OBAMA ON CNN THE SITUATION ROOM
[CORALVILLE, IOWA USA] [OBAMA ON CNN THE SITUATION ROOM] [USA] FTG OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (D-ILL) ON CNN'S THE SITUATION ROOM
Interview with Michael Oren pt 1
Interview with Michael Oren, his service in the Army, the Six Day War, events after and up to the present, the training of suicide bombers and Palestinian rejection of peace moves., , INTERVIEWER:,May I have your name?, MAN:,(Inaudible) , INTERVIEWER:,And the spelling of your name please. , MICHAEL OREN:,Michael Oren. M-i-c-h-a-e-l O-r-e-n. , INTERVIEWER:,And your official title? , MICHAEL OREN:, I'm a Senior Fellow, and historian, at the Shalem [PH] Center in Jerusalem. , INTERVIEWER:,Where are you originally from? , MICHAEL OREN:,I grew up in West Orange, New Jersey. , INTERVIEWER:,You grew up there and you were educated at Columbia? , MICHAEL OREN:,I was educated at Columbia and at Princeton, all in Middle Eastern History. , INTERVIEWER:,(Inaudible) ,00:01:11>>>, MICHAEL OREN:,Not quite linear like that. No, I started coming to Israel, when I was about fifteen years old, to work on a Kibbutz. I worked out in the alfalfa. I worked out herding cattle, up on the Golan Heights. It was a very exciting period in my life. And basically stayed since I was fifteen years old. But at intervals I went back and completed degrees in Middle Eastern History, in The United States. , INTERVIEWER:,And you played college ball? , MICHAEL OREN:,I was an oarsman in college. I rowed boats on all America's east coast rivers. And at one point I was actually a serious oarsman. I was trying out for one team and I didn't make it. , INTERVIEWER:,That's crew. , MICHAEL OREN:,Crew. Otherwise known as crew. , INTERVIEWER:,Did you go to a prep school? , MICHAEL OREN:,No. I went to a public school in West Orange Mountain High School. , INTERVIEWER:,Did they have a crew? , MICHAEL OREN:,No. Instead of rowing - I was large and meaty, and if you're totally uncoordinated that's where they stick you (Inaudible). [IMPERTINENT INFORMATION RE: HIS ROWING BACKGROUND] , INTERVIEWER:,Did you experience any (Inaudible)? ,00:03:49>>>, MICHAEL OREN:,Oh yes, I managed to see a fair amount of action in the Army. Over a long period of time. I served in - first in the Israeli Paratroopers, and then in a smaller Special Forces unit. And then I was in the first wave of Israeli paratroopers into Lebanon in 1982. I actually served in various sort of penetration raids into Lebanon. Well before that I ended up spending a year in Lebanon. My unit was decimated in the Lebanon War. I was one of the few people not killed, wounded in my unit. And I was in battle for Beirut. And later on I had some very interesting [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,00:04:34>>>,My unit was, for all intents and purposes, the unit was decimated. There weren't really many people who hadn't been wounded or killed. We proceeded sort of jumping onto other units into the battle for in Beirut, and stayed in Lebanon, off and on, around the Battle of Beirut, for about a year. Later on, as I became older, and I was put out to pasture, you usually stop jumping out of an airplane by the time you're 37, I also had some very interesting jobs in the army and in the Gulf War. I was one of the few Israeli veterans of The Gulf War, because I was serving as a liaison officer of the U.S. Six Fleet in operations. That was extremely interesting. I actually coordinated information about when scuds were taking off from Iraq and landing in Israel. We were in charge of operating all the sirens in the Israel. , And then later on, we brought in the patriot missiles and tried to take out some of the scuds. It didn't really work, but it had a great moral impact - it had a big impact on Israeli moral - moral, at the time. Later on, still, I had been an advisor to the Israeli spokesman's office, the Army spokesman's office, and in that capacity strangely enough I had been in combat. Because one of my jobs is to advise brigade commanders on their relationship to the press, during - in battlefield situations. ,00:05:52>>>,And today, the dynamic on the battlefield has changed so much that you could literally be under fire and having to interview with CNN, or Fox News, while bullets are flying and while you're shooting back. And so they needed officers who had combat experience and knew how to deal with the western press, who spoke languages. And that's where I found myself when the latest uprising broke out, and I was immediately shoved on to a Black hawk helicopter, and flown up to the Nablus front which is really the hottest front. And we landed. There were bullets flying everywhere. Thousands of bullets. And the brigade commander, to whom I was assigned to advise was, as I landed, struck in the head by a 7.62 bullet. And fortunately we had just been issued new American made kevlar helmets, that stopped this bullet, and the brigade commander got away with little more than a scratch and a headache. At that point we all kept on our kevlar helmets. And so here, even at a relatively advanced age, I was still in a combat situation. , INTERVIEWER:,The Six Day War. What was the threat to Israel prior to the Six Day War? What was the sense of what was going down with ____ and ____? ,00:07:11>>>, MICHAEL OREN:, In the period leading up to the Six Day War, Israel faced what the overwhelming majority of Israelis, certainly the government, certainly the army considered it an existential threat. The Egyptians, under the President, Gamal Abdul Nasser, had evicted a UN peace keeping force in Sinai. They had placed a hundred thousand soldiers, a thousand battle tanks, five hundred front-line Soviet made jets, in Sinai, in Gaza, and expressed their open intention to use this army to destroy the State of Israel. They made no attempt to dissemble this in any way. At the same time, they closed off the Straits of Tiran, leading up to Israel's southern port of Eilat, which is a vital port. Israel got all of its oil supply through Eilat. By cutting off that, by making a blockade on the Straits of Tiran, it essentially denied The State of Israel oil. It would've dried up the state very, very fast. That was just the beginning. ,00:08:09>>>,On top of that, Egyptians also made a defensive treaty with the Syrian Army. And the Syrian Army began massing on the Golan Heights. And then finally, both the Syrians and the Egyptians made a treaty with the Jordanians. And their army began to mass at Israel's eastern border. And Egypt placed commandos and other forces in Jordan, so that they could strike at Israel's narrow waist, which along the Jordanian border is only 8 miles across. And all of these, with a tremendous frenzy in the Arab world, mass demonstrations, people clammering for Israel's destruction, there was no doubt in anybody's mind in Israel, that half a million Arab forces were poised to destroy the Jewish state, and that this would happen unless Israel struck first. , INTERVIEWER:,(Inaudible) ,00:08:57>>>, MICHAEL OREN:,It was widely recognized as a defensive war. In fact, many Arabs at the time, in their official capacity, didn't deny that their intentions before the war were offensive. They didn't deny that Israel - they never claimed, or rarely did they claim at the time that Israel had launched an aggressive war. They claimed, on the contrary, that Israel had launched this war with the active aid of the United States and Great Britain. They claimed that Britain and The United States had actually sent pilots and planes to fight on the Israelis' side. That was their major argument at the time, not that Israel had acted in its own self defense. , INTERVIEWER:, (Inaudible) some of the strategic, geographic, geostrategic (Inaudible)-jagged piece of the West Bank, Golan, and (Inaudible). In what way was the territory relevant to (Inaudible) in terms of the (Inaudible)? ,00:09:57>>>, MICHAEL OREN:,As I said earlier, one of the reasons that was very important for Israel, at the time, to -let me make sure I understand this question. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] , INTERVIEWER:,What's the strategic value, militarily, of the West Bank in Golan? [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] What is the strategic significance of the way the Golan Heights, in the West Bank, terrain is actually ___? What is the significance, strategically, of these particular terrains? ,00:11:00>>>, MICHAEL OREN:,The historical and strategic - historically, the strategic significance of both the West Bank and the Golan Heights, for Israel defense, lies in the fact that Israel, at its narrowest point, opposite the West Bank, is eight miles across. And these are the eight miles that contain Israel's population centers, it's industrial concentrations, are all within this eight mile, very, very narrow waist. The West Bank sits up here, the high ground. The plain below it, is that eight mile stretch. So anybody sitting up here controls - can fire down onto that plain. That's precisely what happened in the period leading up to the Six Day War. On the morning of June 5th, the first morning of the war, Jordanian long-range guns, situated outside the city of Jenin, which should sound familiar, opened up fire and, and hit the outskirts of Tel Aviv. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,00:12:19>>>,Historically, the strategic significance of the West Bank and The Golan Heights for Israel are great. The West Bank sits on a high ridge, that overlooks Israel at its narrowest point. Where the State of Israel is essentially eight miles wide. In those eight miles are contained Israel's population centers and it's industrial concentration. Anybody sitting up on that ridge has a full field of fire to the plains below it. Meaning, beyond that is just the Mediterranean Sea. There is no more land. And in the period leading up to the '67 War, on June 5th, the first morning of the war, Jordanian long range guns that were situated, ____ situated around the City of Jenin, which was high up, fired down into Israel and struck the outskirts of Tel Aviv. The American Ambassador was knocked out of his bed by one of the shells, believe it or not. ,00:13:11>>>,The Golan Heights, is an even more dramatic situation. The Golan Heights really sits over the entire Gallillee panhandle, the upper part of the area of Gallillee in Israel. And for nineteen years, from 1948 to 1967, Syrian gunners sat up there and rained shells down onto Israeli settlements below. Israeli farms, kibbutzes, moshavs, these are collective farms, communal farms, and again, the period right before Israel's ascent on Golan Heights, in 1967 the Syrians rained down thousands upon thousands of shells onto Israeli farms, below. , INTERVIEWER:,Today's times, planes, helicopters, long range ____, isn't all this talk about hills and valleys and terrains outdated, strategically? ,00:14:02>>>, MICHAEL OREN:,I don't think that even today, in the era of modern, military technology, long range missiles, smart bombs, that the question of terrain still remains quite relevant, quite pertinent to a battle. I think any soldier would tell you that you can shoot high tech missiles as much as you want, but essentially its where your soldiers are located, where your guns are dug in, that will determine the outcome of the war. I think that The United States has had a very, very poignant example of that in The Gulf War, in 1991. Where they didn't actually take Iraq Saddam Hussein could remain in power. , INTERVIEWER:,What was the immediate aftermath of Israel, in gaining (Inaudible) immediately after capturing the territory in (Inaudible)? ,00:14:55>>>, MICHAEL OREN:,About ten days after the end of the Six Day War, on June 19th, 1967, the Israeli Government decided to return all of the Sinai Peninsula, and all of Golan Heights. This is an area equivalent to almost three times the State of Israel - return both of them in exchange for full peace treaties with the Egyptians and with the Syrians. At the same time, the Israeli government embarked on a secret initiative to question Palestinian leaders in the West Bank about the possibility of creating a Palestinian autonomous entity in the West Bank, that could lead, potentially, to the creation of a Palestinian state. This is in 1967, we're talking about creating a Palestinian state. ,Now, the Egyptians and the Syrians gave their Israeli - your answer to the Israeli overture, at the end of that summer, at the Harpoon Conference in Sudan, when the Arab countries passed the infamous or the famous Three No Resolution; no peace, no negotiations, no recognition of Israel. And so Israel's initiative, of June 19th, was essentially stillborn. , As for the Palestinian response, that was a little bit more nuanced. Israel interviewed some 80 Palestinian notables on the West Bank, on the possibility of effecting this plan. And their response was, well, we'd love to have autonomy, we'd love, some day, to be an independent state, but if we sign any agreement with The State of Israel, the Arab radicals would kill us. And they mentioned Yassar Arafat as one of those radicals, by name. And so that initiative, also, proved moribund. , INTERVIEWER:,The end result was that Israel was considered to be occupying (Inaudible). Is that a fair characterization? These territories occupied territories? ,00:16:42>>>, MICHAEL OREN:,Well, not occupied in the legal sense. In the summer of 1967, the Johnson Administration in the United States wanted to learn about the status of the territories that Israel had occupied in the war. So, they commissioned the Undersecretary of State, Eugene Rastow, who was a law professor, a very well respected law professor at Yale, to write a report about the status of the territory. And Rastow came back with a very interesting finding. He said, under international law, the West Bank and Gaza could not be occupied, because they had never belonged to a sovereign state. Gaza had been occupied militarily by the Egyptians. The West Bank had been annexed, illegally, by Jordan, in December 1948. There were only two countries in the world that recognized Jordan's annexation of the West Bank, and that was Pakistan and Britain, itself. And as a result, Eugene Rostow concluded these territories could not be occupied, because they were under international law, terra nulius (lands that belonged to nobody). And therefore, Israel, as the former country of the British mandate - under British mandate Jews were allowed to settle in what we now call The West Bank - Israel had a greater claim on those territories than any of the neighboring Arab countries. , INTERVIEWER:,Aren't those settlements, nonetheless (Inaudible) of being obstacles. ,00:18:12>>>, MICHAEL OREN:,Well, I guess settlements have often been accused of being an obstacle for peace by many people in the world. I think it's very important to understand, first of all, not to generalize about settlements, there are many different types of settlements. There are settlements in the immediate Jerusalem area, there are settlements that perform crucial, strategic and defensive functions for The State of Israel. So, one must be cautious about generalizing about settlements. ,The bottom line is that Camp David Peace Talks, in the summer of 2000, later at the Tabah peace talks, Israel offered to relocate the majority of these settlements, to concentrate them into two blocks. And it involved really plucking up some 50,000 Israeli's and moving them, many of them against their will. Israel was willing to do that in order to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians. But Yassar Arafat was very clear in saying, the issue is not settlements. We know you're willing to move the settlements, but it's not about that. The issue is the existence of the State of Israel. We do not agree, we will not accept, we will not countenance the existence of a Jewish State in our area of the world. They couched it in an interesting way. They demanded the return of Palestinian, or really the descendents of Palestinian refugees from 1948, about - between four and eight million people, whose return to the state of Israel would have undermined Israel's Jewish majority. Without a Jewish majority you don't have a Jewish state. So that's - it was a way that Arafat was saying that, that what he sought was the end of the State of Israel. But it was nothing to do with the settlements. , INTERVIEWER:,Don't some settlements, at least geographically, (Inaudible) obstruct the possibility of a Palestinian State in the area? ,00:19:51>>>, MICHAEL OREN:,Do some settlements obstruct the possibility of a integration of a contiguous Palestinian State, in the future? They would if the settlements were there permanently. Some of them would. Some of them would. But I - I can only direct your attention again, to the outcome of the Camp David Peace Summit, that was convened by President Clinton in the Summer of 2000. Where President Clinton put together - offered a bridging program, that would have removed the settlements, and assured Palestinian territory - territorial contiguity. And the Palestinians rejected it. , INTERVIEWER:,(Inaudible) ,00:20:39>>>, MICHAEL OREN:,Well, I think that, at the time, it was a source of - Camp David Summit was a source of great controversy in the State of Israel, at the time. Because the Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Barak, went far beyond any previous Israeli red-lines. Perhaps the central red-line that he crossed was that - it said that Israel would never again agree to a redivision of the City of Jerusalem. That Jerusalem would remain the undivided sovereign capital of the State of Israel. And at Camp David, by all purports, Ehud Barak and his advisors offered to redivide the city, and to give Palestinians control over the eastern half, including even de facto control over The Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. It was quite an extraordinary, unprecedented, concession, in advance, without receiving anything in return, not even a counterproposal. And having said that, though, I think that the Israeli people were so desperate for peace at the time, and so convinced the peace was attainable, at the time, that, had Arafat signed on the dotted line at Camp David, then Ehud Barak would have returned from Washington, to Israel, and that agreement would have faced a referendum in the Israeli public. And by all estimates, at the time, the referendum would have passed, and once it passed and Israel moved to relocate these ten's of thousand's of people living in The West Bank, Israel's living in The West Bank, then - there would have been widespread strife here in opposition. Israel was willing almost to risk Civil War in order to have peace with the Palestinians. But the Palestinians weren't having any of it. , INTERVIEWER:,___ totally blown away by the charge that Israel was occupying this territory. What about the charge that Israel was occupying the people? That it's a fight between freedom fighters and occupiers? ,00:22:29>>>, MICHAEL OREN:,Well, at the time of the Camp David talks, 96% of the Palestinians living in The West Bank were not under Israeli occupation. And an even higher percent of the people living in Gaza, the Palestinians living in Gaza, were not under Israeli occupation, they were under Palestinian administration. I've always, I've always been tickled when Palestinians complain about Israeli occupation today - the Israeli army is now situated, this moment, in Palestinian cities. They were complaining about Israeli occupation, before. What is this occupation of occupation of occupation? I can't quite figure out where one occupation ends and another one begins. ,The bottom line is that these territories were not occupied even by Palestinian definitions. The majority of the population is not occupied, even by Palestinian definitions, prior to the outbreak of a war initiated by a Palestinian debate. If there's an occupation today, it is a self inflicted occupation. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,00:24:00>>>,While Palestinian lands, a certain percentage of Palestinian lands, remained under Israeli control at the time of The Camp David Talks, the vast majority of the Palestinians, upwards of 96% of the Palestinian population were not living under Israeli control, they were living under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian authority. Many people had even no contact with Israelis, unless they worked in Israel, at the time., INTERVIEWER:,Just to go back about fifty years-, MICHAEL OREN:, Mm-hm. , INTERVIEWER:,Today the Palestinian (Inaudible) split down the middle, which was actually very unfair. The Jews occupied 30% of the land. The Palestinians were the majority, they owned 90% of the land. And yet the partition plan had the nerve to come and split it half-way, which is very unfair to the Palestinians. That's why they (Inaudible). ,00:24:54>>>, MICHAEL OREN:,Actually, according to the Partition Plan of 1947, the Palestinians got a slightly larger chunk of land than that was given to the Jews. Much of the land given to the Jews, or allocated to the Jews under the Partition Plan, was land that had been purchased by the Jews, from Palestinians in the past. That was true of the coastal plain, it was true of the Jazriel valley area, of the Galley Panhandle area. All of that land had been purchased. The assumption of The Partition Plan was that many hundred's of thousand's of Jews, who had been denied the admission to Palestine by the British, since the issuance of the 1939 White Paper, would then flood into the country. ,So, to say that the Palestinians, at that time, had a certain majority in Palestine, was not relevant to the Zionist leadership, nor was it relevant to the framers of the Partition Resolution who realized that these hundred's of thousand's of Jews, who were lingering in DP Camps, Displaced Persons Camps in Europe, in the Displaced Persons Camps that the British had set up in Cyprus, once the gates were open to the Jewish State, then there would be a solid Jewish majority in those areas allocated to the Jewish State, under the partition resolution. , INTERVIEWER:,Do you believe that the Palestinian grievances (Inaudible)? ,00:26:13>>>, MICHAEL OREN:, No, I honestly believe that if Israel would withdraw to the main street in Tel Aviv, to Diezengohf Street, we'd have the same - we'd have the same opposition of a majority of the Palestinian people, and perhaps the majority of the Arab world. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] I believe that if Israel - the issue - the issue here is not this settlement or that settlement, it's not this border or that border. It's about the existence of an Israeli Jewish state in this part of the world. I believe that if Israel would withdraw back to 67' borders, if Israel was to withdraw to the 47' borders, we would have the same Arab/Israeli conflict. The majority of the Palestinians, at this stage, would continue to reject even the existence of a tiny, rump Jewish State in this area. ,The conflict is existential. It's a unique conflict in historical terms. You know, in most conflicts between two people's, or even between two states, it's very rare where - in a situation in which one side (certainly both sides), but even one side of the conflict wants to completely destroy the other side. ,In World War II, the United States went to war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. It didn't want to destroy Germany, it didn't want to destroy Japan, it had no intention of doing either. It just wanted to changed the government and defeat them, militarily. So, it - the Arab/Israeli conflict is unique because you have one side, the Arab side, that completely wants to destroy the Israeli side. It does not want that state there. The Israeli side, for its part, doesn't even view itself as being in a state of war. It would happily end the state of war in a second. But even that, the symmetry, is unique in the annals of military and diplomatic history. , INTERVIEWER:, When did that war show us, the 67' Yom Kippur War also showed us, or that the 67' war didn't quite make it clear enough? What is the significance - ,00:28:18>>>, MICHAEL OREN:, The impact of the Yom Kippur War was to prove to the Arab world, finally, definitively, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Israel could not be defeated by conventional arms. By a war of armies moving across deserts with planes and missiles. , INTERVIEWER:, That was the intent of (Inaudible)? ,00:28:37>>>, MICHAEL OREN:, That was the intent of the Egyptians, I don't know if it was the intent of the Syrians. But the intent of the Egyptians was to gain a foothold in the Sinai and to use it as a platform, as leverage for negotiating for the rest of - I think the Syrians in the Yom Kippur war, were maintaining the existential goal of eradicating the State of Israel, and they didn't succeed. , INTERVIEWER:, Getting back to the present time, there's accusations on the other side that Israeli's would rather hold onto their biblical home of Judea and Samaria, send their children off to war and to win, than compromise these places for peace. ,00:29:19>>>, MICHAEL OREN:, I think what Israeli's have proven, again and again, that whenever they believe they are sitting opposite an Arab leader who is serious about peace, is serious about reconciliation, that the Israeli's will always choose peace over territory and settlement. This was an example - it was brought home in April of 1982, when Israel pulled out of the Sinai Peninsula. It was the last of the Israeli's to pull out left in April 1982. Israel gave up a territory that was three times the state of the State of Israel, in order to achieve peace with Egypt, the largest most powerful Arab country. Because Israeli's believed that Anwar el Sadat, the President of Egypt, was serious about being a partner of peace. ,People tend to forget, today. But, at the time, in April 1992, there was roughly twice as many Israeli settlers in Sinai, as there were in the West Bank. And the person who plucked them out was none other than Ariel Sharon. , INTERVIEWER:,Do you believe they hypothetical scenario (Inaudible) - a hypothetical Palestinian position could be negotiable, that could lead to peace, and (Inaudible)? ,00:30:43>>>, MICHAEL OREN:, I think if a Palestinian leader were to come forward, now, and say, this whole policy of terror, of trying to destroy the Jewish state, of trying to coerce Israel into making concessions, through violence - particularly violence against civilians, all of this policy has been ill conceived, and Israel has essentially been counter productive. If you want to go back to the negotiating table, this Palestinian leader would say, let's go back on the basis of a two-state, mutually recognized arrangement, where Israel would essentially withdraw from the majority of the West Bank, from Gaza, and provide some type of Palestinian capitol in Jerusalem, in and around Jerusalem, because they have to be in Jerusalem proper. And most of importantly, from the Israeli side, is that the Palestinians, at that point, would renounce all further claims against the State of Israel. It would renounce what the Palestinians call the right of return of the Palestinian refugees. They would have to be absorbed in neighboring, Arab countries. If that was the case, my guess is that every Israeli government would have to accept them. I don't care if it's a rightist government, or a leftist government, they would have to accept it, because the Israeli people would want. , INTERVIEWER:,Are there any Palestinians, you feel, ____ , private citizens, (Inaudible) by the current Jihad to destroy Israel? ,00:32:06>>>, MICHAEL OREN:,I think there are many Palestinians who are willing - who would say, okay, we don't want to blow ourselves up, we don't want our kids to blow themselves up in order to kill innocent Israeli civilians. We realize this policy has brought on us nothing but ruin and devastation. And, unfortunately, those same Palestinians who have reached that conclusion, are not the Palestinians with the guns. And they're, frankly, afraid. ,In the Summer of 1967, when those Palestinian leaders told Israeli's that they could not accept the Palestinian state, because they were afraid of the Arab radicals - that the Arab radicals would kill them. The situation has(n't?) changed all that much. Even Arafat, at Camp David, told President Clinton that he couldn't sign on an agreement with Israel because the Arab radicals would kill him. , INTERVIEWER:,You talked a lot about the (Inaudible). You also (Inaudible). How does that effect your desire for peace? ,00:33:12>>>, MICHAEL OREN:,Well, I think that as a person - as an Israeli who lives here, who continues, even at this advanced stage, to serve in the Army, and reserved duty. I have a son serving in a commando unit, a front line unit in the Israeli Army. As I do this interview I really don't know where he is right now. He's out there somewhere. Having other children who take a school bus every day to school. I wait anxiously to hear that they arrived in school safely, and I very anxiously wait to hear that they came home safely every day. I have the ultimate stake for peace. And personally, as an Israeli, I'm going to make very far reaching sacrifices. But I will not give up a centimeter in order to allow Palestinians to have a better beat on my backyard, and on my living room. And that will enable them to kill us with greater facility. And that to me is counterproductive. The minute I see that there is a serious Palestinian leadership, that is genuine in its desire for peace, and we will meet that leadership. And I believe that an agreement between us is very possible. , INTERVIEWER:,Israeli soldiers depict it as occupation (Inaudible), with reckless disregard for the ___ people, that their (Inaudible) how agonizing is this (Inaudible)? ,00:34:45>>>, MICHAEL OREN:,The Israeli Army, in the West Bank, in Samaria and Gaza, faces a host of tactical and moral issues. Israeli soldiers - I come from an interesting background, my father was a career soldier in the American Army. I come from an American, Jewish, military background. And I know there are tremendous differences between the U.S. military and the American [SIC] - and the Israeli military. One of the differences is that every Israeli soldier, woman and man, carry, in their left breast pocket, a copy of the Israeli Defense Forces Code of Ethics. And it tells them, on this card, exactly how they're supposed to respond. And the civilian population - to respect that civilian population. To use their weapon, their personal weapon, only in matters of personal and national self defense. It's a very strict code of ethics. ,Every day Israeli soldiers are faced with tests with that code of ethics. And many, the lines are not clearly drawn. If you have a checkpoint, you're setting up a checkpoint, not because we enjoy having check points, but because people coming through those checkpoints may be carrying bombs that will find their way onto Israeli busses, and to Israeli restaurants, and Israeli schools. So, first of all, you have a checkpoint, which no one likes having a checkpoint, but it's necessary in order to save lives. But coming through the checkpoint, all of a sudden there's an ambulance, and your natural human instinct would be to let this ambulance go through. You ____ looked at the ambulance, and there's a young boy there, lying there apparently been hurt in some way, or sick, and has to get to a hospital. But it has happened, and it has happened repeatedly, when Palestinians have tried to smuggle high explosives in those ambulances. ,00:36:24>>>,And on one famous occasion, there was high explosives hidden under the little boy. So now, even ambulances have become the subject of - even an object of searches. You have to be suspicious about it. Ambulances have been used to transfer gunman, used in - who later perpetrated ambushes. Every minute there's a moral dilemma. Five o'clock in the morning, you're on an ambush, you see several Palestinians walking out to an Israeli road carrying a suitcase. You may only have two or three seconds, as the commander of that ambush, to make a decision whether those Palestinians are carrying bombs that are gonna be placed under a school bus and kill thirty school kids. And you want to give the order to shoot. What if it's a Palestinian just carrying his laundry? Every minute of every day, these decisions have to be made, often by eighteen, nineteen year old kids. Very, very difficult. I know one thing, about a year ago, during the siege of Jeanine, twenty-three Israeli reservists were killed going into a very, very small area relatively speaking, to fight Palestinian gunman. Twenty-three Israeli's were killed. ,Had that been the American Army, or any other army in the world, not a single soldier would have been killed, because they would have brought them their air force, and they would have brought them the artillery, and they would have flattened that neighborhood. Precisely what the United States does in Afghanistan. They're not going to jeopardize twenty-three reservists, particularly if those reservists have family and kids back home. We did that. We lost those twenty-three lives because we had to answer to a higher moral standard. I have, again, I have a son serving in one of those units. And if you ask me, personally, whether I would rather have our Air Force and our artillery flatten an enemy stronghold, at the risk of killing great numbers of civilians, or have my son go house to house. I'll tell you, I'd have my son go house to house. [CHANGING TAPES] [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,End of TAPE 10A
SJT SUITES TENSIONS BORDER POLAND/BELARUS
A2 / France 2
PRESIDENT BUSH REMARKS AT NEWS CONFERENCE (1989)
B-ROLL OF A PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH IN NEWS CONFERENCE IN THE BRADY PRESS BRIEFING ROOM OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
FSN-275 Beta SP
GEORGE W BUSH PRESS CONFERENCE
THE SITUATION ROOM 5PM
BUSH’S 10 MONTH REVIEW PT. 1 (1989)
B-ROLL OF A PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH PRESS CONFERENCES ON 10 MONTHS IN REVIEW.
The Taliban are already threatening America
France 5
Cheney interview with Wolf Blitzer / CNN 2129
Vice President Dick Cheney interview on CNN's the Situation Room, with Wolf Blitzer. 21:29 aprox 5 minute clip fed from the pool.
THE SITUATION ROOM 5PM
[Vaccination: will it take a 3rd dose? ]
FR3 / France 3
WILLIAM BENNETT RESIGNS PT. 1 (1990)
B-ROLL OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH AND WILLIAM BENNETT, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY, IN WHITE HOUSE PRESS BRIEFING ANNOUNCING BENNETT’S RESIGNATION.
THE SITUATION ROOM 5PM
Cheney interview with Wolf Blitzer / CNN 2129
Vice President Dick Cheney interview on CNN's the Situation Room, with Wolf Blitzer. 21:29 aprox 5 minute clip fed from the pool.
PRESIDENT BUSH NEWS CONFERENCE (1992)
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH HOLDS NEWS CONFERENCE,
STAKEOUT OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ROOM
NOTE: TIME CODE DOES NOT MATCH LOG 18:03:17 CNN SLATE. STAKEOUT OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ROOM. SENATOR PAUL SIMON (D-ILL) ARRIVES. SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN (D-DEL) ARRIVES. SIMON TALKS TO REPORTERS. HE SAYS THE US HAS RESPONDED INADEQUATELY TO THE SITUATION IN BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA. 18:10:00 BIDEN TALKS TO REPORTERS. HE SAYS THERE IS NO NEED FOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL OFFICE SCANDAL.
THE SITUATION ROOM 5PM
END OF FILMING IN HOLLYWOOD/ WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES?
A2 / France 2
[United States: resurgence of Covid cases]
A2 / France 2
CLINTON TRIP TO CHINA
POOL FEED FTG OF US PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON'S TRIP TO CHINA. 05:30:00 POOL FTG OF NEWS CONFERENCE / PRESSER AT SHANGRI-LA HOTEL. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER SANDY BERGER ADDRESSING PRESS. 05:31:30 VS JOURNALISTS. 05:32:13 SHOT OF ANN COMPTON LISTENING W/ HAND PRESSED AGAINST CHIN. 05:32:39 TWO SHOT COMPTON & ANOTHER JOURNALIST. 05:33:08 VS JOURNALISTS. 05:34:23 HEAD ON CAMERA W/ BERGER SPEAKING TO PRESS. VS BERGER SPEAKING. 05:35:15 VS ECONOMIC OFFICIAL GENE SPERLING ADDRESSING MEDIA ON CHINA - UNITED STATES ECONOMIC SITUATION. 05:39:08 SIDE ANGLE W/ PRESS SECRETARY MIKE MCCURRY ADDRESSING PRESS. 05:39:41 BLANK. 05:42:41 BEIJING POOL SLATE. REWIND. 05:43:56 FTG OF CLINTON & CHINESE OFFICIAL PHOTO OP. CHINESE OFFICIAL GREETS SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE ALBRIGHT. 05:44:56 VS CLINTON & OFFICIAL WALK AWAY FROM CAMERA W/ CROWD FOLLOWING THEM. 05:45:55 USTV POOL SLATE. REWIND. 05:46:08 BEIJING POOL SLATE. 05:46:37 CLINTON & OFFICIAL & OTHERS DEPART FROM BUILDING. 05:47:51 CLINTON & OFFICIAL IN CAR, WHICH TAKES OFF. 05:48:09 SLATE. 05:48:25 BEIJING POOL SLATE. 06:29:56 FTG OF ROOM W/ TABLES W/ AMERICAN & CHINESE FLAG IN BG. 06:35:13 CNN PKG. REWIND. 06:36:56 FTG OF UNOCCUPIED ROOM. 06:44:36 CNN PKG. REFEED. 06:48:02 CNN SLATE. 06:48:32 SHOT OF ROOM. 06:50:10 NBC REPORTER SU. 06:53:58 PHOTO OP W/ FIRST LADY HILLARY, BILL & CHINESE PRESIDENT ZEMIN & HIS WIFE. VS THE FOUR WALK W/ BACKS FACING CAMERA. VS OTHER OFFICIALS FOLLOW THEM. 06:56:06 SHOT OF ROOM. 06:56:34 VS CLINTON & ZEMIN ENTER ROOM. VS CLINTON GREETING CHINESE OFFICIALS. 06:58:18 NBC REPORTER SU.
THE SITUATION ROOM 6PM
Russia: the hidden face of the epidemic
A2 / France 2
THE SITUATION ROOM 5PM
CLINTON TRIP TO CHINA
POOL FEED FTG OF US PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON'S TRIP TO CHINA. 05:30:00 POOL FTG OF NEWS CONFERENCE / PRESSER AT SHANGRI-LA HOTEL. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER SANDY BERGER ADDRESSING PRESS. 05:31:30 VS JOURNALISTS. 05:32:13 SHOT OF ANN COMPTON LISTENING W/ HAND PRESSED AGAINST CHIN. 05:32:39 TWO SHOT COMPTON & ANOTHER JOURNALIST. 05:33:08 VS JOURNALISTS. 05:34:23 HEAD ON CAMERA W/ BERGER SPEAKING TO PRESS. VS BERGER SPEAKING. 05:35:15 VS ECONOMIC OFFICIAL GENE SPERLING ADDRESSING MEDIA ON CHINA - UNITED STATES ECONOMIC SITUATION. 05:39:08 SIDE ANGLE W/ PRESS SECRETARY MIKE MCCURRY ADDRESSING PRESS. 05:39:41 BLANK. 05:42:41 BEIJING POOL SLATE. REWIND. 05:43:56 FTG OF CLINTON & CHINESE OFFICIAL PHOTO OP. CHINESE OFFICIAL GREETS SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE ALBRIGHT. 05:44:56 VS CLINTON & OFFICIAL WALK AWAY FROM CAMERA W/ CROWD FOLLOWING THEM. 05:45:55 USTV POOL SLATE. REWIND. 05:46:08 BEIJING POOL SLATE. 05:46:37 CLINTON & OFFICIAL & OTHERS DEPART FROM BUILDING. 05:47:51 CLINTON & OFFICIAL IN CAR, WHICH TAKES OFF. 05:48:09 SLATE. 05:48:25 BEIJING POOL SLATE. 06:29:56 FTG OF ROOM W/ TABLES W/ AMERICAN & CHINESE FLAG IN BG. 06:35:13 CNN PKG. REWIND. 06:36:56 FTG OF UNOCCUPIED ROOM. 06:44:36 CNN PKG. REFEED. 06:48:02 CNN SLATE. 06:48:32 SHOT OF ROOM. 06:50:10 NBC REPORTER SU. 06:53:58 PHOTO OP W/ FIRST LADY HILLARY, BILL & CHINESE PRESIDENT ZEMIN & HIS WIFE. VS THE FOUR WALK W/ BACKS FACING CAMERA. VS OTHER OFFICIALS FOLLOW THEM. 06:56:06 SHOT OF ROOM. 06:56:34 VS CLINTON & ZEMIN ENTER ROOM. VS CLINTON GREETING CHINESE OFFICIALS. 06:58:18 NBC REPORTER SU.