the leaders that you chose to write about not that i was disagreeing with the choice but i was very pleased that my father is included among the leaders that you chose to write about. My fathers leadership was, to my opinion quite unique. It was different. It changed from background a very active parents in the labour party and raised on labor and democracy, very rigid and straight. He graduated at the high school and spent most of his adult life in the army. I take most of his life that shaped his life was the war of independence, the way that we entered the war with so little ammunition and so little training and then to find him afterwards rethinking and making the conclusion that he will devote his life to a very strong army with a very Strong Defense and the whole part and then in the sixday war. You will find it in the book but i just want to say that there are symbols of that are the most important part of leadership o that first of all actually most of the first leaders of israel were very modest in their private life and he was more than modest. He was shy. He never took credit for things nor the people that he worked with are the soldiers that he fought with and the needs of the israeli country. And i think he served as a a role model for whatever the results were i think my father was actually the opposite with the relationship between the israel and the United States. He wrote in his biography now we have to transform to turn this victory into peace so he understood that those territories that we conquered during this war would bring about peace to the region and that this was his idea to create thehe relationship with a deep understanding between the United States and israel. He understood the potential allies of reaching for pieces only the United States it was still the cold war. Russia was still supporting the arabs especially egypt and he understood we needed the other superpower especially because the United States was the biggest democracy and this was his vision when he went to the ambassador. And he proved himself the president Vice President we were very much supported by the American Administration and he always said we should not take any steps forward without the clear support of the United States. And from his time as the ambassador based on americas Financial Support my father was not a hawk overnight. He was seeking peace after he left the army. And he thought if you have a normal life to have more liking of a global village. And those that no more want to die for the country. So slowly so the try to build that infrastructure with egypt in very pleased that was very supportive with the Israeli Government not successfully at that time and then coming to the agreement and then decided and did not like him professionally but that could bring the group and unfortunately they were dripping in very slowly and then they were on the background with israel and then through the Peace Process when i try to convince congress at the rabin center we got the First Support to our mission of ignoring the father with the contributions to the relationship. Thank you dahlia. [applause] so now we turn life. Can you hear me . Yes. Loud and clear. Im happy to be invited in a special event at a very young age with the life of jews and in those years ahead. That purpose of his life even as a young officer of that problematic reality that in which he was badly wounded but then the idea those thousands of terror attacks at the early 19 fifties. And then to find a way to Exchange Fire and then to establish the commanding unit. And the change came very quickly. We wanted to see who is this young officer and have the Prime Minister the difference between a strategic threat between the jews in the country so what do they do . They change the reality with those values. We do not return until we execute and do not leave our men behind and by doing that and at that level and then they have wider consideration sometimes they do and sometimes they dont they gave them the freedom to choose and gave them the option. Of every Successful Operation israel was completely different. We saw the sixday war with the chief of staff to talk about destroying israel and from the sinai and then he entered the Egyptian Army and in that danger of existence that was the situation. So as a Division Commander he attacked the main egyptian to the sinai into the peninsula. The army was beaten so by crossing the suez canal with a bold move which he was pushing to for the beginning of the war, he managed to change the course of the war and the defeat into a great victory first lebanon war and those that suffered from the heavy shelling of the rockets and using lebanon as a shelter. After week from the war and after 11 weeks 15000 terrorist and syrian soldiers were removed and when my father was elected Prime Minister they grew desperate. Its not just you had to go on a bus but you just didnt even want to stand by a bus as a Prime Minister he did not have the advantage that he gave the government 50 years before. He had to push the army and then rely on the palestinian forces that were committing most of the terror attacks themselves. But when he led operation defensive shield, he managed to change completely the situation he brought israel to normal life. s victories were clear. My father couldve been a farmer or a writer or journalist. He was very sensitive and talented and a way of expressing himself. He became a soldier in commander and general and through the wars and the violence to ask that question might seem naive but really why because on novembe november 29, 1957 Un General Assembly voted in favor of the partition. Because the jewish state was the dream. What did they do with this resolution . Shall we accept it or reject it . The next day five jews were murdered that was the opening of the war of independence. Why didnt the arabs except . If they would have accepted it there wouldnt be a single Palestinian Refugee or a territory. But they did not even consider it. Why did lebanon, syria and jordan egypt saudi arabia, iran why israel in the beginning . With them. Onflict we had no territorial disputes. Why . And then over those 19 years with the war for independence and the sixday war . With those terror attacks on the israelis they didnt even think about it because of the source of the violence that was not the outcome of the sixday war for all these people is the unwillingness to have the jewish state in a matter what order. This is the reason not through egypt or jordan or palestinians we are not there on the map but beyond that to educate the children we have a right to live in this country then maybe we have something to talk about peace. So from their perspective nothing changed. In making peace among themselves with syria, yemen, libya what they have done my father knew that he knew her neighbors very good and so he had no illusions. When that was the reason any future arrangement he would never let the ability our security would never be tsoutsourced which is also the biggest mistake. Over the years with all the roles he played, whenever he saw the problematic reality he change the reality time after time. Thank you very much. [applause] thank you very much. Now i will turn to my colleague. Thank you. I will thank you more generally for creating a climate that makes it possible for us to do these books. I could easily go through the history and the biography and then you hear talk about bengurion and fagan and also talk about sharon and rabin and im also very tempted to talk about anecdotes of each. And we can ask more questions about that, but we are also Russian Institute for policy so what i want to do is focus a little bit more on the lessons you would distill from the past in terms of leadership and then apply it to what is the issue facing israel today not necessarily the election but what we will be facing to require leadership. s why will start with the following with the distillation of the lesson. The one thing that simplifies all four leaders even though they disagree ideologically, in some ways its an accident but the way they define the role of being a leader and Prime Minister was very similar. They couldri have taken the harry truman adage the buck stops here all four would have accepted that but they operated on theld promise they were the responsibility of making decisions and that was up to them to make they were not to be deferred or put off two successors but to look ahead and say what are the stakes we are dealing with, what other priorities to pursue, even if the decisions will cost meak politically, its on our shoulders to take them. David made a reference all of them understood the cost of action. There was never an issue but they did understand the cost of an action and to make that decision was to share responsibility that was on their shoulders and sharon talked about the solitude of a leader what he meant is when you face these decisions you face them alone. All the people that work with you, you can take their advice and input but the burden of decisionmaking is on you alone. Each felt this. Rabin was known to assume responsibility but if the decision went bad he took the responsibility. That was the natural instinct. And in rabins case one was when a decision was made he wrote two different letters one to explain what hadet happened and the other was to submit his resignation in the event it went badly. The instinct was whatever happened it is on my shoulders i was in there in 1994 when the man was kidnapped and i was heavily involved to have the palestinians give us any information that they knew. It turned out the israelis found her he was held and he wasey killed. The rabin went on television and said the responsibility was min mine. He and sharon in particular where the institution of the idea what drives much of their decisionmaking in response basically the first anti fatah and sharon coming to making a decision both are heavily influenced by the health and wellbeing of the institution and again how they define leadership and how they define responsibility. Making a reference to her father staying in the military actually he had a scholarship to a go study Water Engineering at uc berkeley but he stayed and then he stayed afterwards because he felt it is an area where bengurion looks ahead and is focused on building a military but rabin says of those commando units too little attention is devoted to them and he feels bengurion did not do what was necessaryne to prepare so he decided he would stay in the military now has responsibility is to all of those who died no many have owed so much to so few and what drives him is to ensure its never repeated sharon very heavily shaped that they look at this country and the capacity to look ahead and make decisions. And to ask the question what about now . What would they say . The preoccupation to ensure there would be a jewish democraticic state they didnt use the same terminology but david insist the arabs are part of the state of israel they will have equal rights. They will be permitted to vote. This is significant for today because if israel stays on the path it is on it will become one state for two people is not an issue, currently not part of the debate going on right now there are some people who write about it but there are reasons for that but if you are the israeli looking at whats around you right now what about the rockets that creates precision guidance capabilities for those rockets and limited number of highvalue targets or tens of thousands that have precision capabilities but yet israel has a very effective integrated missiledefense thats one tenth of the cost of the c other missiles so now youre focused on that threat which is very real and not abstract is quite real. And i ran hamas in gaza none of these are abstract. The tendency is to focus on those threats but that is real but doesnt measure up to the same immediacy of those intangibles. Thats one thing but the second reason for those that deny there is even a problem and if you read the last chapter there is a whole discussion that deals with this but i will just give you one example to put this into perspective. 1986 counting the jews and arabs in gaza and israel and the west bank 63 percent to, 19. This is before the soviet russian jews come to israel. They come in three years so today count the russians and dont count gaza because they got out with the withdrawal than there is something wrong with that approach so dont count gaza and then the ratio is 61 39 so the idea is not an demographic problem is to ignore reality even close at 60 40 israel had a choice to make one law for everybody or it doesnt when one state becomes the sole part of the political discourse into states cannot even be discussed in the only option is one state than the one thing you can guarantee is that the palestinians will have a new mantra which is one person and one vote. With its legitimacy would be childs play compared to the impact this will have. I describe this and more colorfully. But either way to make a decision thats not just between gaza and the west bank they will not reconcile that anytime soon. Thats just a reality you have a succession. When leaders who are competing to be more reasonable so to state is not an option anytime soon. The issue is well israel preserve the option of separation. Ple that is the issue that comes to the floor. For the leader to make the decision i wont go through all the items because i want to read the concluding chapter. They have to make a decision to do it. Stop building outside of the settlement blocs. About 5 of the territory we capture about 85 of all of those that live beyond the green light. So there is a basis on which to say and no building beyond the security barrier. They live beyond the security barrier right now and i cant tell you in the Tipping Point will, i can simply tell you its going to come and once you pass it, the israeli leader needs to make the decision to stop building outside of the blocks to preserve the option. I have a suspicion some help of the leaders were around and would identify the fundamental challenge to the future identity of israel, its character and who is going to be. And anything about them, everything you see when we describe how theyve evolved over time they understood what had to be done. He says to me all my successors or publications and what he means by that is they only make the political decision. We also outline what the United States can do to make it easier to make the hard decisions we outlined in the final chapter but of course you will read the chapter to find out what it is. [applause] by focusing on your final comments both in terms of being politicians in the United States, and i know he was using the term politicians. To be a politician if you have an idea you want to communicate to the public to convince people of the wisdom of your thinking. Are there any lessons for that part of the leadership not just that you are alone in the room ticking a tough decision. To follow you down the path of the tough decision which is also a critical part of leadership. I mentioned about the blitz he was struck by churchill. How do you get people to sacrifice for a greater cause and he thought if you could communicate well if you try to achieve they will go with you as long as they understand the stakes. Theres twitter and they didnt have these technologies to communicate. I think that was a good communication he take. They had the Radio Station and he goes on about the state and the partition plan. He didnt like the idea and said history wont accept it ultimately come and jerusalem and things like that. It was an anecdote how they invaded the british but he never fired a shot. Cecil the communication. Cuba since the bbc every day all the way until the day he died. The idea that even though they were in the underground and the militants say they thought their job was about communication, im sure dennis will talk about this, so i know they will say 21st century they couldnt be leaders today but they always understood the importance of communicating, and i think that was essential for them. It is well taken they were leaders but they were also political leaders. None of them would say im going to make this decision. Its going to be a politically costly and im going to ignore the political consequence of that. They were not prepared to allow the political consequences to deter them from making the decision. I think one thing that they all share in this goes back to a different way of describing what david said. One of the responsibilities was to be, not to follow their public. That meant they had to change should the attitudes in one way if they were confronting what was a broad consensus and they felt the consensus was wrong, they felt the need to educate, to explain the stakes to get out there and do it. Whats interesting is they were not communicators like this even in some ways he was separate from that regard. The others were not that necessarily that they Pay Attention to their speeches and in a lot of ways they are remarkable reflections of who they are. He gives speeches where he talks about the typical cost of the war, the impact the war of independence has long had. He gives speeches where he describes when you drive up the highway from tel aviv to jerusalem and see the war of independence and he describes that he can still hear the screams of his comrades and then he hears the silence and he talks about that. She does that actually quite often. He repeats that when he receives the nobel prize he talks about the cemeteries and what they represent the silence. It was their way of trying to lead and educate the public when he describes how difficult it was for him to shake hands with anybody that was there this is something that was gutwrenching for him to do that when hes explaining it in the speech he says i was representing the states of israel and we couldnt put our head in the sand and pretend that the palestinians did in texas. Hes poignant and when he gives a speech to explain, he says this is the hardest thing ive ever had to do and he talks about the debt he owes to the people that he sent. He says this is much harder than anything i did with the men i knew might not return because i put you there. You raised your family is there but then he says they have an obligation to the state and the state of israel requires this. Its not that they didnt see the need to try to affect the political climate, of course they did. They all understood the realities of some of the political realities in which they operated and the operate ae case. They thought to lead the public by explaining as well. I think all of them, and this was the feature of all of them as though i said. I want to ask both of you about the american relationship. Each of these four leaders have real moments of difficulty here in washington. Real moments of te tension. How did they see the value of this relationship for israel and how did that evolve briefly come and how did they deal with that moment on the verge of utter disaster for all four of them, whether it is the nukes with kennedy, whether it is harder, sharon any number of times, and even carter or kissinger. He had something no other Prime Minister ever had in it if you look at his diary, he feared the United States was going to attack israel. It isnt generally known, but when he sentenced him to see marshall, he feared that there might be an American Military strike on israel. This sounds so farfetched. The British Naval ships in the mediterranean in the summer of 1956 that were making the decision whether to go to support had two sets of orders in the thief on the ships. One was how to attack israel to defend jordan because of the treaty, or how to support the invasion of sinai because of the sinai campaign. On october 14, they call up the undersecretary of the Foreign Ministry and tells him to get off of his antisemitic about and call of the orders to attack. Two weeks before the war. They are not invited to the white house during his entire tenure. 16 years after the state was founded that was the first time they were invited to the white house. The first u. S. Military aid that was 14 years into the states so that relationship has grown into this striking how the challenge was. Of course i would say it had to be suez and the eisenhower basically the eisenhower threatening to kick israel out of the united nations, go on national television. Its stuff you could not imagine today. They did a withdraw. He extracted some commitment and unlike. He was at the Hamilton Hotel for ten weeks and somehow had faith in the American People and this goes back to the question about communication. He said i believe with america if we could only explain the justice of the cause, we will win the hearts of americans. He didnt have 1939 in britain that was his anger. That relationship is complicated. We dont have time for that now that we write about it in the book. Theres already the stature he had Louis Brandeis that he was 83yearsold and then 1939 they said we have to start all over again that we can talk to americans and make our case, said he had thisince he had thit there was a lot of low point of. He didnt witness the honeymoon in his lifetime but he still had faith in the american public. There was a brief moment where carter thinks that the economy idea was fantastic. He said i am also jealous of your numbers in israel. This is right after the visit she said i wish i had numbers in america like you have in israel, but he thought the ideas were very reasonable and he talked about the vote and wante boat ae palestinians to buy land in israel. Things you couldnt imagine any leader saying that in 78, things went down the hill and never really recovered. Their relationship never really recovered. He had faith in his case that ultimately he wanted to extricate himself from the conflict and he was willing to do that separate piece that is going to be hard for him. He wanted to make this a package deal, but the relationship wasnt covered. What youre asking is basically how do they seek to manage the relationship. I think in some ways he is the most interesting case because its worth, it was a close call at the first two years of the Administration May be the low point reagan gives a press conference and a lot of what is going on in the function, as the defense minister and then later when hes building the settlement which i tend to recall quite vividly, his approach is to sort of push the government to do what he thinks is the right thing regardless of the reaction. But when he is minister, his behavior is totally different. Now in his mind he bears the responsibility, and there is no more important relationship in the world with the United States. He doesnt want to be on the wrong side of the United States. Its true, he makes the speech on october 4 of 2001, but that triggers an opening and creates the opening for the channel between the white house and him. He spends an enormous amount of time before every visit here and wants to be sure he does everything right, he wants to be on the right side. One of the reason he reacts to, he feels the need to come up with an initiative is because hes worried about where the u. S. May be going so he spends an enormous amount of time focused on how he can manage the relationship when he becomes Prime Minister. He works hard to create a connection with president bush. In some ways he feels the need to do that precisely because of that existed with the first president bush so i would say he learns the lesson lessons and de Prime Minister he focuses heavily on us. Within underpinning to the strategic wellbeing. I know that you are with us and you have been listening to us. Do you have anything youd like to add about your fathers relationship here in washington . My father was very surprised to find out that he has more than the president of the United States. But he sold the relationship between israel and the United States as the most viable effo effort. It became something based on mutual values in a neutral way of thinking. [inaudible] and to have strong connections with jews around the world especially in the u. S. Because after israel is the most populated Country Services something that he thought was an israeli exit and that is something that he always had in mind and saw there would always be more to come and that was important. More questions in the back. Yes. My question goes back to what rob started which had to do with the big worldview the example that you made was the predicted russian falling and im wondering if anyone can add anything that came after that the decision to give the power that it has and how that fell out in terms of the consequence of the decision. She didnt have perfect foresight. No one has 2020 overtime. Like many, he had a young aide who negotiated deal to give the exemptions to the ultra orthodox not to go to the army but to be able to stay and there was a picture of my grandfather learnein the holocaust might han been before the holocaust and he thought that this was a remnant that was kind of like just a remnant of what is left in europe that they didnt foresee the growth of the ultra orthod orthodox. That is the extending sovereignty is the belief that you have to shift the mindset and the character and you are building the institution you have to link the people to the land. He did not foresee the growth of any of that. I dont mean to suggest that he had perfect foresight. He did not. There is a letter of a bengurion writing to his grandfather in 1959 in hebrew he showed it to me saying i regret that decision of giving them the exemption but he thought they were negligible and what have symbolic value but it wouldnt affect things in the big picture. And he was all about the big picture. Thank you very much for the excellent presentations. With a characteristic of a good leader is the ability to deal with information. Closeup as a reporter and member of the Foreign Relations committee, i wonder what you thought of the relative analytical ability i would say in the cases they saw things that they were and they were both superb analysts. Basically for anybody that was analytical, he would present a case and say abc be and i would say once he thought something through and there was no possibility in the world of talking him out of it. On the other hand, if the reality proves that he is wrong about what is uncharacteristic as he would go into it to you and say you were right and i was wrong. I will give you one example. He came here two weeks after the beginning of the first intifada and i had to b happened to be oc at the time. I said what do you think is going to happen and he said if could go away. I traveled throughout the west bank not that long before and i felt the mood was very different and i said i had my doubts. Several months later when he said to me you were right and i was wrong and that was the first time. Because he thought things through, as i said, you couldnt move hi him to this reality butd him wrong he was intellectually honest. And i think what these leaders that h they had in common is thy were honest with themselves. They could hear bad news. They didnt exclude it. Next question right here on the right. From the university of Maryland University college. Since the book omits the golden era i wondere wonder if it is fr us to conclude that in your view it didnt measure up to the leaders as a flaw either i wonder if you could comment. I want to ask that more broadly. These are the top four. Who didnt quite make the cut to narrow it down to four wasnt a c. Because there were moments of those who took decisions and sometimes it was not to act. They didnt want to yield to the general pressure on the six day war but to coordinate with the United States even though they said we are losing the element of surprise and he thought that coordinating with the u. S. Was so important it was worth a delay and he had everyone against him and i believe that he was one of those. Sometimes people did things. We used to joke that he does anything better. The key by not responding during the gulf war and he made sure the coalition didnt fracture and it could be persecuted against Saddam Hussein which is the great enemy so its hard. We could show a leader. I think we were both disappointed in the case of golda meir and the signals sent. She didnt pick up on the signals. There is a debate about each of those, but on the other hand, while she was maybe not top tier on the peace issue of the relations, if we would ever do a sequel on what do they do when it comes to other issues like soviet jews that come out of the soviet union in 1989, 1990, 91, 92, but i think because she was ambassador in moscow in 1948 and shortly after, but she has a key role in the movement. The very first meeting with carter they want to raise it maybe there is room for some sequels confronting the hard choices and making them anyway, and would golda meier in the case of revere, they made a reference to it and both of them came up with Creative Ideas on how to respond to dot and she will not hear of it. Its interesting also when the Mission Begins and they pose a question on each side, they have to come in and explained that they do not have a response and kissinger. Fullsto blows up at a response. So, there are some instincts said the decision not taken its okay from that standpoint. We have the view in the states the experts for the middle east so your reaction to the departure of jason greenblatt. What does that say about the perspectives and future deal of the century . I found you can disagree on points here and there but it was the three key members of the team to me is learning curve was most pronounced. He was looking for a winwin solution. You could disagree and there would be time to go through every one of them, but to take away for me is this is the guy if Jared Kushner worked on parts of the plan but for pretty much unveiled, he was the key on the final status issues and political issues drew some and all that. It has to be seen as a setback that he believes the plan is about to be unveiled. I noticed in the last one he doesnt use the word plan but vision. I think it shows also that this is our Reference Point for the future as a post tomorrow at 9 a. M. All sides are sitting around the table. But you have to see i know he was saying just for this, so that is what i take from it. I know that there is going to be a conspiracy but what is good about this but we will know within 12 days if it is accura accurate. It will start within hours. Did he quit because trump is about to take a move in the next 12 days but what impact this plan in a certain way, im sure that there will be speculation about it. Who knows if he will return to the enterprises. Hes been very loyal to the president and serves in the capacity. Im sure like all people in public service, it was a commitment to leave the private sector. Six kids, three of them in college and in jewish state school, they are all expensive things and you were definitely eating into your savings when you go into those. The explanation on the surface is one of washington probably never accepted. To pick up on what dave was saying having dealt with them a lot, i agree with his characterization, hes a completely decent person and very respectful of others. I think he made a genuine effort to try to understand the issues. He has made clear for a long time i heard it more than a year ago that he was going to go round only until the plan was unveiled. That would have argued after the plan was unveiled in the thought of doing it before hand. But i think that is the explanation that will be offered, and it may be true. I do think that the timing is a little strange and it probably opens questions into the low expectations of what would happen after the plan that okay there isnt going to be a plan after so there is no reason to stick around. But i dont think it selling the plan is already a long shot, and i think taking the one person out of it who immersed himself in all of the political issues again whether you can agree or disagree but i think that it came to have an understanding with them taking himself out sending a signal that is taking himself out certainly sends a message that the expectations will put it out there but they dont expec we dh is going to happen after we do. Very good. I will leave it at that. Thank you, david and dennis and all of you for staying with us and injecting your personal view i think that was an enormous contribution to todays event. Thank you very much. For those of you that have to get a book right now, i believe we have a bookseller upfront that will accommodate you and we will be happy to sign. Thank you very much for joining us today. [applause] good evening everyone. Im a member of the staff of politicatpolitics and prose ande to welcome you to a couple of notes before we get