amendment it is about studying the impact. well some people might call that research but others might not. i think mr. cole has said something to the fact that it won't be coming up. but i think themen american people know and the president seemed receptive to it in the conversations of yesterday. ... we'll take i live to the national press club, an all-day conference on u.s. and israel

policy. it's getting underway now, live coverage here on c-span2. >> the committee policy conference where a bipartisan group of congressmen and officials will gather to reaffirm their unwavering support for the state of israel. it's our hope that today's event provides context and insight into how the lobby functions and why it's influence is worth talking about. today's event is also held at a time when the national discussion is taking place about the role of special interest groups in the political process. in the aftermath of last month's shooting in parkland, florida, americans have engaged in a relatively open and healthy discussion about the role of the national rifle association and we believe that's the most powerful foreign lobby in the united states, the israel lobby's actions must also be openly debated and we hope that

today's event will facilitate such a discussion. before we begin, just some information and ground rules for the day. we are expecting a pretty full room so we ask that you do make sure all the seats are open and do not occupy them with bags or coats or anything like that. during the q & a session it will be done via note cards. there are note cards in the bags you were begin at registration. find a you shall ser a-- usher during the discussion. and moderators like to sort through through before the q & a begins. an exhibition hall will close at 4:00, and be sure to visit our wonderful exhibitors. our bookstore is behind you in the al cove, there is books, pottery and olive oil for sale there. and book signs will take place

in the main ballroom. and also in your registration, there is an exhibit where you can go to pick up tickets for the reception afterwards, that will give you one free alcohol or nonalcoholic beverage of your choice during the reception so please be sure to visit the booth to pick up your ticket and we ask that you don't record videos unless you're given prior permission and wi-fi information is in the back of your program, and tweet at the #israellobbycon, c-o-n and it's being broadcast live on c-span and we urge the audience to participate in the conversation. we please refrain from talking in the ballroom and take your conversations out into the exhibition hall and we wouldn't be here, but for our fantastic donors and give them gratitude for funding today's event and

making it possible and happy to welcome numerous groups from around the country, students, as well as dignataries from 12 embassies, afghanistan, the arab league, kosovo, morocco, russia, and others. [applaus [applause] >> this lobby is more and a domestic issue, it's also an international issue and i'm sure they'll find the first panel on israel and the u.n. of particular interest. with that i'd like to introduce grant smith for the institute for middle east policy, a co-sponsor. grant and his organization are committed to uncovering and documenting how the israel lobby works and operates through the research and freedom of information act request. grant is the author of several books on the lobby, most recent being big israel, how the lobby moves america, that's available for sale at our bookstore and

on-line as an audio book. with that welcome grant to the stage and he'll provide an overview of the lobby and today's event. thank you. [applaus [applause] >> thank you, dale, and welcome, everybody. as you said, i'm going to be reviewing the israel lobby's agenda in some detail and it explains, i think, why we've invited this particular group of experts to speak today and i'll try to mention as many of them as i can, as we review the stakes, the very high stakes and challenges that are being presented here in the united states, and globally, which are higher than ever before. the israel lobby, in terms of a nonprofit sector snapshot, and this is coming out of the data

base that was compiled for my book, "big israel" is an eco system of organizations that advance israel at very many levels, and this is on track to be a 6.3 billion dollar industry in 2020. nearly 500 separate medium sized to major organizations, with certainly apac and the american judiciary committee and the anti-defamation league and many others at the top, but if you add it up, it's almost 17,000 employees, half a million volunteers, working in organizations that have the advancement of israel as one of their primary objectives in the united states. their designated voice, as dale mentioned, leveraging the collective power of these grass

roots, integrated organizations, is the american-israel public affairs committee and it will, of course, be meeting in its annual policy conference this weekend. and so, there will be a great deal of triumph in the achievement of one of its longest term, long-term objectives, which was realized in president donald trump's recognition of jerusalem as israel's capital. now, the announcement was followed by a statement department announcement saying that the u.s. embassy will be moved to jerusalem in may, and it's something that since its founding in 1948, israel has wanted all countries to do, to give official recognition, locate their embassies in jerusalem, rather than tel aviv, but, of course, the

original 1947 partition plan of palestine into arab and israeli states require that jerusalem be internationalized. both palestinians and israelis want jerusalem to be their capital. so, why is he u.s. doing this? in the 1970's, the zionist organization of america began sending 100,000 signature petitions to the president asking him to withdraw from the u.n. agreement, and also, recognize jerusalem as the capital and locate the u.s. embassy there. in 1980's, the anti-defamation league, the christian coalition all said that we really ought to move the embassy, mr. president, it will be popular, particularly with american christians, and jews, and apac got serious about passing a highly coercive move

the embassy law in the 1990's. they did it to thwart the oslo peace process which had its own problems, but by creating facts on the ground, the zionist organization of america and apac hoped that they could preempt any moves from the oslo peace accords, and they got their law, which had a presidential waiver provision to avoid constitutional separation of power issues. president clinton allowed the 19-- or the jerusalem embassy act of 1995 to pass without signing it, and then for two decades the israel lobby pressed presidential candidates to move the embassy as part of their campaign, and most of them, of course, did it. in the democratic party side, joe biden, jimmy carter,

hillary clinton, republican side, george w. bush, ted cruz, bob dole. but every winner of the office signed a waiver every six months not to move the embassy, and so, the jerusalem embassy act, again, requires that the state department not be allowed to use its overseas construction budget until this was done, but presidents waived it every six months until president trump overturned all of that and recognized jerusalem as israel's capital and said that the u.s. would move the embassy. americans have never supported this. upon the trump administration's announcement, 36% of americans polled by cnn said that they opposed recognizing jerusalem as israel's capital. when polled 57% of americans in january of 2017 said that they were opposed to moving their

embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem. so the u.s. is becoming israel's designating arbiter of territorial claims, i would say via the power of the israel lobby. george w. bush even signed a letter to prime minister sherone saying he didn't want them to withdraw from certain territories if they didn't want to. so this has been something a while in coming. but the question is, can the u.s. really be considered to be a legitimate actor in making these territorial declarations and bestowing legitimacy because the lobby wants it. the embassy move in related measures, such as cutting u.s. assistance to palestinian refugees in the u.n. and others are why we have a real panel of experts coming up to talk about the united nations and other

important issues. so, agenda number two, the israel lobby would very much like to pass a federal law mandating the criticism of israel in some cases is equivalent to anti-semitism. the anti-semitism awareness act is an expansive u.s. state department definition of what anti-semitism is. also crafted by israel lobby organizations, which is designed to clamp down on criticism of israel, particularly on college campuses. and so, israel lobby organizations backing such laws want to be able to say that certain criticism under this state department definition is anti-semitism and that federal funding should be withdrawn from higher education in certain cases if it's allowed to happen.

when advised that major american civil liberty groups are opposed to this law, such as the a.c.l.u., 61% of americans also oppose this particular measure, cutting off foreign assistance-- or assistance to higher education and to discuss this, we have dr. barry tracktenburg, a holocaust survivors and an author, who testified before the judiciary committee on november 7th to discuss the real politics behind the anti-semitism awareness act ap hear from an emminant scholar who prevailed in a lawsuit filed against her who some people believe -- [applause], including me, that she might not have if this federal law had been in place.

this is not the only israel lobby gag law that's in place. there's a legislative rule with the force of law currently in effect through the department of energy that says any government contractor or employee cannot publicly say or write that israel has a nuclear weapons program: under personality of losing their job, their security clearances, and being treated like a criminal, and if you don't believe that, simply ask former national laboratory employee james doyle. that defacto law is called wpn-136 and it's had a devastating impact on legitimate discussions of nuclear proliferation in this country and the many countries in the world don't consider the u.s. to be particularly forth coming as a nonproliferation partner. an expanded topic for this year's conference is the role

of christian evangelicals as a force multiplier of the israel lobby at the ballot box. the israel lobby stewardship of this group has been juntd way for a very, very long time. apac has been courting such groups since the late 1950's and early 1960's when apac was still just a little unincorporated committee inside a larger body called the american zionist council and this is some of their secret communications and outreach plans from the 1960's when its parent was under investigation and ultimately ordered to register as an israeli foreign agent. it's about cultivating religious leaders, generating positive press, and count counteracting opposition. there's a reason for all of this. why are christian evangelicals so important? more important than ever today to the israel lobby? well, it's because most

americans aren't avid members of the zionist movement. if you ask them in tmost terms and nobody has since july of last year, a zionist is a person who believes in the development and protection of the jewish nation now known as israel. most americans, 73% don't consider themselves to be signists, 70.3%. and to maintain the illusion that there's broad grass roots support across the united states for israel, and therefore, that the policies that apac pushes are broadly popular. but today, there's a major partisan split. in this pew research survey of american adults, january 10 and 15 of this year, we can see that simply among democrats for israel and independents has

tanked at 27% and 42% sympathy respectively. a comprehensive pew research poll accomplished in 2013 indicated that 38% of american jews, many who are democrats, don't believe the israeli government is serious about a peaceful resolution to the conflict and that only 17% agreed that the settlements were conducive to israel's security. and according to the recent brand israel study group, support for israel, quote, support for israel among jewish college students in the united states has dropped 32% between 2010 and 2016 ch. among the republicans, there's near unconnolly sympathy for israel. it's never been higher, in fact. 79%, according to the january pew research polling. so, the christian evangelical

wing, which is highly supportive of israel and overwelcomingly voted for trump, has become absolutely vital to the lobby. and within the israel lobby eco system, it's become a player. christian, christians united for israel, the international fellowship of christians and jews are financially inconsequential, if you add it up, compared to the mainline israel lobby support organizations, but their votes are not inconsequential. again, according to pew, we've got 80 million christian evangelicals and 95% of them say that israel is a primary or important factor in selecting their presidential candidate. americans, despite the wide partisan split, if you look at

the last platform planks on israel and the republican and the democratic party, americans who are no longer supportive of israel would like a less israel-centric policy, have nowhere to go. the u.s. approach to the middle east in terms of the republican and democratic party platforms in 2016 were nearly identical. republican planks, a little bit more strident, but they're basically asserting shared values, no daylight in policy making between the two governments and essentially no choice for voters. so, turning israel into a topic that's beyond all rational debate, and preempting other considerations in such large religious organizations is something that's extremely important for that reason we've invited thomas getman, former head of world vision, to explain exactly how this came to be.

the israel lobby expends a significant amount of resources pressuring the media, trying to shape the narrative, and there are no specialties-- there are specialty organizations such as the committee for accuracy in the middle east reporting, and facts of lodgic that do nothing else, except watching comments on c-span every morning and making a big deal out of it if it's not particularly happy about u.s.-middle east policy. last year, some of you may remember, al-jazeera undertook a major undercover investigation of the lobby and how it really operates in the united kingdom. but they also had an undercover investigation of what was going on in the united states. this report called the lobby presented a threat. the american-israel public affairs committee and other

groups were determined that americans not be allowed to see the u.s. version. their threats included getting the u.s. government to deny landing rights to airways, 10.6 billion dollar organization with 43,000 employees. their threats included having the justice department register al-jazeera's reporters as foreign agents which would cut off their access to u.s. government officials and limit their access to government facilities. and this pressure campaign has worked. you will not be able to see the u.s. version of the lobby which should have aired before the apac meeting this year, air. but we're happy to have two journalists who have withstood this kind of pressure, ali of the electron interfata.

and just as the drive to outlaw economic boycotts and other first amendment activities, targeting israel to pressure it into better human rights comportment, it's the subject of most major israel advocacy direct mail fund raising campaigns these days, crush bds. bds is anti-semitic say the mailings. even though there have been victories against some of these laws, one in kansas from the a.c.l.u., defending a contractor who wouldn't sign a waiver saying she would never boycott israel in return with her contract with the kansas state education department, the fight is far from over and so if you look at what's behind the israel anti-boycott act, you see that its key backer,

senator ben cardin of maryland, among his donors, top 20, 2017 donors, 86% of the individual contributors administer, run or belong to israel affinity organizations including howard friedman of apac, among his top non-democratic pac's, many self-pac's which have misleading name and only invest in israel's lobby agenda, provide 31% of his contributions in the top 20, and if we continue down the line we see that members of israel lobby organizations looking at his donor lineup, rather than average marylanders are really behind carden on the anti-israel boycott act. there's no popular support for it, but the lobby is demanding it. they will be amassing on capitol hill, demanding that it

can fine up to a million dollars and jail for 20 years for violating it, it's a complex law and americans are against it, but advised of the penalties and the fact that even a.c.l.u. is fighting against it, 69% of americans are against it. so if it does pass, it will be hugely consequential. americans will be pledged to defend for the settlements and first amendment activities will be severely curtailed and final finally agenda item number six, provoking confrontations with iran. it's clear now that apac and those of the lobby would like to see the u.s. in a major confrontation with iran. the advocacy organizations that worked against the jcpoa, the iran nuclear deal, ajc are now

the champion of confrontation with iran and they have a candidate in the white house who signed a december 12 secret mou to take military and intelligence actions against iran and there's a lot of assumption at the base of this secret agreement, if you believe the report, that defacto, they claim that iran has an active nuclear weapons program. so, agitating for war though is not an easy sell or popular. and apac's operatives have worked behind the scenes and publicly to foment this confrontation. it's important to forget that steve weisman and keith-- keith weisman and steve rosen of the apac espionage scandal's 2005 were essentially shopping around stolen intelligence to try to get the u.s. to attack

iran. that was whole point of the expert-- of the exercise that led to their indictment. and so they're still hard at work. if you look at some public statements by the washington institute for near east policy, patrick clawson, he said that, gee, it's really hard to initiate a crisis, but perhaps we can get some sort of navy provocation in the persian gulf against an iranian submarine to provide crisis initiation. so, this is what's going on. and then finally, the israel lobby's biggest and most important ask on capitol hill will be for massive unconditional foreign aid and state funding. it's interesting this year that u.s. aid administrator mark greene will be speaking at apac and that there's probably a reason for that.

there's a potential new pool of assets. this would be all of the u.n. countries that voted against the united states and condemned the jerusalem declaration. maybe the 38 billion that they get in u.s. aid is now on the table. in fact, it may well be. 128 u.n. member states voted against the u.s. and maybe that's the pot of money that they'll be going after. there is a clear demand now that the 38.8 billion dollars that the u.s. promised in the last mou is not enough. when americans are informed of the amount of aid that's given to israel, 58% say it's either too much or much too much. particularly if they're informed that it's been $250 billion since 1948, which is

far more than the u.s. spent even to rebuild post world war ii europe under the marshall plan. and this silent majority is certainly going to be-- not going to be heard next week. at apac, politicians names will be called and they will be asked to rise in support of increasing aid and they know that if they do not rise and enthusiastically report this they'll be seeing a primary challenger and others coming after them quite soon. so 58% of americans are against it and this is consistent. when you ask the question in a number of different ways, americans are consistently of the belief that we simply give too much foreign aid to israel. so, what can we do about it? i'm going to be giving a few

ideas in our closing remarks about what i think we can do about it, but first, i think we've got a sufficient introduction here that i would like to call up our first panel, the united nations panel, to discuss the u.n. and these policies. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> hello, i'm janet mcmahon, managing editor of the washington report on middle east affairs. i'm janet mcmahon managing editor of the washington report on middle east affairs. and since april 5th, 1982, when we published our first issue,

we have been covering all the activities of apac and the greater israel lobby. so, it's great to see such a wonderful turnout for our fifth conference on the israel lobby. as you all know, there's a very strong wind outside today and thank you for braving that wind, and it's a wind that i do think is blowing in our direction. [applaus [applause] >> so, as a result of last century's two world wars, the majority of the world's countries commitmented themselves to the principle of international law which was embodied in the united nations. but adherence to that principle and to the institution has not been guaranteed. and in some cases, has been outright undermined. our first speaker, dr. virginia tilley, is a professor of political science at southern illinois university. she earneder m a & p hd from

university of madison and the center for contemporary arab studies. conducted research in central america, israel, palestine, post apartheid, south africa and oceana. she is the author of "the one state solution, a pragmatic analysis of two-state solution israel palestine and editor beyond occupation, apartheid colonialism and international law in the occupied palestinian territories. dr. tilley is the co-author with professor richard faulk of a 2017 report commissioned by the u.n.'s economic and association commission for western asia titled "israeli practices towards the palestinian people and the question of of apartheid", despite intense pressure from israel and the u.s., the commission's chair refused to withdraw the report and resigned in protest. the u.n. subsequentlily deleted

it. and please join me in welcoming dr. virginia tilley. [applause] >> thank you very much, it's a distinct privilege to be here, especially in the somewhat daunting position of first speaker, have to set the tone. i'm not seeing my presentation quite yet. maybe that could go up. there we go. the-- in this presentation, i'm not actually going to talk too much about the findings of the report. we really did write that report for a broad, informed audience of concerned people and it is not hard to read, i think. you don't have to be a legal

scholar to do it. so, i'm going to briefly summarize the report itself and then talk about what i think is much more engaging at this point to me, which are the implications of the report, implications for diplomacy and conflict resolution in israel-palestine. so i was asked to first address the question of is the u.s. supporting an apartheid state in israel-palestine? well, yes, it is, in short. it is an apartheid state. by the way there's no such thing in international law as apartheid state, but practices are consistent with apartheid and i'll come back to that in a moment. but the deeper answer here is yes, and so are a lot of other people, including people who wouldn't think they are. and that's what i wanted to come to in regard to the implications of this finding for a question such as a

two-state solution. essentially, those seeking partition are endorsing an apartheid state and that is a bit startling, so i want to get to that. and it raises this dilemma, that if apartheid anywhere is inadmissible and destabilizing. it cannot comprise the basis for a just and stable peace. now, this lifts us out of a question of whether you're pro anybody, and simply if you're concerned about international peace and security, which apartheid is considered to be a threat to. so, in this talk again, i'm going to talk briefly about the analysis, legal definition of apartheid, how it works, and why it requires israel to sustain the occupation, that's a particular point i had a he like to bring forth here and move on to the implications and

why it brings us directly to the question of reunification as a-- the mode, the only viable mode of conflict resolution. so, it's based on three sources. the first is my own book that i wrote narrowly on the question of whether israel could be expected it withdraw from the occupied territory to allow two state solution. the second one was this really extraordinary experience of coordinating the team of international lawyers. i'm a political scientist, not an international lawyer, in through a project supported by the south african government. i believe this is on the desk out there. it's a legal analysis. any of you who are familiar with national law should finding rewarding. others might find it a bit dense. and the third one, of course, is this wonderful experience i had a privilege of working with dr. richard faulk on the u.n.

report which was mentioned already, and a lot of what i'm going to say here came out of that report, but a lot of what's in that report relied on the previous one, beyond occupation, so the deeper legal analysis for the u.n. report is to be found there. so, what is apartheid? very briefly, a report gets into this in detail. we use apartheid very broadly. people-- anything that strikes us as racist or segregationist may elicit this term. we use the terms in ways that are suggestived for useful analysis. if we're going to argue that states are accountable under international law to act, to end apartheid, then we must refer to the law which prescribes that obligation, that means that we are brought to the relevant international law and that is found in two major instruments, the international convention on the

suppression and punishment of the crime of apartheid and the international criminal court. the first definition is far larger, much more detailed, but it lists a series of acts, including segregation and reserves that i'll come to, but it says that these are only acts of apartheid under certain conditions, they have to fit certain overarching conditions and those conditions include, may be similar to practices in south africa. this is a universal instrument. they do not have to be exactly the same. the point is whether they seek-- they have these other qualities of the law, that they are-- that these are acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination. i call that the purpose clause. and that involves racial groups, that-- and a systemic system of oppression.

a systemic system, i'm sorry. that it's not just a random collection of discrete laws, but a comprehensive institutionalized system that distinguishes apartheid and the statutes picks up on that by bringing in a new term which is institutionalized regime. political scientists get all flushed with pleasure when we talk about regimes because we have loads of theories about regimes and we feel more in familiar land. all of the definitions are satisfied in this case or report, i refer you to the report on this. this is an institutionalized regime. it's a comprehensive system of laws that ensures jewish national privileges and i want to stress that hyphenated construction here the idea that jews are a nation and as a people or a nation they have certain privileges, that it does include policies similar to south africa, but that any

poiliveratio poilivere-- policy var ration there. and it's according to the international law what is defining racial discrimination defining groups. and the local jewishistness or palestinianness or arabness is a dissent group. the key qualities here which convey special privileges to one group over another is postulations through the land of antiquity, to the statues of the state of israel which has statute and constitutional law and israeli law. i'm speaking fast here about law so if you're getting a little like the wind outside, it's not to worry, it's clarified in the report. and crucially, the purpose

clause is satisfied that there is this aim, this formal aim, to maintain israel as a jewish and democratic state. we have a cluster of laws and policies on the books to look at, to confirm that israel has that purpose, if anyone was in doubt about it. so, from a legal perspective, that is satisfied as well. what was more interesting to me, when figuring out what-- how israel was pursuing its apartheid regime was the way it works, which is these crucial policy variations among four regimes-- doe mains, excuse me. domains referring to territorial geographic entitle and a cluster of expectations, norms, rules, practices, within that geographically defined ambit.

the first domain being palestinian citizens of israel. now, what matters here most is the right to vote because if you're going to have jewish and democrat state, then it becomes important not to allow non-jews to vote those laws out. that means you have to con strain the vote. you can allow people to vote, but can't allow them to vote on that point and in order to do that you have to make sure that the non-jewish vote is never large enough to threaten those laws. so, palestinian citizens of israel famously do have the vote which is often cited the crucial difference from south africa, but they're not allowed to vote against their own minority status or vote against the national character of israel. palestinian residents of jerusalem about 300,000 people have no national vote. they can vote for the municipal government, but not for the national government, so they are carefully excised from that potential body of voters who

could challenge the jewish national character israel. palestinians in the occupied territories, of course, have no vote. they are not citizens, and they can vote for the palestinian authority under the terms of oslo, but they are carefully sequestered, carefully pushed out of any possibility of joining an electoral block that could challenge this state. and domain force, palestinian refugees outside of the country-- outside of the territory under israeli control, which is clearly, obviously, they don't have a vote. so, another way to think of this is as a system. one regime that is effectively composed of four tailored sets of laws covering each population to achieve the same goal, which is to ensure that israel remains a jewish and democratic state. all kinds of arguments about

whether you can be a jewish and democratic state or a white and democratic state. i recognize that, but we don't have time to get into that now. what i would like to stress here is that this system requires that israel maintain the occupation because if israel does not keep the occupied territories under military occupation, it faces the twin threat that a truly sovereign palestinian state could form in those territories, which would then threaten israel's capacity to prevent population mixing. population mixing is the death nell for any racial state because the division of populations begins to go away. when you have people mixing, they make babies and it all-- on the other hand, annexation, full integration would require providing citizenship to the

palestinians so that cannot be allowed either. current talk about annexation is reflecting that dilemma, but it's better for israel not to annex it. so, what is the solution? well, military occupation. so people who say, well, we have to-- we must put apartheid to one side in order to look at the occupation, no, i think you have that the other way around. one is logical occupation is following the logic of apartheid. speeding right along. part two diplomacy. if apartheid, as it always does, it destabilizing the whole region, threatens it in the national peace and security and must be stopped on those grounds alone, it is morally untenable, it's crime against humanity, it must be stopped, but how. the vision of two states is fatally flawed. my first book on the one state solution got into this in some detail just from a pragmatic point of view, i really only

address that one thing. but and, but it does mean that we cannot anticipate that israel would withdraw. that it's become emporer's new clothes kind of fantasy to think that that is going to happen. i don't think that that's acceptable anymore, requires a great deal of defense and it's failed. sustaining jewish statehood on the part of the territory. this is a crucial, a crucial thing. if you-- if you petition the land in order to allow israel to remain israel in one part of it and a palestinian state in the other part of it, you're basically saying, apartheid would continue in that part where israel is now composed. you continue to be israel and jewish state, and continue to operate the way it's operating and continue to be apartheid regime in a different modified border, within different borders. and my thought experiment,

transplant in south africa, it would have been okay for white south africans to sustain apartheid in part of the country and turn the rest over to black south africans, no one entertained that idea. you can't have apartheid and allowing it in another part of the land and there are other aspects to this, but cutting to the chase, i would propose there for the reunification is the only way to end apartheid and since there are so many reasons to do that, we have to take that very seriously. for activism and by activism, i mean every kind of activism, from grass roots to legal activism and legal activity and so forth, if you're going to-- i just wanted to focus on this angle of end the occupation. end occupation is a mantra, a slogan, what they carry in marches and also a legal

argument. but how? again, it cannot be anticipated. at best, it would be very partial. this is the allmark plan that you're looking at, by the way, up here, where all the yellow would be israel and the white would be palestine. with a little umbilicus between the west bank and gaza. i mean, this, obviously, an unviable state building. couldn't control water, you couldn't control agriculture, you can't build a road, you can't-- it would not end apartheid. establish a state of palestine to leverage withdrawal. now, this is very popular movement right now. big diplomatic push in the united nations to do this. however, my point here is that if we accept the apartheid analysis of this, this is apartheid regime, then such a state would be lack the

attribution of true sovereignty. any true sovereignty would threaten the true nation of israel. and palestine state under these conditions would secure palestine poverty underdevelopment, frustration, security, and eventually sustain the conflict itself. i'd like to take an extra money and destroy my time constraint, i hope not, but i pray, that a little extra attention to this, to google that and spend 15 minutes looking at the banti stands. i went to study the materials and i didn't understand it and found it fascinating as a comparison to the palestinian authority and the territorial and institutional constraints

that it's operating under. apart-- the logic. apartheid imperative. the impaerative of apartheid wherever it would appear would be to prevent racial mixing. otherwise the whole law falls apart. if you can't discretely have separate populations there's nothing to defend. in order to do that you need strict geographic segregation. this requires that you-- if you're going to actually make this work, you need separate authorities within these territories. the south africans interestingly call them black self-government authorities and guess what oslo called them, palestinian self-government authority. a great deal of conversations between israel and south africa about this, took a lot of lessons from it. i learned that from the

diplomates in south africa, by the way. >> this channel, palestinian or black or indigenous, political aspirations to the local authority rather than to the state, to the dominant state, very convenient for an apartheid state to displace the frustrations and ambitions and the quest for rights of the populations dominating to their own leadership operating under very tight constraints, of course. the tickets you're looking at on the top is a lineup of the bantustan leaders in south african and the nine-- there were ten bantustans and nine leaders were in this picture and are below the palestinian authority. and by the way, i don't mean to impugn the integrity or political will of any of the palestinian authority people. my point here is a structural

one, that they're put into a position where they are compelled to act like a bantustan authority. and one of the-- from the point of view of the dominant stay, the main function of this authority is to repress dissent. which in the top picture you see the bantustan armed forces and the lower the palestinian armed forces doing exactly that. maintaining the bantustan through proxy measures. i think the battery's giving out on this thing because i'm pushing and-- oh. let's see what happens now. bing. there we go. all right. the oslo accords, we don't have time to get into this.

i wrote a separate article about this because i found it fascinating. oslo accords established the palestinian authority on terms almost identical to the south african bantustans. if you put them there, blow by blow almost exactly the same. and they rejected from the beginning and refused to have anything to do with it and, in fact, i understand nelson mandela told arafat, bad idea, and don't go for this and he went for it anyway. and that wasn't supposed to happen. a little tricky device here. so in short, it's now locked into being, in self-government authority and it cannot act independently of the role. the alternative, if only they can sustain apartheid and

rethink the conflict on using south africa not as a model, but inspiration or a thought experiment, they called it colonialism of a special type. it does involve agreeing and admitting that a large population of people have come in an indiginized and colonialism and to a model and that means that you do not end it by partition or -- you can't end colonialism in its power by partition, you need to end it domination. treating palestine as a multinational state is on the basis of race, would only perpetuate a settler discourse. because the design is in the proposed that there are these entities that can't-- that then, if you recognize

them and institutionalize them, you're essentially perpetuating apartheid. treat the whole country as one country. and palestine wrongly divided by race. one country wrong way divided by race meanings re, you knouni palestine. i'm out of time. how am i doing? there is a legal basis for doing this, if we turn back to league of nations bandaid. always proposed one country for everyone who lived there, that it would not be a jewish state or anybody state, it would be a secular, democratic state, so there's a nice, fat, legal argument to explore there. the hard part of this is that reunification does raise serious questions of identity shifts to reconstruct the idea of the nation, reconstruct the ideas of the groups, in this

case palestine would stop being a foggy mandate reference or a dreamy future, but it would be one state that belongs to all who live in it, it would not be the exclusive geographic heritage of any one part of the population, it would not require the departure or exclusion of anybody, which is tough for people who have lost a great deal to it. jewish have to be reperceived as an estimate group with full, social rights and not as superior rights to the land or rights to self-determination and palestinian, this is the toughest thing for me to say as a non-palestinian, but returning to the idea that it is a multi-sectarian identity, it still is, actually, embracing everyone in mandate territory, not arab in any sense that would exclude no nonarabs, this is one of the problems where it was a

palestinian arab state and under conditions set by colonialism and you can't do that non-arabs and unfortunately, that has to be rethought deeply. not the racial ethnic construction affirmed by zionism and by apartheid. that's why the apartheid finding recasts everything and people don't want to tackle it. i think it's crucial and i think it illuminates where we are and what is going on and i-- the more i look at it, the more powerful an analysis i think it is and i do hope you will consider it seriously as a model for rethinking the conflict. thank you very much. [applaus [applause] >> thank you so much, dr. tilley. our next speak are, ian williams is a native of

liverpool, england and has been the washington reports u.n. correspondent since 1991 so it's no surprise he knows the ins and outs of that world body. twice served as president of the u.n. correspondents association and won many awards for his expose's of u.n. malfeasance. at the same time, he has supported and defended the u.n. and its ideals, and has personally known four secretaries general, as well as numerous international diplomates and officials. ian has been a columnist for the nation and the guardian american on-line, and an editor for the world policy journal. a senior analyst for foreign policy in focus, he is the author of "the u.n. for beginners" and recently published "untold, the real story of the united nations in peace and war" and he and dr. tilley will be signing their books during the break that follows this panel. please join me in welcoming ian williams. [applaus

[applause] >> it'd be difficult to follow virginia's detailed expose', but it's worth remembering. one of the big problems with the united nations is people, what are they good for? and i'm very diffident and tell people it's the worst possible organization except for the alternative. it works that way. if you set out with a realization what they can do, and you welcome successes and there are successes and they're relevant here and a very good reason why israel and concentrates so much on the united nations. as you -- what kofi annan called the legitimizing power of the united nations, we've seen several results of this recently and israel can never get clear title of jerusalem or

the occupied territories without a u.n. say-so. that's key. and it's actually been proved since 1945, if you think about the occupations, east timor, everyone had given up on east timor, the indonesians actually told the foreign ministerover lunch, you'll never get clear title until the u.n. would do it and the u.n. won't. ...

separation wall in palestine, there are many parallels there. and, the other one of course is western sahara will in fact sometime, you never see a map where it is included in morocco. the moroccans can not get clear title. the same with the occupied territories in jerusalem. and this brings us back to the ambivalence of israel and the lobby. they have, i mean, how should i put this? almost psychological, psychoanalysis. they have a deep respect for law but in a sort of the talmud way that makes elevator stop on every floor in the sabbath, they take the elevator and obey the letter. israel spends a lot of time working its ways around the laws. very rarely completely denies them. so at the united nations, they

and the u.s. spend a lot of time trying to create a sabbath elevator so they can skirt within the law but they are very scared of actual definitions of the law. that is why they are so upset. if the u.n. were ineffect all they wouldn't so much effort to thwarting resolutions in there. take virginia's objective, they raised on apartheid convention. like the genocide convention. there is a legal, international binding commitment on member-states to do something about an apart tied state. if israel is declared to be apart tied state, or practicing apart tied, there are legal -- apartheid state. jim baker in bosnia and state department were very solicitous to make sure genocide was never used. mass murder is fine. mass murder is something you can ignore. genocide has a legal commitment

on the again owe side convention. you have to do something about it. looks like we're playing with words. this is very, very serious and israelis know that first off they deny it, in effect israel is the only state that was actually created by u.n. resolution. so you have the conundrum they have been busily denying he he have if i can of the united nations but their very existence depend on a resolution. you continuously general assembly resolutions are not binding. we could say amen, because it was general assembly resolution that part tish shunned palestine and set up the israeli state. [applause] so, you can see you could have a whole joint conclave of jesuits and talmud scholars, with the

fine print, denying the basis of your own existence. the united states was founding member of the united nations. it is still indispensable part of the united nations. it is inconceivable that the united nations would not exist without the united states taking part in it. this creates severe problems because there is always the israeli exception. every resolution that comes up is being weighed in the balance. nuclear non-proliferation, we saw with grant's presentation earlier, the united states is signatory to non-proliferation treaties that say no country apart from the, what is now the five permanent members should have nuclear weapons. and it condones nuclear weapons in enrace. because it does that, every other country in the world, india, pakistan, north korea, hey, if them, why not us? you continually creating exceptions to your own rules

other people walk in through. you know, the settlements in particular. the u.s. has never actually approved them but they have changed the language so often over the years that it's, as far as the u.s. is concerned, jerusalem is international territory. the state department. i believe just showing this about law, i think i read earlier this year the state department is still refusing to issue passports with jerusalem israel to americans born there. it is still jerusalem. they won't put israel on there. the state department has respect international law missing from the white house completely. so let's get these territories together because the u.n. is like -- [inaudible] the u.n. is cockpit for all these things. all human life is there. you're watching it. you have this ambivalent attitude, most american jews as we know of, liberal, globalists, they support democracy and

freedom. they like the united nations. they made an exception because of all the stuff about israel and zion system racism. they didn't think it through. but eroded the support. and this helped erode the support for the united nations inside the u.s. you got the, so the people who would automatically have been natural supporters of the u.n. were always ambivalent bit. you have jewish senators from new york looking over their shoulders who will pass resolutions condemning the u.n., cutting the funds. that is one of the points that the lobby has been doing in washington is to try to trim the u.n.'s size by threatening to withhold fund or actually withholding funds or pulling out of organizations as we've seen recently. the effect isn't just financial. it is a continue all sort of attrition of the morale and standing in the u.n. we have seen secretary-generals

now who realize that to get on with the u.s. you have to pander to the israel lobby. and all secretary generals have done this pragmatic extent in prolific way. ban ki-moon had continue all stream of the jewish lobby organizations i read conference of presidents coming into his office all the time. he always received them the they were banging on the door. also in the u.n., they were banging on the doorses of embassy, all funny swing states, the micro states only stamp collectors know about usually will come out to support the u.s. and israel on these crucial resolutions. you know, two, three, six, the pacific trust territories, a few others this, is result of intensive lobbying by israeli

lobby on these states to affect israel, israeli policy. at the moment we have a particular situation coming, which is, which is, it would be almost laughable except its so serious. i don't know whether you know israel is actually running for a seat on the security council this year. and you know, on the face of it this is laughable but we have to remember morocco was on the security council occupying western sahara. indonesia was on the security council occupying east timor. rwanda was on security council when massacring its own population. this is not totally unprecedented but usually they didn't actually say they're defying the whole gamut of international law openly and, is this likely to happen? i don't want to get too much into it, they're are upping for a seat in the west urn --

european and other group which is imperial hangover, europe plus the white commonwealth, australia, new zealand, canada, the u.s. as sort of an ancillary member and the asians wouldn't have them. the africans wouldn't have them. in the end, intense lobbying by the lobby through the u.s. came in and badgered the europeans into accepting israel as sort of a associate member so it could run for offices which run on the rotatory basis. israel would become vice president of the general assembly. would become chairman of obscure committees. israeli ambassador is chairman of the legal subcommittee at the moment. which is, like putting, like putting casanova in charge of the hasty committee. [laughter]. does not compute. but this israeli ambassador is

very, very concerned about this bit. then this was upgraded very quietly so israel became a full member. so it was allowed to run for, it could run for the security council. and the mechanics of this is, regretly, it is good for western europe, most of the country, security council seats rotate on a basis. they have calendars going decades ahead sometimes who occupies what position at the u.n. why you get genocides in the human rights committee. now you might get, you might get israel on the security council and the reason for that is, west europe is only one that actually has elections. if they don't decide within their own group, it goes to a general poll of all the members, to who become as temporary member of the security council. so, germany and gel bum are the current candidates, israel is running against them.

i've been trying to sort of calculate odds on this. it is difficult. you know, i can man israeli ambassador, the israeli diplomats going into berlin saying you owe us so much, why don't you do the right thing? why don't you stand down. how could you deny us? do you want to compound your crimes? the germans sayings we'll give you another submarine, shut up. we're taking this one, i suspect. but i am worried about belgium. the other people will gang up on belgium, say you should stand down and do the right thing. because that is openly way to get in. if it goes to open poll israel isn't going to get it. but if it is done with a stitch up like this, if belgium is leaned upon sufficiently by other powers it might do it. it is worth watching and worth intervening. what is the practical effect? a lot. you know, discussions in the security council, they do end up crucial. the resolutions that come through, you even temporary

member in there can have considerable effect, while france was grandstanding over the iraq war, i it was the other smaller countries with the respect for international law like jamaica, ireland and others like that, who actually provided the bulk of the opposition to the iraq war in there. and stood their ground. where do we get to with this ambassador? and i think this is where it brings the lobby in as well. because the u.n. is so unpopular in some parts of america, like evangelical christians or, with the die-hard zionists it is a great fund-raising gamut. i keep getting letters from various organizations saying, poor little israel, the only country not allowed to be on the security council. poor little israel, continually victimized at united nations. send a check. and i think it is one of the

dynamics. said it before, these organizations are business. they're self-sustaining businesses so they want checks of people. if they can find an issue at the united nations they can raise money on the strength of it, and they do, but then it has a practical effect because secretary-generals, u.n. staff get pilloried, get harassed to do the right thing. wave seen that with the reports that have been squashed. you know, they just get, they will just get dropped or there will be sidelined. look what happened to poor arthur goldstone. he was personally hairied into the ground until he gave up. i thought he was almost tragic figure at the end because he started off with so much integrity. but with the u.s. it is even worse because it destroys the whole basis of the united nations. the embassy move is in direct defiance of the u.n. charter. the u.s., founder and drafter of

the u.n. charter, when the u.n. charter was flown from san francisco to washington, the case had its own parachute. alger hiss who was carrying the case didn't have a parachute. maybe that means something or suspected something. but i mean that was how seriously the u.s. took the u.n. at the time. this is setting up international law. it has been defied. this is the significance of it, donald trump basically ripped up the u.n. charter. then getting, because we're talking about people who can believe three impossible things before breakfast like the red queen in alice, they are now saying, ah, but iran is in defiance of u.n. resolutions? therefore we must take action against it, because that is the other fulcrum at the moment. the case for war against iran is being made in the united

nations. our current ambassador, nikki haley there is coming, she should get credentials from tel aviv, not jerusalem, because i have never heard her say anything but, that isn't 150% in senator of israel. she really is. develops full time and gets pledges. that is actual reason why lobbying is so important for people. you want power in washington, it goes through the lobby. you want to be president of the united states as the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. most assuredly does you go through the lobby. they will jump through any hoops at all to do it. and that risks -- they risk the organization which for all its faults, it is very a major but practicing -- pragmatic conclusion, as people in there will tell you we haven't had world war iii yet. that is the measure. but this is the road to world

war iii. if you dissolve the whole structure of international global law and security, that is where we're going. that is what donald trump has started. he has done it on behalf of the lobby in there. he has done it because all across this country people are writing checks to congressman persuading them to vote in defiance international law and vote to revile the united nations. refugees going very, very hungry across the middle east soon because donald trump defunded finra which by the way doing israeli as favor. they have been ambivalent. they like to revile it to keep it off balance but you have to remember unra has been doing what israel should have been doing. occupying power. unra is paying for health and education when the occupying power should do it under again navy have convention -- geneva

convention. they reviled unra but privately appalled that trump actually followed through on their bluff and cut funding. we didn't mean it, mr. president. we want the money, honestly. we want to keep them under control. so, they have kept them under control to a large extent. they have kept secretary-general, secretary-general under control to some ex-extent. it comes back to it. ban ki-moon had all the people from israeli organizations coming in. once he had been to gaza, once he saw was happening in gaza, the israelis tried to stop him going to gaza, as soon as he got there, you see all of his statements he stated very clearly the u.n. positions about occupation, about gaza. and, so, yes, he kept receiving them. but then he would tell them, you've got to break the siege, you have to quit on doing this you have to break the occupation. he is distinctive pro-israeli,

like a lot of european social democrats but he is now telling them gently, you have got to. the terrible thing as long as the u.s. is 100% behind israel and as long as the lobby keeps it that way, the u.n. is never going to be a functioning international body in a complete way which is bad news for the world, all of us on every level. whether it is climate change or whatever, it is an indispensable organization and i see i entered the red light district now. so, i better wind up. i always stay in the red light district if i can but i will go and sit down. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, ian. our final speaker is a noted legal scholar and human rights attorney and activist.

she is assistant professor at george mason university, a cofounder and editor of a committee member of the journal of palestine studies. prior to joining the george mason faculty she served as legal counsel for house subcommittee, the legal resource center for palestinian refugee rights and as national grassroots organizer and legal advocate at the u.s. campaign to end the israeli occupation, now the u.s. campaign for palestinian rights. most recently she released a pedagogy call project on the gaza strip. the centerpiece a short multimedia documentary, titled, gas is in context, positions israel wars on gaza within a settler, colonial framework. she is producer of shored video, black palestinian solidarity. is currently working on a book project, tentatively titled, justice for some.

law as politics in the question of palestine. it's a great pleasure to introduce nora erakat. [applause] >> thank you, janet. thank you to all of you. i think you are very brave to come to this session which focuses on law, which in of itself is meant to be obscurist in order to disempower people to take their lives into their own hands and by its very definition is indeterminant. so what we believe the law to proclaim is going to be subject to our own mediation as well as judicial interpretation. so anything on its face that the law tells us can be subject to some sort of legal controversy depending on who the lawyer is representing. so i can, if i, i really appreciated dr. tilly's presentation, but if my client were israel i could use the very

same legal framework to come to a very different conclusion, which is why our reliance on law has to come with a great deal of skepticism and with a strategic vision. with that, in mind, i want to build on what was said earlier to discuss occupation law. and the way that occupation law has not failed to stem the proliferation of settlements and settlers within the west bank and in gaza until 2005 but instead, without occupation law, israel could not have and could not continue to expand and entrench its colonial presence without the west bank and gaza and palestine. kick note on framework. dr. tilley, walked us through apartheid, would recast how we

envision thises as settler colonialism. i want this to being settler colonialism, the settler who travels into the colony is traveling within their sovereignty with the intent to stay. that intent to stay within the colony and assert their sovereignty also places imperative through moves native. there are two processes at play. there is the removal of the native with the intent to replace them with the settler and establish a continuous, uninterrupted temporal and spacial presence. this is from patrick wolf, logic of elimination. so the removal of the settler, excuse plea of the palestinians isn't an event but becomes an on going as palestinians referred to it but also fits in the theoretical framework. if we begin with settler colonization as the framework,

apar tied and occupation become two legal regulatory regimes that enable the and fulfill the settler colonial ambition of remom and replacement. so dr. tilley discussed one approach. apar tied. i will discuss occupation. i'm not sure how this works but here is the map that you may be familiar with. obviously israel never defined border, these are the 1949 armistice lines established in line that have negative been declared in order to facilitate expansion. when israel conquered the territories in 1967, 90% of israelis polled wanted to them mostly for religious reasons, having affection at relationship with the west bank and. >> diaw an somera. therefore israel had no basis to

remain and was compelled with actually withdraw but israel wanted the territories, wanted to get around the law, again what was mentioned, how do you get through the elevator, wanted to get around the law, it couldn't annex the territories even if it wanted to because the prohibition on annexation which comes into the disrepute in the late 18th century. up until then territorial contexts was permitted. let's say it didn't care about the law. we've seen in the annexation of jerusalem and otherwise, it didn't want to annex the territory because it would have to absorb the palestinian population. thereby disrupting a jewish demographic majority that had been established in the aftermath of the nikba and removal of 100,000 palestinian natives. how then, if it recognized the territory as occupied, it would have to revert the territory to its sovereign and maintain the territorial demographic and

political status quo. so here is the problem. it wants the land. but it doesn't want the people on the land. if it annexes the land, it absorbs the population f it doesn't annex the lan and acknowledges occupation, it has to give the land back. so instead, israel creates a new category in law known as, declares this occupation is sue which -- sue sui generis. argues that the jordan of west bank in 50 is not recognized besides anyone besides britain and pakistan, palestinians don't exist as a people, that the territories belong to no sovereign. as up occupation law enshrined

by the haig regulations fourth geneva convention as well as customary law can not be triggered. there is a sovereign void. this is not occupation by law but shall be an occupation by fact. what does that allow israel to do? allows it the legal right to have presence in the territories without the legal obligation to maintain the status quo anti, until the reversion of sovereignty. what does that allow for israel? it allows it to incrementally take the land under two legal fictions. the legal fiction of military necessity and the legal fiction of temporarility. as far as military necessity is concerned the idea it is taking the land in order to create military encampments. all of the civilian presence is temporary. obviously that is a contradiction on its face because you don't face civilians

in military encampment otherwise you're using your citizens as human shields. the second legal fiction of temporarity. the military adjutant-general, and chief justice for the high court for two decades describes as testimony pour alty. it's a temporary presence of the civilians but it is not, which is, indefinite which is the opposite of permanent. meaning that it is not permanent but we do not have to declare an end to it and that is the opposite of permanency and therefore can be temporary. that is a legal fiction. but these legal fictions survive. because the law in of itself, especially international law, lacking a higher arc adjudication system, lacking a

reliable enforcement model becomes subject to the political will of the international community, and therefore can vary by application, implementation, and interpretation as it does here. the united states is central to this interpretation. and it is central to this interpretation despite the fact that it has, its administration from the johnson administration to the present, while not this administration, have recognized that occupation law applies as a matter of law, not fact. and, israel is actually an occupying power, but has failed to implement its own interpretation of law for two reasons. one is, in the aftermath of the 1967 war the johnson administration determined the value of israel as a cold war asset in the middle east, as it vied with the soviet union to fill power vacuum left by the

european colonial powers. in that struggle to fill the power vacuum what it decided and inaugurated after 1967 was a policy of insuring israel's qualitative military edge over any single one of its neighbors or collection of its neighbors so it could prevail in a military confrontation should it arise. that is policy one. before that, the united states had maintain ad stalemate policy of equally arming israel and its allied, arab monarch regimes. so qualitative military edge. the second policy that it inaugurates, and this is another piece of this framework, of why this sui generis administration works, the john none administration inaugurates the orchestrate the land for peace framework enshrined in security council resolution 242. in the, in the and the time that

israel occupies these territories as well as the sinai peninsula, the golan heights, what the u.n., is in session and is in agreement that israel is an occupying power and should withdraw. if in fact its attack on egypt's air force which laid barren in the sinai peninsula which was destroyed in two hours, if that initial attack was unprompted, than israel has committed aggression, which is use of force that is illegal, and therefore has the legal obligation to withdraw without preconditions. if instead that was preemptive use of force for self-defense, then israel has the right to remain as an occupying power but under no circumstances to assert title or territorial conquest. why does that matter? in the drafting of the security council resolution johnson

personally himself wanted to insure that israel can maintain the territories as consideration for exchange of, in exchange with the arab states for permanent peace, as part of a contractual agreement. johnson was senator during eisen hour's administration, when eisenhower forced israel, france, the uk, to withdraw from the suez canal. so this, and johnson thought at the time, israel should have been allowed to maintain the egyptian territory and hold on to it until egypt agreed to normalize its relationship with it and establish a permanent peace. here in 1967 the opportunity arose again. rather than apply international law and withdraw as a legal obligation instead it becomes reformulated as a political equation of a quid pro quo exchange of land when you give us peace. in the negotiations there was

disagreement. israel wanted to keep it. so there was disagreement about which territories were to be withdrawn from, and the debate then raged about the terms of withdrawal of immediacy, what would come first, withdrawal or peace? there was one other piece of the debate which was the armistice lines being tenuous and not being the permanent lines. the johnson administration as well as the uk urged the definite article, the, be dropped from the resolution in order to permit negotiation on the permanent borders but never, ever, to actually change the territorial integrity. so here is one, there were five draft resolutions. at the time this is the latin american bloc resolution. in every resolution other than the one ultimately presented by the united kingdom that becomes

the language of 242 the definite article, the, all the territories is included. the u.s. votes for this by the way. it doesn't pass because there is disagreement about sequence of withdrawal or peace. this is the final resolution. this is actually 242. you will see that the definite art he will is dropped -- article is dropped but in the preambular text prohibition of acquisition of territory by war. in the actual clause itself it stipulated it was occupied in recent conflict. we know legal loopholes are coming and state after state including france argue that this is to be understood as allowing for minor border modifications but ababaeban represents israel to the u.n. at the time, quite exceptional in his skills explains very forthrightly the resolution means what it says and does not mean what it does

not say. another legalese that becomes consequential to this present day, together with israel's own logic of what it would need to establish permanent borders. this one articulated by deputy prime minister elon who argues that defensible bored es would be tantamount to this as you can see all of the orange is what israel defines as what its defensible borders would look like and what would be necessary for security purposes. there is jerusalem, it is part of that plan. there is continuity between the interior of israel as well as its border with jordan. it controls almost all entirety of the eastern border. this is what it wants in, articulated in 1967. it achieved far more than that it has achieved far more than that into the present. so let me just, also add here, that this could not be possible

to the present without palestinians participation and acquiescence. as embodied and represented through the peace process inaugurated in 1993. the oslo accord themselves, dr. toy referred we compare them to a par tied plans. i the 1968 plans that sadat and begin, equates autonomy without sovereignty. it is verbatim replication of that document that never envisioned a state. a state was never part of the negotiations. this out come is not because the law didn't work. it is because the law has worked perfectly well and very effectively. that we have this outcome. how does that work? here are the three parts. israel is claiming that it is a sui againerries occupation.

it has no legal obligation to apply occupation law and settlement capture, in the article iv 9 of the fourth again navy have convention. tant at that mount to a war crime. under their presence they can both take the land under military necessity and remain there under the legal fiction of temporarity. why can they say there and not maintain the 1967 border because under security council 242 the resolution, says withdraw from territories but doesn't specify from which territories because of the lack of the definite preposition and three, this would have totally failed as a legal argument because it does not withstand any judicial scrutiny. and has been rejected by the international court of justice, by the international criminal court, by the u.n. security

council as we've seen most recently in u.n. security council 2334 as by multiple human rights organizations but nevertheless remains valid as a legal argument because of the third prong which is the u.s. provision of political immunity and support despite its own policy imperatives because it wants, it doesn't want to apply sanctions on israel because that would diminish its qualitative military edge and it doesn't want to apply international law. that would dictate the outcome because that would actually diminish israel's negotiating hand in negotiations. so those three parts together reinforcing, create this outcome today, which, has, where israel has taken the land but not taken the people and has enabled it to remove the palestinians, to concentrate them and to dispossess them on to these plots of land. this scenario we see in the west

bank very vividly also exists in the gaza strip. but even there it's a very large concentration and it too has been reduced inside, insize, the last time in 2014 by expanding the buffer zone by 40%. if i had the map, i do not, of israel proper, we can see the concentration of palestinians similarly, i think it was the first sown that dr. tilly pointed out to you, in galaly region, or native as well as in the negev, the concentration of palestinians in the negev is what is driving israel to date to remove those palestinians forcefully. approximately 70,000 palestinians, to place them, concentrate them into urban township, removed from their agricultural livelihood, build an israeli settlement within israel within its place in order

to disrupt their ability to return or have a claim for the return, fully fitting within a settler colonial framework which is what we're marching towards and in fact by defunding unra, what we're doing, making them indistinct from the rest of the arab population so they could be absorbed elsewhere in surrounding countries and therefore further diminish the demographic threat so to speak and, and further the idea of establishing israel's jewish settler sovereignty to be uncontested. that settler sovereignty to this day remains uncontested because of the dem graph balance and within israel it remains an active frontier. there are other settler colonies in the world. israel is not unique for this. the united states is settler colony, what we see in dakota access pipeline, removing

natives from their land and obscuring that they exists a people, perpetuating the myths that natives disappeared in very similar ways we perpetuate the myth of disappearance of palestinians and indistinct nationality with surrounding arab countries. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for our panelists. showed his slide of americans response when they are told moving the embassy to jerusalem is a violation of international law, they oppose that move. so i think, the more people understand international law than what it is, how we're violating it, that is what we can do to help educate people. so since we're the first panel i think we should stop on time and let the other panels hang themselves by their own pitards.

also, virginia tilley and ian williams will sign copies of their books out past the registration table. and professor tilley's book is sold to $30. not $45. only book of hers we got in time. we're taking a 20 minute break. thank you very much. we'll see you shortly. [applause]

[inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations]

>> this forum on the israel lobby and u.s. policy taking a break for 20 minutes or so we'll have the live coverage resuming when they do. continuing until about 4:30. an all-day panel here, all-day forum at the national press club. later we'll have all of it at c-span.org. "the guardian" newspaper in london is reporting that prince william will become the first british royal to make an official visit to israel and the palestinian territories. they write an unexpected move given the political sensitivities in the region have stalled a formal trip for decades. kensington palace said the duke of cambridge would visit later this year as part of a middle east tour. live coverage here in just a bit. some other scheduling information to tell you about, coming up at noon eastern today, on c-span, live coverage of the funeral for the reverend billy graham. president trump and members of congress participated in the memorial service this week at the capitol rotunda. the president attending the fuel

ral today in charlotte. it will reair later today, 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. also on c-span this evening, supreme court oral argument in the case, janus, via the american federation of state council 31, dealing with public sector employees and union dues. that is tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. again we'll have live coverage of the israel lobby conference when they resume. 20 minutes or so. until then an earlier portion from today. >> i'm the assistant editor of the washington report on middle east affairs. on behalf of the washington report and the institute for middle-eastern policy we would like to welcome you all to today's conference. once again this annual conference is convening on the eve of the annual american-israel public affairs policy conference where a bipartisan group of congress men and other officials gather to reaffirm unwaivering support for

the state of israel. it is our hope that today's event provide context and insight how the lobby functions and why its influence is worth talking about. today's event is being held at a time when a national discussion is taking place about the role of special interest groups in the political process. in the aftermath of last month's shooting in parkland, florida, americans have engaged in a relatively open and healthy discussion about the role of the national rifle association and we believe that is the most powerful foreign lobby in the united states, israel's lobby actions mousily be debated and we hope today's event facilitates such a discussion. before we begin the event, ground rules for the day. we expect a pretty full room. we ask that you make sure all the seats are open. do not on pie them with bags, coats, anything like that. during the q&a session it will be done via note cards. there are note cards and pens in

the back, given that registration. priest write down questions on the card. find an usher. they are circulating throughout the presentations. don't hesitate to give them to ushers during the discussion. the moderators like sort through the questions before the q&a begins. we have ex-bush shurn hallow indicated next door. it will close at 4:30 this year. stop in during the breaks and visit our wonderful exhibittores. the bookstore is behind you in the alcove. we have books, pottery, olive oil, available for sale. book signings will take place at registration, except for the book signings taking place after the program, they will take place in the main ballroom. also in your registration there is, an exhibit where you can go to mick up tickets for the reception afterwards. that gives you one free non-alcohol beverage of your choice during the reception. visit the booth to pick up your ticket. we ask of course that you don't

record any videos unless you were given prior permission. wi-fi information is available in the back of your program. we encourage he have one to tweet at the #israel lobbycon. c--off-n. this is broadcast live on c-span2 and encourage our live audience to participate in the conversation. we ask that you please refrain from talking what not here in the ballroom, take your conversations outside into the exhibition hall. we wouldn't be here without our fantastic donors. so we have to give them our immense gratitude for funding today's events, making all of this possible. we're happy to welcome numerous groups from around the country, students as we as dignitaries from 12 embassies, afghanistan, algeria, arab league, czech republic, egypt, iraq, kosovo, iman, russia, and tajikistan. [applause] and, of course many of you know

the israel lobby is more than international issue. more than a domestic issue, it is a international issue. we're sure we'll find our first panel on israel and u.n. to be of particular interest. with that i would like to introduce grant smith, institute of middle east earn policy, coast sponsor of this event. grant and his organization are committed to uncovering and documenting how the israel lobby works through research and freedom of information act requests. grant is author of several books on the lobby. his most recent being, big israel, how israel's lobby moves america. the book is available at the bookstore and available online as audio book. so with that, i would like to welcome grant to the stage and overview of the lobby in today's event. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, dale. welcome, everybody. as he said i'm going to be reviewing the israel lobby's

agenda in some detail and it explains, i think, best why we have invited this particular group of experts to speak today and i'll try to mention as many he have them as i can. as we review the stakes, the very high-stakes and challenges that are being presented here in the united states and globally, which are higher than ever before the israel lobby in terms of a non-profit sector snapshot, this is coming out of the database that was compiled for my book, "big israel," is an ecosystem of organizations that advance israel at very many levels. and this is on track to be a $6.3 billion industry in 2020.

nearly 500 separate medium-sized to large organizations aipac, american jewish committee, anti-defamation league, many others at the top. but if you add it up, it is almost 17,000 employees, half a million volunteers. working in organizations that have the advancement of israel as one of their primary objectives in the united states. their designated voice as dale mentioned, leveraging the collective power of these grassroots, integrated organizations is the american israel public affairs committee it will of course be meeting in its annual policy conference this weekend. and so, there will be a great deal of triumph in the achievement of one of its

longest term, long term, objectives, which was realized in president donald trump's recognition of israel as jerusalem's capital. now the announcement was followed by a state department announcement saying that the u.s. embassy will be moved to jerusalem in may. something that since its founding in 1948, something that israel wanted all countries to do, give official recognition, locate their embassies in jerusalem, rather than tel aviv. but of course the original 1947 partition plan of palestine into arab and israeli states required that jerusalem be internationalized. both palestinians and israelis want it to be their capital. why is the u.s. doing this? in 1970s, zionist organization

of america began sending 100,000 signature petitions to the president asking him to withdraw from the u.n. agreements, and also recognize jerusalem as israel's capital and locate the u.s. embassy there. in the 1980s, the american israel public affairs committee, the anti-defamation league, the christian coalition, all said that we really ought to move the embassy, mr. president. it will be popular, particularly with american christians and jews. aipac got serious about passing a highly-coercive move the embassy law in the 1990s. they did it to thwart the oslo peace process, which had its own problems but by creating facts on the ground, zionist organization of american aipac hoped that they could preempt any moves from the oslo peace

accord, they got their law. which had a presidential waiver provision to avoid constitutional separation of power issues. president clinton allowed the 19, the jerusalem embassy act of 1995 to pass without signing it. and then for two decades the israel lobby pressed presidential candidates, to move the embassy as part of their campaign and most of them of course did it. in the democratic party side, joe biden, bill clinton, on republican side, george bush, bob dole. but every winner of the office signed a waiver every six months not to move the embassy. so the jerusalem embassy act, required that the state department not be allowed to use

its overseas construction budget until this was done but presidents waived it every six months until president trump overturned all of that. recognized that jerusalem as israel's capital and said the u.s. should move the embassy. americans have never supported this. upon the trump administration's announcement, 36% of americans polled, by cnn, said that they opposed recognizing jerusalem as israel's capital. when polled, 57% of americans in january much 2017 said that they were opposed to moving their embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem. so the u.s. is becoming israel's designated arbiter of territorial claims. i would say via the power of the israel lobby. george w. bush even signed a

letter to prime minister charron saying he doesn't expect us to withdraw from certain territories if they didn't want to -- sharon this has been a while in coming. but the question is, can the u.s. really be considered to be a legitimate actor in making these territorial declarations and bestowing legitimacy because the lobby wants it? the embassy move and related measures such as cutting u.s. assistance to palestinian refugees in the u.n., and others are why we have a real panel of experts to talk about the united nations and other important issues. so agenda number two, the israel lobby would very much like to pass a federal lawman dating that criticism of israel in some cases is equivalent to anti-semitism. the anti-semitism awareness act

is an expansive u.s. state department definition of what anti-semitism is, also crafted by israel lobby organizations, which is designed to clamp down on criticism of israel, particularly on college campuses. and so israel lobby organizations backing such laws, want to be able to say certain criticism under this state department definition is anti-semitism and that federal funding should be withdrawn from higher education in certain cases if it is allowed to happen when advised that major american civil liberty groups are opposed to this law such as the aclu, 61% of americans also oppose this particular measure, cutting off foreign, assistance to higher education.

and to discuss this, we have dr. barry track enberg, a holocaust author, united states and the holocaust, he testified by the house judiciary committee on november 7th, to discuss the realpolitiks behind the anti-semitism awareness act. we will hear from a preeminent scholar, who prevailed in lawsuit filed against her, some people believe, including me, she might not have if this federal law had been in place. this is not the only israel lobby gag law that is in place. there is a legislative rule with the force of law currently in effect through the department of energy that says any government contractor or employee can not

publicly sail or write that israel has a nuclear weapons program, under penalty of losing their job, losing security clearances, being treated like a criminal. if you don't believe that, ask former national laboratory employee james doyle. that law is wpn 136. it has had a devastating impact on discussions of nuclear proliferation in this country and many countries in the world don't consider the u.s. to be particularly forthcoming as a non-proliferation partner. and expanded topic for this year's conference is role of christian evangelicals as force multiplier of the israel lobby at the ballot box. the israel lobby's stewardship of this group has been underway for a very, very long time. aipac has been courting such groups since the late 1950s and early 1960s, when aipac was still a little unincorporated committee inside of a larger

body called the american zionist council and this is some of their secret, internal communications and outreach plans from the 1960s when its parent was under investigation and ultimately ordered to register as an israeli foreign agent. it is about cultivating religious leaders, generating positive press and counteracting opposition. there is a reason for all of this. why are christian evangelicals so important? more important than ever today? , to the israel lobby? well, it is because most americans are avid members of the zionist movement. if you ask them in the most an owe dine of terms, nobody has until july of last year a zionist is a person who believes in the development and protection of a jewish nation what is now israel. most americans, 70.3%, don't

consider themselves to be zionists. however, the biggest challenge to the lobby is to maintain the illusion that there is broad grassroots support across the united states for israel. therefore that the policies that aipac pushes are broadly popular. . . many white democ