deep's the arab world published in 1943 and noted by the reviewing service as follows: the writer is also, if perhaps naturally, violently against the creation of a state of israel which she feels was prompted more by international power politics than by humanitarian principles and represents an american and british threat to the arab world, unquote. regnery also put out frieda utley's will the middle east go west which expressed a viewpoint just as fresh today as it was back in 1957. quote: freedom and justice for israel, she wrote, depends on freedom and justice for the arabs. that same year regnery put out another book, this time a book of photographs depicting life in

a palestinian refugee camp entitled "they are human too." as well as a novel about palestinian refugees. and you should see this photo book. it looks like gaza today. i mean, nothing has changed. but it's very interesting that it was put out by i a conservative -- out by a conservative, explicitly conservative ideological publisher. and then there was what priced israel by alfred m. williamthal who i believe is the founder of the american council on judaism which made what was back then the mainstream jewish argument against the idea of a specifically jewish state. on the other hand, we see the same reversal. now, you can see how things have been reversed. but on the west there was another reversal going on.

albeit in the opposite direction. in the beginning in 1948, the american left was very much pro-israel. henry wallace made support for israel a major issue in his presidential campaign that year as the candidate of the to -- of the leftist progressive party which had the fulsome backing of the american communist party. and the soviet union itself was initially shuck to the israelis -- sympathetic to the israelis, arguing at the u.n. in favor of the creation of a jewish state in palestine. and this wasn't just talk, mind you. the soviet bloc provided the arms that made the establishment of israel possible. indeed, the czech communist government was single-handedly responsible for arming them.

soviet propagandists even commented approvingly on the stern gang when they blew up the king david hotel. what's more, 200,000 immigrants from socialist countries in eastern europe and the soviet union came to israel to fight the british in the war for independence. a u.s. arms embargo, by the way, prevented all but a trickle of aid from reaching the israelis from america. now, harry truman was not inclined to support israel but was persuaded by the challenge coming from wall hayes and the left to -- wallace and the left to recognize its existence. yet the soviets, again, were the first to recognize israel as a specifically jewish state. this truman's declaration, if you look at the original actual text where he crossed things out

and put things in, the word "palestine" is still used, and the phrase "jewish state" is crossed out. so what happened to change things into their exact opposite? well, what happened was the cold war. when the arms embargo favoring the arabs was repealed in the united states, the israelis began to warm toward the west. although the soviets had allowed jews to emigrate to israel, the huge numbers of applicants from the soviet union itself made them a little bit nervous. after all, who would want to leave their workers' paradise? well, when the korean war broke out and israel sided with the u.n., the soviets dropped their support for israel, started selling arms to egypt and syria

and initiated a series of appalling show trials targeting jews in the soviet bloc including the famous doctors plot and the trials in czechoslovakia. on the right simultaneously, the big turn around was also due to the cold war. it can be seen largely as a tribal reaction to the left's growing anti-zionism. it was also due to the incursion of a number of former leftists who gathered around national review magazine and later became known as the neoconservatives. the neo-cons as we affectionately call them are partisans of israel who have often been accused, sometimes unfairly, of putting -- of putting israel's interests over and above american interests. now, the truth is that they see no dividing line as long as

israel's interests are served, they believe, so are america's. this has become an increasingly hard position to defend, however, since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and subsequent efforts by the united states government to minimize the influence of islamic radicals like al-qaeda. another factor in the great turn around of the american right on the israel question has been the growth of the evangelical, born-again movement as a force to be reckoned with in the conservative movement. here is where theology impacts politics as it so often does and isn't really noticed by the antireligious media. and this in turn has a direct affect and has had a direct affect on u.s. foreign policy.

the doctrine known as premillennial dispensationallism, bear with me here, which holds that the coming together of the jews in israel marks the beginning of the end of days has exerted a powerful attraction to millions of evangelicals. dispensationallists briefly hold that the promise made to abraham and to the jewish people have been held in advance but will be fulfilled by the so-called time of tribulation, an era that will prepirg the end of history -- prefigure the end of history and the return of christ to earth. what this means, among other things, is that the borders of the land supposedly given to abraham and his descendants, the jewish people, will extend from the nile to the euphrates as it says in the bible. in the dispensationallist

theology, christ will turn to a jewish kingdom, the epicenter of which will be a rebuilt temple in jerusalem. now, according to this theology the time of tribulation is imminent. the rapture, the rebuilding of a temple and the coming of the antichrist will all signal the end of days and the final battle between good and evil on the plan of armageddon -- plain of armageddon. many dispensationallists state this will be a nuclear war, another holocaust in which israel and all mankind, by the way, will perish. with only the pure of heart ascending to heaven. now, the single largest and arguably most effective component of the israel lobby consists not of aipac, but of a highly organized and very resourceful christian

dispensationallist element. they have their own lobbying organizations such as christians united for israel, cufi, which is run by the reverend john hagey who i believe is in texas and is very active. they are particularly active in the republican party and pose a mighty obstacle to any politician who seeks to restore balance to american foreign policy in the middle east. there is hope, however. there is a resurgence of foreign policy realism in the gop and in the conservative movement generally. in response to the general war weariness we are all feeling. opposition to u.s. intervention overseas embraced as a principle position by the increasingly influential libertarian wing of the republican party will tend to distance the go to p from -- gop from a pro-israel lobby that

is perpetually trying to draw us into with israel's wars. for those of us who want to change american foreign policy and steer it in a less interventionist direction, the road ahead is going to be long, hard and filled with many obstacles, not the least of which is the tremendous motivation of the pro-israel lobby in all its aspects. yet the costs of maintaining this special relationship have long since outweighed the gains, and america is slowly but surely waking up to this fact. let us hope that this event, a very successful event, is going to be a milestone in this awakening. thank you. [applause] >> all right. next up is scott mcconnell, he is a cofounder of the american

conservative magazine at the american conservative.com, and he is a former neoconservative. [laughter] [applause] >> i was concerned there'd be some overlap with justin, because we have almost the same subject, but there's none. it's oversimplified but, i think, true that after 1970 the nixon administration began to think of israel as a genuine cold war ally. israel had shown it could fight effectively against moscow's allies which put it in a very different category than south vietnam. of course, there would be complications in the '70s and the '80s. you know about them. but most of the republican establishment during the nixon and reagan years viewed israel as a friendly asset. when the cold war ended, this would become more complicated.

obviously, israel was completely useless as a regional asset when iraq invaded kuwait. and once the problems in the region, america's problems it was clear that they came from within the region and not, were not soviet sponsored, issues such as israel's treatment of the palestinians would become more salient. and so maybe for a brief time the place of israel in the american conservative mind was potentially in flux. this is the context of story i want to tell about the rise of neoconservative hegemony within the conservative movement. it's a big subject, but i'm going to focus on one turning point. william buckley's decision to allow neoconservatives to regulate the terms of mideast discussion in his own magazine, "national review." this development was signaled by his treatment of senior editor

joe sobron and his denunciation of pat wu can man -- buchanan. first, some earlier context. buckley is often and rightly credited with pushing hard core anti-semitism out of the american right. i read recently that the most widely-read right-wing book of the early '50s was something called "iron curtain over america" which described how the czar jews were completing a takeover of the democratic party. this book went through 14 printings. buckley's "national review," founded in 1955, was a sharp break from this kind of stupidity. buckley famously excluded writer from the american mercury from contributing to "national review" in 1957. but "national review" itself was not free from some pretty, publishing some pretty odd stuff. the historian, peter novik,

concludes in his book, "the holocaust in american life" that no american general interest magazine published more vehement and strident stuff against israel bringing adolf eichmann to trial. in numerous articles and editorials, "national review" stressed that the trial would do nothing but incite hatred of germany. the christian church said a "national review" editorial in 1961 focuses hard on the cruise function of jesus christ for only one week of year, but three months, that's the minimum estimate of the israeli government for the duration of trial. everyone knows the fact, has known them for years. the counting of corporations in gas ovens, there's a studio attempt to cast suspicion on germany. it's all there; bitterness, distrust, the refusal to forgive, the advancement of communist aims. so 25 years later in 1986 bill

buckley was presented with a dossier compiled by midge dector and her husband, commentary's editor. it consisted of six syndicated columns by joe sobron, accompanied by a tough letter accusing him of being a naked antisemite. who was joe sobron? he was a conservative catholic who came to buckley's attention in 1972 when he was a graduate student at eastern michigan, and buckley are was coming to visit the campus, and sobron wrote a letter to the school paper opposing those who wanted to oppose buckley's appearance on the campus. and the polemical grace and power of that letter impressed buckley as it would a generation of sobron's readers. so soon therefore he was flying to new york fortnightly to write

editorials for "national review" and became a senior editor. midge dector naturally sent her indictment to a few dozen of buckly's -- buckley's allies in the conservative movement. i'm not sure how to characterize the six columns. one attacked critics critical of ronald reagan's visit to -- [inaudible] another said that the times' reason for supporting the bombing of libya was because israel wanted it. a third noted that the famous jewish sage had said that it was not okay to kill or cheat gentiles, but sobran wanted to know why was this even an issue. my sense, and i've only read excerpts compiled by midge, is that they were not something i would want to write, but that they were less anti-semitic in tone than what national review was producing about the eichmann trial.

buckley's response after meeting with sobran and the "national review" staff several times was to publish a long editorial dissociating his magazine from the -- [inaudible] of the columns while those who knew sobran knew that he wasn't an anti-semite. the two also agreed to a covenant to which sobran would read aloud on the telephone anything he wrote for the magazine which mentioned israel, and buckley would approve or disapprove. this was pre-fax machine. buckley apparently also said that sobran would not write in in the "national review" at all about the middle east. what he did not do was tell midge and norman to go fly a kite. in any case, the arrangement didn't last. sobran became an impassioned opponent of the first iraq war. buckley prepared a letter asking

him to step down as senior editor while continuing to contribute or whatever. and sobran resigned. the other and more important half of this story concerns pat buchanan who was of not a colleague of buckley's, but in the 1980s clearly america's most prominent media conservative. like sobran, buchanan had begun to reevaluate his view of israel which had used to be very warm. he, too, hadn't liked the attacks on reagan over visit burg when he was in the reagan white house, and he, too, opposed the first iraq war. the campaign against buchanan was instigated not by midge and norman, but by times column u.s. anne rosenthal using a dossier of buchanan columns prepared by the anti-defamation league. i don't know how much of this story is very, very familiar, but the indictment turned on

several phrases. pat had claimed that there were only two groups beating the drums for the iraq war, the israeli defense ministry and its amen corner in the united states. in another column he had named four e defense commentators, all jewish, who favored the war. and in the third he listed four representative names of american casualties, mcallister, murphy, gonzalez, leroy brown. on a tv show he referred to congress as israeli-occupied territory. [laughter] rosenthal claimed that these kind of things could lead to auschwitz. pew can man saying these -- buchanan saying these kinds of things. so buckley's first reaction was in a column where he said most of pat's discreet points were defensible, but insensitive. and then it became a major intellectual media affair, and buckley published a lengthy issue search of anti-semitism

and gathered it along with a dozen or so responses in a book form. here. and in the 10,000-word section on buchanan, buckley weighed very carefully the arguments of buchanan's attackers and defenders and finally came to this tortured conclusion: i find it impossible to defend pat buchanan against the charge that what he said during the period amounted to anti-semitism. whatever it was that drove him to say it, most probably an iconoclastic -- [inaudible] buckley remains interesting to this day, most of all to the collected remarks of other journalists. one can read bob novak's accounts of all the efforts made to get newspapers to drop him and. [roll call] ly evans' column because they were frequently --

[inaudible] and one can read eric alderman's very amusing comments about aipac's efforts to drum up, efforts to drop buchanan's column, you know, but, of course, aipac wasn't trying to silence anyone, perish the thought. in general, buchanan's depiction of the power of the israel lobby to break reputations is per cement -- perceptive and unequal call. in describing his first private sinner with sobran, buckley tells the story of wail yam scranton, governor of pennsylvania who the nebraska 5060s -- in the '60s was considered presidential timbre. scranton came back with a recommendation that the united states be more even-handed, and no one ever heard from scranton again. [laughter] buckley writes, we both laughed. one does laugh when

acknowledging inordinate power even as one deplores it. and even in the book there are a lot of good lines. one of them is given to sobran from a private letter he wrote to buckley. when i talk to a palestinian for an hour or two, i'm struck at how absolutely bizarre it is that an editor of "commentary" or "the new republic" can buy a plane ticket to tel aviv and instantly benefit from a whole range of rights denied to the native arabs. but none of this matters. buckley did cut sobran lose, sobran's career suddenly deteriorated into the indefensible. he did conclude what buchanan wrote amounted to anti-semitism and even as he appended a highly qualifying clause and defended

most of what buchanan said, abe rosenthal and david fromm got the guilty verdict they had sought. and this verdict could be simplified. buchanan, anti-semitic says buckley, and then it could be repeated 10,000 times in newspaper columns and is sound bites over the next ten years, and a lesson would sink in. buchanan, because of his us legal views -- israel views, was banished from the ranks of respectable establishment conservativism. from our present point, we can see more clearly the consequences. by getting buckley to denounce, first, one of his own writers -- a man with whom he was very close -- and then another extremely prominent conservative on questions related to israel and its influence, the neoconservatives essentially won the right to supervise israel-related discussions in "national review," which is not

a neo-con publication and was the largest, most influential publication on the american right. and thereafter any young conservative knew the rules. you'd best be sufficiently pro-israel to satisfy midge and norman if you wanted to advance. and this would prove very consequential for the republican party moving forward through the '90s and set the tone into the next century. [applause] >> all right. next up is phillip weiss. he keeps the great blog monde weiss.net which has a great stable of writers there. not just him, but i really like his stuff too. [applause] >> thanks for having me today. i'm a progressive blogger, so i'm going to be a little more

superficial that some of the earlier comments you've heard, a little less scholarly, and i'm also going to tell a progress narrative because i believe in progress. i can remember that day eight years ago when scott sent me, scott mcconnell sent me the israel lobby over the internet. it had just been published in the london review of books, steve walton's paper, and i was just completely stunned that such a, such truths would be expressed. and i remember running around the house saying it's high noon for the israel lobby, you know? i even had my six guns out. [laughter] and since i'm going to talk about where the media are on israel, i have to look back at that moment and say that i was really wrong. i thought that scales were going to fall from americans' eyes, i

thought that the doors were open to, the gates were open. i didn't anticipate the enormous resistance there would be to this, these ideas. myself i hadn't even been to palestine or israel. so i didn't understand how much censorship was going on. and so instead i realized that it was probably around three in the morning for the israel lobby, but there was sort of a hint of dark before the dawn a was sort of coming to an end. so as someone who monitors the media pretty closely on these issues, i want to relate to you, first, to convey how much the israel lobby is still entrenched or -- and when i say israel lobby, i mean sort of just a strong partisanship for israel. it's still entrenched in the mainstream media. i want to just relate one day a week ago, actually. three different news accounts that came across my screen that

i blogged about. one was that wolf blitzer had michael oren on cnn and presented oren as, you know, our new cnn analyst. and michael oren is a former ambassador for israel, and he is a -- moved to israel from, i think, upstate new york or do finish and a true believer. i mean, a zionist zealot really. and here he is presented as an analyst on cnn by wolf blitzer who i think is someone who's waking up on issue but used to work at aipac or for a journal that was associated with aipac as a young man. so, and oren was saying -- i should emphasize what oren was saying, he was saying that palestinians must not go -- if

the two-state peace process fails, palestinians must not go to international forums, they must not exercise that -- so he was saying these people have no rights in international fora, they should not take any of their powers, and he's saying this to wolf blitzer without contradiction. and this is presented as analysis of the two-state solution over the peace process. the same day i was sent two links to hadassa magazine which i hadn't really read until that day, i have to say. i think i have to get a subscription. in one of them, ari shavit, an israeli writer who recently had a triumphant book tour to the united states, he was just sort of celebrated everywhere, it was celebrated on charlie rose, he was on fresh air, he was -- the 92nd street y, i think his book was excerpted in the new yorker, and he got -- i think it was on the front page of "the new york

times" book review too. but shavit is just a unreconstructed -- i mean, he's a reconstructed zionist. he acknowledges that palestinians were dispossessed, but it's all a miraculous narrative. he uses the word "miracle" to describe israel. and here he said that he was talking to hadassah magazine about this incredible -- it was just a jowl month for him here. -- joyful month for him here. and he said this came about in part because of fore mention. he was using the hebrew or yiddish word for man plural. david remini, leon -- [inaudible] tom friedman and jeff ofly goldberg -- jeffrey goldberg. so he he was referring to these kind of powerful journalists who had played such a great role in

celebrating him. and it was a frank description of the degree to which people who are, have a very positive view of zionism and of israel and in jeffrey goldberg's case are really right-wing zionists, the degree to which they play a central role still in our media. the other piece in hadassah magazine was one in which they interviewed jodi r everything dorn of the new york times, and she talked about her jewish background. and she said she had gone to israel first with united synagogue youth as a girl and that she has come to this issue with great knowledge of the american jewish experience and the israel, the jewish israeli side of the conflict. which is really, i mean, it's a

tragic kind of admission from my standpoint because -- especially as it's borne out by her coverage. because this is not someone who has extended herself to the other narrative. she knows this narrative, she's saying this is the narrative i came with, and as it turns out she has not extended herself. she's really operated inside this comfort zone in what i call a culturally-bound fashion. and she was sort of -- the tragedy from my standpoint is that "the new york times" would send someone over to this area who has this background who just -- uninterrogated. it's okay, everyone has a background, but in her case it seems so uninterrogated. now, this is all familiar terrain to you. and i should just emphasize that redorn lately in describing the boycott divestment and sanctions movement characterized it as, said, you know, many are comparing it in israel to the

nazi boycotts of jewish businesses. so she was using this highly inflammatory language to describe this very powerful movement for palestinian rights. which i thought was biased. all of you are familiar with this terrain, or you would not be hoar. i think -- here. i think so i don't need to go over it. the thing i now want to move to is the kind of more positive developments that we're seeing even within this -- and i'm focused here on the elites, the mainstream elites because i think they're significant in the end. i mean, we are -- there are many people from the grassroots here, there are many people from the washington establishment, sort of a more marginalized washington blushment. i'm -- establishment. i'm more from the grassroots now, and these things -- all these are powerful elements, but they're not sort of mainstream establishment elite.

so three positive statements that indicate the sort of changes that we're beginning to witness. tom friedman said in a column he described the congress as being bought and paid for by the israel lobby. he said this last year or so. and he could not, to make that type of assertion, you know, ten years ago, eight years ago you were just branded as anti-semitic. now, of course, he has j+blood, so he gets a break. [laughter] no, he is making a, an assertion that was just beyond the pale, i think, a few years ago. and he's doing it because he's honest. there's, there is an honest component to tom friedman. [laughter] and he knows what's going on. he also made, he was speaking at a oxford last year, and he said

that when someone was interlocutor, i think a scholar at oxford was asking why does the israel lobby have such power, and he referred to george bush's loss in 1992 when bill clinton ran to his right on settlements. and he said that his son absorbed the lesson of that, you know? you cannot, you can't go too much right on -- too far right on the israel question. and that's what our politicians understand. he was describing the power of the israel lobby. it was a very good statement. he hasn't written that up, unfortunately. another thing that i would point to is that a review of john judas' book on truman that's coming out in "the new york times" that's very positive. and john judas' book about truman is all about how truman was for the separation of church and state and folded on that

because of the power of the lobby. and this piece in the times, frankly, describes the power of lobby without any kind of bias or, i mean, he doesn't share judas' view, but he -- it's a fair review. the question what is happening and why are these changes taking place, i think the first thing i'd refer to is, of course, the internet which has changed,. which has changed everything. it's changed all our lives. i remember ten years ago i was here covering a congressional hearing for a magazine. i was making a lot of money for this article. it was -- i get $10,000 for covering this hearing and doing a piece on antiwar movement. and at this hearing there were three bloggers there who were making nothing. and i was just confused by this. and i met craig newmark of craig's list soon after. and i said, craig, there's something wrong with this model.

i'm getting 10,000, these three people are getting zero. there's something wrong. he said, there's nothing wrong with the model. he said these three people are all getting something out of what they're doingment -- doing. and i really hadn't thought about it. he said one is being entrepreneurial. one is having freedom. one is supporting a cause. one is -- these people are using the first amendment and not worrying about how much money they're going to make off it. and surprise to me is that in the last ten years i've switched sides. i'm one of those three people now. [laughter] and i've broken out of that sort of elite mindset, and there's been a lot of freedom, and that's happening with many journal u.s.es. journalists. and many journalists are beginning to understand what great stories there are in covering the israel lobby. i'll leave, i'm coming down to the end of my time, so i'll leave out the tribal piece. i was going to get into the

whole jewish piece of this, the degree the which jewish life is changing. allan addressed this. but to the extent that jewish life is changing, it has given other people -- because there is an element of deference for many reasons, you know, including the donors and the voters and the hammer lock, there's deference to the jewish community inside the american establishment. and because that jewish community is now beginning to fracture openly, that is giving people permission to talk about it. that's one piece. the other piece i'd mention, though, is -- and i think that journalists are also understanding that these are great stories. i think that any journalist who came here today and listened today will understand what just amazing stories there are if you look back over the history of the israel lobby. from the silencing of sobran to the uss liberty attack to i

think about james forestal's death in the 1960s. there's just in this very rich history that a john judis has treated in his book but that all journal u.s.es who love stories -- journalists who love stories, i think we're going to see more and more of that, and that's when we'll finally see the high noon for the israel lobby. thank you. [applause] >> all right. now, i know we're at time, so i think maybe we only have a very short time for questions. so everyone, please, keep your questions very short so we can take a quick break, and then we're going to be back with our cua panel. cua panel. who's got the microphones here? oh, here we go, sir. go ahead. go aheadment. >> oh.

whoa. we've talked about anti-semitism and said that that is wearing down, but holocaust narrative is still the third rail. no one dares touch that. yet it is taught in our schools, in our public schools, in our taxpayer-supported schools. we may not oppose it. it is a quasireligious dogma. i consider that a solution of constitutional -- a violation of constitutional right. it's a state enforcement of a religious dogma. in this very room with respect, mr. brownfeld, you mentioned that naziism was an impetus for zionism. i think the chronology shows exactly the opposite. hiram weitzman was working with

the british during world war i, and achieved major triumph. the zionists return from versailles with a dual triumph. germany lost out at versailles. phil weiss mentioned judy redorn's comments of nazi boycott of jews. that lasted for one day, on april 1 of 933 -- 1933. the jews declared war on germany on march 24th in 1933, and that -- >> all right, we're way out of minutes here. let's go ahead and let the panelsts respond. anyone -- panelists respond. anyone? >> is this on or what do i do to -- >> yeah, you're on. >> oh, it's on. i see no problem with teaching the holocaust in the schools. we should teach all of world history in the schools. this is an event which happened, hopefully it will never happen

again. but my point about the nazis and the zionists was i understand that zionism existed lang before gnats -- long before naziism. my point was it was only after naziism that many jews that were opposed to zionism became sympathetic to it because they saw there was a need to do something with these people who had suffered. that was my only point. >> in the reference to teaching the holocaust in the schools, this is a situation in which much more time is spent be teaching about -- spent teaching about the holocaust that happened in europe hand the genocide against the native americans in this country. [applause] i happen to have been a schoolteacher, and i substitute still in schools. i, there are programs this

california every eighth grader gets weeks of anne frank. not only her diary, but all kinds of teaching material because it's provided by jewish establish. establishment. then in the ninth grade they all read eli weasel -- elie weisel. and yet in the california curriculum, teachers are obliged to teach more about the holocaust and a particular line than they are about the genocide of native americans. in the area where i live, it took place in california. also the 400 years of slavery. and, you know, you could -- there are arguments when i went to college at ucla that defended slavery, that said only some slave masters were bad, but by and large, slaves were treated well. so there was a whole range of opinions. but when it comes to the holocaust, there is no range of

opinions. you teach a certain line. you to not teach about the zionist nazi collaboration. but they know that in israel. many things that american jews don't know or don't want to hear about. and also you have proliferation of monuments to the holocaust here. are there any monuments to the genocide of native americans in germany? >> wait, wait. excuse me. what range of opinion could you possibly have about the holocaust? [applause] >> it's not a, it's not -- >> excuse me. >> excuse me me, excuse me, it's not a range of opinion, it's a question of historical discussion. >> [inaudible] >> no, no. i mean, excuse me -- no, i'm talking about teaching in american schools about american history. >> i also take exception to the lady's comment. i don't think we should be problemtizing the education of the holocaust here. that's repulsive. you know, anne frank, that -- it's a wonderful book. i don't care who tells you to read that book.

if it's aipac, if it's the adl. it's a wonderful book -- >> one thing -- >> the one thing i would say is that the debt, the west thought that it incurred a debt from the jews, and the pal stint -- palestinians paid for that a. and i think that one of the great discoveries of the last few years in palestinian solidarity is the understanding that the west also has a debt to the palestinians. >> how many people can -- [inaudible] >> and we are -- >> [inaudible] >> we, can we move on? >> that's enough. thank you very much. you've had, you've had more time than any other questioner has today. thank you very much, ma'am. nobody heard what you said just now. and i was just impressed to hear that government schools in america are teaching history at all anymore. how about a round of applause for that? [laughter] this lady right here in the

purposing, go ahead, please. >> thank you very much. as a non-jew, whenever i would like to learn about jewish history, i always go to the internet for virtual jewish library. i'd like to ask your opinion whether the history that is outlined in there is on thive enough, because i get the sense that it is more zionism or -- [inaudible] thank you. >> anyone want to comment on the jewish virtual library web site? >> the virtual library is a very useful web site. it's actually, there's good and interesting information in it. it's put out by a former aipac editor, very strong pro-israel editor named mitchell bard. there is information if you know the history, you can use that web site carefully. you just have to be careful about what's in it, because you have to have some kind of background. it's written from a pro-zionist background, but it does have

valuable information that you won't find any place else. >> does anyone have the mic? or that's it. okay. we're done. we are going out to break. don't go far because when we get back, we're going to have our former cia officer panel of phily rally and michael scheuer. you don't want to miss that. >> this is c-span3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our web sites, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> a maryland congressman says the inspector general of the u.s. department of health and human services plans to investigate maryland's troubled health care exchange. congressman andy harris is the state's only republican congressman and says he has confidence that the nonpartisan and independent inspector general will thoroughly investigate. maryland's online health exchange has been troubled with computer glitches ever since its

debut on october 1st. the u.s. senate meets at 4 p.m. eastern today. senators will start the day with general speeches before turning to an appeals court nomination. they'll vote at 5:30 eastern on moving forward with the nomination and on a bill dealing with sexual assaults in the military. after that democratic senators will start speeches on global climate change going all night long. we'll have live coverage here on c-span2. and c-span will be live at 2:30 eastern as senator bob casey talks about elections in afghanistan and the u.s. role there beyond 2014. the pennsylvania democrat chairs the foreign relations subcommittee that monitors that region. senator casey is speaking at the center for american progress. we continue with a look at the history of the relationship and the influence of pro-israel groups on politicians here in washington d.c. the institute for research on middle ian policy host -- middle eastern policy hosted this panel on the influence of pro-israel

groups on members of congress and during elections. this is about 50 minutes. >> thank you very much, congressman funnily. we are just honored to have you with us today. thank you so much. and thank you for everything you've done over the years. [applause] i'm janet mcmahon, i'm the managing editor of the washington report on middle east affairs, and i'm going to give you a slightly different picture about the united states congress. our magazine has been covering pro-israel political action committees or pacs since 1986. and over the years, i've gotten a lot of calls from people who want to know how much their congress person got from aipac, the american israel public

affairs committee. and i immediately tell them that aipac itself does not make campaign contributions. and i think it's very important not to accuse aipac of doing something it can truthfully deny, because that makes it too easy for pick to deflect the argument and let itself off the hook. this is not to say, however, that aipac has nothing to do with campaign contributions, and that's something i'll get to shortly. in 1990 when we published stealth pacs written by the late richard h. curtis, there were about 128 pro-israel pacs. now there are around 30. according to the center for responsive politics whose web site, opensecrets.org, i highly recommend, 31 pro-israel pacs contributed a total of just under $3 million to congressional candidates in 2012. and i'm using 2012 figures

because since the election is over, all the numbers are in. this year's election is still a work in progress as far as campaign contributions are concerned. and as you can see on this chart, these pro-israel pacs gave almost 60% of their contributions to democratic candidates in 2012. so it is definitely not the case that only republicans are eager to do israel's bidding. all but one pro-israel pac gave to democrats, and all but six to republicans. pro-israel pacs have several interesting characteristics. first of all, in their filings with the fec, the federal election commission, they all list themselves as unaffiliated. now, most pacs have no problem identifying their affiliation or industry. for example, the seven pacs under the national association of realtors umbrella, which open secrets lists as the top pac donating in 2012, all list their

industry as real estate agents. and each of the seven pacs includes association of realtors in its name. i'm going to show you the names of the 31 pro-israel pacs that open secrets has listed. what's very interesting about them is that all but four of them have very innocuous, one might even say misleading names. those four exceptions are the world alliance for israel, the republican jewish coalition, the national jewish democratic council and allies for israel. what this means is that even the most conscientious voter who knows the name of every contributor to a candidate's campaign might not know that the candidate is receiving money from pacs that advance the interests of a foreign government. another characteristic of pro-israel pacs is that they prefer to give to reliable incumbents rather than

challengers, regard rest of candidate's party or -- regardless of the candidate's party or religion. they also give priority to members of congressional committees responsible for issues of concern to israel such as foreign affairs, armed forces or budget. and they like to extend their largess to members of congress in leadership positions. for example, house minority whip steny hoyer's take from pro-israel pacs used to be fair to midling, but as he climbed the leadership ladder, his contributions increased to the point where he's now received a total of more than a quarter of a million dollars. another tactic favored by pro-israel pacs is called budgeting. that's when -- bundling, that's when a pac collects checks from individual donors and hands them en masse to a favorite candidate. this way the candidate has no doubt about the source of the contributions, but the pac is not required to disclose them to the fec. bundling began to become popular around 1994 when talk of

campaign finance reform was the air. it was a way to minimize public impact of pac contributions. so most traditional pro-israel pacs use bundling as a way to disguise the full extent of their financial involvement. according to open secrets, the pro-israel norpac, the number five contributor to senator mark kirk's 2010 campaign, gave him $3,804. but individuals associated with that a pac ponied up more than $58,000. similarly, kirk received $114,904 from pro-israel pacs according to open secrets but nearly five times that much from pro-israel individuals. so pac contributions, thanks to bundling, are just the tip of the iceberg. what's most striking about these 30-odd pro-israel pacs, however, is their pattern pattef gave -- giving.

once you've read the fec filings, it's almost predictable about who the others will be giving to, and i can personal aattest to this. in fact, these pacs operate in lock step to such an extent that some of the pacs that nominally represent a certain state don't give to a single caught from that state. for example, here is the washington reports list of the top ten recipients of pro-israel pac contributions in 2012. you can see that steny hoyer was number four in the house with $31,750. and that democratic ben cardin of maryland with $55,680 was number four in the senate. neither, by the way, faced a tight re-election campaign. now, one would assume that some of the thousands of dollars these two men got came from the maryland association for concerned citizens, the pro-israel pac based in their home state. but here the house candidates,

the maryland pac gave to in 2012. steny hoyer is nowhere to be found. similarly, one searches this vain for ben cardin among the senate candidates who received money from this particular pro-israel pac. instead, the maryland association for concerned citizens gave to candidates as far away as nevada, north dakota and california but to not a single candidate in maryland. reveals that aipac exercises a high degree of oversight and coordination over smaller, money-giving pacs. the memo, written by aipac's assistant director of political affairs elizabeth finish. [inaudible] pressures the subordinate to --

[inaudible] the first item is a little hard to read. i'll read it to you. says ice pac, another descriptive pro-israel pac name, has done nothing in the colorado, louisiana and missouri race. they have given $500 to evans and daschle. on 6-30-86 they had $11,048. try for 1,000 to bond, moore, evans, daschle and reid. so this makes clear that the recipients are not necessarily selected by the individual pacs making those contributions. despite the smoking gun memo, however, the federal election commission classifies aipac as a membership organization rather than a political committee, and what this means is that aipac does not have to reveal its sources of income or its expenditures. now, each of these 30 pro-israel pacs that donate to congressional candidates must adhere to fec regulations which limit campaign contributions from pacs to $10,000 per

candidate per election. $5,000 for the primary election and another $5,000 for the general election in november. but if there are tobe 30 unaffiliated pacs all giving to the same candidate, that's a potential haul of $300,000, not $10,000 per candidate. indeed, for his first senate race in 1998, the year of the aipac memo, tom daschle -- who went on to become senate majority leader -- received more than $260,000 in pro-israel pac contributions. in 2010 mark curbing received over $100,000, more than any other house or senate candidate year. and as we've seen, that does not include contributions from pro-israel individuals. so not only does the favored candidate benefit, but because it's broken up into smaller components, again, the extempt of lobby's influence on american elections is hidden. for example, there is no

pro-israel pac listed as being among the 2010 top ten pac contributors by center for responsible politics, responsive politics, i'm sorry. but that year pro-israel pacs contributed nearly $3 million to congressional candidates, making it the sixth largest contributor. by comparison, in 2012 the two arab-american pacs gave a total of $20,000 the campaign contributions -- in campaign contributions, less than 1% of the total amount contributed by pro-israel pacs. put another way, in 2012 pro-israel pacs bay nearly -- gave nearly 150 times more in campaign contributions. there's no question that aipac and the israel lobby bask in their reputation of invincibility, but that reputation may be more shall hoe than it appears.

for example, in 2010 it was clear that the last person the lobby wanted as senator from kentucky was rand paul. we know that because pro-israel pacs gave his republican primary opponent $33,500 and $16,25 to the democratic candidate for senate for a total of just under $50,000. rand paul got just $2,000, but he went on to win election. even the candidate who got the most pro-israel pac contributions in 2010, mark kirk who now holds president obama's seat from illinois, barely won his election despite a massive $115,304 in pro-israel pac campaign contributions and that he raised more than $4 million more than his to penalty. -- opponent. he still just barely made it. kirk's history of pro-israel pac contributions is instructive. he started out getting $7,000 for his 2000 race, and it went up dramatically for each race

thereafter. and when he got $91,200 for a house race in 2008, it was clear that they were setting him up to run for the senate. yet until recently i never heard kirk described as anything but a moderate republican. as far as i know, his unwavering support of israel was never a campaign issue, and the mainstream media certainly didn't raise it. ..

let your fellow constituents know that the represented in congress too often is putting the interests of a foreign government above their own. thank you very much. [applause] >> now i'd like to introduce former representative cynthia mckinney of georgia who sorely knows what it's like to be a target of the israel lobby. she was disappointed she could not be with us in person today that she had a prior commitment out of the country. she was kind enough to videotape a message for all of us. >> business cynthia mckinney, and i am pleased to be able to make this video presentation for the washington report on the middle east. the way in which one can best understand the drain is to do

the research. one can go to a congressional record and read laying out the facts. earl hilliard was a member of congress who served along with me. he was from alabama. i was from georgia. he was the first african-american to be elected to congress since reconstructi reconstruction. and i was the first african-american woman to be elected to congress from the state of georgia. so girl and i together -- so earl and i both served on the international relations committee and we both ended up

being targeted by the pro-israel lobby merely because we attempted to do our job and represent our constituents, and represent the good people of the united states. i've written the book, the name of the book is ain't nothing like freedom, and it explains my experiences with the pro-israel lobby from candidate to having a redistricting case go all the way up to the supreme court. and the anti-defamation league becoming a party to that lawsuit, joining in with five racist whites who did not want black representation for them and their community in georgia in the congress.

the next part of the comments that i would like to make our around this issue of being caught in the eye of the storm. in a political campaign, the idea that's put forward is that if you want to prevail, if you want to win, money, message and media are ways in which you can direct the storm rather than become a victim of the storm are the pro-israel lobby usually has a whole lot of money, and those of us who act of conscience generally don't. you don't have to equal the dollars and the banks. what did you have to do is have enough money in order to do the

things that are necessary in order to have a successful campaign. enough does not necessarily mean the same as or equal to. i ended up being extremely embarrassed, for no fault of my own, and then only to be told when i challenged anti, i said what happened? why did you do this? and he said he just didn't want to make them upset. him not making them upset met that i had became expendable to him, and i was a friend, my very first chief of staff was his daughter. and that was the way i was treated because he didn't want to make them upset. another item that i just jotted down in my notes was a need for political instrument. knowing who's who in the zoo.

we need to read the media of the other side. so i make sure that i read ha'aretz. i read forward. i read the jewish telegraph agency. knowing who's who in the zoo will also lead you to my next topic, which is the 99% club. we have members of congress who are wonderful on 99% of the issues. 99% of the vote. but it's the one issue when it comes to israel and the united states' relationship with israel and holding israel accountable for breaches of international law, reaches of u.s. law.

and our sense of human rights and dignity, they are not good on those issues. we have lots of members of congress who are in the 99% club, but 99%, unfortunately, is not going to get that 99% club, are not going to be the members who will stop us from being involved. they are not going to be the members who will speak up when the united states is violating human rights in just basic dignity of other peoples. the last item that i want to discuss is why is this important? it's important, one, because there's a group of us we care about the dignity of the earth. we care about human dignity. we care about liberty. and we also know that you cannot

support those warmongers, those who are ready to kill in an instant, those who hold cabinet meetings and decide that they're going to assassinate people. those who are willing to thwart a president who by an executive order, by writing an executive order will condemned to death an individual, or those who will not stand in the way of the machine, the war machine when it decides that an entire country has to be destroyed. we have to know who's who in the zoo, and 99%, that 9090 -- 99% club, isn't good enough but it hasn't been good enough for the people of palestine. it hasn't been good enough for the people of libya. it has been good enough for the people of syria. it will be good enough for the people of ukraine. that 99% club is a club that at

the end of the day is at the cutting-edge of everything that we are against. and so, therefore, it's time for us to decide that we're going to win. it's time that we become the candidate who will say no to this awful agenda that dehumanizes offenses and represses. i hope that you receive my message and that you understand that we have to utilize the tools that are there before us, the writings of others, the floor statements like gus savage's laying out the facts. that we have to understand who is our friend and who is in opposition to us. and sometimes our friends come from places where we least expect it.

and those who are opposed to us come from places where we least expect it. we have to understand that we have to remain open. our senses attuned to something new to this new paradigm that has been thrust upon us, but if we want peace and not war, if we want dignity and not repression and oppression, if we want love and not division and hate, then we are going to have to adjust to this new political paradigm, and find friends in places that we didn't find them before. we are going to have to do things that we didn't think that we could do before. and were going to have to step outside of our level of comfort. so for our sake and for our children's sake, let's do what

we have to do to become winners. thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪ >> thank you from afar, cynthia mckinney. finally, i'd like to reduce delinda hanley who is the news editor and executive director of the washington report on middle east affairs and will give us a more complete picture of what congress has brought. >> thank you. so you've heard about the high cost of israel toward democratic political process. you'll be hearing much more about the cost americans are paid for the israel-u.s. relationship. i'm just going to focus on the dollars and good sense. americans are concerned about domestic issues, as our nation emerges from the 2008 financial

crisis. we are worried about unemployment, rising food, fuel, affordable housing and health care costs. we are also concerned about our aging infrastructure, crumbling roads, bridges, and detained schools, deteriorating water systems and electrical power grid. despite our economic domestic economic fears, americans are generous. many of us believe we should help the poor, not just here at home where we have nearly 50 million americans living in poverty. we also want to get food and medical assistance to help the hungry and vulnerable, especially children who have survived conflicts and crises in the developing world. most americans would be surprised to see how little foreign aid our country actually gives as a percentage of our gross domestic product when compared to other nations. foreign aid is only 1% of our federal budget, but in tough

economic times like those we are facing today, foreign aid is sometimes considered to be low-hanging fruit, easy to cut because it does not directly benefit americans. and we are cutting back on aid compared to previous decades. i challenge american taxpayers to look a lot more closely at who gets 3.1 billion of u.s. foreign aid dollars every year. do you know that more than 5% of our foreign aid is subsidizing one of the top 10 most powerful nations in the world? israel with a population of nearly 8 million people, about the same number of people who live in hong kong or new jersey, is the largest recipient of u.s. foreign aid. and that has been the case for more than a generation. 16 years ago my dad wrote an article called true lies about u.s. aid to israel for the

washington report. it could have been written today. most aid recipients, he said, are a developing nation, which even make their military bases available to the u.s. or have suffered some crippling blow to their abilities to feed their people, he said. israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it sees in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbor, does not fit those criteria. israel tries to give americans the impression that they are in grave danger. they face annihilation. the urgent appeals bring in significant charitable contributions, both from well-meaning, evangelical christians, and american jews. softhearted americans send u.s. tax deductible donations to 27,000 nonprofit organizations in order to help the needy, including jewish immigrants and

israeli soldiers. who knew we could get a tax writwrite-off by sending pizzasd sodas to an israeli soldier? birthright israel -- 37,000 young jewish people on three, 10 day trips to israel each year. wealthy americans donate 660 million a year for these trips, and the students are not permitted to travel to the west bank, gaza or east jerusalem. does israel really need our hand out? let's compare israel's economy to other countries. israel's 2013 per capita gross domestic product was 34,900. that put it below britain at 37300 come and france that 3700 just about the eu at 34,500. according to the national power index israel's army ranks sixth in the world.

israel has nuclear weapons unlike any of its neighbors. israel ranks fourth in technological capacity and is among the world's leaders in science. according passionate israel's unappointed rate is 6.2% while america's is 7%. and europe average unemployment is 12%. israel ranks 15 on the human development index, hosting the high quality of life for jews living in israel. israelis can expect to live until their 81.8, and americans life expectancy is 78.6. israel's state-funded health care is ranked fourth in the world, and the u.s. is in the bottom of bloomberg's list of 48 countries. as i mentioned, israel will receive more than 3.1 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one-fifth of america' americans entire fod

budget. u.s. secretary of defense chuck hagel recently promised that this aid would not be reduced even while the list of significant cuts to america's defense budget. in fact, in june 2013 the house armed services committee voted to give israel an extra half a billion dollars in military aid for missile -- president barack obama both the u.s. has never given so much military aid to israel as under his presidency. cheryl macarthur, the washington report congress watch expert tallies up u.s. aid to israel for our magazine. as a conservative defensible accounting of u.s. direct aid to israel, macarthur estimates -- macarthur's estimate does not include the cost resulting from the u.s. invasion and occupation of iraq. hundreds of billions of dollars which many believe to have been

undertaken for the benefit of israel. for the year 2014, israel has received $3.4 billion from the foreign aid budget, and 2 billion in federal loan guarantees. that's $9,315,068 per day. 365 days a year, if you add grants and loans, israel has received since 1949 a grand total of 134.21 billion, excluding the 10 billion in u.s. government loan guarantees it's drawn to date. and cheryl macarthur's calculations are modest. a respected economist, dr. thomas dawber, estimate israel calls the u.s. about 1.6 trillion between 1973-2003 alone. more than twice the cost of the

vietnam war. and that's not all. israel gets some unique benefits. washington has granted israel $19 billion in loan guarantees in recent years to make it easier to borrow overseas. israel gets its aid money at the start of each year, unlike other nations. this means israel can start earning interest on the money right away, and the u.s. government, which operates at a deficit, must borrow the money to pay israel and then pay interest on the amount all year long. israel can use 25% of u.s. aid to buy arms from israeli companies. congressional legislation requires us to maintain israel's qualitative military edge. that means anytime another country in the middle east buys u.s. arms, we have to make sure israel gets better weapons. we regularly transfer surplus military equipment to israel.

israel is now storing equipment worth more than $1.2 billion. well, america also gives 1.5 billion to egypt, 85 million people. actually most of that goes directly to egypt's military for meeting its obligations under the 1979 egypt israel peace treaty. jordans six and half-million people gets 660 million a year for keeping peace with their neighbor. add -- 82 israel is a subject that romex into mainstream media. walter pincus reports on intelligence defense and foreign policy for the "washington post" tackled this normally unmentionable subject the days after israel's cabinet cut nearly 2 million from israel's own defense budget on october 18, 2011, pincus pointed out if israel to reduce its defense spending because of

domestic economic problems, shouldn't the united states, which must count military calls because of its major military deficit consider reducing its aid to israel? i'd like to conclude by stating the obvious. the u.s. president and congress give aid to israel for domestic reasons. in order to please jewish and evangelical christian voters who are often more pro-israeli than israelis. it is mind-boggling that when it comes to israel, u.s. taxpayers has no preconditions. israel has a green light to use american tax revenue for military operations, which destroyed palestinian or lebanese roads, water tanks, sewage lines, electrical power plants and police stations, not to mention shops, homes, schools, orchards and lives. sometimes israel demolishes projects like parks,

playgrounds, ports and other vital infrastructure paid for by american taxpayers and donors. it's past time to halt u.s. aid until israel implies with u.n. resolutions, withdraws from the occupied territory and makes peace. according to surveys, a growing number of americans want israel -- israeli aid levels the same, reduced or canceled. with the prospect of prolonged fiscal austerity in the united states, overall american public support for foreign aid may diminish in the years ahead. economic conditions in the united states should affect future aid to israel. cutting off aid to israel is the logical and economical and ethical thing for americans to do. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you, delinda. that was very sobering. is there any questions? we can take them now. and including question for congressman finley come he is in the audience in a we can get a mark of an overturned if you'd like to ask him something. let's see, where -- do we have someone with a microphone here? okay. we will start with you. >> is this on? >> i am from virginia. i'm 72 years old, so i learned so many things in my life, especially living in the united

states for 40 plus years. when i was a little boy, i was -- just in a house. when the time to come to eat lunch, she made bread and rubbed a little bit of butter on top of bread for me and gave the bread to her son with no bread on top of it. i said, why? then i find out one day that she put big chunk of butter inside the pocket of the bread. this is how we are treating the world and israel. >> thank you very much. [inaudible] >> i guess we will alternate sides. >> why has it not been possible to designate a back as a foreign lobby -- aipac? >> the sec for example, has

classified it as a membership organization and we actually, the washington report and other distinguished people brought the suit against the federal election commission asking that a classified israel as a political action committee. and we did not win that suit. it was thrown out because the fcc changes rule and all of a sudden aipac did fit the criteria for membership committee. the foreign lobby coming to think of something grand why talk about, that's part of the justice department, right? the justice department has not enforced, they ar have just kinf let it slide. they have not insisted that aipac be a foreign lobby. and, in fact, i shouldn't talk about this because grant is really the expert, but when it started out it was a foreign lobby and they kept morphing into different forms and now they don't, people to represent aipac don't have to register as agents of a foreign government. so the rules that are there are not enforced.

and other rules make it possible for aipac and other lobby entities to just fly under the radar. >> my name is used as. i was born in palestine in 1935. i became a refugee in my 12th birthday in august 1947. i now live in michigan, and i'm 78 years old. i planted a candidate for the u.s. senate from michigan. [applause] thank you. thank you. i want to thank alison weir and all the group that has brought this to light. it is really phenomenal now that issue is being exposed for what it really is. i did hear congressman finley speak about the two state solution. i just want to tell you,

congressman come with all respect it is totally unacceptable for us. it is only 20% of the land and we will always be refugees. i think we should open up the borders and make palestine and israel one nation and all people live there. thank you. [applause] >> i would just like to say in response that mike, beside mark kirk, carl levin who is retiring as a senator from michigan this year and he's received -- good. he has received more pro-israel pac money than any other member of congress. and his career total is about three quarters of a million dollars. >> hi. my question is regarding what you had said about the number of pro-israeli pacs have been

tricky over the years, he said over 100 to now are currently about 30. i was wonder if there's a certain trend with regard to private individuals donating. because we saw that, sheldon appleton donating i think 10 million commit rom ron and then you i believe the democratic side donating all these millions. do you think this is kind of -- give any opinion on whether this is purposeful or is it just, they just happen to be seeing more private donations? >> i think the landscape has changed with the super pacs and the citizens united ruling. it's just making it possible for new categories of contributors to enter the arena. so i think that the law has changed and that has enabled these other large pacs to come into existence. in some way i think a lot of them don't have to report their donors. the small pacs to have to

report their donors so it's even less visibly, less transparent than these small pacs are required to be. >> i am from connecticut. i used to be the near east report which comes from aipac. and years ago i read in their that they ask each and every incoming congressman to sign a pledge of loyalty to israel. and i'd like to ask paul findley if he knows about that and i would like to ask anyone else if they could respond to that. does each and every congressman have to sign a pledge of loyalty to another country? >> there is no requirement, but many of them do. and those who don't are headed for trouble because the lobby for israel wants a pure support,

pure level of support in both houses of congress. they don't always get it. this past year we have seen two occasions when the lobby did not prevail. one had to do with obama's desire to fire a warning shot over syria, and the people back home made it very plain to their representatives that they did not want that to happen and it died. and there's another occasion in which israel did not get its way, and that had to do with the preliminary agreement on negotiations with iran. there, too, the lobby did not prevail. now, it may be there on the downward slide. i surely hope that's true, but maybe, maybe the american people

are being better informed about issues like iran and any of the other issues that come before congress. i know that a lot of members of congress are bought and paid for. you might as well face it. and they are not going to change. no resolutions that we past year will deter them. in fact, i think my book, dare to speak out, had to impacts. one of them is very desirable. the other not. one impact was to alert many people to the menace posed by the lobby to our country. but the other was a signal to the new members of congress if you don't want to have the faith

that came to paul findley and the two others, you better go a long with this. so it's a two edged sword. i'm deeply grateful for what the washington report does on america, on awakening the american people to the facts of life. they reach a big audience. i think about 25,000 readers of the magazine, but it's only beginning. one thing we all could do is to encourage other people to read that magazine. i have a number of friends in madisonville to look -- they consider it the best in the world. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> over here. the gentleman here in the second row. >> i would just like to ask you,

you suggested, both, that aid should be cut off -- [inaudible] but in that sense of valley, the fairness and justice, right and wrong, what do you think that arab world should do? [inaudible] >> thank you for your question, ambassador. >> perhaps we are not well understood. i think it has unique merit because it appeals to the israelis who are troubled about the future of a jewish majority

state. the democratic tide of error birthrates and the other generation is going to result in more people of arab ancestry than jewish people in the area that israel controls. now, how are they going to deal with that when the crisis comes? well, they abide by what the rabbi called for a book he wrote some years ago, arabs must go, they have to for their own survival as a jewish majority state. well, they have to drive arabs out of the territory they are now in. that's hardly a prospect that appeals to anyone, i don't believe. and that's why i am very pleased with the proposal that i made,

which guarantees that israel will continue to be a jewish majority state for a long time. because under my proposal, the entirety of palestine will be outside the perimeter of israel and not counted. the people, the arab people in east jerusalem will be outside. so i think it gives, increase life span of about three or four generations to a jewish majority state. but at the same time, it brings into being a state of palestine, and that i think is highly to the advantage of every party in

the middle east, and every party worldwide your so i hope you will give serious thought to the choices, because we are headed for a dismal period in the middle east the way things are going. when tha that arab majority occ, there will be constant pressure to change the name of the state to the whole thing palestine. that will cause a terrible backlash by the jewish people and palestine. it's far better to make a compromise that brings about an independent palestine right now, and also brings about the assurance of the jewish majority israel for some time to come. >> i'd like to add one more

thing to the arab league of ambassadors question, what arab country should do but i think they are already doing a lot, they're starting to buy weapons from other nations. they are starting to really look to china and other countries too, you know, to buy things, they can use the economic power and they are already. i think americans, we've been, you've been friends with us for a long time, and maybe it's time to show us some tough love. and i'm going to be a little bit of a hawk and ask paul findley a question. want to congresspeople say in the locker room about being beholden all the time to israel when -- what do they talk among themselves? >> well, a few of them will say, paul, i agree with you, i admire what you're doing but i can't do it. you understand? that's their attitude.

i think most of them are good citizens, or want to be, and the influence of israel as up to date is so great on capitol hill that they see dangerous of not surviving the next election if they challenge what israel is doing. and it may be a disappointment to you do here, but most people in the congress like to get reelected. that's number one. [laughter] >> we can take a couple more questions. >> if i wanted to add really can with the arab american is doing, he is in the united states. can you answer me? >> i'm sorry? >> what arab americans doing in united states? we're talking about in the region, but what about us

?-que?-que x what are we doing? >> you mean why don't you have pacs? >> exactly spent i think arab americans are from many different countries, and they are trying to make a living in a very potentially hostile environment. it was definitely change after 9/11. i think the people were very fearful of speaking out, you know, and so it's just, they are newer to this country. they are not coalesced around a single issue, and the jewish lobby has been in development as alison weir and others will explain later, for 100 years, you know. so it's an uphill battle but i think you have to just start participating and just keep at it, you know, and hope that as it's happening other americans are getting more informed about what their money is doing and what their government is doing. i don't think it's only up to arab americans by any means at all.

[inaudible] >> okay, i guess that's it. thank you very much. [applause] >> we will have more on israel-u.s. relations in just a moment. first, a look at a survey on the affordable care act. there are about three weeks left for people to sign-up for insurance under the new health care law, and the new survey hs found that the rate of uninsured keeps going down. there's a poll conducted by gallup, a welding index, 16% of u.s. adults are uninsured so far in 2014. that is down from 17% in the last three months of 2013. we will take a look at the senate coming in later than usual. 4:00 eastern time they will begin with a general speeches, it didn't take up an appeals court nomination for the 10th circuit. a vote on that schedule for 5:30 p.m. and a second vote to move forward on claire mccaskill's bill on military sexual assault.

after that the democratic senators on the climate task force will begin speeches that are expected to last throughout the evening and into the early hours of the morning. they will be talking a climate change and you can watch all live here on c-span2. on our companion network c-span, live at 2:30 p.m. we will have senator bob casey talking about elections in afghanistan and the u.s. role in afghanistan and beyond this year after the scheduled troop drawdown. he is a picture of a foreign relations subcommittee that monitors the region. he will be speak at the center for american progress and we will bring his remarks. >> when they built the new 22 story capital in the 1970s, which is tear down the historic capital but a fight ensued basically between politicians and the people of florida, and there was a say the old capital campaign. when the call came out that the

architect had planned to demolish the historic sector, but a citizen campaign to save the old capital had prevailed and the two buildings were going to coexist in one capitol complex. how exactly the old capital would be restored was then the debate but it was a whether we save it or not, it was what time period do we restore it to? in 1902 version offered great benefits because all three branches of government were in this one building, and the goal of the department of state was to turn it into a museum and just as a teaching tool. so being able to come to this one site and see the supreme court, the governor's office and the house and senate chambers, and understand the three branches of government and how they work together really was a benefit. >> this weekend booktv and american history tv take a look at the history and literary life of florida state capital, tallahassee.

saturday at noon eastern on c-span2 and sunday at two on c-span3. >> more now from the institute for research for middle eastern policy. they held a summit on friday critical of the u.s.-israel relationship. this next panel talks about the history of the relationship between israel and palestine. they talked for about an hour and 25 minutes. >> thank you very much. we will resume the second session of the national summit to reassess the u.s.-israel special relationship. thank you all for still being here, and with this first, next panel, we will be addressing specifically how the special relationship with israel came about. i'm honored to introduce the first speaker, doctor stephen walt, professor of international affairs at harvard university,

and the author of the israel lobby. thank you. [applause] >> it's a pleasure to be here today, and i want to thank all of you for coming to this important and timely gathering. i'm going to talk primarily about how things have changed since 2006. in 2006, almost eight years ago we published an article in the london review of books entitled the israel lobby. by that summer it had been downloaded about 300,000 times and generate a firestorm of criticism, including some intense personal attacks on john and myself. although most of the criticisms were without foundation and the personal smears were predictable, i made some of the tide had begun to turn a bit. the journal of foreign policy organized this symposium on the article, and by fall we had a book contract.

[laughter] we wrote the article and we wrote a subsequent book because the israel lobby was a taboo subject that many people knew about but hardly anybody talked about openly. we wanted to challenge that taboo and open up a broader discussion. again which big opportunity today to look back and reflect on what's changed since 2006. to do that first am going to summarize briefly what we said in the book and also what we didn't say. second, i want to consider what's changed since 2006 but also what hasn't changed. unless i want to offer some recommendations based on our experience at this point what course of action would i prescribe going forward. so what we said, our core argument were actually very straightforward and not especially surprising. first, we argued that was a special relationship between the united states and israel that was unlike any other bilateral relationship in american

history. we gave it enormous economic military and diplomatic support, and did so almost unconditionally. moreover, israel was largely immune from criticism by american politicians. in fact, american politicians routinely expressed a level of devotion they would never utter towards any other foreign country. second can we argue couldn't explain this on either strategic or moral grounds. israel might of been a strategic asset during the cold war, but the cold war, but the cold war was over. and is increasingly a liability. the moral case was undermined by israel's treatment of the palestinians, and especially by the occupation. yet the special relationship kept getting deeper and deeper. and the question was why. third, the answer was the political influence of the lobby. we defined the lobby as a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively worked to promote that special relationship, and those groups

didn't agree on every issue, but all of them worked to convince american politicians to support israel no matter what. we emphasize that these activities were in most respects no different than other interest groups like the nra, the financial industry, the farm lobby, other ethnic lobbies. they just happen to be particularly good at it. we showed in considerable detail how groups in the lobby works within the political system to get sympathetic people elected or appointed to key positions, to keep those who might have different views out of power and to pressure politicians to embrace their policy preferences. we also documented how individuals and groups in the lobby try to control discourse on the subject by writing books and articles themselves, by funding think tanks like the washington institute for near east policy, by putting pressure on other media organizations whenever they published or broadcast things that were critical of israel, or critical of the lobby.

some members of the lobby also tried to smear opponents usually by accusing them of being anti-semitic even when this was completely false. fifth, we argued that the special relationship and the other policies pushed by the lobby were not in the american national interest, or for that matter, in israel's interest either. the lobby's influence made it impossible for the united states to be an honest broker which is what american efforts to solve the israeli-palestinian conflict has failed, and the settlement has grown steadily for more than 40 years. the lobby and especially the neoconservatives within it like a key role in convincing the bush administration to invade iraq in 2003. the lobby also worked to support any possible détente with iran, a policy by the way that have failed to halt iran's nuclear program and to increase the risk of war. so we argued of the united states should have a normal relationship with israel, not a

special relationship. we said the united states should come to israel's aid if its survival were at risk but we should also use american leverage to get a two-state solution. and, in fact, in the conclusion we even suggested that a powerful pro-israel lobby would be a good thing if it was supporting smarter policies that were in america's and israel's interest. we weren't saying anything that other riders have not said before. people such as paul findlay, george ball, michaelmas it. what we wrote was also common knowledge inside the beltway. bill clinton had said that aipac was quoted better than anyone else lobbying in this town. politicians as diverse as lee hamilton, fritz hollings and barry goldwater, newt gingrich and richard gephardt had written or spoken about aipac's power in the past. even passionate defenders of israel like jeffrey goldberg and alan dershowitz had written a

proudly about the lobbies clout. yet, we provoked an extreme reaction partly because we provided more detail about the lobby's influence. partly because we were both rather middle of the road boring figures from well-known universities. partly because we weren't left wing. we weren't muslim. we weren't arab. we weren't married to palestinians. and partly because it was obvious in the wake of 9/11 and the iraq war that something had gone badly awry in u.s. middle east policy. now, let me turn to what we didn't say. the rather hysterical reaction to our report confirm one of our main reports but it was difficult to have a calm reason fact-based discussion on this topic. because most of our critics could not find fault with our logic or fault with her evidence, they accused us of saying many things we hadn't said. and in most cases things that were the exact opposite of what

we had actually written. i'm not going to bore you with all the false accusations, but just for the record here is what we didn't say. we didn't say that the israel lobby was a cabal or a conspiracy part of some deep plot to control the world. in fact, we said over and over it was nothing of the sort but it was an interest group like so many others. we did not question is used legitimacy or right to exist. on the contrary we explicitly defended it here third, we didn't blame israel for all the problems that troubled the middle east and we didn't say that a normal relationship with israel and the two-state solution would immediately solve all of them. we said it would help, but it wasn't a magic bullet or anything like that. we did not say the lobby control every aspect of u.s. middle east policy, or argue that it was the only reason the united states invade iraq or hazard that relationship with iran. we didn't accused members of the lobby of disloyalty and we

neither argued nor hinted that something should be done to limit the lobbies political power or marginalized its supporters. finally, we did not connect israel or the lobby to the 9/11 attacks themselves. we didn't see any of these things because we didn't think they were true. and that's important. we were accused of saying all those things, of course and people in the lobby made repeated and sometimes successful efforts to silence us. virtually every place we were invited to speak told us they had been pressured to cancel our appearances him and a number of places, chicago council on global affairs, google headquarters, the city university of new york, to come -- succumbed to this pressure. but the campaign to silence us fail. the book sold well but it's been translated into over 20 languages and john and i have remained active participants in the debate on this and other

foreign policy issues. the real question is, what impact did any of this have, what changed and what hasn't? i think the most dramatic and obvious change since 2006 has been opening up a discourse on this general topic. discussions are middle east policy and u.s.-israeli relations are more open, a wider range of views is now being expressed. let me give you some of the evidence behind this claim. media figures such as tom friedman, nick kristof, roger cohen and andrew sullivan now write openly and at times very critically about israeli policy, about america's support for the policy, and the lobby's role in promoting it. even jeff goldberg has written a couple of pieces that sound a bit like us, although i doubt he would admit it. articles about american middle east policy more generally increasingly mention aipac's influence. it's just no longer a big secret or stuck in the background.

jon stewart, if you watch comedy central at all, jon stewart has done a number of segments making fun of aipac as well. books, transforming america's israel lobby, recent genesis have followed her footsteps document the role the lobby plays in driving u.s. policy. other people like m.j. rosenberg have emerged as articulate and knowledgeable critics, writers like max blumenthal which published critical accounts of antidemocratic trends in israel itself. websites like mondo weiss, muzzle watch from electronic and others now provide alternative perspective. and groups like j street, jewish was for peace, americans for peace now, and many others, have become more visible and effective in presenting an alternative view to the traditional lobby organization. now note, these groups are not homogeneous. they don't all agree on every

single issue. my point is so good that there is a much wider range of views out there now, and they are getting noticed. this development is of course not entirely our doing because a number of events in the real world have made the lobby's power hard to miss. the complete failure of barack obama's push for a two state solution and a settlement in his first term. the craven an american response to operation cast led including the american trashing of the goldstone report. the spectacle of the 2012 election when the gop candidates look like fools trying to out pander each other in the gop primary season, and where chauvinism and spent $109 trying to buy the election first for newt gingrich and then for mitt romney. because of discourse was more open and people were now aware of the role of the lobby, more people notice these things and to put two and two together.

a second element, the accusation of anti-semitism is losing its power to intimidate. let me be clear about this. like all forms of bigotry, anti-semitism is a despicable practice. every one of us should condemn it whenever it appears to at the same time, using false charges of anti-semitism to stifle debate and destroy people's reputation is an ugly tactic that has no place in a democracy and people use it in that way should also be called to account. [applause] fortunately, this tactic, this tactic has been so overused and used against so many people who are obviously not anti-semites, but it's no longer able to stifle reasonable discussion. that's going to make it easier to have an honest conversation going forward. the third change is that some of the policies the lobby has promoted are increasingly hard to defend. instead of a week israeli david

surrounded by hostile arab goliath, we have a powerful nuclear armed israel maintaining a brutal occupation for more than four decades using its military power to dominate a palestinian population denied political rights. fourth, aipac and other groups in the lobby have lost several important fights in recent years. they could not convince the bush administration to use force against iran for support an israeli attack on iran. they could not derail the nomination of chuck hagel to be secretary of defense, although some hardline groups tried to do so, and especially ugly ways but earlier this year that could not convince obama to bomb syria. and more recently, aipac cannot get the senate to pass a resolution threatening greater economic sanctions on iran because it was widely recognized this would immediately derail any possibility of a diplomatic deal.

these episodes remind us that the lobby does not control u.s. middle east policy, does not get every single thing it wants, especially when what it wants might push the united states closer to war. that's a lot for any lobby to ask for, and it takes very special circumstances to pull something like that off. those events i think also tell us that aipac and company are not invincible. now, those setbacks have led a number of observers to conclude that aipac is in deep trouble, the lobby's influence has been broken. let me see what i think that is premature because there are a number of things that haven't changed. first of all, especially relationship is still intact. we still give generous economic and military assistance, even though israel is a wealthy country, and has clear military superiority over its neighbors. we give this aid unconditionally. there's no hint we might reduce

our assistance to get israel to stop building settlements were to allow creation of a viable palestinian state. second, that is of course what the peace process continues to go nowhere. remember, obama came into office promising a two-state solution in his first term, and called for a settlement freeze in his famous cairo speech in june 2009. he has been in steadfast retreat ever since. he basically gave up on this in the first term and handed the problem over to john kerry. and there's little evidence that john kerry's efforts are going to succeed. the settlements have been expanding all the while. noticed by the way that a two state solution may well be impossible at this point, but politicians in addition of columbia continue to pretend that it is the only american goal. ..

>> at the aipac policy conference. and even today there's really no other lobbying group that gets this kind of deferents and attention -- deference and attention here in washington. fourth, although discourse is more open now, it is still, i think, extremely risky for young, ambitious foreign policy wannabes to question key elements of u.s. middle east policy and especially the special relationship. you can if you have tenure at a