because as you know, the march on washington was a march for jobs, and it was a march for justice. it was a march on washington for jobs and freedom. it was march for civil rights, and it was a march for labor rights. there were posters there. the "i am a man" campaign. i've kind of taken a little liberty to say "i am a person" campaign. because, you know, they were looking to increase the minimum wage, and they were looking to make sure that the right to vote existed. they were marching for civil rights, and they were marching for labor rights. they were marching to insure that racial justice existed in this country, and they were marching to insure that economic justice was insured in this country. and there were so many titans who were involved in that whether it's a. philip randolph, cesar chavez, so many other people who were so heavily involved. and as president obama said last year to mark that 50th

anniversary on the steps of the lincoln memorial, i'd been in this job for about a month, and i remember those days. and he said: for the men and women who gathered 50 years ago whether not in search of some abstract ideal. they were there seeking jobs as well as justice, not just the absence of oppression, but the presence of economic opportunity. and the passage of the civil rights act less than a year later was truly historic triumph. and as somebody who has had the privilege of enforcing that law, i took it as a solemn obligation because i am acutely aware of the number of people who made the ultimate sacrifice to insure passage of that law. and so, you know, it's really time today to make sure that we note our progress but also discuss the unfinished business. and, indeed, you know, tremendous progress has been

made. and i think some of the best examples are kamala harris as one of our speakers. another example, senator padilla himself. it's a remarkable nation that allows the son of people living here in l.a. to go to mit and to have the sky be the limit. that's what the civil rights act was about. you look at the president of the united states, and, you know, one of the most remarkable days of my life and i suspect your life was election day 2008. where this nation made history. and i'm confident it won't be the last time we make history, because the civil rights struggle is a marathon relay. the baton is in our courts today. we have made, indeed, remarkable progress, but we have more work to do. and that unfinished business of america is the unfinished business that you do day in and day out. i had the good fortune of serving as a local elected

official, as a state cabinet secretary and now in two different positions in the federal government, at the justice department and now the department of labor. i have so much respect for the work that all of you who are in local government do and all of you who are working in state government do. because the rubber hits the road in local government. i saw that firsthand. there's so much you can do to further the goals of the civil rights act of 1964 and all of the other civil rights laws and economic justice laws that were passed to insure access to opportunity. and you are, indeed, doing it. because we're having a few challenges in washington moving the legislative needle. but across this country you have been incubators of innovation, pioneers of fairness and opportunity, and you continue to do that. and so i take my hat off to you because you're doing so much, and you have so many tools.

i hope you will continue to use them. because you know what? we do have a lot of unfinished business. we have made so much progress in areas of education. you know, one statistic that people don't know is that the latino dropout rate over the last ten years has declined 50%. that's a remarkable statistic that we can all point to. [applause] as a matter of ride. and that is because there has been a concerted effort. we're all in this together. local governments, local leaders, local businesses recognizing that this is an economic imperative, it's a moral imperative, the it's a civil rights imper tef. and you have --ic pertive. and unfortunately been working hard, and we continue to work. and that is a ten-year effort under republican and democratic administrations. this is not a partisan issue, reducing dropout rates, increasing graduation rates, increasing access to skills so that people can punch their

ticket to the middle class. and so we need to continue that progress because we also know that that is a wonderful statistic, but there are other statistics that respect so good. when -- that aren't so good. when i was in the civil rights division, i traveled the country. and i saw all too frequently that there were too many school districts that remain, so many years after brown, separate and up equal. i saw the school-to-prison pipeline result for black and brown kids all too frequently. access to opportunity being denied and being denied really remarkably perversely. i did an event once in meridian, mississippi, with about ten kids who were sitting up on a dais just like me, and you were sitting right down there, and i could see under the table their footwear. and what they all had in common was that they had an ankle brace let on.

these were kids 13 and 14 who were already in the system is. and i asked them, what did you do? one person had the wrong color tie, one person had the wrong color socks, one person spoke out. one person was guilty of flatulence. i'm not kidding, i'm not making this stuff up. that is not who we are as a nation. we need to be smarter than that. and that is why so many people see access to opportunity remaining elusive. access to equal housing opportunity for all too many people remains elusive. the close i have power of fine -- corrosive power of fine print all too frequently during the housing bubble transferred and transformed the american dream of home ownership into the american nightmare. and my last year at the department of justice, we ended up recovering on behalf of victims of lending discrimination, primarily latinos and african-americans, more money than in the previous

25 years combined. [applause] because we saw this problem across the nation, and we worked for people. and i will tell you here is a sad reality, and it's a reality we must acknowledge. much of the challenge were latinos abusing latinos and african-americans abusing african-americans. [speaking spanish] would be the sign at the storefront, and people would be brought in, and they would be lured to trust, and then that trust would be abused. and that was part of the story of the meltdown and the lending discrimination that we had to look at. we're turning a corner, but all too many people lost their wealth. we see so many challenges persistent in our world of policing. i spent way too much time in my last job in maricopa county. that was not smart policing that i observed out there in maricopa

county. [applause] you know, there's often that false choice. we either keep our communities safe or we safe guard the constitution. i categorically reject that false choice. we can safe and constitutional policing and, in fact, they go hand in hand. the consent decree we just did up the road in los angeles was proof of that. you can reduce crime and do safe policing at the same time and promote public confidence in law enforcement. we continue to have these challenges across america. part of the unfinished business. we continue to have challenges in the voting context. next year is the 50th anniversary of bloody sunday and the 50th anniversary of the civil rights act of 1965 -- of the voting rights act of 1965. and what we continue to see here today are all too many ill-advised efforts to restrict

as opposed to expand the right to voting. you know, i was amused, i thought one of the most remarkable comments and quotes on some of the efforts at these voter id laws was from colin powell. general powell in connection with the north carolina effort asked the following question: how can this phenomenon of voter fraud be so widespread and at the same time so undetected? and when we did our case in texas, the record demonstrated over a ten-year period i needed one hand to count the documented issues -- incidents of alleged voter fraud. and when i went to that one hand, actually it ended up being at most one thumb that i needed to document the so-called voter fraud for which this was the solution. voting is our most say sacred right -- sacred right, and we

should be working to expand the rights of eligible voters to vote, and you've been working on that. that's never been a partisan issue, and it shouldn't be a partisan issue. and that's why people like colin powell and john lewis speak up about these issues. and so we continue to move to make progress be, but we have a lot of unfinished business. we have a lot of unfinished business in the area of economic justice as well. and it starts with the minimum wage. nobody who works a full-time job in this country should have to live in poverty. [applause] and what we see all too frequently are people working hard and falling further behind, people who have to make choices between do i pay the mortgage, do i pay the rent or do i pay for my be daughter's medicine? those are choices that we should never have to make here in america. i applaud the san diego city council. i applaud other local councils who are tackling this issue.

thirteen states in the last year have raised the minimum wage. business owners across this country tell me, tom, this is a consumption-deprived economy -- recovery. i need more customers. and the way to get more customers is to put more money in their pockets. that's why we these to raise the minimum wage. and if we want to expand opportunity for everyone, we need to get back to immigration reform as alex correctly pointed out. i haven't given up, this president will never give up because this is an economic imperative, a moral imperative, a public safety imperative, and we're continuing to move forward on this because so many people depend on this. i talk to folks in the silicon valley, and they tell me the most important issue for us in washington is immigration reform. the second most important issue is immigration reform. i talk to people in religious communities who tell me the most important issue for us is immigration reform. it's always been, like the

minimum wage, a bipartisan issue. and so we these to continue our work -- we need to continue our work in these efforts because there is so much unfinished business. you've, -- you know, i couldn't help but note a story i read from leader boehner saying he was going to sue the president for, in his terms, the unlawful cers of executive authority. well, the president wouldn't exercise executive authority if congress would just vote and pass some damn laws, you know? [applause] that's what needs to happen here. and i will tell you on immigration reform, on the minimum wage, on extending unemployment compensation for long-term unemployed, on infrastructure every single one of these issues until now has been a bipartisan issue. it was dwight eisenhower who built the interstate highway system. you know, we can't eat cake and lose weight. [laughter] if we're going to repair our roads and bridges, the monies -- i know we want to eat cake and

lose weight. i'm all for that. [laughter] and whoever invents that, and if it's going to be invented, it's be invented in california. [laughter] but we need this, you know? they're expanding the panama canal. there are tons here in -- opportunities here in this country, and we need to be ready for them. and so i hope that we can rekindle that spirit of collaboration and cooperation, and that really brings me to what my final point is which is that your role in building an opportunity society is so critically important because, you know, change doesn't initiate in washington, change comes to washington. i think about so many of the important issues of our day, and i see how they started in states and then came to the federal government. the affordable care act was a product of learning from the massachusetts experience and look where we are now as a nation. so many more people, including

but not limited to la latinos. finally for the first time in their lives have access to health security. and that was the reality of experimentation at a state level, and we're seeing the fruits of the affordable care act. and by the way, we see opponents talking less and less about the affordable care act because it's more and more successful, and i applaud governor brown. and i would note the conversations i've had with chamber of commerce people in texas and florida who can't understand why they have not expanded medicaid, because you're leaving billions of dollars on the table not to mention the fact that those are the uninsured capitals of the united states. but that is where you are leading. you're leading on the minimum wage. thirteen states in the last year have enacted increases in the minimum wage. mayors and other county executives doing the same. you look at the issue of paid leave and workplace flexibility,

and you see leadership at state and local levels across this country. you look at leadership in the civil rights context, and i implore you to continue at a state and local level to enact these laws because what we need is what i call redundancy in law enforcement. if we're going to protect people against discrimination, we need federal laws, we need state laws, and we need local raws. because laws are only as good as the political will of the people enforcing them. and at any one given time the will to enforce may not be there at one level. and that is why you need to continue those efforts to put in place those protections at a state and a local level, because you really are those drum majors for justice. i firmly believe and i leave you with this, that the moral arc of our nation and our universe bends toward those who seek to

expand opportunity, not those who seek to restrict opportunity. those who have sought to expand access to health care in the 1960s, they were right when we passed medicare, and there was a cacophony of people who said medicare would lead to socialized medicine. those who opposed the civil rights act were on the wrong side of history. those who opposed the voting rights act and expanding opportunity were on the wrong side of history. those who oppose, i believe, the affordable care act will be proven to be on the wrong side of history. those who are expanding voting rights, are expanding opportunity, you are on the right side of history. there's that where were you, mama, and where were you, daddy, moments that i think about a lot when we're debating these issues. i want to be able to look my son b and grandson and granddaughter and all my nieces and nephews in the eye when we're talking about

these most challenging issues of our time, and i want to be able to say that i was on the side of delores huerta. i was on the side of cesar chavez. [applause] i was on the side of john lewis. i was on the side of the chinese railroad workers. i was on the side of wage fairness, i was on the side of expanding opportunity. that's who we are as a nation. and in your positions, that's what you're doing day in and day out. keep up the great work, keep the pressure on washington. we can move this nation forward. i come to you with an unrelenting seasons of optimism because -- sense of optimism because, you know what? we've tack the led more serious challenges in our nation's history, and we defeated them, we moved this nation forward. we're going to do it again now because there's a lot of human capital talent in this room and across this country, and with your leadership, we will, indeed, continue to build a more perfect union for everyone. thank you so much for having me. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> former bush administration attorney general alberto gonzalez says the republican party stands on immigration could lead to losses in upcoming electionings. he was on a panel at the annual election of naleo that included labor leader delores huerta and naacp officials. this is 40 minute. >> no, one over. senator padilla, thank you so much for that introduction. it's been a pleasure for me to be here with naleo to meet so many people. you know, i had an experience today. alex mentioned, i used to work

for npr. when i worked in radio, people would come up to me and say, juan, it's nice to be able to finally put a face with the voice. i would say i didn't know what you looked like either, so it's a surprise to me. [laughter] but then today i had this incredible experience where a woman came up to me and she said, wow, it's great finally i'm able to put a body with the face. [laughter] i never had that said before. [laughter] i could only think i hope she liked the body, you know what i mean? [laughter] so anyway, first, before i introduce our esteemed guests, let me just say thank you so much to wells fargo for their sponsorship of this annual meeting as well as this session. i also want to thank all of you following the live stream of our session at www.naleo.org can.

and i have one more thank you, thank you to everyone who is using the conference hashtag naleoconf. it is trending, and so thank you. people are using it. now be, the main event of this 31st annual conference, our plenary, 50 years after the civil rights act. with us, delores huerta, former attorney general alberto gonzalez -- [applause] and naacp san diego president lashyla wilson. please, welcome all of them. the way we're going to do this is i'm going to have a brief conversation with each of them for one or two minutes, and then we're going to have the conversation among the entire group, and hopefully we will reflect all of your interests and questions. now, so much has been said about

ms. huerta, it's hard to to have to introduce her, but let me be try and simply say she created the agricultural workers' association in 1960, she co-founded the united farm workers union, and now she works through her own foundation. let me tell you, she is an icon not only in the latino community, but in america. she is american history. [applause] so my first question goes to delores huerta. fifty years later what's the most significant outcome of the civil rights movement? >> well, i think i would say today we have a lot of latinos and african-americans organizations, we have engineers, we have attorneys, much more so than when i went to college and there were maybe six of us on the whole campus. and, of course, with women also, we have large numbers of women

that are now doctors, attorneys, engineers, etc. so we know that we've come a long way. we have, of course, more representation, african-american and latino be representation in our legislatures. but at the same time, we know that we still have a long way to go even though civil rights movement was about getting the right to vote, in today's world we see that voter suppression -- and one of the areas that we don't talk a lot about voter suppression is the whole area of redistricting. we have still even in the state of california we have many, many of our cities here where you have to have general elections, general districts and not districts where people can elect someone that looks like them. and right now there's a bill in the state legislature by roger hernandez to try to say it's got to be a law in the state of california that elections have got to be by districts so that people of color then can get somebody that looks like them, you know, to be able to sit on

those councils, those school boards, districts, etc. so while we've gained a lot, we know that through voter suppression and through some of these other tactics, another one is not allowing felons to vote. i'm actually on the national voting rights commission, and we had hearings throughout the united states, and in the state of washington, for instance, if you've been in prison, they make you pay restitution. you cannot vote until you pay all of the money that you owe. so that means people, it's about 300,000 people, we heard that testimony in kings county alone in washington state cannot vote because of that. so we have all of these other little ways that they are trying to keep people from voting. >> now, when you look back to this period -- and i don't mean to give away your age. >> i don't want mind. i'm 84. >> i'm teasing you. [applause] i tell you, when i'm 84, i hope to look as good as you,

sweetheart, you know? [laughter] so it is such a pleasure to be with you every time, but i just wanted to say when you look back 50 years to your life, 1960s, and that moment, the pass act of a civil -- passage of a civil rights act, a voting rights act, did you have any idea that it would have real impact on america, that it was going to really change? that one day you would have latinos as the second largest minority in the country? >> well, i know that from my own experience and being involved and getting people to vote, whatever, that it was going to be able to make a difference in who we elected to represent us, and, of course, if we don't like the laws, then we have to elect people to office that will change the laws. so i did foresee that kind of an impact. i was involved like ten years before the civil rights act was actually signed. but at the same time, i remember the kind of harassment that i as a young latina suffered at at the hands of police and teachers

sometimes, etc. and i see my great grandchildren, you know, suffering those same types of discrimination so to speak. so i think on the political level, yes, we have made a lot of headway, but still on a personal level i think we still -- and we know that racism is still alive and well in our united states of america even though we do have an african-american president, people use that as an excuse. no, it's there. and we can see that in play among the politics that is happening right now including the refusal of the republican congress to take up the immigration reform act. >> thank you so much. [applause] now let me introduce our second guest, former attorney general alberto gonzalez, the 80th attorney general of the united states from 2005-2007. he was the former general counsel to texas governor bush, former texas secretary of state, a member of the texas supreme court and now a law professor at

belmont university in tennessee. he's also, in keeping with what we're going to be doing here at the convention in the next few days, he's also, you should know, an air force veteran. please join me in welcoming attorney general gonzalez. [applause] judge, 50 years ago the government in this country enforced laws of segregation. today in your mind, what is the government's role -- specifically the department of justice's role -- in protecting civil rights? >> well, i, first of all, let me just say that my story is the american story. your story is the american story. and that story has been written on the backs of individuals like this woman sitting to my right. it's also been written based upon the work, the laws like the civil rights act, and i think the department of justice has a very important role in enforcing laws like the civil rights act. but let's be clear, from my

perspective as a former attorney general, laws cannot change the hears of man, men and women. the hearts of men and women. and i don't know whether or not education, communication will someday eradicate the fear that motivates the prejudice that exists in this country. maybe so. i hope so. i think we all work toward that. but until that day comes, we do need laws like the civil rights act. and i'm very proud of the work of the department of justice, civil rights division, acknowledge them and want to give credit to secretary perez for his work there. but we've got some serious challenges even within the department of justice, to be quite honest are you. just last year there was a very tough report issued by the inspector general, very critical of the civil rights division under both president obama and under president bush. too much partisanship, too much division within the civil rights division which is charged with keeping a level playing field here in america.

and if they can't even do that within their division, how can they hope to be effective nationwide? so it's something that i think we need to keep our eyes on. but clearly, i think the civil rights act is one of the most important pieces of legislation passed by congress. it exists today because we need it still today. >> now, when you look at all of the arguments that are going on in the states, ms. huerta referred to this, about voter disenfranchisement and efforts to limit voter turnout, does it concern you as a matter of law, or do you think that's just politics? >> when i was secretary of state, i traveled the state trying to get texans, more texans to vote. we have a serious problem in this country simply getting people the vote, and that's particularly true in the hispanic community. we're not going to enjoy any power or influence unless we come out and vote on election day. and i, for one, support two goals. one is that we encourage as many, many eligible voters to vote and, two, we protect the

sanctity of the vote. i think they are not mutually exclusive. i think we can have both, quite frankly. i don't have a problem, and i am on record supporting voter id laws so long as the laws passed by the states are not passed with the intention be of discriminating against minorities and the elderly and the poor and that the states provide a mechanism so that people that are poor, that they don't have the money, that they do have access to some kind of id that does allow them to vote. even secretary perez talked about the fact of expanding right to vote for eligible voters. how do we know whether or not they're eligible? that's the key. they have to be eligible voters. >> okay. and our third guest this afternoon is lashyla wilson. she is the president of the san diego branch of the naacp. she's serving this for her sixth year. ms. wilson was a san diego public defender for more than 24 years so, please, join me in

welcoming ms. wilson. [applause] >> ms. wilson, when you think about the commemoration, 50 years, what extent do you think the united states has changed with regard the race relations, to what extent do you think the country has stayed the same? is. >> well, i would have to mirror what ms. huerta said. we have made some progress when you look at jobs, when you look at employment, you know, segregation. things have gotten a little better, but i still think a lot of things have remained the same. so you look on the outside, it looks like we've made a lot of progress. and i hesitate to always use that word we have much work to do. we've been talking about doing a lot of work for the that's three or four hundred years, and my people are tired of always having to do work. no matter what we've done in this country, my people and other people of country, we're always struggling. so i'm not sure why we're always

struggling, and the best way i can explain it is i try to tell people that being black in america is like watching bad movie. it's the same movie playing over and over again, and the only difference is the characters or the scenery. but it seems like -- i guess it swings back and forth. but we keep struggling, and i wish that would change. ..

after the buddy rice act you would think that we wouldn't be in this place but you were saying we keep coming back to this point. that's not to suggest we haven't made progress, but it does suggest that again that there's some stubborn issues about race in american society. when we think about in the 50 or context that the argument has changed with demographics. because you now have so many more latinos in america. you have more blacks, more asians so that you about a third of the population as people of color. how has that impacted the change in the last 50 years?

>> i don't know if it's impacted change. the problem is the more people of color you have, those who are in power, they are in fear. that's the reason that i think we're having these problems is demographics are going to change and there is the. as a result of that that's what you these type of laws. billy reason why you want to keep out, to keep people not educated and not able to vote is you want to keep them out of power. but eventually the numbers are going to change, and it's going to be a whole different ball can. i'm not sure i will see it within my lifetime to withi wity lifetime to think i did expect to see a black president. >> so there's still hope. >> now i just want to encourage all of my panelists to join in the conversation, interrupt each other, argue with each other it already we have seen some difference of perspective with regard to what is going on with voter id laws.

as we know it into session, for all of you as elected officials, there's a tremendous emphasis on increasing voter turnout this year, 2014 in the midterm election. people are looking for that kind of increase. in fact, today, naleo has announced that they project that is going to be an increase from 2010, the last time wit midterms it was 6.9% of latino vote, this year 2014, the expectation is 7.8% of the latino vote in the midterm election. so when i look at that, mr. attorney general, i say there's more vote coming, but what if those people are unable to vote? >> let me be clear about this point. i want all of our people to come out and vote on election day, and if republicans are working then they need to change the

message. if they can't get the hispanic vote than republicans need to re-message. but i want all eligible hispanics to come out and vote on election day. >> this is a bipartisan organization. the question would be, is it the case, to you as a republican, that you think maybe ms. wilson is right there are people who fear sharing power. power. >> there's a question about that. that some of the resistance, perhaps a lot of resistance within our party with respect to immigration reform. people are fearful of the way our country is changing. the even more fearful of the fact it's changing with any kind of thought or revelation or guidance from our leaders. that's been the source of some of the problem we have with respect to not making progress in immigration reform. i think fear, it's understandable quite frankly. there needs to be better communication, better understanding amongst our groups in order to make progress in this area.

>> ms. wilson? >> what i'm curious about is yesterday in congress they had a vote on the voting rights act, which was guided last year, part of this by our u.s. supreme court, which is also, conservatives guided it. but why is it when they took the vote, not one republican voted to allow the hearing go forward or for there to be a vote on it? all of the republicans began their voting rights act when it was first passed it was bipartisan, it's been there for almost 50 years and all of a sudden the game has changed. you would think that a country that goes around all over the world trying to spread democracy cannot even get it right, right here at home. [cheers and applause] >> it sounds like you think you know the answer.

>> well, the answer is to let the people vote. >> no, no, no. i met i think you think you know the answer with regards to why not one republican would vote to reauthorize the voting rights act. >> yes. >> and what's the answer? >> the reason they're doing it because it's the people of color, minority's vote for democrats. they want to suppress those votes. that's the only reason. >> attorney general gonzales, how would you respond to? >> i can't speak, it's my place to speak for republicans in the congress or innocent. i don't know how much legislature talking about. i think you're talking about revising the provision of the voting rights act which is in section four which was struck down by the supreme court in shelby. in the shelby case. it could be as simple as this is a very complicated formula which is a predicate for the department of justice being able to impose a preclearance

requirement. maybe the republicans are simply unhappy with that formula. i don't know. they don't consult with me anymore. i don't know the reason for that, but that's what we're talking about here is the supreme court struck down a formula based on racial demographics and 1965. the court said you can't do that. you've got to update. this is an attempt by congress to update section four which would allow them, the department of justice, to impose preclearance requirements. >> ms. huerta, when you things like limit the number of days that people can vote, limit the hours that precincts are open, does it strike you as punitive or do you think, well, no, if it's for everybody, that's fair, what do you think? >> i think it is there and it is voter suppression, and we need to change that. we have the same laws for the whole country instead of every state having their own different kind of law. one thing the republicans really need to understand, look at this

figure. every single month in the united states of america, 73,000 latinos reach the age of 18. let me repeat that. every month in the united states of america, 73,000 latinos reach voting age of 18 years old. that is something they need to look at. throw this out when we talk about the power of the latino vote. the cabinet of virginia's campaign, terry mcauliffe, he won with 53,000 votes. 63,000 latinos voted. he won with -- because his opponent was very anti-immigrant. harry reid when you went for the senate and nevada, he endorsed immigration reform. he reached out to the latino community and the latino community pushed them over the top in the state of nevada. they need to take note. the more the the attack

immigrant communities, when the attack immigrant community that are attacking me. my great grandfather was in the civil war, in the union army. i was born on this side of the border. but my children and my grandchildren get the attacks because they happen to be brown. they've got to understand that every time they come out and they attack our community, our community gets very angry. this whole thing about immigration reform, all they have to do is set for a vote. john boehner and mccarthy said have a vote on immigration reform. 75% of the country supports it. 60% of republicans support. give us a vote. that's all we're asking. they've got to do the job. the more they attack our the ninth in the more people will become democrats and they got to change their message. the other thing is that all the posters show that the latino

community, they love obamacare. they love obamacare because millions are uninsured. they also love big government. they think the problems we have in our society, we need government to secure them. so the republicans are on the wrong side of the messaging right now. eventually it's going to catch up to them. i don't care how much voter suppression they do. eventually people are going to be able to vote no matter what. [applause] >> you said it's up to john boehner and mccarthy. that's on the republican side in the house of representatives. if we worked together a few weeks ago you would have said boehner and cantor but, you know, what happened to mr. cantor. he was defeated and one of the issues that his opponent used against them was that he supposedly was for amnesty. >> okay, but we look at the election, they only had 8%

turnout to begin with. but let's look at mr. graham's election. lindsey graham won his election and is for immigration reform and he defeated all of his tea party opponents, okay? you are using that now but that's not a real issue. >> you don't think it's a real issue? >> i don't think so. what i want to say and if we want to get immigration reform, we've got to call on our corporate buddies to help us. i'm going to use this kind of a comparison. in arizona when the legislature passed a law that they were going to let public places discriminate against our friends, the gay community, all the corporations jumped in right away and sent to the governor, don't sign that bill. right? they jumped in the immediately. we love our gay community. i'm on the board in california, but hey, we are a lot more people. the latinos, we are a lot more

people. [laughter] where are our corporate buddies at now? we need them. we need them to go to talk to the friends in the republican congress and say you need to go for immigration reform right now. we are not going to give up. not going to give up. [applause] >> attorney general gonzales, oslo you nodding we talked about what happened to eric cantor in virginia. >> i agree. i don't think immigratiimmigrati on was that big an issue in that race. let me just say about immigration reform. my perspective is congress, i agree congress needs to debate on this. they need to do it soon. this is a law enforcement and security, economic issue. this is about us. it's about the america, we are as a country and this is something we need to do. i've heard republicans say wait a minute, we don't want to go down this road because this president will only enforce the laws he wants to. my perspective is congress has a

job to do. if the president is not doing his job, that doesn't excuse congress from doing their job. both branches ought to be working together. to me it's intolerable and i know how hard it is. president bush tried and couldn't get it done with a republican congress. that's why we elected people to go there, to tackle the most difficult issues we have as a country. they should be accountable. >> but what your position is, it's so interesting to me because obviously there are republicans, people inside the party who just are resisting it, especially the talk radio crowd who say you are rewarding people who have done illegal things. so you're in a position here on answer party, civil war with republican party over this issue are caddie's feet a plan out? >> i think in the end, my side

will win. or it's the end of the party. >> the end of the party's? >> yes. that's the way i see it. i think this is something that's got to be stalled. truth of the matter is hispanics are growing political force and give if you like the republican party doesn't have anything for them, they will democrats and republicans will not win the white house. they're going to lose control of the house. won't win control of the senate and so this is an important issue. i really do. i don't know what republicans are waiting for. i don't know what republicans are waiting for. it's as if they're hoping something is going to change that will allow them to get what they want with respect to immigration reform. this is such a hard issue that both sides have to give. no one is going to get everything they want. so there has to be compromise. i do know what they're waiting for. >> i was struggling to the end of the party because in 2016 unless you have some latinos

vote for republicans is difficult to see on the map how republicans could win the presidency. presidency. >> is going to be a challenge. that's not my area. >> we've got you here in the hot seat so we're turning up the heat. [laughter] spent ms. wilson and what you think about this idea that unless the party deals with voter disenfranchisement issues, immigration reform, the republicans have a troubled future? >> i agree, that's going to happen. and if i may say, it wouldn't be a bad thing to me. [laughter] >> you're a democrat. [laughter] >> to bring it back to point about increasing voter turnout in 2014, can people like these

elected officials here this afternoon, dolores, use these issues to spur hispanic voter turnout? >> i think with a lot of work to do. number one, we know education is a big issue. my organization, the dolores arcus foundation, -- delors hurt the foundation. huge expansions of african-americans which are like 5% of the norm, latinos, this is one the issues we're fighting right now. the other thing that is good, they don't teach civics in school anymore. so young people don't even know why they should be voting in the first place. so we wonder why are people going because they don't understand the reports of voting. we've got to get out there and in the latino committee would have to be invited to vote. if someone doesn't invite your not going to vote. i would say to the officials who are here, we have a lot of power industry but i was taught about

how many latinos and other young people who will be turning 18, i think we should have voter registration at every single high school, okay? every single high school. you can register and that should be a constant and we need to give kids credit to go out there and knock on doors to get out the vote. that was my experience. you might say leadership is going other and knocking on doors. that's when it came to the home of a family and saw the poverty they were living in. that's what i quit being a schoolteacher to become an organizer. i think going door-to-door and getting kids at school credit to gaza. it doesn't have to be on a partisan basis. they can go into any neighborhood and knocking doors of my people they have to vote. we have to make democracy work. we cannot have a democracy when you have over 50% of the people not voting. these local elections are important, school board elections are important. we want our kids to know the contribution of people of color, of the chinese. when we were at the election and

he said were at the governor's mansion in virginia, this is the oldest governor's mansion in the united states, and it was built by thomas jefferson. i said no, who was built by his slaves, right? it was built by his slaves. [laughter] [applause] this is the history that all kids have to know. the constitution of the chinese and the mexicans build the railroads. all of the contribution people of color made of this country but they don't know that. we can do it. we have the power right here in this room. all over the country. we can instill some of these practices and procedures to make sure our people vote. [applause] >> i'm a republican as you know. [laughter]

and i'm proud to be a republican for many reasons, and we have had, we've had some great republican leaders from the hispanic community. george w. bush was in the popular because he had the right message, the right tone, he was the right messenger quite friendly. not that hispanics agreed with all of his policy but i believe they believed he believed in them and understood them. part of that comes from being a governor of a border state. i think it hurt the hispanic community to have one party, or once a dominant party the other party is really meaningless because i think you'd have two competing parties quite frankly but don't take the hispanic community for granted, right? they out to be competing for votes i think it's very important. >> good avoid. [applause] >> but part of that, and want to conclude on this message, on this question, is about turnout. because we want to see more people participating in the democratic process, the

essential element of that is the vote. but when you look at it, let's go back to the last presidential election 2012, 66% african-american turnout. 64% white american turnout. when you come to the hispanic community, or to 8%. we can do this with midterm elections as well. why is it that you see in the mindset of the latino community a lack of this enthusiasm for voting that you see in other communities? >> i've done this for the last 60 something years going door-to-door getting people to vote. a lot of times people don't know how to vote and they are afraid they will do the wrong thing. so they give his long balance with all these names they don't know and propositions, et cetera. we have to say to them vote for what you know. if they don't get the proper information, a lot of confusion and they don't want to do the wrong thing.

so they just don't vote. it's important to our committee and people in this room that we have to go out and educate people how to vote. if they vote one time, just one time that they vote, they will continue to vote. we can do this work but it takes a lot of legwork. you will not do it on television. you will not do it on tv and do not do it on radio. he's got to go into the neighborhoods. this is what my organization does. we go door to door. in our community we have been able to activate over 10,000 voters just in the area we work. if we had more money we could get more community organizers and go out there and more community. people won't vote unless they understand the process. they don't want to do the wrong thing. they have to be invited to vote. >> mr. attorney general, do you think in fact if republicans did a better job of outrage a speaking to common interest with the latino community you could inspire more latinos to vote?

>> absolutely, absolutely. and they think the party gets that and they're working very hard to address it. it's a dual responsibility. i think citizens have a responsibility to care about these kinds of things, come out and vote, get educated about what's required. i also think it's the responsibly of the candidates. they should be inspiring. they should be reaching out to the hispanic community. i think there's a responsibly both with the electorate and what the candidates running for office. >> ms. wilson, what do you attribute the 48% hispanic turnout to in 2012, why? why is that double as we look at all the major racial groups in the country's because i agree with the other panelists and think of a lot of people don't understand that ask themselves what's in it for me. they don't understand what's in it for them. you have to do more committee forums because ssa, and informed community is a better community.

i put on community forums to let them know the issues are and candidates, i think there would be more interested the other problem is people still believe their vote doesn't count or they don't for a certain proposition, then it gets overturned and they're mad and they realize it's unconstitutional or there's a problem with the proposition but i think it's keeping people more informed, and once they are informed they become more involved. >> i have two examples. his opponents been about $160 million, his republican opponent to get elected. he spent 35 million. that's the way he got elected. it was the labor movement. people, janitors and housekeepers and the laborers, the construction workers who went door-to-door in los angeles. pamela harris a great woman, she was elected by 3000 votes or something like that.

some kind of teeny-weeny amount. we're going door-to-door, people didn't want to vote. they were mad. they lost their homes. they lost their job. some of their friends and neighbors and relatives. so we had to pull him out and to its support for you to vote. we did get them out to vote. it was pulling teeth to get people out to vote. so proposition 30 in california, the reason we are now in -- because we passed proposition 30. this is good for the people in the state. we passed a law that millionaires have to pay 3% more in state taxes. if you pay $1 million, you pay 3% more. so we are able to bring in $6 billion for the state of california. most of that which education. how did we get that? we had to go door to door, phone banking to get people to vote for that. the people who went to come interesting, -- it was the

voters who don't always vote. the immigrants dolores, judge gonzales, lei-chala wilson, thank you very much. [applause] >> yes. >> a couple of life events to tell you about this morning. the airline pilots association

is hosting a forum on aviation safety and security. the opening panel here on c-span2 at 10:30 a.m. eastern includes representatives of the federal aviation administration and the international civil aviation organization. on c-span at 11:20 a.m. eastern president obama will be at fort bell virginia to sign the bill overhauling the veterans affairs department. the bill which passed overwhelmingly in the house and senate expense healthier options for veterans and improves department accountability. >> c-span2's booktv this weekend. friday night at eight eastern with books on marriage equality, the obama's versus the clintons and the autobiography of former mayor of washington marion barry junior. saturday at 10 p.m. eastern on "after words," bob woodward interviews former counsel to president nixon on the watergate scandal and sunday afternoon at five and the marks, president

and ceo of the new york public library sheds light on the library's past, present and future. booktv, television for serious readers. >> up next a palestine center discussion on the role of international organizations including the united nations in the israeli-palestinian conflict. this is one hour. >> thanks, molly. and thank you all for coming out this rather steamy afternoon. for those of you not in washington, don't. thanks to the palestine center always for the consistency of the center in running these kinds of projects and bringing people together for discussions of issues and topics that are too often ignored in this city. the question of the role of international organizations on the question of palestine should be an easy one in a certain way but it was the united nations

that created the state of israel, united nations that divided historic palestine. the united nations that said there should be a quote arab state. what's the big deal? well, the problem is none of those things have happened in the way they were supposed to happen. and mostly things that should have been at the united nations, the centrality of the united nations in leading international diplomacy on this issue which is perhaps more than any other long-standing international problem, a problem that is recognized as an issue for and of the united nations. somehow is not allowed to be brought to the united nations. so we have a myriad of examples. i want to say just one thing first. when we first started talking about this event, it was before the current horror that is going on in gaza had begun. gaza is already, was already in

horrific shape because of the occupation hurt the occupation which is denied. we pulled out of gaza in 2005. we pulled out or settled. we pulled out all the soldiers. how can you say it's occupied? because we unlike the israelis rely on international law. international law is clear that occupation is defined on the basis of control, not on the basis of how my soldiers happened to be in any given place at any given time. from the vantage point of control, gaza remains occupied. that meant that they are sealed in to a large outdoor prison. 1.8 million people are not allowed to leave. there is a wallpaper you a lot about the west bank wallpapered under as much about the wall by gaza is completely walled in on all the israeli border area but that wall is controlled by three soldiers, also a military war of military wall. with the gun sights, electric field, et cetera.

the airport in gaza of course was bombed years ago by the israelis, has never been allowed to be rebuilt, and the skies are patrolled not by gaza and aircraft but by israeli air force. the seas off the coast are patrolled not by gazans orgasm fishermen but by the israeli navy. cousins remain -- occupy. the reason for weeks has made the situation so in comparably different. one of the things that it means we have to talk about is perhaps a different way that we might have a month ago is the difference between the role of the united nations now and the role of the united nations during, for example, the three-week long war that is you waged against gaza in 2008-2009 when 1400 gazans were killed, 13 israelis, of whom seven were

soldiers, four killed in so-called friendly fire. and the role of the united nations at the time was similar but different. similar in the sense that at that time, like now, the u.n. was not able to play the role that the charter gives it, the charter of the united nations, the fundamental core of international law says that the role of the united nations is to end the scourge of war. period. not to end the scourge of war when the victims are anybody except palestinians because, you do, we don't really have to pay attention to palestinians. it doesn't say that there is this the work of the united nations, the goal is to end the scourge of war. but to do that the united nations has to be allowed in. they have to be allowed to play that role. they have to have the power to impose a cease-fire when one or

another warning sign decide they don't need a cease-fire get. so that's the same. what was different in 2008-2009, there were many differences, in both cases gaza and the government forces in gaza led by hamas were quite isolated. that was not the case we should note in 2012 or and a much shorter israeli assault in november 2012 which was in a period in a very brief moment when gaza was not isolated when the government of gaza was joined by the foreign ministers have half a dozen arab countries, by the prime minister of egypt, who came to gaza to stand with the people of gaza under the israeli bombs. we are not seeing that this time around. the government of egypt essentially collaborating with israel in maintaining the siege of gaza. none of the arab governments are prepared to support the people of gaza. so gazans once again stand

alone. not entirely and not in the case of people. but we would talk about governments and the united nations, gaza and the people of the west bank and east jerusalem, the other parts of the occupied territory as well as the refugees, as well as the second, third and fourth class citizens of israel that happenen to be palestinians, palestinians largely stand-alone. one is that? at this time when palestine is recognized as a state, it even has borders. the 67 borders are recognized by the united nations at the borders of palestine to israel is the only country in the united nations that is never declared its borders. because never figured it out yet. meaning we are still want our borders to go further. so those things are the same, despite the significant

differences that we now have in terms of palestine's role at the united nations, its credibility and its credential at the united nations which is very, very different. but what still has not change, palestine remains the longest running problem that belongs to the united nations. and it is at the same time perhaps the greatest failure of the united nations, the longest lasting failure of the united nations. the u.n. is supposed to be responsible for palestinians, until they have achieved their inalienable rights. not until they achieve something that somebody might call a state. because you can go anything a state. doesn't make it viable, doesn't make a just, doesn't make it sustainable, doesn't make it any of those things. you can point to some bits of territory that are not contiguous that are, if you kind of imagine swiss cheese, the israeli controlled areas of the west bank and east jerusalem are

the cheese. the palestinian areas are the holes. meaning that they are the parts that are not contiguous. the israeli territory is now contiguous. you can get from there to there. arial sharon, the late former prime minister once known and long known as the butcher of beirut for his involvement in the slaughter of citizens, civilians of palestinians and lebanese during the war of 1982, was very creative when it came to diplomacy. he invented this term that i thought was quite brilliant. he talked about transportation contiguity. what? it means if you can get from there to there, you will say it is contiguous. even if you have to fly in a helicopter from one point to another can even if you have to go in an underground tank and even if you have to go off on a bridge over somebody else's land and the land actually doesn't touch each other, but if you can get from there to there, we will collect contiguous. sorry.

it doesn't work. that's not going to make a state. you can call it a state. give it, you know, a telephone code and a passport and postage stamps. that doesn't make a state. a state means controlled by the people who live there. of contiguous territory, of the entire population. and crucially it means control of the use of force. that's what every state does. they control -- this country we don't do it very well as anybody who sees our country is flooded with guns no, we don't do that very well at all but that's not for the lack of ability to do it. is the lack of political will. but the problem for palestine is nobody is even talking about allowing palestinians to have control over violence in their territory. that responsibility everybody knows, it's one of the famous lines, everybody knows palestine will be disarmed from outside and they will be israel that maintains the control of force

and violence in any palestinian state. so palestine from the beginning was defiant at the u.n. as a quote problem. the palestine problem. then it was changed to the question. so now it's the palestine question. i just finished doing work for the u.n. be writing there sort of a book on the u.n. and the question of palestine. it's like, really? is a silly question? 65 years later, no, we have the answers already? i thought we did put a pair we we don't. apparently still at the question at the u.n. it's defined as a question because none of the answer that makes sense were ever allowed to be imposed. so when you look at the u.n. charter, the question of why don't we just go with what it says? well, the answer lies just down the road about half a mile. a little more than that. the state department, the white house, the congress. those are the forces that determine how the u.n. charter

is to be defined and how it is, or is not, allowed to be implemented. so that's the problem that we face today. the u.s. goal in the united nations is based on its special relationship with israel, which began in 1967. the u.s. had a perfectly good relationship with israel before 67. created -- supported the partition agreement in the u.n., et cetera. but it's relationship was quite tactical. it wasn't so close to it took the 67 war for the pentagon to look and say, wow, we could do business with these people. and business impact of course became the operative conception of the relationship, the pentagon looked up what the mythology said was tiny, plucky israel defeating six arab armi armies. in fact, that didn't happen. for of those big airborne these didn't even fight, but whatever.

it was clear the israelis did pretty well, militarily. they defeated the other side and at the end of six days they control again all of the territory. the palestinians have been left with 22% of historic palestine. now they were left with 0%. so there is now one government in control of all of the territory of historic palestine that includes a state issue, the west bank, gaza and occupied eastern jerusalem. together they made up the old alliston mandate that was turned over to the united nations and it was that law of the u.n. that divided historic palestine. so what does it mean when you have one government that controls all of the territory, but has different sets of laws governing if and populations within that one territory? that's the legal definition of apartheid. not because the israeli version

of apartheid is just like the south african version. it's very different. for a whole host of reasons i'm not going to get into. but what they share is they both stand a violation of the international covenant against the crime of apartheid. which is a u.n. document signed by the majority of countries in the world. not we should note by our own. but that's what we have to look at. so the question of how to look at the situation in palestine is an just how do we get back to the two-state solution, how do we get everybody back to the table. i can promise you the next if somebody will be back at the table, and it will fail again. not because people don't understand each other's narratives, not because israelis and palestinians don't get along. it's because it's going to be based on the failed diplomatic approach of the last 23 years. going from 23 years of failed diplomacy to 24 years is not my idea of likely success.

it was the great scientist who once said, the definition of increase is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. that's what i called this last round the einstein round of talks. they did the same thing and expected to be different. why? because it was obama and john kerry doing it instead of bush doing it. do you think the rest of the world cares who's in the white house that much? they don't. so that was a huge problem. probably we will have to go through that again once or twice until we finally get back to the point that says, that's not how you solve the question. you answer the question the way the united nations should have answered it years and years and years ago, on the basis of human rights, international law and equality for all. the question of the arrangements, one state, to state, red state, blue state, that's not the business of the u.n., not the business of all of us industry makes up for those of us in this room who happened

to be israelis or palestinians. people who live there to to choose the arrangement. the rest of this bill. i'm a jewish girl from california. i don't get to say how many states people should have lived half a world away. why isn't my business? my business sort of because i pay taxes in this country. as for any but as of right to something to say to our government, our government. one of our dimension to let the the u.n. be the central actor. rather than the situations we've seen, so many examples of how the u.s. relies on its goal of the special relationship to ensure that the u.n. is not allowed to play the major role. so what does that look like? let's look at the history of the u.s. veto. since 1970 the u.s. has cast far more vetoes than anybody else in the security council. but if you count them of you will see two-thirds of those vetoes were in defense of apartheid policy. either in south africa or in

israel. two-thirds of u.s. vetoes cast in defense of apartheid. you can look at the madrid peace talks in 1991, a lot of people point to that as the beginning of the current fate of diplomacy. big international conference that was held at the crystal palace in madrid. it was the big issue. looking around the room and i'm seeing most of you are old enough to member that from 1991. that's not a good thing, i'm just saying. but out of those talks there was all this talk about how this is the first time there's this international conference. it wasn't. there was an international day that opened it up and then it was divided into these working groups. which was a problem because the palestinians were not allowed to have their own systems, their own representatives. they had to go to the jordanians. more important than that was that the israelis were promised by the united states that the

representatives of the secretary-general of the united nations would not be allowed to speak, it was always assumed to be a key and, of course, it was, that he would be allowed to talk to people in the halls and report back to the secretary-general but would not be allowed to speak. that was the official position of the so-called international conference. in 1994 madeleine albright, her goal for that your stated in the u.s. letter to the general assembly that goes out every year was to get rid of all the old resolutions on palestine. they were irrelevant and not that oslo was underway, they shouldn't be on the u.n. agenda because they are being discussed by the party. she specifically mentioned settlements, refugees and jerusalem, the three most important issues that were not under discussion in oslo, that deliberately were postponed. so she just got up and lied, nobody said a word except okay, we'll just do all those things to get rid of all those resolutions. international law is limited not

by the law but by political will. that's where civil society has a role to play to reestablish the legitimacy and the operational ability of the u.n. to be at the center of what it's going to take for real protection of palestinians. we hear a lot of you in about what they call our duty, responsibility to protect, the new buzzword around the u.n. the last six or seven years. the idea is all the stuff that we should talk about humanitarian intervention that was just a cover for the major powers intervening whenever they chose and giving it a humanitarian gloss. you want to say, you think? that's what was but the problem is this isn't any different. lots of people writing about about the so-called responsibly to protect isn't going to work because it is again only going to be used for those interests of the powerful countries. and i thought at the time, maybe

what we should do instead of saying that we should get rid of treachery, get rid of it because it's not legitimate, it doesn't reflect any kind of international equality, we should actually demand that it be the principal that's used to provide protection for palestinians. then we would see how popular r to p is at the u.n. because the idea of providing real protections when the force that you're protecting people against happens to be the closest ally of the most powerful country in the world would provide a whole new challenge for the united nations and for the rest of the world. very quickly, just a couple of more things that i want to mention and then we can get back to any of this in the questions. the role of the united states right now is complicit in israeli violation. that raises questions about the role of the united states and international organizations from the u.n. to the international criminal court where this is

still not been willing to sign on as a full member of the rome treaty, to establish the court, precisely because the u.s. is determined that its soldiers and officials will never be held accountable. for that reason they signed off on these bilateral agreements with countries, particularly the poorest country, particularly african countries, saying if you turn over any american citizen, soldier, anybody, to the international court, you will lose all aid that you might ever get and we will bring other unspecified pressures to bear on you so don't even think about doing it. and that was what was called the invade the hague law. i was, in fact, passed. that isn't to say that the u.s. everything u.s. official is actually a rest by international criminal court and in prison in the hague, the u.s. will invade the netherlands and get them out. we will support our troops.

this is the u.s.'s view of what international law and the united nations mean. the question of accountability is fundamental. israel is not held accountable is the from the goldstone report or the other myriad of reports that were done, and at the moment is not going to be held accountable yet until something changes, not because they are not -- i won't say the guilty because we haven't had a real investigation, but not because there can't be an investigation of potential war crimes, but because they are protected by the united states. that's what has to change, and that's what brings us back to washington. this is an issue for the u.n. this is an issue for us. because, and this is my last point, the role of civil society, both in the u.s. and globally, is crucial for any possible way of keeping accountability at the united nations, for keeping the legitimacy of the united nations. we need the u.n. to be able to

act on behalf of its charter that says its role is to end the scourge of war. it has to be empowered to do that. when the human rights council votes, i think it was 38 yes, a few abstentions, and one vote no, that said no, there shouldn't be an investigation of war crimes, by all sides i should note, not only by the occupying power, but by the occupied population as well, which i agree with. everybody responsible for war crimes should be held accountable. the u.s. said no, we can't do that. we won't allow. luckily they don't have a veto but they do have economic and political and diplomatic pressure that they will bring to bear on any country that dares to challenge them on these kinds of issues. so that's what we come back to the role of civil society, and organizations like the palestine center that are part of bigger organizations, the u.s. campaign to end the israeli occupation

that now has over 400 organizations around the country, the international court big network on palestine which is the broad global network of organizations accredited to the united nations who work on the issues of enforcing international law and keeping the u.n. a central, who work with the special repertory on human rights in palestine from the work with the human rights council, who work with the general assembly when we can get access, et cetera. these are the organizations that are going to make a difference in changing that understanding of what does the law say, whether it's a of the u.n. charr or the universal declaration of human rights? what does the law say versus how does it get interpreted and enforced or ignored and, therefore, violated by our own government. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you. it's good to be here. i'm going to try to be brief. it's good to be here to talk about palestine. i will try to be brief as mentioned i love her more q&a. the topic usually the potential of the role, focus on history and why the u.n. -- my focus point would be more on the future role that international workstations. the focus really will be on the main international order stations that can likely advance the peaceful and just resolution to the conflict. here's a summary of options that palestine it has or can have in the future of the human. unesco of course, other u.n.

agencies that house i can join. there's international criminal justice and there's the international criminal court and is also palestine to place it under u.n. protection of the trustee of the u.n. charter. we all know that membership in international workstation does not produce disagreements. proactive involvement in international workstation, however, should be part of the national struggle in that effectively it allows the international law and diplomacy in order to personal exposed the variations and demand just and effective remedies. uphold states responsibilities, to comply with and enforce international law. there are of course many challenges in order to achieve all of these. but after all that remember that

it is justice in human rights and it cannot be for all challenges. article one of united nations this a main purposes of organizations. these make the u.n. as a forum where action is taken to first of all -- [inaudible] uphold the rule of international law, protection rights and promote peaceful resolution of conflict through collective international cooperation. for u.n. -- fool you into a ship for gaza nations were provided as any other state. the right and opportunity to be heard and take part in this important government organization. i want to mention briefly the statehood issue. existence of states and international law is a factual determination. resolutions do not create the state but they help to prove

whether or not they have a permit population, a defined area, three, a government has also the capacity to enter into international relations or other states. and the recognition of states matters and should be separate from the existence of state from international law. currently there are about 140 states that have recognized palestine as a state census declared independence in 1998. i will briefly touch also on the process for becoming a full member of the united nations. most important section is really article 42 of the u.n. charter which states that mission of any state to the membership in the united nations will be affected by the decision of the general assembly upon the recommendation of security council. palestine as we all know has officially applied for you and never ship in september 2011 but

this obligation has been effectively blocked by the u.n. security council committee on the admission. and that space of the because of political reasons, the veto power in the council. the legal background of this is that in 1950, the irc g. which is the principal organization of the united nations has advised that the genoa summit can only admit new members upon recommendation of the security council. and that decision was above except including the judge that dissented, that the singular vote would not be able to frustrate the votes of all the members of the united nations and that would be an absurdity. some have opposed article fortitude. however, many others believe there is the need to make any animate to the charter and the current charter should be allowed and can be -- not

provide members of the secretive council with veto power. however that shaped the practice since 1950, and without a new security tells a recommendation, the application will be blocked and put on hold. now, in december of 2012, the general assembly of the united nations created status to a nonmember state. and we all know that many states have voted in favor, only mine voted against which is really 5% of the u.n. members. u.n. general assembly -- they are importance goes beyond advancing palestine with almost every procedural right and privilege except maybe the right to vote. why is that? because the reflective use of the international community on normative issues. they also serve in international law.

as rightly observed, the real legal value for the 6719, established palestine, is in its answer to the broader looming legal questions concerning -- [inaudible] that has been the result because so many countries would consider the resolution. the resolution has direct impact on palestine status and standing. basically the u.n. security general has been making to seek general assembly guidance when stated is disputed or is unclear. and now the security general -- [inaudible] by all states including members

of agencies which palestine is one of them because it's a member of unesco. now, in october 2011, palestine became a full member, and that meant information of palestine status as a state, it also meant that it's able to join international organizations, -- and also enhance the status and standing of palestine to third party states, and international actors to demand israeli compliance with their international obligation. this institution, palestine by the way has been delayed by treaty. among the most important treatise in 1954 convention for the protection of cultural property. it also ratified the 1970 convention on the illegal trade and cultural properties.

.. >> but they also entail obligation. we have to also be aware of that. palestine is required to ratify its national legal system in accordance with its obligations, and its need also to do that to deter domestic variations and

further its standing in third countries and international institutions to protest, contend and take measures against israeli conduct. now specifically, as we mentioned, unesco membership and u.n. resolution 6819 ratify treaties, and that has enhanced its standing vis-a-vis third states. and it also has improved its bargaining position vis-a-vis israel, but i think it's important that palestine now is negotiating a visa agreement as a -- [inaudible] state, not as an entity or an organization. and that's, you know, is very important in international law. now, strengthen the u.n., the unesco membership and also the resolution of the general assembly has strengthened the right to join international organizations and treaties. in april of 2014, about four months ago as we know, palestine

has identified 15 international treaties, human rights and -- [inaudible] conventions and treaties. and many of them are very important including the geneva conventions. now, many of these treaties, as i mentioned, enhance the protection of human rights in palestine, but they also provide it with additional mechanisms to expose and pursue remedies for human rights and international organizations. extension to treaties would provide standing from israel and other states to honor their obligations and cup hold the rule of -- uphold the rule of law. now, it's almost important to mention theoretically at least there's a way to join the international court of justice. u.n. members are -- [inaudible] which form the world court as we all know it. however, nine members of the united nations can also -- non members of the united nations can also be admitted upon relation of the security council.

the u.n. is likely to treat the recommendation under this article, however, similar to that one under article 42 meaning that the general assembly would not be able to approve an application to join the icj without the u.n. security could council recommen. however, a way to maybe find a way out of this. an interpretation that does not recognize the veto power seems to be more in line with the object and purpose of the united nations. that calls, as we all know, for the peaceful resolution of international disputes. and if we allow countries to join the court, then we are encouraging the resolution of conflicts through peaceful means. now, in any event, as we all know, unfortunately, the icj may not hear cases if concerned states have not recognized its jurisdiction, and israel, unfortunately, has not accepted the jurisdiction of the court as compulsory and, therefore, it will be difficult to bring cases against israel. however, it will be possible to

bring cases against other states that maybe are complicit or are supporting -- [inaudible] of their international obligations. if they -- [inaudible] recommendation accepting of the court. now, palestine is already a member, also, of other anti-governmental organizations including the organization to of islamic corporation, that's among the organizations. and fortunately, the security council veto power that belongs to the members, of course, does not allow or does not apply to u.n. specialized agencies such as unesco which are free to admit new members according to their rules and procedures. therefore, there are several u.n. agencies that palestine may seek membership in, and among them are the, for example, the international fund for agricultural development, united nations industrial development

organization, world trade property organization, i'm not going to go through them, but these are the main ones that palestine may seek admission to. the u.s. is not member, by the way, in some of these organizations and, therefore, there is no risk of cutting funding like what happened with unesco. that, by the way, also -- [inaudible] international law. and why is that? because states may not use the domestic legal system as the u.s. did with regard to unesco in order to justify noncompliance with their international obligations. now, there are also other u.n. bodies that require two-third majority. if palestine can get two-third majority of the membership of these organizations, it can also seek admission into them. and among them as are the food and agricultural organization, there is international labor organization and many other organizations. i'm not going to go through them, just in order to be short and allow for more questions and

answers. also it may seek to join the interpol if it so wishes, international monetary fund, by the way, is also open because they already have a precedent of admitting kosovo which is not a u.n. member into the organization. and by the way, voting power depends on the size of the economy, of the state economy in the world economic. so it's more for powerful economic countries. briefly on the icc, the rome statute, as we all know, became effective on july 1, 2002, and article iii of the rome statute allows -- [inaudible] to accept the jurisdiction of the court since july 1, 2002, and in contrast, by the way, accession to the statute only prospective. so if it's issued, the court may

have -- [inaudible] as far as july 1, 2002. in january of 2009, palestine filed declaration accepting the court jurisdiction beginning or as far back as july 1, 2002. the declaration gives the i. >>, c jurisdiction over -- the icc jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes defined by the statute. and according to, by the way, to the office of the prosecutor, more than 400 communications were received on crimes aledly -- allegedly committed in palestine. now, in 2012 -- and to be precise, you know, in april of 2012, the icc prosecutor decided in the to proceed citing lack of authority to adopt a method to define the term, "state." it stated, however, that it could in the future consider allegations of crimes committed in palestine should competent organs of the united nations or eventually the assembly of states resolve the legal issue

or should the security council refer the situation to the icc jurisdiction. now, the decision was criticized by many mainly for failing to see judicial determination by the pretrial chamber because it can, in fact, look at the validity of that creation and see if it can be done or not by palestine. the prosecutor, by the way, also cited practice of the general assembly that i mentioned earlier, the security general in fact, to seek general assembly guidance when it's controversial or unclear whether an applicant is a state. but he also issued a decision failing to note that members of specialized agencies such as unesco are automatically permitted to join the icc. also it should be noted that his decision was issued six months after palestine has joined unesco, so there was really room for the prosecutor to accept a declaration.

now, there was a recent, actually, a recent request by the minister of justice in palestine as well as the attorney general in gaza to reconsider the icc decision or at least supplant the validity to the bureau chamber, let the court decide whether the 2009 declaration was valid or not. it isn't clear, however, whether the office of the prosecutor would reopen an examines -- an examination that it already considered ip valid. now, several human rights organizations usualed palestine to submit -- urged palestine to submit again. however, it is well known that it seems according to news reports at least that palestine or the plo is trying to get a consensus, among, you know, other factions before they submit a new declaration. am he'sty also re-- amnesty also released last week an important briefing calling upon the icc to

investigate and arguing that icc action is the only way to create a culture of impunity and also maybe end the violence in gaza. it also called upon israel to do the same and accede to the icc and accept the jurisdiction of the court and also for the united nations security council to refer the situation as it did, for example, in darfur, i sudan. now, there was, and that's probably going to be my last topic to discuss in this presentation. it's really about the recent request by the president of palestine, president abbas, to seek u.n. protection from israeli aggression, continued occupation and violation of international law, in particular its escalation and its bombardments against the civilian population in gaza. now, this is, in effect, going back to the u.n. trusteeship system which was created to replace the legal definitions

mandates system in order to administer the colonies of the defeated states after world war ii. that was the main purpose of the trusteeship council. new areas can be placed voluntarily by states responsible for the administration under the charter, and the trusteeship was also created to assist the general assembly in carrying out its functions according to the charter. also important to know that palau, for example, was the last territory of the original 11 to achieve full be independence in 1994, and since then the trusteeship council, which is now composed of the five permanent security council members, has been left without any permanent responsibilities and meets only once a year. now, what are the main objects of the trusteeship system under the charter? it is to further international peace and security and to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants

towards self-government or independence as appropriate. there are also other objectives including protecting human rights. i'm not going to go through them, but they're very clear and listed in the charter. what are the pros and cons briefly about going back to the trusteeship system or maybe something similar to what palestine was like when it was under the mandated system. now, first of all, the legal challenge would be to look on these questions. what state is responsible for the administration of palestine now? system might argue that the responsibility for the administration of palestine falls with a state that has effective control over it, meaning the occupying power that is israel. palestine, however, does not lose sovereignty over its land and, hence, palestine could be considered as the administering state for the purposes of article 77 of the charter. now, another legal obstacle that is both procedural as well as

substantive is that under the u.n. charter there is a distinction between strategic and nonstrategic areas. now, what is strategic areas? it's not defined in the u.n. charter. however, if it is considered to be a strategic area, then it would fall under the mandate of responsibility of theup security council. of the u.n. security council. the distinction was used only once so far, and that was in the case of the former japanese-mandated islands. and the u.n. back then considered these islands to be strategic because they're important to their international security as well as being an integrated, physical complex vital to the security of the united states. it should be noted also that establishment of military bases, for example, and trust territory doesn't necessarily make it a strategic area. so that also is important to note. now, some have argued in the past and maybe they still believe that palestine is still

under some sort of responsibility of the u.n. general assembly simply because it is without access to the league of nations finish. [inaudible] however, this argument isn't likely to prevail because it's not very favored, i think, by many in the decision-making circles. however, the terms of the agreement, the geographic allocation, the duration of such an agreement are also very important. what would be the exact mission and mandate of the trusteeship, right? what would be the extent of the functions of the entity that would administer palestine. would it fully administer or only assist the government? what would be that entity composed of, the united nations? one state? multilateral force? has been the status of the settlers? -- what would be the status of the settlers?

if they are going to be evacuated? and if so, how and by whom? what would be the state of the world? would palestine be placed under the protection or certain areas of palestine? who would finance the trusteeship? would it be limited, for a limited duration or open-ended until independence is achieved? news are all, you know -- these are all very, you know, difficult questions to answer. and due to world politics as we all know it, it is unlikely, in my views, that the u.n. would actually act on the application. thank you very much for your attention, and i will take questions. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you both so much for coming. we're going to have about ten minutes for questions. we ask that you keep them brief and limit one question per person so that we can get in as many as possible. after the questions you're welcome to stay around and have

discussions. phyllis is selling both of her books here, "calling the shots," the book on washington and the u.n., and "understanding the palestinian/israeli conflict," they'll be up front at the desk if you want to get those afterwards. um, yes. gentleman in the white shirt. we have a microphone coming armed, so -- >> i really appreciate this presentation. i just have a question for both of you, in particular to you, nidal. you are a lawyer. now, israel throughout the news media claims that they bomb the hamas houses and property. now, there are adjacent housing to every hamas house that gets bombed. i should introduce myself first. my name is omar, and i come from gaza. i was born and raised in gaza. and in 1997 i bought a, an

apartment house. no hamas hivs in it -- lives in it, but the house next to it got bombed, and due to the shock waves, my house collapsed. now, this is just one house. now, there are districts, complete districts that doesn't belong to hamas at all that they get destroyed, and infrastructure and what not, electrical, water. who's going to pay for this? is there a recourse we could -- could we sue israel for that? and if the answer is, yes, it looks like we are in a straitjacket, actually, due to the u.n. dysfunctional capabilities. but is there a way to the sue israel to get compensation for the property? because every time we have a house that get pommed, we have to rebuild it ourselves. so like phyllis said, we really stand alone. nobody's there to compensate us.

is there a recourse? and who do i contact to sue these people? [laughter] >> first of all, you can contact president abbas and urge him to join the icc. >> he didn't bomb my house. >> i hoe. urge him to join the icc. the rome statute, you know, would give some justice to the victims. >> i'm sorry, i can't hear you. >> what i'm use -- it's right there. i'm not sure. oh. thank you. well, the problem with international law is really enforcement and finding a forum or tribunal where you can take your cases for violations of international law. and the only maybe forum where cases can be brought are either the icj -- but we also know that it would have to get, first, a consent of the concerned states

before a case can be brought -- or the icc for criminal prosecution of war crimes. now, in the 2008-2009 assault on gaza, the united nations did, in fact, receive some compensation from israel for some of the damages that were inflicted on property in gaza. so technically, technically there is a way to pursue compensation from, for these violations. but the forum would be really problematic unless you can find a court that can take these cases and adjudicate them. >> [inaudible] >> yeah. it's problematic as long as palestine doesn't join the icc. and then the focus of the icc is more on criminal prosecution, less with remedies. so it's going to be a little bit problematic to take that. >> i would answer it a little bit differently. >> yeah. >> i don't think there's a legal claim to be made. there is a promise, and it's the whole that europe has played over and over again when there

have been attacks on gaza, europe goes in and puts in a few billion euros to rebuild some parts. israel goes in again, bombs it again, europe comes back. they've already said there's talk of a 23 million dollar starting fund to rebuild the, the u.s. has said they would put some money in. most of it never shows up, but what does show up usually goes to rather corrupt elements of various sorts on various sides. this is a huge problem. the possibilities for individuals getting reparations or compensation, i think, is very slim. that is the reality of it. there is no justice. that's why i think that focusing on ending the occupation which requires ending the u.s. military aid and ending the u.s. impunity is much more important. unfortunately, it leaves people devastated. >> you can make the claim -- >> yeah, it is.

you can make plenty of claims. >> you can make the claim, but the forum is problematic because normally the protection of nationals is through consular or diplomatic protection. it's -- >> is and that doesn't -- >> it's state to state. and be as long as you don't have a forum even through arbitration that can take these cases and decide on them, very difficult to see results. so the bottom line, i agree with phyllis, but i think the claim should still be be made. >> i heard in the first -- >> wait for the microphone. >> oh, thank you. the first war that was put up by the israelis, but now you say gaza is completely encircled by a wall? where did the other walls come from? >> the wall that surrounds gaza is also the israeli wall. there's not a wall on the egyptian border except in certain parts. but all of the border between gaza and israel is surrounded by a wall. it's not talked about as much as the west bank wall which i should just say, also, is not

dividing palestine from israel. it's not along the so-called green line. it's 85% of it is inside the west bank meaning it is taking, i think it's a total of about 15% of the west bank is just swallowed up in that wall making sure that, among other things, all the major water aquifers are on the israeli side. >> another one over here. >> thank you very much for the wonderful talk. i have a request for mr. sliman. the material you presented is very excellent. for me as an activist on this issue, it will be extremely useful to have a way to get to it. but you went rather fast, and i'm not fast writer, so i didn't write everything down. [laughter] so if we could -- >> happy to share the presentation. i think the center has it. >> the center has it? >> yes. >> free? [laughter]

>> i'm not going to charge, so -- >> a comment before my question for both of the wonderful speakers. i think that it must be known now that the palestinian people are not that alone in the world. >> no. >> there's a tremendous support coming from the south american countries, the socialist-tendency countries, venezuela and bolivia edges pelled -- expelled the ambassador of israel in 2009. and now president morales from bolivia said that israel is to be considered a terrorist state, one thing. another thing, countries in south america, even chile has cut off relations, argentina, brazil. brazil issued a very strong statement saying they are -- [inaudible] brazil. [laughter] >> right. >> 300 million people. but anyway -- [laughter] now, the question is the following: how can a government like, for instance, concretely

the bolivian government, how can it act in the united nations to do something for the palestinian people? thank you. [applause] >> yeah. you raise a very -- sorry, do you want to go first? >> please go ahead. no, sure. >> you raise a very important point. i misspoke when i spoke of the isolation of palestine. there are governments that are shifting as well. and latin america is the centerpiece of it. i think there's a number of things that can be done. in the general assembly, for instance, it was a number of latin american companies led by ecuador that played the key role of pushing for a much stronger position of the general assembly. unfortunately, the palestinian diplomatic team did not agree with that at that time, so it didn't go forward. but that convening, for example, the group of 77 within the general assembly is something that the latin america group could easily play a role in. that could mean things like moving for enforcement of the

new calls that have just emerged from amnesty international and other parts of the human rights community globally calling for an arms embargo against israel. there was a very important statement which i didn't think i had time the read, but i'll just tell you very quickly. from 2006 during the general assembly when the then-president of brazil said in the middle of a very unrelated speech, he suddenly said middle eastern issues have always been dealt with exclusively by the great powers. they have achieved no solution so far. one might ask then, is it not time to call a broad u.n.-sponsored conference with the participation of countries of the region and others that could contribute through their capacity and successful experience in living peacefully with differences? when we asked the brazilians are you serious about this, are you prepared to lead this, they said yes at that time. they haven't taken that role further, but they could. i think it would be more difficult for a smaller country like bolivia to play that role

alone, but perhaps bolivia in coordination with other latin american countries could move for things like a meeting of the contracting parties of the geneva conventions. they are all signatories to the geneva -- >> [inaudible] by the way. >> it was. >> at least bial stein -- >> by palestine, but it hasn't been supported, that i know of, by other countries. so they could support the palestinian initiative. >> yeah, i agree. there are many things that could be done. >> we have one question from twitter and then we'll take one more from the audience. are there any international rights laws that specifically provide protection for children? >> yeah. there's the convention on the protection of the child that palestine also has ratified recently. >> also in the geneva conventions -- >> absolutely. >> -- there's a very specific, it's -- i used to know this, and i'm afraid i'm forgetting which

article it is, but it speaks specifically to the need to protect children especially. in any occupied situation, children must be given special access to education, to food, to medical care, exactly the opposite of what israel has done in gaza. >> right. >> okay. our last question, the gentleman in the white has raised his hand the entire time. >> yes. given that our president, woodrow wilson, recognized through the king-crane commission that palestinians will not be dispossessed of their land without violence as a result of the, what, nationalization of the judeo relations, isn't it bizarre? isn't now an opportunity to go back to that time, to the that legal political reality because -- and then to go on to the one-state solution which will not force -- [inaudible] nico pellet proposes a resolution which allows jews and

palestinians and christians and secularists to live together in a vibrant, secular democracy. that's all. >> i wish that the king-crane commission was a legal, binding document. unfortunately, it isn't. we have enough problems with the legal, binding documents -- >> enforcement. >> -- being routinely not enforced and violated directly. but i think your broader point is right. the focus should not be, and particularly again for people in this country, people in the united states, it's not our call. one state, we must have two states, you know? the call should be for our government to end its policy that is grounded in southern for occupation and apartheid. and instead move to a policy that is grounded in international law, human rights and equality for all whether that's in one state, two states, five states or ten states. [inaudible conversations] >> we do that to challenge u.s. policies that exist today. that means stop the protection of israel at the united nations, tell your members of congress

they were wrong to sign on to the support israel, israel can do no wrong resolution that they signed on to, two of them in the house, one in the senate. and demand an end to the u.s. military aid to israel. that's at the tune of $3.1 billion a year to start with, and then they've added almost a billion more. imagine what we could do with that money back home with our crumbling infrastructure, with the need for health care, education. that's where that money should stay and to rebuild gaza. we don't need that money to be going directly to the israeli military. that's the mobilization that needs to happen. the bds movement is crucial at this time, the movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions. that is so crucial in bringing nonviolent political and economic pressure to bear on israel and israelis so they given to recognize that, yes, there is a price to be paid when you live in a government, when you live under a government that is viewed by the world as a

rogue state, there is a rice to be paid. in south africa it was when their beloved spring box suddenly could not play in the world cup. israelis it's not so much about sports, it's about science and culture. and when these cultural workers, artists are not going to israel because of the boycott, we'll begin to see results. [applause] >> and we are live this morning at the airline pilots' association's annual conference here in washington, d.c. as airline pilots and government and industry officials look at ways to improve aviation safety, security and pilot health. now live throughout the day today we'll bring you a series of panels starting with domestic and international regulators looking at aviation safety. later it's pilot health and occupational safety and ways to modernize the air space system. according to the organization, the airline pilots' association international is the largest airline pilot union in t