tv U.S.- Israel Relations Middle East Policy CSPAN March 2, 2018 11:00am-1:01pm EST
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 democrats don't believe the israeli government
is serious about a peaceful resolution to the conflict and only 17% agreed that the settlements were conducive to israel's security. according to a recent study group, support for israel among jewish college students in the united states has dropped 32% between 2010 and 2016. among republican there is unconditional simply for israel. it's never been higher. 79% according to the january pew research polling. the christian evangelical wing which is very supportive of israel and supportive of trump has become vital to the lobby. it has become a player, christians united for israel,
christians and jews, united fellowship are financially inconsequential if you added up compared to the mainline israel lobby support organizations, but their votes are not inconsequential. about 80 million christian evangelicals and 95% of them say 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 points on israel and the democratic party, americans who are no longer supportive of israel would like a less israel centric policy but they have nowhere to go. the u.s. approach to the
middle east were nearly identical, a little more strident but they are basically asserting shared values between the government and no choice for voters. turning it into a topic beyond all rational debate and preempting considerations is something that's important. we've invited thomas to explain exactly how this came to be. they spent a significant amount of resources shaping the narrative and influencing the media. there are few special organizations such as the committee for accuracy and facts and logic about middle east and israel project but do
nothing else such as watching who comments on c-span every morning and making a big deal if is not happy about u.s. middle east policy. last year, some of you may remember there was a major investigation of the lobby and how it operates in the united kingdom. they also had undercover investigation of what was going on in the united states for this report called the lobby was considered a threat. they were determined that americans not be a allowed to see the u.s. version. the threats included getting the u.s. government to deny landing rights to an
organization with 40000 employees, having the justice department register reporters as foreign agents which would cut off their access to government officials. 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 impact meeting this year aired. we are happy to have two journalists who have withstood this kind of pressure. [inaudible] just as fierce as the battle of anti-semitism is the drive to outlaw economic boycotts and other first amendment activities targeting israel. it is the subject of most
major direct-mail fundraising campaigns these days, crush bbs. although there have been victories against some of these laws, one in kansas, by the aclu depending a contractor who wouldn't sign a waiver saying she would never boycott israel in return for her contract if i at the kansas state education department, the fight is far from over. if you look at what is behind the anti- boycott asked you see ben cardin of mario maryland as a top donor, 86% of the individual contributors belong to organizations including howard freedman.
many of them invest in israels lobbying agenda and they provided 31% of his campaign contributions, in the top 20. if we continue down the line, we see that members of israel lobby organizations looking at his donor lineup really behind this boycott act. there's no real support for it but the lobby is demanding it. they can find americans up to a million dollars and put them in jail for 20 years for violating it. americans are against it. even the aclu is fighting against it. 69% of americans are against it.
if it does pass, the impact will be hugely consequential and the people having to defend israeli israelis. [inaudible] their first amendment rights will be severely curtailed. item number six, provoking confrontations with iran. it is clear that they would like to see america in a major confrontation with iran. [inaudible] there now the champion of confrontation with the iran and they have a candidate in the white house to take military and intelligence actions against iran and there is a lot of assumption that the base of this secret
agreement, if you believe the report, that are de facto. they claim they have a nuclear weapons program. agitating for war is not an easy sell were popular. apex operatives have worked behind the scenes and publicly to foment this confrontation. it's important that steve and keith of the espionage scandal 2005 were shopping around with stolen intelligence to try to get the u.s. to attack iran. that was the whole point of the exercise that led to the indictment. so they are still hard at work. if you look at some public statements, patrick clawson,
he said it's really hard to initiate a crisis but perhaps we can get naval provocation in the golf against an iranian summary to provide crisis initiation. this is what's going on. finally, the israel lobby biggest the most important task on capitol hill will be. massive safe haven and funding. mark green will be speaking at a pack and there's probably a reason for that. this would be all the un countries have voted against the united states and condemned the jerusalem declaration, maybe the 38 billion make it in usaid is now on the table. in fact it may well be 128 un
bought measures to limit and criminalize speech of those concerned about human rights. our first few panelists offer insights into these efforts and explain how to push back against first amendment encouragement for our first speaker is barry, presidential chair of jewish history lake forest university press gallery of jewish history, he earned his phd in history at ucla and a postgrad diploma and studies at oxford university. prior to joining lake forest in 2016 he was associate professor and director of programs at the state university of new york university at all but an interim director from 2010 - 2012 the center of jewish studies pretty is the author of two books including the newly released 2018 book united states nazi holocaust, which he will be signing later
today. he testified before house judiciary committee hearing on anti-semitism on college campuses which sought expert opinions. today he will address challenging the anti-semitism awareness act, putting back against jewish exceptional politics. [applause] >> it's an honor to be invited to speak here today. in congress they give you a buzzer with five minutes so it's nice to have 18 before the red light appears. it is an honor to be on this panel with those who have been a model of activism and unrelenting campaign. i'm proud to be here today.
as we know, for several years there has been a global campaign to support a nonviolence movement including governments around the world including israel, the uk, france and many state and local governments in the united states have likewise declared citizens risk being punished not to do business with israel. we know the statutes are clear violation of free speech guarantees and why they tend not stand up with constitutional challenges they are enacted with politicians who are pandering to what they see as american jewish views of israel. just a quick side to highlight the absurdity of this legislation, new york state, where i used to live is boycotting north carolina where i now live over the bathroom bill that disseminates against
transgendered persons and yet that same year they pass legislation that boycotts are discriminatory so there you go. however, regardless of whether or not this legislation is constitutional the effect is to suppress criticism of israel and sustain the activation of palestinians. scholars and activists regularly involved in self-censorship so were reluctant to criticize israel for fear of being slandered and having their livelihoods threatened and destroyed as we know. the campaign has also been affected at distracting attention away from focusing on the brutality occupation. was recently argued that we argue about the merits of bbs but too often we don't recognize our own complicity. have strategic partnerships with israel universities and
businesses and professional organizations are infiltrated in support occupation. another attempt to restrict freedom of expression was by congress introducing legislation called the anti-semitism awareness act. it declares antisepsis is a violation. the legislation looks encouraging. one might reflectively be supportive, particularly since the rise of trump presidenc presidency. the truth is, this legislation is also meant to oppress a student activism and speech in support of palestinian human rights.
the legislation would likely not withstand constitutional challenges but is shaping how college campuses talk about semitism. this legislation was prompted by growing activism on college campus that challenge the occupation. they are often working to pass resolutions on their campuses. [inaudible] american universities are hotbeds of anti- semitism's because of threats from pro- palestinian actors. they produce a set of academic studies that purport documents rise of anti-semitism on campuses yet a close reading
demonstrates that the definition includes activities critical of israel and american complicity in the occupation. these studies are more red is a testament. the truth is, the hold semitism that we saw in charlottesville were tortures carried not seeing confederate flags and murdered up protester is still present in the united states and requires resistance. their testimony says the backers carry very little about white supremacy so that would put them at odds.
it is appropriated from the working definition of anti-semitism of the european monitoring center on racism and enough obeah. it was created for the purpose of research and not governmental policy. as well-intentioned as it may be, they define it so broadly so as to include criticism of israel as a jewish state, declaring it to be a racist state and refusing to accept that it's self-determination. even the author of the original definition was opposed to the boycott of israel has testified that it was not intended as a tool to target or kill speech on college campuses. in fact the state department definition upon which the legislation was based is so poorly constructed that it's entirely unusable. it was accusing jewish citizens of being more loyal
than to the interest of their own nation. this is one of the founding promises of zionism and the movements that emerged at the end of the 19th century. the first half of the 20th century, in particular showed us as with other marginalized groups, they cannot so easily be taken for granted. it can be traced back to the founder of zionism his self which dates back to the book the jewish state. they are people, one people
and it's useful to be loyal patriots. denying the people their right to self-determination did not give israel the right to exist is an example of anti-semitism pair. they are not the spokesperson for all of american jews. they feel they should not support the occupation of the west bank. [inaudible] for many today and since 1948, the state is not an expression of jewish self-determination. the question of their right to exist is not the same thing as its right to exist as a jewish state if that exist and is predicated under the
displacement and predicated of the jews in its borders. given the flaws of the state department, there's no place in campus speech although discussions around it may often be uncomfortable for its supporters and detractors alike, something i witnessed in my classes most master, its responsibility and to foster dialogue and not to limit it. to understand the historical implications of our speech and allow the meaning and definition of a consequence of informed deliberation and debate. it's difficult to create a definition i can be used for legislative purposes. the root of the debate lies in a problem of how to create jewish collective power in a way that does not resonate with a long history of anti-semitism. trespass thousand years jews are characterized as an exception is element sought to undermine the religious or economic order. they are accused of being killers of christ.
such accusations. [inaudible] they were characterized simultaneously as usurpers of national identity, disloyal citizens, capitalist schemers. such allegations led to riots, expulsions and physical violence. in the early 20th century, entire armies were thrown up to destroy them for they were a united group that. [inaudible] as a solution to anti-semitism, the solution changed. for the first time a significant number of jews identifying as a national group gained power. the state of israel has borders, police, courts, military, nuclear arsenal, local parties and a marginally
democratic system for its jewish citizens. like all other states, the actions are and must be permitted to be a matter of public debate and discourse in an out of the jewish committee. if speech that's critical of israel strikes and isometrics but we are still trying to talk about their actual power and repeated claims to represent jews all over the world in ways that do not immediately echo much older. this is in part because of the history of the west but also because we see legislative initiatives and a movement to characterize any speech that's critical of israel and it has been highly effective tool who seek to use stigmatized as critics. considering the multiple and shifting forms of anti-semitism that have emerged since the turn first
appeared in germany at the end of the 19th century, it is wrong for congress to establish legal authority on a definition of anti- semitism as so contested. to suggest they cannot be objected to an mandate that collective power cannot be analyzed or debated or to conclude that jews, because they are once victims of one of humanity's greatest genocidal crime are immune from becoming perpetrators of acts of violence against people would only reinforce that they are different people. moreover it broadens the definition to encompass numbers that are not anti-semitic to not only make it more difficult, i'm sorry can only make it more difficult to recognize and isolate it when it does appear .
so to conclude, in the letter we were asked to offer signs of hope in these difficult times. it's true, we were. the first thing i want to say is during the break i checked my phone and i saw the news that bibi netanyahu was just question today for five hours by the police. i take that as a good sign. [applause] on the eve of the aipac conference it seems to be a good thing. but i think if we are serious about defeating actual anti-semitism we also have to commit ourselves to ending the
occupation of palestine. these are intertwined issues, intertwined struggles. [applause] we have to recognize that anti-semitism doesn't exist in a vacuum. stop thinking of in these ways. instead we see the history that the separatism is part of the modern world legacy of racial discrimination and persecution. in the present moment is no exception. instead perpetuating an narrative of jewish exceptionalism by declaring some of the only country we cannot criticize on college campuses is israel we might draw from earlier periods of american history when jews link to other oppressed people. just as workers organized to former labor unions, as jewish philanthropist and community leaders contributed to the founding of the naacp, as jewish college students participate in voter recruitment drives and desegregation campaigns with african-americans in the south, and religious figures help foster post-world war ii jewish christian dialogue in the name
of mutual understanding, jewish americans have an opportunity to forge alliances in the name of combating hatred and intolerance. it was a coalition of palestinian rights organizations both arab and jewish that came together to stop the advancement of the anti-semitism awareness act in the house. the very next day on november eight, petition with over 20,000 signatures was delivered to the anti-defamation league by jewish voice for peace demanding the adl stop facilitating police training between israeli and american officials, law enforcement officials. [applause] that same day the suit was thrown out by a judge who recognize the weakness of their complaint. so there are reasons to hope. we will keep fighting come continue working side-by-side with one another to create bonds of solidarity. thank you. [applause] >> and thank you very much.
our next speaker is dr. rabab abdulhadi. she is the and senior scholar in the arab and muslim ethnicities and diasporas and associate professor of studies and resistant studies at san francisco state university. she's a cofounder and editor board member of the islamophobia studies journal for which she is co-editing the forthcoming special issue on gender, sexuality, and racism. she is co-author of mobilizing democracy, change in u.s. policy in the middle east and co-editor of arab and arab american feminism, gender violence and belonging, which is for sale to today. our work has appeared in seven languages and academic journals and she was the winner of the 2012 national arab-american nonfiction book award. as many of you are aware and as was referenced she and san francisco state university in the target of a lawsuit claiming the school fosters a hostile environment for jewish students
but that case was thrown out by a judge in november. as her bio and work show should not let this smear campaign to fight her career so we are pleased welcome her to discuss how and why the israel lobby is suppressing free speech and academic freedom on college campuses. [applause] >> good morning. thank you so much for having me, washington report on middle east affairs institute for middle east social is policy. i also want to acknowledge again by coaching that we're convening on indigenous peoples stole a glance at a want to acknowledge that people -- [applause] this. i wondered knowledge the fighting day in and day out against all forms of racism and racial discrimination from the people who are fighting against white supremacy, , to the people fighting against anti-semitism, islamophobia, and at the end of discrimination as well as people
who are trying to clean up washington. thank you for having me. [applause] so last week -- i need to -- last week president trump -- issued a statement design is a welcome on campus. he had met with members and he basically came out with the statement that i can share the slide with people. for my presentation i want to just ask them answer the question, what does a statement mean to welcome designed to campus? what is the history behind his statement how does relate to our discussion of the israel lobby and where do we go from here? immediately after he issued a statement issued a statement statement right away saying that san francisco state is examined social justice mission by welcoming zionists and i called
upon people to reclaim the social justice vision of san francisco state as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the 1968 san francisco state strike. i also argued that there is no equivalence between zionism, israel, and anti-semitism. they are not one and the same. what happened also in addition to my statement is that there were multiple statements published, black student union publishes table and width of the black student groups on campus, and your group has emerged, and jewish voice for peace published a statement condemning president wong's statement. this is something we would not have seen 15 years ago or 11 years ago i joined san francisco statement this is something that's important to the argument that barry is making. things are changing. the tide has turned at a think
we need to keep that in mind. and when we know that the tide has turned come we know it will become more vicious and they will try to silence us. i also sent another statement last week also fighting the words of richard spencer who said on the israeli tv that i am a white zionist, as well as netanyahu, who basically trashed people who argued an organized against the white supremacist and said actually organizes round palestinian rights are more damaging. we know where the alliances are. some beating with the president what does it stand for? i would just wait a couple of points where ever we stand we stand with israel. as a national organization that his fault inside the siestas not a logistics to belong to its who are -- sanctions. it does not allow this citation. one of the questions we're
raising is against zionism, israel and jewish list are one and the same, or who owns jewishness. barry talked about that's on the quite. but we have a history of silencing palestine and semper cisco state to what's going on with a lawsuit the judge dismissed on november 8 but gave them leave to amend? so they may come back and amend. they are reset the going to be amending. they are aided by a law firm in san francisco that is almost 1000 lawyers pro bono. i have two incredible, amazing pro bono lawyers are standing by me. they in a day out and i would not change them for anybody. so we are fighting. [applause] >> but who is attacking palestine at fsu? is illegal in israel lobby industry network. as the international scientist that would report of 2015 it
outlines who are somebody's donors and the fact the israeli government also has put in millions of dollars? would talk about -- which i but people who are quite organized. these are the lives of the groups that it will have time to go into. the only two groups that are not directly attacked us although we're getting public request is the brandeis center, friends of idf have been involved, copied on e-mails about attacking us but have not directly attacked come all the we have israeli soldiers on campus that continue to be in active duty in the israeli army. so we're calling this new mccarthyism. and the reason we're saying, because it's exactly as mccarthyism in in the '50s wor. what it does is it attaches terrorism label. it didn't cite islamophobic uses islamophobia by building -- immediate it goes in peoples
minds. it engages at the somatic smear. it spreads misinformation for allegation. the university entrance news and regulations every single time they would like to come from a speech and our ability to organize and teach, and the police activist organizers and scholars. they try as i will continue tell you to doing, really griscom basically the law firm said where going to make the in the -- and what she also said there are no palestinians and islamophobia does not exist and also sit semper cisco state university is one of their main targets. so by ruling, by trying to ruin my career i would like to teach a lesson to other junior scholars and recent phds whose careers on the line. watch out. this is what might happen to you. to silence people and engage in mccarthyism attacks to true
keep you from speaking up for organizing from doing anything about justice. acyclic stay away from palestine. they also at semper cisco state one of the main targets has been to starve and defund our program. that is part of my contract when it came to san francisco state in 2007. and rely on donors, pro-israel donors who are so supporting millions of dollars in university until the university will continue funding you if you are able to discipline palestinian students and silence rabab abdulhadi. and one of the ways that the dude is back deals, lack of transparency, no accountability from a lot of the stuff is happening in secret and italy released the public record, foia request that we submit. they don't release and the reason we actually have a public record request is because the university gave it to my lawyers as university just give us a a copy of the public record that they give as a drag their feet
and if i get and we don't know if they gave us everything. i decline the office of compliance is that in touch with other people? you think with such high profile case in the federal court the university lawyers would be watching whole no question of compliance, what's going on, but that's what they claim. i'm not going to give you all of this, but this is from at least 2002. the palestine has been silence, intimidate, criminalize, sneered at semper cisco state. both by organizations within and outside the university. so when we talk about award, a war of attrition has been to could we talk groups outside university that are collaborate with groups within the university. so we don't see the two of them divorced from each other. in 2002, for instance, san francisco state after sanctioning palestinian students said, they asked them to remove
the section can he said why? you guys can go start throwing bombs in january? he actually said that, , part of university record. one of the things the way to talk about is his 2005-2006 the palestinian students -- [inaudible] san francisco itself is -- lived in the mission district, painted murals. semper secretary of state has multiple murals on its walls so semper cisco wanted to build a needle. this is the first rendition that was painted by two artists. if you notice on the side, on your left side, you see the cartoon character carrying a key and on the other hand, he is carrying up in because up it also signifies the palestinians saying -- my word is my sword or
my gun. that was a really important to emphasize the intellectual value of learning and teaching in palestine. because when you don't have -- [inaudible] san francisco state university president opposed handala the key and they allow that. he wasn't the only one, and he said this cartoon in particular, the cartoon character throws a stone at the israeli flag actually gets in nightmares, make similar bulletproof vest and has to have therapy. this is the final approval of united states of the key. we have to remove in 2007 picky, and basically put in its place characters. two things have happened.
one is that the character is long living. it doesn't die. but on the day of the unveiling of the mural, all palestinian students and their allies came to the mural unveiling wearing t-shirts with handala on them. and handala now remains part of our -- [applause] in 2006 it continues with the jec rc lobby service state not have a conference that was organized i students. in 2009, war on gaza semper cisco state college republicans and israeli team organize an event supporting palestine condemning hamas pickles is approved but this was a unapproved poster that went up the basically throws shoes and win prizes. the posted a pic students took it down.
the university, they're not good to get out because there's free to a first speech. watch out to sea. on the second person of the mural when he came to speak, semper cisco state president canceled searches we were conducting for two faculty members. chief of staff testified at the board of supervisors opposing the cost to lift the blockade of gaza and the structured a reception would try do with diplomats from arab and muslim majority countries asked him to send their children to our university to learn. the campaign escalates more in 2013, even though the new president met with the arab community, after his -- took a trip to israel and we were giving up so the linkage between this isn't where building the program. the poverty canceled the session, already start the program.
the program is that one faculty member with no operating budget, and a step, no other faculty. and i was the time to go for the kill. we were about to institutionalize the program because once the program is institutionalize it doesn't matter if you don't have person, it works. in 2013 israel lobby groups called muslim diaspora studies and accuses of glorifying them. semper cisco state president pd not investigate but immediately condemned anti-semitism. for seven months stateside when i was being attacked the left and right. he also condemns speech and he was reprimanded by free-speech groups and semper cisco and collaboration with the israeli consulate and the fbi investigating students. in 2014 2014 i was going on a sabbatical and i led a delegation to palestine in which we began to talk with the
university about emma memorandum of understanding because our university president one up university to become a global university and a cage with other institutions. so i was acting upon his wishes because i have relations with palestine. i don't need to formalize them in order to have them happen. i was doing it. this is the delegation we met with. we met -- what is it? anyway, it may be done. and then they started accusing again accuse me of terrorism, anti-semitism and also accuse me of criminality misuse of taxpayer funds to go to palestine because would not allow to be going and learning about palestine. taxpayers funds should be used to build a bond for nuclear weapons and kill people and find israel and occupation. they demanded criminal investigation. i was ordered by the administration and every single came out sing i did nothing wrong. all these allegations are unfounded.
the university took 20 days to public a public statement just to say these are the fedex, 20 days they resisted. in the meantime the lobby wasn't happy so they petitioned the control of the state of california to investigate me for the big san francisco state ordered by the audit of my international travel, , not a single question was about missing receipts or a penny. every question was political. why are you doing this? why is there an m.o.u.? what does this mean? why did she traveled to palestine? at the same time the provost revoked my trip to palestine. that's a week before the state department advised not to travel so this this is not as result t but before that. in the fall of 2014 we passed the memorandum of understanding. the president of the provost meeting with the the college of ethnic studies, we discussed how would the arm of this program would be supported in the
provost set twice to me we do not find holocaust deniers. no reason. there is no reason i teach actually the holocaust and jewish history in all my courses and so on, and president want me silenced. we were able to approve in 2015. president wong promised to reinstate the fact the lines. we began to work on a scholarship. two other scholarship so when his daughters go to university they can apply for it an excellent education. they tried to obstruct the scholarship but the entity and made happen and we now have a scholarship. in spring 2014 after we passed a minor, now we have edward said scholarship committee memorandum of understanding. there needs to be certain, so
the escalates further attacks and this happened -- we hold to conferences. we observe military tribunal. we go to unrecognized villages and we come back and we report. we have been reporting the issue of statement. so san francisco, the university holds -- occupied jerusalem, machine gun and called for the killing of arabs so students attacked and protested, and other students organize a hunger strike. this is the delegation and this is where we're meeting with the family of -- now -- why -- this is the protest. then we get put on the mission. myself and the students.
they give away their home addresses, their work, some of our students receive sexual threats of violence. president wong issued a statement to apologist to me and we fight them to campus pick in the sum of university hires indendnvestigation who concludes students, yes, disrupt the speech that it was against israel and there was no violence involved in this is not about anti-semitism. it was not against israel. in the fall of 2016 we have this past year attack after attack kappes watch. launched petition to demand the agreement was what they call palestinian terrorist university, they accuse me of terrorism. this is the petition. then david horowitz out ads at -- all over, 26 post a prophetic
to condemn. the police said there no cameras. there were no cameras that day and it was nothing, saw nothing. faculty was very supportive. this is part of a campaign. this also appeared on campus. all over campus including on the garage of the administration building, but everybody in diminishing with departments all the posters and did not do anything about them. we passed during that time we got to courses approved. standard only celebration of the mural. the students held weekly teach ins to protest the coming of trump. this is the mural.
in february they help a know your rights there which is also an investigation attack. they also organized an event to support palestinian prisoners who were on hunger strike in april. on may 3 we had another set of posters, second set of posters appearing on campus. in june what you've heard about, i only found out about from campus watch tweets because nobody in university bothered to tell me, and i was not appointed about until a month afterwards. that's what i sought my lawyers. we refuse to be derailed. we organize a big conference on constitution can i call organize, with colleagues at the university. we had very big participation but on september 21, david horowitz again -- this is the posters. let me just go back.
what's the response? this is what the students, associated students did. they put up the palestinian flag. they published posters, hate speech, not free speech. they said we will not be silenced and we will not be silenced. what we do we continue to do. we continue to teach our classes. we continue to do with no resources public education programs using the classrooms to bring the community, the faculty, the students come multiple people together to organize every single day. and we continue to teach palestine. i'm very proud to announce that in two weeks we will be holding to conferences on teaching palestine. because we will not be silenced. we will not be stopped. justice will prevail. thank you. [applause]
>> thank you very much. that was incredible. so we have about ten minutes or so for question. if you are holding onto any cards, find an usher and to send them forward. so will begin with the question for dr. trachtenberg. somebody wants to know if you could elaborate on this data from a definition of anti-semitism. when was it adopted? what president or administration was in power when that happened? was a done by a congressional action, and was it done without
public knowledge? >> i'll do my best to answer that. i don't know all the specifics of that. it. i think it began around 2009 20o during the last administration. and it was an appropriation of this working definition that had been undertaken by this european group and that i was really jua working definition so that they could begin examining this phenomenon in europe. but it became encoded into state department policy and you can go online, i peeked over your shoulder and saw the question so i looked it up. if you just go to the state department website you will see it. and the primary definition isn't particularly offensive anyway. it's as anti-semitism is a certain perception of the jews which may be expressed as hatred towards jews, which seems fairly straightforward. rhetorical physical manifestation of anti-semitism are directed towards jewish or non-jewish individuals, the property and so on. the problem becomes that in
itself seems fine to me, the problem is with a give examples of what contemporary anti-semitism is, and the first few are fine. it's about demonizing jews, making allegations of jews and so on. but then what starts going, saying things like accusing to citizens of being more loyal to israel or the legislators of jews worldwide, then there's a whole section on anti-semitism related to israel. this is where the speech of exceptionalism begins to be encoded into policy, and it's the anti-semitism, it echoes through the will be encoded into law. it has the three d's, demonizing israel, applying a double standard for israel, and delegitimizing israel. and so it says if you use symbols that associate with classic anti-semitism to characterize israel or israel, tend to agree with that. but then has other comparisons
which are totally mi in my mind illegitimate such as drawing comparisons of contemporary israeli policy to that of the nazis. this happens of course all the time among jews. i have been called a capo. you hear israelis talking to one another accusing one another of acting like nazis in all sorts of ways. so what they're saying is jews can say things to jews but non-jews can't say those things to jews without somehow being anti-semitic and thus a violation of law. this is what the problem of exceptionalism comes in. such comparisons, you know, began even prior to the creation of the state official. there's this famous letter albert einstein and others signed when i think it was moshe dayan came to united states, he and others declared he's a a fascist and he should be allowed into the united states making a quick comparison with the tragic that a just occurred in europe. you are making these comparisons. jews have this really since the
beginning of nazism, making these comparisons. interestingly of the very and there's this little caveat in italics are set aside from the rest of the definition process however, similar to that leveled against any of the country cannot be regarded as anti-semitic. so as long as you're criticizing other countries along with israel it's okay but if you choose to focus your attention unusual somehow it's anti-semitic. which is like saying that if you're an organization that is trying to defend the human rights of north koreans and that's the focus of your organization, some are your anti-korean for doing so. because you're just focusing on one country. so again insisting on this exceptionalism aspect to this code. thank you. >> a question for dr. abdulhadi. someone once to know the extent to which the canary mission has intimidate students on campus and if you notice in your classroom and on campus a
reduction in students willing to speak up for fear that it could jeopardize their career going forward? >> yes. the canary mission, the good news is twitter has took down the canary mission account. [applause] so at least we know that there are some people that holding folks with the same kind of accountability. but it wasn't just canary mission. canary mission is deathly intimidated and scare people on campus. it also is the various ways in which what i call the israeli lobby within campus is working. in the sense in the students can't even find rooms to reserve. time when want of events now, the new head of this management on campus is our main resident on campus. so now they force the college to ensure the room where we had an event, palestine at semper cisco state on paper seventh, which was the first time in 11 years
of my being at semper cisco state at that conference room of the college gets reserved it for center i objected before it happened is that this is can contact engages people when you say students sit in vice safety entity. ask whenever it problems. people love, are on the palm is where too many people would have enough space on campus. sometimes had to go out to the art of events. why is this being constructed and now and what this means is now every single event that's going to happen in the college of ethnic studies also have to be insured. in order for them to show that there is no desperate treatment. so yes, it is been really difficult. we've had rooms that were canceled. students are very afraid to speak of her last week one of students had an argument of one of the classes about zionism and the zionist student with an complaint to the administration that they made them uncomfortable. as a result the student was called to the office and she
actually had to go with alert from palestine legal, because she did not know what was going to happen because she is being prosecuted m right. even even the independent investigation came out saying there's nothing, there was nothing at the somatic, no violence involved in the protester nonetheless, the university to dispatch of the lawsuit was filed on june 19, on june 2223 came out with a statement saying that the event shows anti-semitism. it doesn't make sense, doesn't make sense that the only way it makes sense is because san francisco state university has only now one-third of funding from the state of california. so rather than going to this the state back and say fund education, what they're doing is relying on donors, private donors pick so this is the defunding of the education. the universe becomes accountable to the donors who say were going to give you $1.5 million if you don't kiss up and palestinians
to become if you don't stop the program and so on. all of this stuff is making very difficult it's not just a canary mission to the point is it's actually much bigger than that and on one of the ways when demanding transparency, transference and accountability, let's get all of this stuff and let's see who is following the law and he was violating the law and who is trying to silence us. if we are really wrong about our insistence on justice center, let's put it out there when we put at a public space, people support as we know this is what's going on. thank you. >> now we have a question for barry again. do you believe in the hate speech? is it ever got a gift for the government to place hate speech? >> not a free-speech expert or hate speech expert. i do think there is hate speech. certainly. when it's targeted against
particular groups based on racial identity, ethnic identity, sexual identity, i think as many categories of that. and i think that makes sense for university to be always debating the subjects. i am concerned about codes of speech, although i think there's times where they are necessary, such as what we have been seeing. we saw charlottesville, for example. but i think there's a really, really tricky questions, and it's a very hard to identify often what hate speech is. especially in a case such as this one where you have people who have instrumental lysed speech against israel and the been able to successfully make the case that it is a form of hate speech and insisting on the association that israel is the jewish people, that judaism is zionism when these things are not the case.
>> for bob, question. how students professors across the country felt like a medication that works to try and coordinate a plan to counter act signed his campus message? >> can answer that question and say something about his question? >> the free. >> there are networks. people interact with each other but as we know there has been a very big below the palestinians and organizing in the is both because of the fear that the israel lobby, this is not a codename for jewish organizations as people think that this is not asberry has split in his paper, explained in many instances, but as a result of fear mongering, as result of targeting people attacks and so on, we are in touch with each other but it's not just palestinians. really important to emphasize that the people who are working
for justice and for palestine are not only palestinians, arabs or muslims. this is not a special interest group. this is a question that involves just suspect this is a question that affects all of us. it affects all of us who are involved in justice in palestine that it involves all of us who are interested in maintaining our campuses as basis for critical thinking for debate, for learning, for not being scared every single time, feeling police if do want to say something. it's really important for us to protect that. so it is not just about as. the whole mccarthyism is not about us. the stuff happening to professors across commissioner gottlieb out palestinians. i think the problem is in our imaginary we think allostatic and one part of our brains and we don't think about other things and other parts. we really need to think about -- if we think, if we institute the friend looked of indivisible adjusters, then we can see how these things are connected.
we have at san francisco state the union, our union, twice passed resolution that would to san francisco labor council. that passed twice resolution supporting as. this is really important. this is really significant him and this connects the issue. the fact that young kids last friday, palestinian students went on campus and i wasn't on campus. when president trump's daily came out it was a distance it took it upon themselves to put on the grand zionism, scientists are not welcome come zionism is racism. it wasn't as big a wasn't even palestinians, arabs or muslims. our coalition includes people jewish voice for peace practically live on campus. people from the 68 strikers, people from black student union and the panthers, people from the japanese committee, asian community, from poor working people, from latino community spirit we have a huge coalition and i think really, really important, not going to do.
but i want, i think this is important to think that one thing i think we really is the majority of the committee supports us for palestine. i think and the united states because this this is a warm plo think about support, from the government come from the government, not the people, people didn't realize that the people in the united states are joining the rest of the community in supporting justice for in palestine. this is not an exception. the sending of entering south africa. it takes a while for people in this country to join, not judging by who voted for the person white house but there are more and more people saying no. this is not okay, and joining. i think it supports that we we are not alone. yes, we do get targeted and there's very, very difficult and it's really hard, but every single time you think about all the people are struggling, all the people who are coming
together because this is an amazing coalition for justice, it gives you power. i think the most important thing is that people in palestine have stood steadfastly refused to move. they are staying put. they are experiencing what we call -- and those of us who are in the rest of the world are also responded to that and working according to justice. i think it's really important not to think only of palestinians or muslims or arabs but all jews, a very good committee that comes together to build this. [applause] >> we are out of time. i think that's a positive way to end the panel. just note, dr. abdulhadi will be signing a book by the registration now. except for lunch. lunch will be served behind those doors, as grant runs over there. we will see you after lunch. [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this forum on the israel lobby and u.s. policy taking a lunch break. live coverage until about 4:30 p.m. they they should pick up in about a half hour or so. from the "new york times" this afternoon they reporting israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu was questioned by the police today as a possible suspect in a third bribery case
per officers questioned mr. netanyahu's about a case involving an israeli telecommunications tycoon, accusing using his popular hebrew news site to provide positive coverage of mr. netanyahu's and his wife in return for regulatory and financial benefits worth tens of millions of dollars. that story is at nytimes.com. just some c-span network program information at this hour in charlotte, north carolina, the funeral service for reverend billy graham is underway. president trump, vice president pence and congressional leaders attending the service pick you can follow that over on c-span peer where covering it, reairing it rather at 9:00 tonight as well. also not listen to the supreme court oral arguments in a case dealing with the issue of public sector employees in union these at 80 caucasian. we would be back live to this conference in washington on use israel relations in the middle east. in the meantime a portion of the earlier session.
>> hello. i'm janet, managing editor of the washington report on middle east affairs. [inaudible] >> i managing editor of the washington report on middle east affairs. since april 5, 1982, when, when we published our first issue we have been covering all the activities of aipac and the greater israel lobby. so it's great to see such a wonderful turnout for our fifth conference on the israel lobby. and as you all know there's a very strong when outside today, and thank you for braving that wind. it's a wind that do think is blowing in our direction. [applause] >> so as a result of last centuries two world wars, the majority of the world's countries committed themselves to the principle of international law which was embodied in the united nations.
but adherence to the principal and to the institution has not been guaranteed. in some cases has been outright undermined. our first speaker emma dr. virginia tilley, is a professor of political science at southern illinois university. she earned her in a and phd from the university of wisconsin madison and and in a from georgetown center for contemporary arab studies. she has conducted research in central america, israel-palestine, postapartheid south africa and oc on it that she is the author of the one-state solution, and pragmatic analysis of the two-state solution in israel-palestine, and editor of the own occupation, apartheid colonialism and international law in the occupied palestinian territories. dr. tilley is also the co-author with professor richard faulk of a twentysomething report commissioned by the u.n.'s economic and social commission for western asia titled israeli
practices towards the palestinian people and the question 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. subsequently deleted the report from its website. fortunately, however, we are about to benefit from the expertise which informed that reports findings. 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, to set the tone. i'm not seeing my presentation quite yet. maybe that could go -- there we go.
in this presentation i will not actually talk too much about the findings of the report. we really did write that report for a broad informed audience of concern people, and it is not hard to read i think i'm getting 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 is the implications of the report, implications for diplomacy and conflict resolution in israel-palestine. so i was asked to first to address the question of is the is supporting an apartheid state in israel-palestine? well, yes, it is, in short. it is an apartheid state. and by the way there is a such thing as an international as apartheid state, but practices are consistent with apartheid
and i'll come to that in a moment. but the deeper answer is yes, so were a lot of other people. including people who wouldn't think they are, and that's what i wanted to come to to in regao the application of this finding for question such as a two-state solution. essentially those seeking partition are endorsing an apartheid state, and that is a bit startling as 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. this is a this is a question ofr your pro-anybody, and simply if you are concerned about international peace and security, which apartheid is considered to be a threat to you. so in this topic and i'm going
to talk briefly about the analysis, legal definition of apartheid, how it works and why it requires israel to stay in the occupation, this particular point i'd like to bring forward here, then move on to the implications and why it brings a us directly to the question of reunification as, the only viable mode of conflict resolution. so it is based on three sources. the first is my own book that i wrote narrowly on the question of whether israel could be expected to withdrawal from occupied territory to allow a two-state solution. the second one was this really extraordinary experience of coordinating a team of international lawyers, i'm a political scientist, not a lawyer, through a project supported by the south african government i believe this is on the desk out there. it is a legal analysis pick any
of you who are familiar with international law should find it rewarding. others of you might find it a bit dense. and the third one of course is this wonderful experience i had, privilege of working with doctor richard faulk on the u.n. report, which was mentioned already, and a lot of what i'm going to say came out a report but a lot of what is in the rept relied on the previous one be on occupation, though the deeper legal analysis for this u.n. report is to be found there. what is apartheid? very briefly, , the report gets into this in detail, we use apartheid very broadly. anything that story strikes us as racist or segregationist may elicit this term. that's perfectly fine as far as i'm concerned. we use terms anyway that are suggested for use for particular
analysis. but 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 we are brought to the relevant international law and that is found in two major instruments, the international convention on the expression of punishment of the crime of apartheid, and the rome statute of 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 back it says is only under certain conditions. a have to fit certain overarching conditions. and those conditions include, they may be similar to practices in south africa, this is a universal instrument that they do not have to be exactly the same if the point is whether they seek, then the other qualities of law that these are
acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination. that calls out the purpose clause. and that involves racial groups that in a systematic system of oppression, it is not just a collection of discrete laws but a comprehensive institutionalized system that distinguishes apartheid and rome statute picks up on that by emphasizing, bring in a term which is institutionalized regime. political scientists get all flushed with pleasure and talk about regimes because we have loads of theory about regimes. we get -- all these elements of the definition are satisfied in this report. i refer you to the report on this. it is an institutionalized regime.
it's a comprehensive system of laws that insures jewish national privileges, and i want to stress that hyphenated construction, the idea that jews are a nation and as a people that they have this certain privileges. that it does include policies similar to south africa but any policy variation there would not disqualify the necessary but it's nonetheless quite suggestive that they deal. it is a racial conflict according to international law defining what is racial discrimination which includes groups defined by dissent. and in this case the local construction of jewishness and palestinian this or erebus is dissent groups come the key quality which convey special privilege is the one group over another is postulations about their dissent and, therefore, the rights to the land dating from antiquity. express ticket in the
declaration of establishment of the state of visual which has the status of constitutional law in israel he law. i'm speaking kind of fast 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, purpose clause satisfied that there is this a, this formal intimating 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. and 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 how israel was pursuing its apartheid regime was the way it works, , which is in these crucial policy variations among four interwoven
regimes, domains, sorry, which domain referring here to a territorial geographic entity and a cluster of expectations, norms, rules, practices within that geographically defined gambit. the first domain being palestinian citizens of israel. now, what matters most is the right to vote. if you're going to a jewish and democratic state, then it becomes important not to allow non-jews to vote those laws out. that means that you have to constrain the vote, you can allow people to vote but you can't allow them to vote on that point. 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 as a crucial difference in south africa that they're not about to vote against their own minority
status. they are not allowed to vote against the jewish national character of israel. palestinian residents interesting about 300,000 people have a national vote. they can vote for the municipal government but not for the national government so they are carefully excised from the potential body of voters who would challenge the jewish national character of israel. palestinians in the occupied territory of course have no vote. the are not citizens, and they can vote for the palestinian authority under the terms of oslo but they are carefully sequestered, 5 million people are carefully pushed out at any possibility of joining an electoral law that could challenge of this state. and domain for it is a policy remedies outside the country, outside of the territory under israeli control which is clearly obvious busy they don't have a vote. another way to think of this is as a system one regime that is
effectively proposed four tailored sets of laws covering each population to achieve the same goal, which is to ensure that israel remains essentially a democratic state. all kinds of argument but what if you can get 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 is that the 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 knell for any racial state
because then the division of population begins to go away when you have people mixing, they make babies and it all falls apart. 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? military occupation. so people say we have, we must put apartheid to one side in order to look at the occupation. i think you that the other way around. what is the logic of occupation is following the logic of apartheid. so speeding right along, if apartheid as it always does destabilizes the whole region, threatens international peace and security, it must be stopped on those grounds alone.
it is moral, morally untenable. trying to get humanity must be stopped but how? the vision of two states is fatally flawed. my first book on one-state solution got into this in some detail just from a pragmatic point of view. really only address that one thing. but, what it does mean is we cannot anticipate that israel will withdraw. it's become emperors new close kind of fantasy to think that that will happen. i don't think that is acceptable anymore, requires a great deal of defense and it fails. sustaining jewish statehood on the part of the territory, this is a crucial thing. if you partition the land in order to allow israel to remain in usual in one part of it and a palestinian state to form in the other part of it you're basically saying apartheid will continue in that part were
israel is now composed. and continue to be a jewish and democratic state, continue to operate way it is operating, continue the apartheid regime in a slightly different modified border within different borders. it would've been okay for white south africans to sustain apartheid in part of the country and turn over the rest of the two black south africans. no one entered in such an idea. it was an anthem of. this is the same thing here. you can and apartheid by dividing the land and likely to continue in another part of the land. there's other aspects of this by cutting to the chase, i would propose the unification is is e only way to end apartheid? since this only reasons to do that, we have to take that very seriously. for activism, and by activism let me, i mean grassroots to
legal activism and diplomatic activity and so forth. if you're going, i just want to focus again on this angle of and the activation it's a mantra, a slogan, sign people carry in march as bigots also a legal argument, but how. again the withdrawal cannot be anticipated. .. you can't -- but not in apartheid. establish the state of palestine for leverage
withdrawal. this is a popular movement right now, big diplomatic push and the united nations to do this. my point is that if we accept the apartheidanalysis , then such a state would be man to the state. it would lack the attributions of true sovereignty. israel has long been composed as an apartheid regime, can't accept any palestinian state because any sovereign state would threaten the jewish character of israel. this state of palestine formed under these conditions would only secure palestinian poverty and underdeveloped security and palestine itself. i'd like to take a moment here and destroy my time constraints, i hope i'm not but i will pray that a little bit of extra attempt was that i frankly encourage everyone
here then we sometimes do. i've been to south africa to study this material because i didn't understand it and i found it fascinating as an institutional constraints that is operating under. apartheid imperative, the imperative of apartheid whatever it would appear would be to prevent racial mixing. otherwise the whole logic begins to fall apart if you can't have different populations, there's nothing to defend . in order to do that, you need strict geographic segregation . this requires that if you're going to make this work, you need separate authorities within the territories. the south african, they call them black self-government
and guess what oslo calls them? palestinian self-government authority. it's a conversation between them and south africa about the bantu, i learned that fromthe diplomats in south africa, by the way . this channels palestinian or black or indigenous political aspirations to the local authority rather than to the dominant state. very convenient for an apartheid state . it lays requests for rights to their own leadership operating undertight constraints of course . you're looking at the top a lineup of the band to stand leaders in south africa and the nine of these leaders
were in this picture. and right below the palestinian authority, i don't mean to impugn the integrity or political will of any of the palestinian authority people, my point is a structural one. there put into a position where they are compelled to act on bantustan authority. and from the point of view of the dominant state, the main function of this authority is to repress dissent which in the top people picture you see the bantustan forces and in the lower you see the palestinian armed forces containing bantustan through proxy measures. i think the battery is giving out.
let's see what happens now. there we go. all right. the oslo accords, and we don't have time to get into this, i wrote a separate article about this because it sounded fascinating. the oslo accords established the palestinian authority identical to the bantustan constitution. you can find almost the same. and it's interesting that the anc perceives this as a trap, rejected it from the beginning and refused to have anything to do withit. and in fact, i understand nelson mandela told arafat it was a bad idea, don't over this, it's not a good idea . that wasn't supposed to happen. but tricky here.
so in short, it's now locked into being, this self-government authority and it cannot act independently of that role. the alternative therefore is if the partition can only sustain apartheid, then we think the conflict using south africa not as the model but is the inspiration or a thought experiment, they call it colonialism, but it doesn't involve harm, agreeing and admitting that a large population ofpeople is going to be in digitized and settled is not going to go away . settler colonialism, shipped the model from a colonial to a settler colonial model and that means that you do not end by partition or you can't and settler colonialism by petition. you have to and it by
eliminating the domination. treating palestinian palestine as a multinational state, is on the basis of race, would only perpetuate a settler discourse. because it is designed proposes that our identities that if you recognize them and institutionalize them, you are essentially perpetuating apartheid. treatment country as one country, palestine wrongly divided by race. this leads to a unifying mandate on palestine. i'm out of time or die? how am i doing? okay, there is a legal basis for doing this as we turned back to the league of nations mandate. it's always proposed was one country for everyonewho lived there . it would not be a jewish state or anybody's state. it would be a secular democratic state so there's a
nice fat legal argument to be made there. the hard part of this is that reunification does raise serious questions of identity shifts. to reconstruct the idea of nations, restart construct in this case palestine would stop being a froggy mandate reference or a dream future but it would be one state that belongs to all who live in it would not be the exclusive geographic heritage of anyone. it would not require the departure or exclusion of anybody which is top four people who have lost a great deal. but jewish has to be reconceived as a group with all civil and cultural rights, not a people with your rights to the land, not as a nation where the right to self-determination and palestinians, 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 and it still is, embracing everyone and mandate territory not in any sense that would excludenon-errands . this is one of the problems palestinian became an era of state and settler colonialism, you can't do that without non-errands and unfortunately you have to believe that deeply. not the racial ethnic construction affirmed by zionism . so that's why this apartheid finding recasts everything, that's why so many people don't wantto tackle it. i think it's crucial . i think it illuminates where we are and what is going on and the more i look at it, the more powerful and analysis i think it is and i do hope people consider it seriously as a model for rethinking this. >> thank you very much. >>. [applause] thank you so much
doctor tilley. our next speaker ian williams is a native of liverpool england and has been the washington report us correspondence and 1991. it's no surprise that he really knows the ins and outs of that world body. he is twice served as president of the un correspondence association and has run many awards for his exposcs of un malfeasance. at the same time, he has supported anddefended the un and its ideals . and has personally known for secretary-general as well as numerous international diplomats andofficials. the end has been a comment for the nation and the guardian of american online and an editor for the world policy journal .
the senior analyst for foreign policy in focus, he is the author of the un for beginners and the recently published untold area the real story of the united nations in peace and war and he and doctor tilley will be signing their books during the break that follows this panel. join me in welcoming ian williams. [applause] >> it would be difficult to follow virginia's details expose but it's worth remembering, one of the big problems of united nations is what's it good for? i'm really diffident about this. i tell people it's the worst possible organization except for the alternative. and it doesn't work that way. if you start from the center of realism, what the united nations can do, what it's done for, you don't get to this point easily and you welcome the small successes
and there are small successes and they are relevant here and with good reason why israel and its lobbies concentrate so much on the united nations. what kofi on on call the legitimizing power of the united nations, you see several results of this recently . israel should never get clear title of jerusalem or the occupied territories without a you and say so. that's key and it's been been sent 1945, if you think of theoccupations , east tyler, everyone had given up on each timer. indonesians actually told the foreign minister over lunch one day you will never get clear title. so you can get the un to do it and the un won't. so they wanted to a standstill and any and, is tim or is independent. the european course of justice actually ruled that the european union had no right to sign treaties with morocco that include western
karen fisheries and in fact, the european course was delegitimizing. >> of occupied territories. >> ithink that one is something that should be played up a lot more . >> i know it's a contentious subject and we rented it several times in washington report, there's a cell separation in palestine but there are many parallels there and the other one of course is western sahara will in fact sometimes, you never see a map that's included in morocco. the moroccans, and it's the same with the occupied territories in jerusalem. >> this brings us back to the ambulance of israel and the lobby. >> they have how shall i put this? it's almost psychological psychoanalysis.
they have a deep respect for law but it's sort of the town body that makes theelevators. on every floor and they can still take the elevator . israel spends a lot of time transporting his way around the laws. so at the united nations, they and the us spend a lot of time trying to create this elevator. >> so that they can scare it within the law and they are scared of actual definitions of law, that's why they are so upset. if the un were ineffectual, they wouldn't work resolutions in there. and take virginia. there's an apartheid convention. and it's like the genocide convention. there is a legal international binding commitment on the member states to do something about an apartheid state. if israel is declared to be anapartheid state , there are legal consequences that the
state have to follow. and another regard, remember that jim baker in bosnia and the state department where every solicitous to make sure the word genocide never appeared.mass murder was fine. mass murder is easily put into law, genocide as a binding legal commitments under the genocide convention, you have to do something about it so it looks like we're playing to the words but this is very serious. the israelis know that. first off, their deniers but in effect israel is the only state that was actually created by un resolution. so you have the conundrum that they have been literally denying the efficacy of the united nations, its legitimacy saying the resolutions don't apply but their very existence depends on a resolution. you hear continually it seems that general assembly resolutions are binding.
and we could say amen, because it was a general assembly resolution that partitioned palestine and separated the israeli state . [applause] so you can see you could have a joint conclave with jesuit fellows to work your way out of this particular where you are denying the basis for your own existence. it does have international complications because the united states was a founding member of the united nations. it's still an indispensable part of the united nations. it's inconceivable the un would exist without the united states taking part in it. and there are problems because there's always the israeli exception. almost everyresolution that comes up is being weighed in the balance . nuclear nonproliferation, the presentation earlier. the united states has nonproliferation treaties
that say no country over what is now the five permanent members should havenuclear weapons and then it condones nuclear weapons in israel and because it does that, every other country in the world , pakistan, says them, why not us? it's continually creating exceptions to your own rules . the settlements in particular . the us has never actually approved them but they've changed the language so often over the years that as far as the us is concerned, jerusalem is international territory. the state department. i believe just i read earlier this year that the state department is still refusing to issue passportswith jerusalem israel to americans born there. it's still jerusalem, they won't quit israel on there but the state department does
have residual respect from international law . so let's get these territories together because the un, the un is just sort of fit for all the states, all human life is there. you're watching it and you have this and 11 attitude that most americans that we know of, liberals, they support democracy and freedom. they like the united nations. a made an exception does all this stuff about israel and zionism is racism.they didn't think it through but it eroded the support. and this helps erode the support for the united nations inside the us. >> you've got the people who were automatically have been natural supporters of the un were always ambivalent about it. you have senators from new york looking over their shoulders who will pass resolutions condemning the un. and that's one of the points that the lobby hasbeen doing
in washington . to try to trim the un size by threatening to withhold funds or actually withholding funds or pullingout of organizations . and the effect of this isn't just financial. it is a continual sort of attrition. of the more out and standing in the un. we've seen the attorney general's now realize that they can't go on with the us and you have to pander to israel. >> and all secondary generals have done this to some extent and their magmatic political leg. kofi annan was the most accommodating up till then. and ban ki-moon had a continual stream of the jewish lobby organizations signing the conference of presidents. they were coming into his office all the time.they're banging on the door, they were also in the un and were banging on the doors of embassies. all these states that you sort of, the micro states
that only some collective know about usually. they will, and it supports the us and israel. on these usual resolutions. the two or three or six specific territories, a few others. and this is the result of intensive lobbying by the funds. >> our next speaker is discussing the topic of christian zionism. for those of you who don't know, christian zionism is the belief that the establishment of the modern state of israel and the holy land is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and thus deserves unrelenting support by christians. >> when president announced december's attention to declare jerusalem as the capital, they attributed the decision to the power of christian zionists who were a trump constituency and have a powerful and devoted member
and vice president mike pence but just how powerful the christian zionists are is up for debate and we will address that today . there are also theological questions about zionism and the extent to which it is legitimate interpretation of scripture. the extent to which it is heretical. i like that word.and finally, questions as to how it started, where it's going and who is challenging the evangelical community. to discuss this we have, then, a parker and a private consulting group that specializes in international united nations and nongovernmental organization affairs. you've got south africa fighting for justice there and discovered the palestine issue. his works primarily for world vision. where you works continuously for palestinian issues in the west bank and gaza.
and with that i will introduce him to discuss christian zionism. [applause] >> good afternoon everyone. thanks to the wonderful organization of our sponsoring groups and for your being here to discuss these important issues with us. as a resident theologian today, i must tell you that particularly this morning, i was reminded that we operate within very secular climate. but we also operate in an aura of the creation origins. and sometimesthat's forgotten . and i got my it on human rights in the middle east because the likes of tutu and abu zach and people like
that. they said to me if i really wanted to prove my bona fides in terms of human rights i should turn my eyes to the palestinians. and i really am grateful for that because i was truth be told, complicit, evangelical zionist like the polling data today shows but unwittingly. ididn't even know what it meant . but living and working in the middle east for five years to begin with and now 20 years old told, we see that there is a breaking forth of history that is beyond our usual comprehension of things. it's good to be reminded as we seek reasons for hope. that those who lay traps get their own seats and snared. those that do things in the dark have a command of life. and americans on college
campuses today, university campuses becauseof the suffering of our sister from san francisco state . what man means for evil. transcendent order understands for good. so the topic today, drives us to understand the question today is helpful. to comprehend and american christians in particular, speak in two theological languages. when it comes to israel and zionism. we are living in a troubling culture with a culture war darkness as a nation and this may help us understand how we arrived here. the great majority of mainstream christians, that
would be catholics, protestants and orthodox , eastern orthodox and even more than 20 percent now of the hundred million evangelicals are rooted in a 2000 year orthodoxy. that was quantified during the third century. >> it's not just religion we're talking about. not just creedal material were talking about, we're talking about social justice. on the other hand, zionism both jewish and christian is rooted theologically in the 19th and early 20th century belief and it the bible predicts seven dispensations of history. a real stretch to this kind of cherry picking. moving us toward the return of all jews to palestine or more appropriately, jews to all of palestine.
and in order to hasten the day of the end times. and you've noticed recently there have been some predictions about when it was coming up, they predict enough stuff stored away. and popularized by the west behind actionableseries . this view purports christians suddenly disappear presumably to heaven, a final apocalyptic war, armageddon of hers against the evil antichrist. 1000 year peaceful reign of the messiah begins. everyone is judged as to their faithfulness. the gods plan. but ironically, two thirds are all jews are killed and the rest become christians. the millennial reign according to scientists began in 1948 and 1967. zionism becomes dangerous when it aligns with empire,
religious nationalism. ethical guidance takes a back seat, especially with exceptionalism. this highly imaginative view is considered heresy in most of the theological circles. >> and it no longer widely embraced by evangelicals, certainly not by jews or main denomination christians unless it's thought, without really knowing the issue. that's where our responsibilitycomes in . even billy graham said he was agnostic about the end times. when he declared it will all pan out in the end . but silence in the mainstream church has allowed palestine to be defined by zionists.
it is the basis of christian zionism about which a straightforward definition is offered by doctor don wagner, a presbyterian, former zionist himself when he states it is a movement within protestant, now catholic fundamentalism that understand the modern state of israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and thus deserving of political, financial and religious support. christian zionism preceded by 50 years and even influence the emergence of jewish zionism. surprised? the british littlest biblical references to apply the physical state for the diaspora jews. most of them believe they help to bring about what their adherence loaded and believe, that the state brought through an act of god in 1948. this nationalistic perspective can be seen as a key to understanding the troubling geopolitical failed fire sby