from cornell brooks. then a discussion on israel's influence on the u.s. and later the israeli defense ministers talks about u.s.-israel relations and this concerns of the iran nuclear agreement at an event in washington, dc. >> cornell brocks discussed the water contamination in ft., michigan. from the national press club, this is 50 minutes.

[inaudible conversations] >> let me start with a few preliminaries about today's newsmaker. i am david anderson. a long-time member of the club and member of the club's newsmaker committee. i'm an attorney, years ago i was was correspondent for the cincinnati herald. the -- there may be a lot of folks who are not journalists in here so do re speak the members of the media, who may be here, and asking questions. and many of those may be working journalists and so please understand that they're here to do a job.

now, after our guest makes his opening remarks you'll have chance to ask questions. when you do please identify yourself, name and affiliation. before we get started, i'd like to mention some upcoming event test club. on march 21st, a panel on the south china sea dispute. and that will include various security, economic, and legal issues. on the 22nd, the club will also have a newsmaker on millenials, and on march 24th, the club will host john kot ky nin, commissioner of the irs, and that is like an annual event here at the club where we have the irs commissioner speak right before our taxes are due. so that's pretty standard.

the other final item is this would be a good time to make sure your cell phones, iphones, and any other electronic device that makes audible sounds is turned off. arames today is cornell william brooks, the president and ceo or the naacp, which was founded in 1909, and is the nation's oldest and largest grassroots base civil rights organization. on may 16, 2014, he became the

18th person to serve at chief executive of the association, whose members are the most committed advocates for civil rights in their communities. mr. brooks was born in el paso, texas, and grew up in georgetown, south carolina. he received his bachelor of arts with honors from jackson state university, and a master of divinity from boston university school of the ol'. >> at yale law school hi was member of the yale law and policy review. his career began with chief judge sam j. irving iii of the u.s. court of appeals for their

fourth circuit in washington he directed the federal communications commission's office of communication business opportunities, and served as the executive director of the fair housing council of greater washington. his work continued as a trial attorney with the lawyers committee for civil rights under law and the u.s. department of justice, where he filed the government's first lawsuit against a nursing home alleging housing discrimination based on race. prior to taking the helm of the naacp, he was president and ceo of the new jersey institute for social justice working to win the passage of legislation which enabled formerly incarcerated men and women to rebuild their lives as productive and response citizens. -- responsible citizens. mr. brooks, his wildfire, janice

bloom brooks and their two sons are members of the memorial ame church in maryland. mr. brooks is happy to address issues such as the situation in flint, michigan, and criminal justice reform but i've recently been notified he wanted to focus his initial remarks on the tone and violence of the current presidential campaign. his speech today is entitled "democracy awakening: trumpism and voter suppression." the national press club is pleased to welcome to its proceedum, the president of the naacp, mr. cornell william brooks. mr. brooks. [applause] >> good morning. >> good morning. >> i want to thank david for that very kind introduction and

i want to just say how humbled i am to be here, where so many newsmakers so many leaders so many social justice seekers, have spoken and shared their perspective on the world. i also want to express appreciation to the journalists in the room. you provide and create a distance, if you will, that allows people to think chit about the issue. you also -- critically about the issues and you create intimacy which allows people to draw close to injustice and the kind of injustices the naacp has long sought to eradicate from our republic. this is, i believe, an extraordinary moment in american history. this is not some random date on the gregorian calendar, not a matter of happenstance or coincidence. this is to the month the 51st 51st year of the distance --

51st year since bloody sunday, an occasion that is etched in our collective memory as a country. it does not take much effort to call to mind the image of a middle aged woman named-miles-an-hour amelia boynton who was literally beat ton the pavement on thed mon pettus bridge and does not require much effort to bring to mind the image of a young man who is now an elder statesman, who at that time was known as john lewis, who was beaten to the point of a concussion to the point of near death. that day, bloody sunday, is one that yet resonates in this year, so for a few moment is want to talk about the right to vote, the voices of the 2016 campaign,

and the prospect of violence. when we think about the right to vote, it is and should be understood as a civic sacrament in the temple of democracy, this being the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protect of the voting rights act. this being a time which african-americans, latinos, people across the country, feel as though the civic sacrament is being threatened. this is an occasion in wake of the shelby vs. holder supreme court decision where we have seen state legislature after state legislature engage in the macveilan frenzy of voter disenfranchisement. we have over 30 states that have imposed voter i.d. laws. these voter i.d. laws on their face seem civically innocuous, but when we keep in mind, when we bear in mind that a

substantial fraction, an intolerable fraction, percentage, if you will, of american voters don't possess these i.d.s, we have reason to be alarmed. why? when we think about the fact that there is a certain inclusivity to the exclusivity of the moment. that is to say we're not dealing with a nostalgic black and white discrimination of yesteryear, we are deal waiving multiracial, multiethnic exclusivity. that is to say in 1965 when the voting rights act was enacted into law, in 1965 it was enacted into law by president lyndon baines johnson, who used a series of presidential pens to sign this legislation into law. but the voting rights act was literally enacted with the blood, sweat, and tears of americans from all across the country.

so here we are, 50 years later, dealing with a multihued, multiracial, multiethnic form of bias and discrimination at the ballot box. consider this. african-americans are certainly turned away in significant numbers. in the state of texas, it is estimated that there are half million, half million, citizens, who do not possess the requisite i.d. and whose franchise is in danger. this proportionately affecting african-americans and latinos. by way of example, we have a law in texas that was previously not -- previously declared to be statement naker to by the department of justice. a federal court has found that the law is discriminatory. but this law, when first enacted, literally endangered the franchise of half million people. think about this.

where you have a law that essentially says, if you have an i.d. that allows you to carry a concealed weapon, it is deemed sufficient democratic and civic proof of identification to vote. but an i.d. at allows you to carry a book of shake pierce, book of engineering, book of chemistry, college textbook, is deemed insufficient civic or democratic proof of identification to vote. consider the state of north carolina. at one point the most progressive in the country with respect to voting rights, but in a few short years in the wake of she shelby verse holder supreme court decision, we saw massive rollback in terms of the franchise. we saw not only african-americans and latinos having their right to vote curtailed and constrained, but also young people. there is a 90-year-old plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging that

voter i.d. law, who voted for 70 years, but because she was born at home, because her name did not match the name on their birth certificate, are so match the name on their voting rolls, her franchise, not withstanning the fact she exercised it for 70 years, is at risk, but as i noted before there is inclusivity to the exclusivity. so it's not merely african-americans or latinos but young people. 26th amendment generational discrimination. that is to say when legislatures decline do honor college i.d.s, but honor the i.d.es of those who have i.d.s that are used to carry concealed weapons, that is deemed okay. that is deemed constitutionally sufficient. when you honor the i.d.s of 18-year-olds who serve on military bases, who engage in

study on a military campus, but when you decline to honor the i.d.s of college students, that is a generational war, if you will, against the young in terms of the franchise. but this is not mere lay matter of the young, not mere lay matter of african-americans, mott near lay matter of latinos but rule voters. in the state of georgia, when we lose ten's thousands, tens of thousands of voter registrations, mysteriously, inexplicably, disproportionately affecting latino votes and african-american export rural voters this challenge to the franchise is not mere lay matter of the young or a matter of african-americans, not mere plater of latinos but also senior citizens. weapon we know that senior citizen is disproportionately do not have the photo i.d.s necessary to vote, disproportionately do not have -- they have conflicts between their birth records,

many people being born at home, still in the rural south and find it difficult to vote. an example. my mother, when she was a 16-year-old college student, she went to college, she participated in civil rights demonstrations, to assert her right under the american constitution. fast forward 50 years. as a citizen in the state of georgia, as a woman with a disability, who uses a walker, and a wheelchair, she phones up or calls her son, a graduate of yale law, and poses to me a very simple and straightforward question. she said i've heard about these voter i.d. laws in georgia. i no longer drive, can't find my passport and not quite sure where my birth certificate is. you're a law. you tell me what to do. that is in fact the question that citizens all across the

country are posing to their legislators, posing to their elected officials, tell us what to do. when we want to exercise the franchise, when we want to exercise our rights as citizens under the constitution, but we, we, that is a country in the wake of shelby vs. holder have engaged in this macveilan frenzy of voter disenfranchise. this is a challenging moment in the democracy because we are seeing the curtailing and constraining of the right to vote, rather than expanding the franchise. again, we go back to the state of north carolina, where only a few years ago we had early registration. we had pre-registration. that is to say, 17-year-olds who were about to turn 18, in time for a november election, would be allowed to register early. we had sunday voting. early voting, all of these progressive reforms, these reforms that speak to the civic

aspirations of our country, are being curtailed and constrain, not because there's voter fraud. one is more likely to meet the tooth fairy standing next to santa clause at the voting booth rather than encounter on actual instance of voter fraud. we know from styleds that demonstrate out of hundreds of millions of ballots cast, handful of instances of true, verified, voter fraud. this in fact is not the challenge before the republic. what we have before the republic is a group of politicians, a group of elected officials who have arrived in their office office via the vote and constraining the vote. in contravention of the constitution in contravention of our highest civic and constitutional and moral values. but there's a flipside, if you will. a mirror image of this

curtailing and constraining of the vote. it's called trumpism. and by that i want to note here, the naacp is a nonpartisan organization, but as was noted in the introduction, we came into being in 1909 in the wake of a horrific race riot in the land of lincoln, in illinois. inscribed in our constitution is an unapologetic, unalterable opposition to racial hatred. let me paint for you a picture. there was a picture taken about 1912 or so, a group of five children, of various ethnicities, various hues, suggestive of various heritage. a sepia tone picture of yesteryear, each wearing a

letter sweater with the word, the acronym, naacp. they're holding a banner. the banner says, our votes the first two words on the banner, racial hatred, or race hate. from the turn of the century, we have committed ourselves to combating racial hatred in any form, anywhere, in this country. we make no apologies. we have a firm resolute commitment. so when we watch apresident al campaign and we talk about erecting a wall on the border between in the united states and mexico, when we hear women referred to in the misogynistic terms that dehumanize, demean and degrade their dignity as human beings, as citizens in this run, when we hear the -- of

citizens citizens of this republic, we understand that what is happening and what has happened in our state legislatures with respect to the constraining and the curtailing of the right to vote, we're seeing in the rhetoric of a political campaign, that is to say the marginalization of the citizen, the alteration of the citizens, the suggestion that some people count, some peep don't count, some people can participate, some people can vote. some people are simply left on the sidelines of our democracy. we are very clear. trumpism, as a form of demagoguery, is inconsistent with the values of the naacp and inconsistent with the values of this country. let me note, in 1920, there was an organization that came into being in the wake of the ashes and the embers of the civil war, came into prominence-but in 1920, it experienced a

resurgence, four million strong. it was called the klu klux klan. it came into power in 1920, grew massively in numbers with this toxic mix of a public appeal. that mix would be this. a kind of unpatriotic or unamerican patriotism. number two, a kind of thin christianity, and avirulent anti-immigrant sentiment. fast forward 2016. we have americans who find themselves in the throes of economic anxiety and economic insecurity in the wake of a rising tide of income inequality. there being a appealed to on the basis an anti-immigrant campaign appeal.

in addition to that, 2 corinthian kind of christianity, and lastly, an unamerican patriotism. the naacp is committed to maximizing the vote. we don't argue for campaign -- for any candidate of any party, but we do campaign against nervelet to any effort to make any citizen feel less than a citizen. that the values we stand for and we are clear about that everywhere we are. in 2 how to, 200 units across the country in hundreds of small towns in prisons, in churches, in synagogues in native american res preservations in hamlets in villages, every corner of the

country is represented by the naacp, and in every corner of the country, we have members, we have sympathizers and we have supporters who take a clear, strong, unapologetic stance against any campaign rhetoric that undermines the values of this country. but this is not merely about campaign rhetoric. that alien yates. it's also about the prospect of violence. where we have seen the hate crime rate against muslims go up 300% in recent months. i am a methodist and a father, but were i a muslim and a dad, i might be concerned about my daughter going to school with her head covered.

i'm a christian, and a father, but if i were a sikh and a dad, i might be concerned about my son going to school with his head covered. the point being here is the violence we have seen in these campaigns, in these rallies, in these demonstrations, does not represent the values of this country. we are responsible for the words that we use. and so the suggestion of paying the legal fees of people who engage in wanton acts of violence, this is inconsistent with the values of the naacp. you cannot engage in the apologetics of violence on the stage as people are being sucker-punched in the audience. again, inconsistent with the values of the naacp. i'll simply note here, the naacp as an organization is committed to not the abstract realization

of the values of the constitution. we're committed to the realization of those values on the streets in our communities,en our front porches and on the sidewalks of our communities across the country. last summer, the naacp inspired by the vulnerability of the voting rights act, the fragility of the civic sacrament, we announced what we call america's journey for justice. in a march from selma, alabama to washington, dc, a journey of 1,002 miles. i close with a story of a man i met on the way. his name was middle passage. he was from colorado. we met him in selma, a navy veteran, a veteran of the vietnam war. he walked 900 miles from selma

to virginia. in virginia, during a rainstorm, the american flag that he carried for hundreds of miles, he wrapped it up, but when the sun came out he unfurled it. as he did that, he literally collapsed to the pavement. we took him to the hospital, and there he died. the most difficult day in my short tenure as president of the naacp was listening to -- sharing with a group of young people that he died at the hospital, that he didn't make it. most difficult moment of that difficult day was a question that they posed to the grief counselors and posed to me, that would be this question. i if ammann was willing to die for the right to vote, why can't we vote and fight for the right to vote? that the naacp is doing and will do, in mid-april, we have something called democracy

awakening. we are working with 200 organizations, labor and environmental, civil rights organizations, from all across the country to come to washington to stand up and protect the right to vote. but i note here that this is bigger than one election, bigger than one campaign. it's as large and as expansive as our democracy. that is to say, the way we come together, the way we bind ourselves and knit ourselves together as a republic and a democracy, says everything about who we are and the values we stand for and stand behind. that's what this election is about. that's what the work of the naacp is about, and that's why i'm here. with that said, thank you. [applause]

>> in 2012, when he was the general -- mitt romney gave a speech to the naacp. do you realistically see the two most likely republican nominees, or ted cruz, doing that during the general election cycle? >> i can't speak to their campaign choices. i will simply note this. the naacp is a religiously nonpartisan organization. we have had republican aspirants for the white house and democratic aspirants to the white house. we work with run governors and democratic governors and legislators across the country. the challenges before this republic in terms of voting rights, criminal justice reform, judge justice reform, environmental justice challenges, they're not a democratic challenges or

republican challenges so we will extend an invitation. we look for representatives of the republican party to be at our convention, particularly given the fact that we will hold our convention the same week as the republican national convention in the same state, right down the road. so you won't have far to go. >> just a followup on that question. mr. brooks, you talked about the nonpartisan position of the naacp, and i have -- hear those two conventions are going to overlap, the g.o.p. convention in cleveland and the one in cincinnati of the naacp but have invitations gone out to your organization to the five major republican and democratic candidates, and if so, have you had any response to those invitations? >> i believe we are going to extend invitations to the

nominees. i think that may be the case by then. and that -- i know we're in touch with both parties, and i know that we have in fact extended invitations to all the candidates now to participate in a civil rights briefing. we conducted two such briefings, one with secretary clinton, the other with senator sanders, both of whom responded to our invitation, under the aussies auspices of the sister organization. >> any response from the other side? >> no. >> -- [inaudible] just wondering why donald trump's message is getting so much resonance now? what does it say about the american people that those fears

which your organization stands against are becoming tolerable and popular? >> i'm not sure how tolerable they are, or even how popular they are. if "the new york times" did a speaks on the geography of trumpism, as is were, and there is some correlation between the economic anxiety, economic insecurity of many americans and the appeal of an anti-immigrant message. again, we want to focus on the message, not so much the personality. what we are most concerned about is this anti-immigrant appeal, this tone and tenor, particularly at a moment when we see the diversification and expansion of the american electorate. for example, there's a new book,

"brown is the new white" where we look at a combination of young people, people of color, representing an ever-expanding fraction or percentage of the electorate. we need to move in that direction. we need to recognize that the country as a whole is getting younger. as to the electorate, more diverse so this is not a moment to engage in up at thization so in terms of its appeal, i think it speaks to the anxieties of voters, not so much the intrinsic appeal of the message. >> a few more questions. how would you assess the feeling the naacp -- that the american media is doing in covering this presidential election campaign? do you think they're too

rivetted with the immediacy of some of these campaigns, the remarks that certainly supporters of the candidates have been using, do you think it's been given a fair treatment to the issues that you're more concerned about? >> certainly appreciative of the fact that the media has focused on the alienation of some of the rhetoric, the -- some of the rhetoric, the violence that we have seen in rallies or demonstrations or counterdemonstrations. that is in fact helpful because it's important for people to understand that words have effects, and that there are consequences to political rhetoric. but more to the point that policies have an effect, and so in other words, when we talk about an immigration policy that

runs roughshod over the constitutional values, an immigration policy that would have a religious litmus test. this is not only violates our moral values bother constitutional values, and is inconsistent with the constitution itself. and so the media, i think, has done a great job of that. i think the challenge is looking very closely at where all this goes. in an historical perspective of the. there have been scholars look at authoritarianism in the context of contemporary times. others have look at demagoguic appeals in the context of american history, but explaining that to post millenial voters i think is an issue. so in other words where you have 19-year-olds and 20-year-olds and 25-year-olds who -- for whom

the klan is a relic of history, explaining to them why the tone and tenor of this campaign is potentially dangerous, i think is a very difficult job. very difficult job. but one that needs to be taken on and requires, frankly, more nuanced, more analysis than you can get into a sound bite. that's a major responsibility journalistically speaking. >> always impressed with your statements on jesus as a -- the first great organizer of labor. i wanted to ask you about the -- just the right to vote and the issues. you're talking -- the right to vote is one thing and of course we always heard that african-americans have on some level been taken for granted by the democratic party and the issues. when you talk about the issues

you talked about trumpism, and what -- at least in this election, how on some level the african-american intellectually support sanders and the masses are just on some level -- excuse me -- being taken for granted and voting for clinton, and quite frankly, john lewis' vicious and unfair attack on senator sanders and rejecting everything senator sanders did in then 60s, including attempting to desegregate housing in chicago, attacking -- getting arrested for protesting segregated school systems on the west side and south side of chicago, and hillary clinton going -- being a goldwater supporter but somehow -- senator sanders was at the '62 march on washington. but i mean the point is that -- the role of the urban league have to say these are issues and

look at these issues- and i think it's very interesting that in missouri, the reason why senator sanders came so close was in fact ferguson on some levels. that younger people -- the dichotomy between younger african-american voters and older african-american voters, and the comments not so much as endorsing anybody but these issues and how they relate to trumpism. some would argue that the violence that led to the five victories that clinton had last week, the fear of violence led to -- [inaudible] >> i certainly understood your -- i understood the commentary itch just want to make sure -- what is your specific question?

>> sounds like it's against trump, but whatever. against this kind of demagoguery, and the naacp has historically talked about issues. what role should the naacp, at least in -- i don't know -- in terms of the fact checker but at least dealing in some level with a selection and also on some level dish mean not only there's a conflict between the -- some others but also between young and old, in the community. >> certainly. so, the role of the naacp in the present is best indicated by the past. so in recent history in 2008 and 2012 the naacp led the nation in registering people to vote. we, i think, by all accounts, were the most effective, certainly one of to the most effective organizations in terms

of bringing people to ballot box. point number one. point number two in terms of making clear the nation's civil rights agenda, we do that on an ongoing basis. not merely at the point of elections. we lay out issues and educate communities across the country with respect to our agenda and our issues, and we score members of congress on the basis of our issues. through a report card that we have done for the better part of a century. so we had a hard, long track record of educating ordinary voters who are charged with an extraordinary responsibility, that is to say, electing the leaders of this democracy, on the issues. beyond that, your point about generations, let me note something that may not be intuitively obvious. the naacp is the largest young people's civil rights organization in the country, bar none.

when you have over million digital activists, have over units in high schools, youth councils in colleges and prisons, where, at our national convention, out of 7,000 attendees, 2,000 will be young people. on our national board, 10% of the seats are reserved for young people. that is seven out of 64 board members. so we have a long-standing commitment to young people, but we respect them enough to bring the issues to them, make clear where we stand, provide the information to them, encourage them to vote, get them to the polls, and we let them make their own decisions. we're a nonpartisan organization. we make no apologies for that. and we are as clear about being nonpartisan as we are about being firmly in the camp of supporting civil rights under any and all circumstances. that's where we are.

>> raise the issue of flint, michigan. you said you were giving michigan governor snyder 30 days to come up with a deadline of price tag to replace the infrastructure, and that 30-day period comes up on the 23rd. just next week, five days from now. so, has there been any response from the governor during this centered he was here yesterday in washington testifying before a house committee, but has he had any response to the naacp and what does the naacp plan to do on march 24th if governor snyder has not complied with the naacp's request? >> certainly. let me provide some context for something called oultimatum.

call it a civic promise. the governor and his department, the environmental quality, switched through the emergency manager, switched the water source in flint. declined to use a form of corrosion control that would have cost less than $200 a day. and as a consequence of this action, and the failure to alert the people as to the danger of the water in contravention of federal regulations, that prescribe that you engage in corrosion control that is protecting the pipes before you use the water. they actually provided the people the water without having a corrosion control plan in place. why is that important? well, the governor, at this point, is saying, we don't need

to replace the pipes. notwithstanding a generational poise poisoning of children in flint. we can simply treat the water, treat the corrosion, and get the water to the point of safety and we can walk away from this problem. how do we know that be true? one, he said it. two, he has declined to put forward a price tag, a timeline, and a deadline for replacing the water infrastructure in flint. we have a mayor who, looking across a city of poisoned children, endangered families, with 55 million relative pennies the price tag of this problem has started to replace the pipes. what has to the governor done? relative to what needs to be done, nothing. nothing. we have an infrastructure

challenge that could cost close to a billion dollars. what has he requested? initially 20 some odd million dollars. we have a federal delegation that is seeking federal funding. what has he done with respect to seek fund frog them state legislature to pay for fixing the problem? relative to what is being done federally? nothing. so the naacp, being on the ground, talking about this issue, months before the national press arrived, when we went to flint, we met our branch in flint, our state conference from the state of michigan, and our branch from detroit. we held a town meeting. we asked the people what they think should be done. we put forward a 20-point plan. we sat down with the governor. we asked him to take leadership and responsibility for this problem. in other words, in translating and translate we asked him to

fix what he broke. in the venter vaccining weeks nothing has been done so on the 23rd, which follows international water day, we will be back in flint, engaging in direct action, in civil disobedience. we'll start small. we'll take a calibrated approach, with our direct action and civil disobedience will escalate in response to inaction. if in fact there is action, we're more than willing to work with the mayor and work with the governor in any way to bring about a resolution to this problem. but we are to be clear. you have a generational poisoning of children, you have had people pay for months for water they cannot use. among lawyers there's an -- and housing law there's something called an implied warrant of habitability, when you go rent a house, it is assumed that it is in fact habitable. i might say, might note, there's

an implied warranty of drinkability, when you get water of the tap you assume it is drinkable you at least assume it is not like arsenic that is poisonous. peer the people have been paying for months on expend only until recently have they received not a refund, for moneys they paid for poisonous water, but in fact a credit for future water, which i might note is still not safe. so that's why we will be there on the 23rd. other questions? >> rachel dolezal. what's the naacp's relationship with her now, if any? >> rachel dolezal was a well-respected branch president, somebody who was really liked by her members. we wish her well.

she is -- she has resigned her position and taken on other responsibilities, and we simply wish her will as we would any member of the naacp. >> okay. we'll wrap this up. i want to thank mr. brooks for his presentation today. an excellent presentation, and for responding to the questions. if members of the press, write signed in, sign the sheets right on the table outside the door. and we'll adjourn, thank you very much for coming. >> thank you. [applause]

>> on this weekend's newsmaker or gist e guest is nan aaron who talk besided the supreme court vacancy and president's choice of federal judge merrick garland to serve on the bench. watch the interview on sunday on c-span. >> supreme court left with the outside amount of pour with the power comes greater responsibility and the idea you have individuals sitting on the court unfettered for 35 years is not -- just doesn't pass the smell test when comunicates to a modern democracy. >> sunday night on q & a, gabe roth, fix the court's executive director, talk busy changes he'd like to see, including ohming up argument to cameras and term limits on the justices and

requiring justices to adhere to other codes of it thinks other judges follow. >> the supreme court decisions affect all americans. all americans are aware of the third branch of government, and in the last 10, 15 years the third branch of government has become so powerful. the idea that issues on voting and marriage and health care and immigration and women's rights, pregnancy discrimination. i could go on and on. issues that maybe 20, 30 years, congress and the executive branch would get together and figure out a compromise and put together a bill. that doesn't happen anymore. the buck stops in the supreme court in a way that is unprecedented in our history and given theft supreme court is making these very impactful decisions in our lives, the least we as the public can do is press them to comport with modern expectation of transparency and accountability. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's kq & a. >> the american educational trust and the institute for research middle east policy

hosted a day-long conference friday on israel and its influence on u.s. foreign policy, higher education and the media. the event included a keynote address from columnist, gideon levy, who works for one of israel's oldest daily newspapers. >> all right. so as you roll along i know those who attend last year, when they heard didon levy address -- diddan levy address the conference were amaze what he said, and we have no choice but by popular deplanned to bring him back this year for his encore speech. gideon is a well-known journalist in israel with haaretz. he writes frequently and often times controversially, if you are a zionist israeli. last year, like i said, he speech went viral online over 300,000 views online, english and arabic.

arabic was very popular as well. and today he will be addressing what i would tell a visiting congressional delegation. so with that, gideon, i invite you to the podium. [applause] >> thank you, dave. thank you, everybody. thank you, the washington report who invited me here last year and i was prepared for a lecture in front of a couple hundred of distinguished guests, and two months later, i started to realize that something is going on, wherever i go in the west bank, refugee camps, villages, people start to tell me they saw me speaking in the national press club.

and it went on and on, and then came the trips abroad, and wherever i get people talk to me about this legendary speech which i totally forgot about. and then i realized that it became viral, and some 200,000 people around the globe watched it, which puts me in a very impossible position today because i can't repeat myself. and as part of you might know, i'm a singer of one song. i'm a pony of one trick. and then you are helpful enough to give this framework of what would i have told to american congressmen or congressmen delegation, and this gives me a different framework, but i'm really, really grateful to you

and to your people for invite megyn and making me so famous in the world. so many congressmen are coming over and the israeli machinery is so efficient that it will be very hard to compete with this machinery, but still i would like to try this time, at least, virtually. the question that stems on the bay-to-main questions, first of all, do they know the truth? because one can claim they know the truth and just ignore it or don't care about it or think that the truth that the reality is the right one. or really can we open their eyes by showing them the real truth,

the reality, the back side of israel, the backyard of israel, and the second question, yesterday over dinner someone was mentioning the question is american important -- foreign policy in the middle east based on interest or based on values in and i have my doubts about both. and therefore to change this is a hell of a mission, but that's the main source of hope for us, for people like me in the middle east. the key is no in your hands, america, the key is now in your hands, activists. scholars, because as i said here last year, and this i'm sure will be the last sentence that i repeat myself from last year, the chances that change will come from within the israeli society are so limited, when brainwash system is so efficient

and life is so good, why would israel go for any change? what is the incentive? and, therefore, as big as the hope is was also the disappointment in the last seven years. but i'll try with a virtual tour, with some congressmen who would be ready to listen to me, and at first i will take them to certain places that the propaganda system of israel wouldn't take them, and i will like to introduce them to some people that they would never meet if they come to the israeli foreign minister or through apec. i would maybe start our tour with meeting a family in gaza, the latest victims of hossa, last saturday, two and a half at

night in me morning, two and a half, and an american israeli plane in the sky, an f-16, very accurate as we know, the most moral pilots in the world, who never mean to kill any civilians, who never mean to kill any children, who are busy day and night only in saving lives of palestinians, an american jet supplied be your country, financed partly by your country, with a pilot that was i guess trained, partly by your country, is going to gaza to take revenge for four rockets which were sent few hours before on friday night, didn't hit anything, didn't harm anyone. they were all falling in open spaces. but revenge must be taken, and

this f-16 flies over gaza, over the neighborhood which is in the north part of gaza, children -- and this i know for a fact -- most of the children wake up in hysteria because they know the noise already and the know what fools the noise. those who were -- most of them were ready there in 2005 and 2008 and 2014 and all toes operations that israel had done there, nor does mine that israeli jet in the sky, and so later the missile, the very, very accurate and precise and sophisticated and clever missile falls on the home -- to say home is an exaggeration -- falls on their hut or whatever you call it, and the two brothers, is a

and yassim are being killed. i'm not sure if they woke up before they're deaths or they were killed in their sleep. this attack, one of many, should be presented as it is, as a revenge operation of israel, nothing to do with fighting terror, nothing to do with the security of israel. then i would love to introduce this congressional -- congressman and women to a bunch of victims of the recent months of this recent -- children and the families who were executed, part of them, most of them

without any sufficient reason itch would introduce them to an american. american citizen, 16 years old, maybe they would care more about an american. the army claims that he came to a checkpoint two weeks ago and had a knife. in any case, did he have a knife or didn't he? we don't know because there are very few witnesses. he was shot dead immediately. 16 years old, with a background that makes the belief that he wanted to stab a soldier almost impossible. he came to palestine to spend some years in his village. he was born here in tampa, florida. he had his plans and dreams to go back to study medicine, his

fiscal cliff palestine was good, very well-off family. did he go really to stab a soldier? did he endanger the soldier? was there only one choice but to kill him dead and to shoot him three or four bullets? wasn't there any other choice? is there any definition but execution? and i give his example but a we have them unfortunately on a daily basis in the recent months. american congressmen should know that the life of palestinians in israel right now is the cheapest ever, with everything we went through, never was it so cheap. never was it so easy to kill palestinians, never was so it little discussed. never was it hardly covered by the israeli media, the biggest

collaborator with the occupation. never was it so natural that any palestinian must be held as a suspect, and any suspect must be executed. american legislators should know this. i would take the american legislators to few places just to show them and to trust their consciousness. it's enough to go for few hours to hebron, say no more. just take them there. i never met an honest human being who has been to hebron and couldn't come back after few hours in shock. and it's one log to hear about those things. it's another thing to see and

experience it in your own eyes. and anyone who argues still that in the occupied territories the regime is not an apartheid regime, come to hebron-spend a few hours, and i want to meet one person who would tell me after visiting hebron that this is not apartheid. it looks like apartheid, walks like apartheid, behaved like apartheid. it is apartheid. and this is not yet an apartheid state but the regime there in the occupied territories is -- cannot be defined but apartheid. and then i would ask the congress delegation are you accepting an apartheid system in the 21st century do you understand your see lensing an apartheid system in the 21st 21st century? do you know your president

compared once the palestinians to the black slavery? do you live in peace with the fact that you are supporting it automatically and blindly? and then, to conclude our tour, i would take this mission, this congress mission, to the most unexpected place to tel aviv. activists usually don't come to tel aviv. i always tell activist, please tom to tel aviv because you will understand it only if you have been to tel aviv. look at the wonderful life in tel aviv. one hour from gaza, one hour from hebron. look at the lines for restaurants. listen to what people are talking about in cafes. look at the clubs. look at this vivid society. look at the beaches. many times when helicopters are doing on their way to bomb

either hebron or gaza, -- hebron or lebanon in its time or gaza -- look and listen to what young people are talking. try to ask them, what do they know about the occupation? there is knew survey showing that israel is number 11 in the world in the happiness index of the u.n. the israelis are happier than you americans. they are happier than the germans, the french, the brits, 11th in the world. 86% of israelis claim that their life is wonderful. american legislators should know it. because this happiness is partly financed by the united states. and is really israel the first

on the list to be supported with so much money? is it the poorest country, the most unprotected country, the weakest one? what is the answer to all those questions? why? without watching the life of tel aviv, it's very hard to understand this total loss of connection with reality of the israeli society, this total moral blindness, this total interest in any kind of solution, why would tel aviv go for a solution? tel aviv, d.c., the state of tel aviv, this bubble who lists its wonderful life, one hour away from the place where those two brothers were killed, only five days agoful you think there is one percent of israelis who heard at all the idea of killing

to to children five days ago. can you imagine yourself what would have happened if palestinian terrorists would have killed two babies in their sleep? what would we have heard about the palestinians, about their cruelty, their brutality, about their behavior, those animals. but israel? with a jet, was very precise bombs and missiles, that's fine. i would take those congressmen to some of the refugee camps. they should see it. i would have taken them to gaza if i could. remember what the word promise gaza just a few years ago? where is the word of the world? remember how many signed

obligations to reconstruct to rebuild, to open up gaza, and gaza is forgotten again. and the only way for gaza to remind itself existence is only by launching rockets. this is the message that is the only way to remind its existence? and then the israeli right-wingers will tell me what do you want no good to syria, look what is going on in syria, so much worse. and then i tell them, the killing in syria is not financed by the united states. the killing in syria is not supported by the united states. the killers in syria do not have a carte blanche to go wild and kill and conquer and to depress and confiscate, and the killers in syria are not the biggs ally of the united states.

coming back to this question from the beginning is the foreign policy in the middle east, driven by interests or values. it contradicts both, dear friends. it's not for me to judge american's policy, but for me it'sen enigma. i must tell you. its an enigma. what interests to it serve exactly? and what values do they really share? yes, the american congressmen who would come to israel would find quite a common language with most of the israeli politicians. we have our donald trumps and our hillary clintons, unfortunately so. the level would be also more of the same. they will find most of them, common language, cynicism will

be also quite equal in both sides. but still americans should ask. thes and legislatessors above all, why do we go on with the same policy for so many years? why don't you realize it doesn't lead to anywhere? don't we see where does it go? don't we see that with this enormous sums of money that the united states is investigating in this occupation project, at least the minimal would have been to use this to some kind of constructive purposes, to some kind of pressure on israel, to some kind of effort to put an end to the occupation to cheng

they interests, the policy, the behavior, the conception that the palestinians are not equal beings like anyone else, the conception that the palestinians were born to kill, which is shared right now between the united states and israel. i would have expect a mission of the congress to ask itself, did this policy of supplying carrots and only carrots to israel, did it prove itself? what came out of it? next year, we are celebrating 50 years to the occupation. you see when you enjoy yourself, time is passing to quickly. it's only the first 50 years of the occupation, i'm afraid. but any american delegation

would come to israel should ask itself, where is it heading to? when the chances for the two state solution are either totally gone or really in the last moments, i believe that we missed the chance, i believe, by the way, that both america and israel never meant to go for the two-state solution. i believe that the two-state solution was a threat which me personally i fall into it as well. but the american -- now, you can say don't put everything on us americans. take responsibility. use israelis-right? but america cannot not be taken responsible, with everything that israel is doing today,

is -- was a total approval of the united states, and the total financing of the united states. we have now those discussions. this is really when you hear it, you really don't believe to what you hear. the united states, the leader of the free world, the biggest and only super power in the world, is now negotiating with israel about the foreign aid, the military assistance for the coming ten years. first of all, israel said, we think we'll wait until the next president. this president is not good enough. then they had second thoughts because they start to think that donald trump might be unexpected. might be unexpected. so maybe they will do the favor and maybe they are ready to discuss with the obama regime about the coming ten years. america is begging for israel to

accept a deal. it was until now $3.4 billion. america is -- other and i'm not very good on the details bus america is offering $4 billion a year for ten years. $40 billion. israel wants five. israel is ready to compromise on four and a half, 4.3 a year. but if you look at the mechanism, if you look at the way it goes, you come again and again to the same question, for god sake, who is the super power between the two? and who this in the pocket of whom here? now -- [applause] it's really not for me to answer to give an explanation for this. and the thing -- i would go for

current aid to me asking you because i have so many questions to you. how can it be possible, how can it be possible for so many years, such blind and automatic support, a carte blanche to israel, how can it be that america, who claims to care about israel, who claims the existence of israel is important for you, who claims that israel is the only democracy in the middle east, how can it be that administration after administration, with very little differences between the administrations, always competing, the candidates, who will be more proisraeli? and in the same time, the are they are corrupting israel. so even from a point of view of an israeli patriarch, for me, apec is a friendly organization

to israel. as a matter of fact i see apec as one of israel's biggest enemies because when -- [applause] -- because when you are drug addicted, and people -- i say i'm afraid i mention it also last time, so it's the second -- but only two sentence in the whole speech -- but it is so clear that i can't help but mention it again. drug addicted, your family, a drug addict who is your friend, supply with more money he will be so grateful to you, but are you really caring about him? really taking care? really love him? try to send him to rehabilitation center. he will be so mad at you.

but isn't this real care? does anyone here have the slightest doubt of israeli's occupation addicted? do you have any kind of doubt that this addiction is dangerous, first of all, from israel's future, the real victims are obviously the palestinians, and in many ways the entire middle east, but by the end of the day, the occupation will end one day, one way or the other, but the occupier, look what happens to the occupier. i would have taken this mission, this congressional mission, and introduce them to some colleagues in the israeli parliament. look at the last legislation in their israeli parliament. does this meet american values? a book which is being banned because it was describing

intermarriage between races? can you see yourself, a book in the united states, being banned because it described intermarriage between two races? in israel it happened with the common values between americans and israelis. can you see an american president calling the voters of the day of the election to run to the ballots because the native american, or the hispanic community is running to the ballots? can you see it happening? it happened last elections in israel. and those are the common values. can you see an american president, after a terror take

made, let's say, by an afro american, calling the whole afro american community as responsible, speaking about their related lawlessness, of the afro american community because after one terrorist like that? israeli prime minister did few weeks ago. can you see it happening? but, no, we are talking about the only democracy in the middle east, and the only democracy in the middle east has the right to do whatever it wants. and then to end up this virtual tour of those congressmen who would never come to listen to me, and will never let me take them around, i would end this tour like the israeli propaganda machinery would start it, in the holocaust memorial museum. i would have taken them because

it all started there. because israel would have never been established without the holocaust, and it should be remembered, absolutely, but then i would ask my guests, who will never come, what this lesson of it? never again does israeli mean it, which means never again in any prize to jewish people, which give this jewish people the trying to do whatever they want after the holocaust, as the laid golda meier once phrased it, anything? or should the lessen be never again to any other people? [applause] i believe that most of the american legislators, at least

big part of them, know the trouble. the know what is being done in their money. they know that the idea of which is based so much on american money, and training and equipment, above all, they know very well what is the use of this army. they know very well that the main, main role of this army, the most moral in the world, is being an occupier force, chasing after children, detaining children, shooting children on a daily basis. they know very well that with all the sophisticated bombs and submarines and air jet that israel has, maybe most sophisticated army in the world, by the end of the day it's all about maintaining this occupation, which no country in the world recognizes.

even micronesia, israel's best friend after the united states. they know very well what use is being done, and they support it, and they compete now one against the other, who will be more pro-israeli than the other, and american society accepts it. wait, wait for the coming days, in apec here. wait to hear. i saw that already trump declared he's the biggest friend of israel. wait for hillary clinton's answer that she is the best friend of israel. and i can tell you, dear friends, none of them is israel friend. none of them cares about the israel. [applause] and if this policy will continue, of this automatic and

blind support, which enable israel to go wild like never before. israel never had this freedom to react as it reacts. never. i remember still years in which every new terrorist in the settlement, which is was immediately, what will the americans say? now i think obama is much more fearful of what netanyahu would say rather than the opposite way. so the red light is already here, and the red light is shining for so long. time in the relationship between the united states and israel, and let me tell you, the day that will be an american president who would like really and sincerely to put an end to it. who would really like to put an end to this set of crimes, to

this criminal occupation, the occupation will come to it end within months, within months, israel will never be able to say, no, to a decisive american president. i would conclude my lecture by saying, so please vote for him, but who is he? thank you very much. [applause] >> thanks again for a fabulous speech, and as i'm looking at the questions, these are questions you should be asking us and we shouldn't be asking you. but nonetheless, i'll give it a stab. so the first question concerns,

i guess, the high number of extreme right-wing israelis, and kind of the notion that a lot of congressmen, especially democratic ones, anytime they see a gun-toting american, are quick to push for greater gun reform and stuff like that, but they're pretty lenient in supporting gun-toting american settlers thousands of miles away in israel. so the question is kind of what do you make of that kind of hypocrisy, i guess? >> can you repeat? >> sure. sorry. just the existence of right-wing israelis and lou that's kind of the right wing of the u.s. is often slandered but not in israel. >> first of all, can i be heard? i would like just a personal sentence because when i was on the podium, came in a very, very

dear friend of mine, maybe the biggest musician today, and the great, great, great friend of justice in the middle east, mr. roger waters, and i'm so grateful for him to be with us here. [applause] >> now you understand why i wasn't so concentrating on the question because i realized that roger and this is for me, as a very, very deep meaning. i do believe that the problem in israel is not the right-wingers. and not the extremists. the problem is the mainstream. the mainstream who choose to close its eyes. the main stream who wants to feel so good about himself. the main stream who wants to show the beautiful face of israel, how gay friendly we are,

how we invented the cherry tomatoes how we contributed to much to the international high-tech industry, look how beautiful we are, we invented the kibbutz and we have the most moral army in the world, don't you dare to think that it can be the second moral army in the world. it's the most moral army in the world. look at us, we are forced by those arabs to do all those things. it's not our choice. we are the victims. we live in fear. we live in the trauma of the world war ii, the trauma of the missiles and the trauma of the knife holders and the trauma of terror, and we are the happiest people in the world. number 11. after all those victimization, number 11 in the world in happiness, standards. very strange. but in any case, the mainstream who decides to close his eyes to

ignore what is happening in its backyard, this is the main problem. and then the right-wingers can do whatever they want. and right-wingers find common language with right-wingers anywhere else, and you have your right-wingers and we have our right-wingers and i don't know which one is worse than whom. but by the end of the day, and you can take it also to your elections. by the end of the day, i will always prefer an honest right-winger on a bluff of someone who wears a mask and disguise and claims he is so liberal and so wonderful and by the end of the day he does the same. in the case of israel, when you look what labor did and what did the right, wingers do. labor carries so much more

responsibility for the occupation project, peace nobel prize winner perez did much more for the settlement project and putting any possible obstacle to reaching any kind of justice in the middle east, then many right-wingers. [applause] >> a couple of question on your description of the west bank as an apartheid system. one person wants to know why you don't extend that to israel given the violence in jerusalem and other places, and the second person would just like no know after all these years of apartheid and occupation, where is the hope? >> first of all i didn't say there is hope. did i say here? you will never find me hopeful. never. but this is an exaggeration because there is some kind of hope. i had more hope seven years ago when obama came to power. then i was really hopeful.

this is maybe the last time i was hopeful. but in many lost cases, or what seem to be lost cases, like apartheid in south africa, communist regime in soviet russia, the wall in east berlin, it all happened within months, and nobody had foreseen it. i'm sure if i would have come here in the late 80s and tell you all this is going to fall within months you would never invite me again because these guy's out of his mind and its happened. so first of all there is room of hope because many times the unexpected does happen and many times its happens when you don't expect it to happen. like those huge trees we are now in the cherry blossom season, but still you see from time to time a tree, looks so healthy, so strong, what happened? and then you look inside and it you see it was totally rotten.

and what is more rotten than the israeli occupation. but answering the first part of the question about apartheid. ... any possible basis, but formal civil rights and then comes regimes and occupied

territories which can be defined as an apartheid. this is apartheid. and israel is not yet an apartheid state. it goes toward becoming an apartheid state. but right now according to three regimes and not one. >> we are running out of time. >> five minutes of my book signing. >> there is aa question, do you think congress people generally are ignorant on what is happening or willfully ignorant? >> that is a question for you.

i am much more concerned how israeli legislators know nothing, israeli young people know nothing. but my guess, i did not check it, but most of the american legislators know nothing. what they know is usually a product of the brainwash system and prejudice stereotypes. we know how muslims in general untreated and perceived. i am not sure -- i know by far there are very few israelis the perceived palestinians as equal human beings, very few. you will always find the belief that they are not exactly human beings, like us.

i once wrote that we treat the palestinians like animals. so many complaints and threat letters from animal rights organizations that i must be careful. i think most do not perceive palestinians as equalis equal human beings. maybe this is the core of the issue. it is better than me, and above all so many lies spread, part of the american media. how many lies can be spread so easily. such a huge machinery. basic sex are not -- basic sex -- if they get this

information maybe they are right in their conclusions. maybe the palestinians deserve it. if we are in a situation, and gaza, babies. the basic journalistic mission just tell readers what happened he is so much hatred this is a crime.

>> one final question. >> peacefully while accepting human rights and dignity. >> give me another two hours. no problem. my flight is leaving tomorrow evening. basic and complicated questions, usually i say when people say it is so complicated, the situation is more simple than you think, black and white, and those who portray it as a couple good question want to say let's not find a

solution. many things are very black and white. [applause] and justice is black and white today 1st of all, we have to define if jewishness is a religion or nationality or both and what is stronger than what, how we deal with the jewish people of religion many times i am asked, i don't know what it is. obviously like any man of conscious of the world. but what does it mean to be jewish today in israel. the extreme jewish are not the majority but the only

active group in society. when the mainstream is busy with having sushi and buying new jeeps, the extremists are the only one ready to sacrifice something and then you get what you get. by the end of the day this can be changed, and i don't -- many times people speak about jewish values and other things i never understood what it means. i know what it means global, universal. i don't know what does it mean jewish values. if that is the state of israel today has nothing to do with morality. in any case how it will live together, we have to change basic, basic beliefs. nothing will move without changing that is very, very basic beliefs. someone has 2,000 someone

who tries to go for this change. nothing will change. as long as they continue, that is the core of the issue. the palestinians will be as divided as they are. we kissed point ever. the word is forgetting them, sick and tired of the whole conflict. the arab world could not care less. and they are left with people of conscious in the world, but we know how cheap and unappreciated it is to be aa man of conscience today, to be a traitor.

to be a leftist it is really is a curse today. coming back to the 2nd question, they are between -- really torn between the state in the people. and one should be sensible enough to understand how torn they are between their people and state and anyone who asks them for more faithfulness, more patriotism, the state which oppresses the people, again, does not treat them as normal human beings. normal human beings care about their people. the jewish people should be the 1st to understand it. what did we do when they could not get out from soviet russia. the whole jewish world was

recruited for a campaign against russia. not care about his direct cousin who lives half an hour away from his home was deported not lost his land, lost his dignity, his life is in the garbage. and let me tell you -- and maybe this is my last sentence because you will kick me out. i truly believe, and this comes back to the original topic today. i don't know how knowledgeable are the american legislators. i know one thing: there is not one single american legislator who can imagine himself what it means to live as a palestinian under the israeli occupation. he cannot imagine himself one day of humiliation. [applause] of life danger, of daily

lack of hope, despair, not having any chance for anything, being humiliated on a daily basis, and this is literally on a daily basis. not knowing what does it mean to see the beaches which are half an hour away from your home, children never saw those beaches. so there is not one single american legislator and very few israelis if at all you can imagine themselves, what does it mean to be today a palestinian under this brutal occupation. as long as this is the case, the chances for change are so small and therefore if you could arrange a delegation of congressman or any other my truly believe that once they experience the occupation, seo brutal it is allowed total it is,

how it penetrates on a daily basis, how you don't have one day of dignity or hope, even in peaceful to, once legislators will see, i give them the credit that this will touch them. thank you. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> we went a little over. a ten minute break or so.

>> thank you. >> absolutely. great job. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. our next panel is on israel's influence on us foreign-policy. we have three great speakers lined up. i will keep the intro short, but we will begin by speaking about what is -- what is really influences. jim lobe will be discussing the neocons and finally the light of looking at how our elections and politicians

are impacted. our 1st speaker will be colonel lawrence wilkerson, best known as serving as: powell's assistant. before his time in the state department he had 31 years of service in the u.s. army. deputy director of the us marine corps at quantico. currently working on a book about about the george w. bush administration, which he worked in and is a distinguished professor of government and public policy. [applause] >> thank you. thank you all for coming out today.

since i am limited in time i want to you started right away. israel has been a foreign and security policy problem. israel was a problem, a rather large one, most recently pointed out by a truly brilliant student. in a decade of teaching and six years that two of the nations were colleges i have rarely had better papers and the one he submitted. now, faithful decision-making is what i teach, and as the ancient greeks said, it is when old men send young men and women to die for state purposes, something we often forget, to kill others for state purposes. he shall go unnamed but not

unheralded by me. he had the additional characteristic of being a jewish american. that recalls to mind for me immediately a most unnerving moment. just enter the enter sanctum of a man would prove to be very powerful, only recently discovered that i had chosen to work for rich path rather than staying directly under my old mentor, the new secretary of state. why? recovering from mild shock, i looked him straight in the eye and replied, i will forget i heard that. i turned and evacuated is an is. i recall this little

anecdote because it reveals what many years as a reposting device against any jewish-american who through critical thinking questions from time to time the policies of the modern state of israel and us relationship with the state. i have no doubt where someone such as alan dershowitz, for example much read my students paper, the response self-loathing jew would not be far from his lips. in 1948 i would submit there is no explicit such challenge for jewish americans are any other. the ingrained and highly partisan nature and the neoconservative adoption, hat off to you. had not yet come about. what my student rehearsed

with the profound objections of the us joint chiefs of staff of the iconic hero of world war ii. harry truman essentially said he won the war. cannot think of anything more to say about this man. my students saw these objections as the vehement opposition to a jewish state the threat such opposition presented to the key oil imports and then my student quoted the joint chiefs of verbatim. the decision to participate palestine would prejudice united states strategic interest in the near middle east to the point that united states influence

would be curtailed to that which could be maintained by military force. is that prussians or prussians? harry truman summed up the case. i am sorry. i have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of zionism. marshall in a tale that is not apocryphal when truman decided he would essentially recognize the state that stood up threatened not to vote for the president if he did. coming from a man like marshall, this was also -- almost stunning. of course he went ahead.

there were more counter arguments, as my student pointed out in his excellent paper. the horrors of the holocaust and the need to make up for the wrongs committed against the jewish people speaking for recognition. my student continued, the british had promised the jewish people a homeland in palestine. up to the us to give that to them. today we can look back on a line of post-world war ii presidents who try to deal with challenges and more that the staff had laid out, and to be honest and as many of you are well aware, the joint chiefs were not breaking new ground. ever since world war i the us state department position

had been quite clear. it opposed the giant missed movement because it was the zionist movement interfering. there we have it. even so, are they have envisioned the power today? particularly after bill clinton decided to make presidential appearances. i love that french phrase. i looked it up in merriam-webster. necessary if you want to be popular. the things you did for popularity sake. despite these heavily adverse conditions most managed a rather precarious balance.

eisenhower and 56 or ronald reagan or george hw bush insisting on real and serious work in which the us had gained quite a bit of new leverage applicable. some critics have written quite eloquently that he lost the election because of vehement opposition. then came george w bush, dick cheney, and the presidency captured by the neoconservatives. in a flash israel became a strategic ally. as prime minister, from

israel's invasion and then invasion we had to haul their asses out of. this became a man of piece. and all of the fears loomed so largely that some of us sucked in our breath and found it hard to exhale thereafter. we have been trying with little avail to restore that precarious balance

maintained since world war ii. and so today, where are we? today i was us policy -- head bashing. in a hearing before the senate armed services committee petronius said that the israeli-palestinian conflict ferments anti- american sentiment in the region, and it makes military operations that much more difficult. these remarks came amidst a dispute over housing units in jerusalem.

a legal under international law and destabilizing. i can tell you, the military councils of which i have been part, this sentiment was often voiced and at times and far more dramatic terms. on my old mentor and boss used to talk about issues we rarely if ever complemented israel on its addition to us security posture, quite the opposite. although today i suspect you would deny such conversations, and i would not blame them. but there is more. there is concrete evidence. where is, after all, us

power and southwest asia, africa, and the persian gulf today. first, it ain't in israel, nor could it be unless the world was at work and all bets were off. and i will come to that in a minute. under any other conceivable scenario the us will never land meaningful military forces on the unsinkable middle east aircraft carrier of israel. the phrase used by my neoconservative colleagues. every instance of the use of force by the us in the region to date has proven that reality beyond a shadow of a doubt. so where exactly is the hard power?

the most powerful headquarters in the us arsenal is in bahrain. as a matter of fact, my comment another marine or soldier will sink kuwait. in all my years i have never seen a serious suggestion. instead, many times his advice and decision-making to stay totally away from such use. moreover, each one is threatened by the us unbalanced role. in fact, examining a single

strategic scenario is so graham has to be self-defeating in conception as well as execution. imagine a general war with turks fighting russians, allied with greeks, iraqis plunged into sectarian warfare. the us doing more. the beginnings of a regionwide and possibly global conflict. israel about to be overwhelmed. people will be choosing sides.

jordan and egypt will choose sides. so, the us lands major military forces on israel after we mobilize fully, conscripts 2 million men and women spend one year training them and then enter the fray. inconceivable? i hope so. another major and overwhelming negative that i saw up close and personal was every time the deputy secretary of state took us to the budget drill, it has been highlighted earlier. we would go into the room with the assistant secretaries assembled and mind you, it is kind of an

anemic battle because the defense department was getting around 600 billion and we were getting 30. they were going and look at the money. us foreign affairs. take out immediately three plus billion for israel and egypt to keep the piece treaty. and then look at the rest. those things that are more or less fixed and so we have less than a billion dollars left. now do you understand why diplomacy is not an instrument we reach for often? and i am not referring from pointing out more insidious factors.

israeli arms merchants selling arms to our most likely enemies. more than one israel breaks us law and does things, these are other aspects of the relationship i have been close to that have been disturbing but have been enlightening as to what it means to have this ally. let me conclude with a recognition of reality. the inground, but at considerable cost not least of which is a robust military to military relationship and has been highlighted to increase funding. all of the previous military and diplomatic advice,

setting up an experiment that will result in ethnic cleansing akin to indian wars in the heart of palestine. her own approach the region in question; what you will, would still be a boiling cauldron of instability, chaos, and wreckage. the region will always be in a mess. if we were to settle the problem with a two state solution, the same motive here. the united states would not be painted with a broad brush of favoritism and prejudice policy that it is every day.

part of the reality is our fault because we have called, supported, funded, and used time after time to fulfill our wishes. how many dictators have we accommodated. the region's calamities have many causes. kicking and screaming, tyrants, and distinct lack of talent, one of the most intramural people of the palestinians. english missteps, border drawings and double dealings that by themselves would damn people to purgatory. that is no reason the united

states of america to tie its foreign policy that when the enclave goes the master might be sucked in to what results for no positive purpose of power. is this jeopardize us national security interest? you bet it does. all i ask is the american people be told the unvarnished truth. do they want foreign and security policy based upon sound principles of power management are based upon passion, ideology, and unbridled favoritism. i am not certain what the answer will be. but i am certain we need to

give them the essential facts and then asked the question. thank you. [applause] >> excellent. next we hear from jim lobe, chief washington bureau and begin from 1998 until 2015. managed and produced a blog primarily focused on us policy toward the middle east. last year it received the ross award. a longtime observer of neoconservatives. [applause]

>> this intimidates me. >> that makes it worse. i am going to speak quickly. i have been asked to give neoconservatism 101 which is a big challenge. took me seven hours to get through it when i address the institute in beijing 12 years ago when chinese analysts were desperately trying to figure out why the united states was so stupid as to invade iraq. i will start by summing up. harassed the boil down neoconservatism into essential elements i would say the following: a view of the world in which good and evil are constantly at war in the united states has

an obligation to lead the forces for good around the globe, 2nd, a belief in the moral exceptionalism of both the us and israel and the absolute moral necessity for the us to defend israel's security. third, a conviction that in order to keep evil that they the united states must have and be willing to exercise the military power necessary to defeat any and all challenges anywhere. there is a corollary. force is the only language that evil and adversaries understand. the 1930s, with appeasement, chamberlain, and churchill taught us everything we need to know about evil and how to thwart it. and democracy is generally

desirable but it always depends upon who wins. this, to me, is neoconservatism in a nutshell. i could stop here, but i still have 15 minutes 46 seconds. let's review the context in which neoconservatism became a serious movement. there was a major impact, not only on the jewish community or israel and the jewish community here in this country, but the

general public here as well. these events were followed by the rise of the new left, the counterculture, hippies, antiwar movement, black power movement as well as the 1967 arab-israeli will. all of which left a number of intellectuals and liberals feeling bogged by reality. and in a way that launched them on a rightward trajectory. at trajectory gained momentum in the early 1970s when the antiwar candidate won the democratic nomination for president and

when israel teetered in the early stages which itself was immediately followed by the oil embargo. and us powers globally seems to be in retreat, especially after the collapse of clients in vietnam and elsewhere in indochina. these are created a context in which neoconservatism gained serious political traction in the us. now, it may be useful to address an important as no religious issue. neoconservatism has largely been a jewish movement. by no means are all neoconservatives jewish.

the late jean kirkpatrick, bill bennett, james woolsey and michael novak and george weikel are just a few examples of non-jews who have played major roles movement over time. that said, it is true that most neoconservatives are jewish and not only jewish but increasingly republican. it is important to stress now that the large majority of jews in this country another neoconservative nor republican, a source of great frustration to neoconservatives, jewish -- jewish neoconservatives in particular. just on monday the "wall street journal" ran an op-ed

entitled the political stupidity of the jews revisited in which the author bemoaned the persistent tendency of jews to vote democratic. and in some cases the question how well it is worth supporting israel. now, back to the movement's core features. more of a worldview than a coherent political ideology. that has been shaped by rather traumatic historic events, most notably the nazi holocaust and the events of the 1930s leading up to it. of course the great depression and pervasive anti-semitism at the time were important causes, but neoconservatives stress three other causes.

first, the failure of liberal institutions in the republic to prevent the rise of nazi -ism in germany. the 2nd, the appeasement of hitler by the western european democracy and their failure to confront him militarily early on. third, the isolationism practiced by the united states during that fateful period. this assessment of these causes aids neoconservatives to believe that spineless liberals, military weakness, diplomatic appeasement and american isolationism are ever present threats that must be fought against at all costs. this is an integral part of their worldview, and you can often hear it in their

rhetoric and polemics. talking about appeasement. for them the importance of maintaining overwhelming military power as well as constant american engagement or intervention outside its borders cannot be overstated. the latter point is particularly critical because neocons believe in the absence of a tangible threat americans naturally retreat and isolationism. as a result, theya result, they have engaged in a consistent pattern of threat inflation. we can call it fear mongering. from exaggeration of alleged soviet preparations for nuclear war in the mid- 1970s to the hyping of the various threats allegedly

posed by iraq, radical islam norman podhoretz has argued that just as we defeated nazi -ism in world war ii and communism and what he refers to as world war iii, so must we now defeat islam of fascism and what he has called world war four. for neocons, new hitler is always just around the corner. they must be in a permanent state of mobilization to confront them. but assuring american engagement and military dominance is not just a matter of protecting national security. it is a moral imperative. in their world neocons see the us as the ultimate white hat or as elliott abrams

once put it, the united states is the greatest force for good among the nations of the earth. this conviction helps explain paul wolfowitz's call for amounted to a unilaterally enforced pax americana in his famous 1992 defense policy guidance as well as bob kagan's and bill kristol's 1996 appeal to an increasingly anti- interventionist republican party to return to what they called a neo- reaganite policy of benevolent global hegemony. that manifesto set the stage for the project of the new american century his associates said so much to coordinate the march to war in iraq inside and outside

the bush administration and which created so much consternation in beijing. so how did israel fit in? in my view and that of other observers, but offensive israel has been a central pillar of the neoconservative worldview from the outset. the fact that neoconservatism began as and remains a largely jewish movement is one very relevant reason. , israel is seen as morally exceptional due to the fact that spurs as an independent state was made possible by the legacy of the holocaust

and the guilt provoked in the west. moreover, it's depiction in the media as both a staunch us ally, questionable but -- and a lonely outpost of democracy besieged by hostile if not barbaric neighbors has contributed to the notion of moral superiority. the most recent wars and the steadily rightward drift has made this image increasingly hard to sustain. not only in the last but within the jewish community here as well. although strong defenders of israel, neoconservatives are not necessarily israel firsters. they believe both are morally exceptional. that means neither one should necessarily be found

by international norms are institutions like the un security council that would constrain the ability to defend themselves or to preempt threats as they see fit. it means that both countries should maintain overwhelming military power vis-à-vis any possible challengers, and in the neoconservative you the interests of the two countries are largely congruent if not identical. americans fate and israel's fate are one and the same. but that does not mean neocons defer. they often have different priorities. though the american enterprise institute,

foundation for defense of democracy to name a few, neocons very much let the public campaign for invading iraq virtually the moment the twin towers collapsed. but i do not think ari l sharon was all that enthusiastic. similarly, many were unhappy with the withdrawal gaza and his successors decisions to end wars against hezbollah and hamas over the past decade. neocons almost always believe that they know better than anyone else. this has changed somewhat since that yahoo took power,

and especially since the 2013 elections which resulted in the most right-wing government in israeli history. there is a close relationship since the 1980s when he was based as an israeli diplomat and neoconservatives have their 1st taste of power under ronald reagan. the worldviews -- that is neocons -- are similar, but there have been differences. while most of them calling for regime change through covert or direct us military action, baby has wanted the civil war to go on and on presumably for as long as possible. and while i have urged a

harder line against russia, discreet silence has been maintained and enjoys a businesslike, if not cordial relationship with putin. so backed up a huge military budgets, israel's security, all central. it is often send they are devoted to the spread of liberal values. this is way overplayed. conservatives talk about democratization and usually mean destabilization. now, i believe some are indeed sincerely committed,

but his is a minority view has demonstrated most recently the case of egypt are most deeply appreciate the president and want more help for him. most think edifact alliance between israel and the regions sunni autocrats who have led the counterrevolution against the arab spring would just be the cats pajamas. indeed, most have historically had a soft spot for what used to be referred to as friendly authoritarians. that was the last time you heard neoconservatives advocate for full human rights for palestinians.

devotion to democracy depends entirely on the circumstance. i would like to make two final notes as briefly as i can. movement with no recognized leader. yes, they work together quite closely. but they also have differences. some actively promote islamic phobia while others disdain it. there are soft neocons and heart neocons. the movement is not monolithic. neocons have been admirably

nimble in creating tactical alliances with different political forces. in the mid- 70s they worked with aggressive nationalists like dick cheney and donald rumsfeld. trying to derail kissinger's efforts. despite clear anti-semitism is fair theology. but the coalition helped propel a reagan victory and 83 and then alienated by the 1st brushes oppression on israel to stop settlements, many opted for clinton. by the mid- 90s i allied

with liberal internationalists by 2,000 they reconstituted the old reagan coalition of aggressive nationalists in the christian right and they lead the charge along with rumsfeld and cheney into the rack. now have been with the liberal interventionists, and some of them, openly warning that they will back hillary. i will leave that. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. now we have that opportunity

to talk about the 2016 election. author and editorial director. a regular contributor to the american conservative and chronicle magazine. also written a handful of books on us foreign policy and has a talk entitled israel and foreign-policy issues in the presidential campaign. [applause] >> let's do a little experiment. i realize the vulgarity, name-calling, references, but there have been a few minutes of the city in history has been made, precedents set and even

reasons for optimism highlighted. although these may have been lost amid the brouhaha and liberal moralizing. onto our experiment, which candidate said the following as president there is nothing that i would rather do than bring piece to israel and its neighbors generally, and it serves no purpose to say, but you have a good guy and the bad guy. now, i may not be successful in doing it, the toughest negotiation anywhere in the world of any kind. [laughter] but it does not help if i start saying, i am pro- israel. does not do any good to start demeaning the neighbors i would love to do

something. i can do that as well as a negotiator. okay. i'll give you a few seconds to contemplate the answer. speaking reasonably, rationally of the most controversial issues. someone firing a bipartisan consensus which is that we must give support to a jewish state.

i love affair that dictates washington must kowtow to tel aviv and ignore the horrific conditions under which palestinians must live. you had enough time. what is the answer? who would dare to step on the 3rd rail of american politics and the final lobby the answer must be donald trump. indeed it is. he said it in houston in detroit on fox news, and the two other main contenders attacked him for it. of course, they did not have a substantial criticism. how can one argue against evenhandedness.

he merely repeated his pledge to give israel everything it wants and more while rubio repeated the ending talking points. in short, the usual nonsense trumps that is ground, repeated his position in at least two debates. quite astonishing to have a north carolina primary. trump is finished and he was not.

he is the front runner by a country mile. the only slack has been from the neoconservatives who hated him anyway. the emergency committee for israel ran an ad attacking him. they did not want to go there. that is because trump has single-handedly changed the charm of the debate without hardly anyone noticing and without anyone giving him any credit. israel is no longer the 3rd rail of american politics.

how did he do it back by simply and fearlessly telling the truth. some people did notice. the israel lobby and panic set in. an interesting piece, in their super tuesday speeches they tried to use and israel hammer to bash donald trump. he would remain neutral. trump was racking up victories, amassing delegates and laughing all

the way to the top of the republican presidential field. i am still quoting. in this way the new york billionaires decimating the conventional wisdom, one of many. total and unconditional support for israel is a prerequisite for any aspiring republican candidate wishing to run for president. remember when the support of supporting evangelical christians was contingent on a candidate's willingness to grow before netanyahu? poor rand paul, the alleged anti- interventionist isolationists and fellow libertarian had to travel all the wit israel, cuddle up to the israeli right-wing and ignore the palestinians whom he did not even been to visit. where did he get him? just disdain and a series of

televised ads from a dark money pro- israel group attacking him for trouble. appeasement does not work when it comes to dealing with the israel lobby. one tactic does seem to work. a direct and honest assault. as is noted, southern evangelicals voted for trump anyway and in droves. they handed him victories. the conception is falling apart. the notion that the republican party is a monolithic bastian of support i will withstand the test of time is evaporating.

the belief that any republican president to will follow will be better for israel is eroding which with each passing day faced with the trump phenomenon the strategy is collapsing like a house of cards. this is what they are seeing and saying. [applause] the supposed invincibility has been a long time unraveling. the process began a couple years ago with there 1st big defeat over the nomination of chuck hagel has defense secretary. taking center stage, his annotation -- doing his imitation of joe mccarthy

and an puny integrity. did not work. taking the initiative took a republican, donald trump the deal lobby and death blow the lobby was always a paper tiger, and it was inevitable that this would eventually happen. there is no going back.

every time to try to hit trump over the head is israel's weakness that is exposed. every time he when's a party primary, another nail is driven into the coffin of the unshakable alliance. that alliance is being shaken and the panic expense to the democratic party, the billionaire is denouncing trump is unreliable. calling the republican front-runner a clown and dangerous, he ranted the

trump is dangerous for the world, and since israel is part of the world is dangerous for israel. as trump would say, okay. and especially dangerous for those who consider israel the moral equivalent. it is hard to know what he is thinking. you never have such a friend in the white house as you will when i become president. i am neutral.

one of hillary clinton's long-term supporters, given the millions of dollars and is the single biggest donor the democratic congressional campaign. a net worth of 3.6 billion. now, what is significant about the stance is that if as president he tries to make a deal in an evenhanded way israel will be blamed, as is worth we said. for domestic political reasons the israeli leadership cannot and will not make any significant concessions. and that will show the world

what israel is all about. deepening the rift between washington and tel aviv and even calling us financial support in the question. after all, if trump is critical for having to pay for the defense of japan, korea, and european allies without getting much of anything in return call what is to stop them from taking the same view of our yearly tribute of $3.5 billion to israel and getting butkus for our generosity. the dam is broken, the great breakthroughs upon us. in the great irony is that it came about because of a politician widely reviled by liberals and especially muslims. undisguised hostility to

people of the muslim faith. who would have thought that this man of all men would sound aa reasonable note on the issue of us israeli relations. yet history is full of such irony. and i advise you not to let your shock at the counterintuitive notion of reasonable donald trump blind you to the unfolding political reality. bernie sanders has expressed support for a more evenhanded approach. albeit in much bigger terms. his stance on the whole issue of israel has been given much less prominence by his campaign last trump has given voice in at least two high profile debates and taken heat for it.

noting that this is new territory for sanders is supportive of israel including during the heinous attacks on gaza. this is to be expected. trumps hostility is not going to endear him to politically correct liberals who do not want to give him credit for anything. what is going to be interesting is that both sanders and trump are scheduled to speak at the upcoming conference and so we will see what happens there. and i have to note our friends at code pink are circulating a petition urging state -- urging sanders not to attend the event.

[inaudible conversations] >> can we take that later? let me finish here. one has to wonder if they are afraid he will continue his long career of pandering to a jewish state and its american supporters while trump is surely not going to change or modify his position in any way. the israel lobby is concerned. the neoconservatives who directed are vehemently opposed because he challenges the very basis of america's interventionist foreign policy which i have supported on ideological ground as well as the obvious benefit to israel. the statement that the us was deliberately lied into the iraq war has enraged and to the point that neocon strategist bill kristol has called for a third-party candidate to oppose them.

max boot has said he would vote for stalin. [laughter] and to a man neocon the frothing at the mouth that trump is winning primary after primary. to which i can only add, by their enemies you shall. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> yes. i wanted to make a comment. you are telling me he did not accept the invitation to speak. that is out of sheer cowardice. he does not want to alienate

his radical left-wing supporters who are so busy disrupting trump rallies they don't care what his positions are. and so it is consistent with his reticence on the issue of israel and i might add at a town hall meeting he wants through someone out of the room for daring to ask about his position. [applause] >> all right.

we are coming up on lunch, so i will give the panelists time to answer one question each. i will start with a simple question. the role of the arms industry. >> there is a huge component of lockheed martin, raytheon , others involved in everything the us does today. one of the reasons that i argue we are in a period of interminable war is not just the threat of terrorism which incidentally the cato institute did a nice paper on. and yet we spend 2 trillion on the struggle and counting.

as it boils out, the defense contracting industry now so huge that you would not probably believe the numbers , still in afghanistan, iraq, so forth, a major component of presidential decision-making , congressional approval. because it is so many jobs, money, and influence. i would submit under the table lockheed martin is more powerful. and the israelis in particular feed this. >> just elaborate because it is an important point and one that is not looked at carefully. i talked about the neocon

pattern threat inflation since the 70s. one of the biggest financial is the military-industrial complex. and i think this is a great subject of research for aspiring phd candidates to determine to what extent neoconservatives are effectively supported by defense industry, consultants are in various ways. but i think it is a very important and often overlooked source of support for the neoconservative message. >> one more question. someone wants to know if you believe there is a fundamental difference.

>> yes. i remember the caucus was a neoliberal. it is more a question liberal internationalist. globally speaking there are more laterally inclined. they do not like acting unilaterally. and whereas neoconservatives believe strongly in unilateral action. with respect to the middle east in particular there are more and more having a hard time justifying what israel

has been doing, and there is a widening gap and i am sure that will be elaborated on. >> and finally a couple of questions. someone said yesterday, open to supporting donald trump or inferred as much. and clarify trump and the issue of muslims and what that means. >> i have no inside. he is a partisan republican who would support anyone

against the democrats. he is more of a republican activist, in spite of his reputation as a pro israel person, and the other question is what are those who support trump -- >> look. donald trump wants to forbid anyone who is a muslim coming to the united states. how practical is that? is there a test? how can you tell. that is not going to happen. has to the latino question, i live in sonoma county in northern california and say maybe half the population is

illegal. and now they are giving them -- they are giving them drivers licenses. of course they are voting. and so that is another thing that will not happen. and i think that what -- i should clarify that i will not vote for donald trump. i am merely rooting for him. [laughter] and there is a big difference because i -- if i voted for him i would have to take more responsibility for everything you did. the only politician i have done that for recently is

ron paul. [applause] all of this liberal handwringing is really just signaling on the part of the media and those of us who take the media seriously. trump himself personally, i am also from new york. i know about new york hyperbole. if you say, you know, this sucks, this is terrible, rotten, actually it probably means it is tolerable. so he tends to exaggerate. you know, given the arrow we are living in, it is appropriate.

>> thank you. lunch will be served on that side of the room. we will see you after lunch. enjoy. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

you know, americans are quick to criticize other countries for restrictions on media. the truth is, due to constant, relentless pressure from supporters of israel, our own media is profoundly restricted. they can criticize every country, including our own except for israel. speakers will discuss israel's influence on television, print media and the film. i have a great honor to introduce someone here to present the 2nd keynote address. titled voices prohibited by mainstream media. then she will sit down and enjoy our panel. award-winning journalist,

author, and foreign-policy analyst. her 1st autobiographical novel sold 2 million copies and has been translated into 15 languages. the rarity for any political film, not to mention one telling a palestinian story. placed in the orphanage founded by the late mahendra pal husseini in jerusalem where she received a superb education. i met her 1st at a luncheon. by the time she was 18 she was frustrated by the way muslim palestinians were portrayed in media.

i get tired of throwing my shoe at the tv, she has to lose. so she started writing her own articles. receiving a scholarship from the italian government, graduated and later earned a masters in journalism. became the 1st american -- sorry, 1st foreign anchorwoman in the history of italian television. her career has been more of a challenge. please join us. [applause] >> thank you. i would like to thank everyone, very active lately i've only organizing this amazing conference, but i received a phone call two weeks ago and was visiting friends in florida who have

health issues. she said, i need to send you something urgently. i think you will be fascinated. i did not understand why she was secretive. monday when i came home and opened the package, some producer asking a former speaker if he would be fine that i would be the guest to debate, to debate however they deem as a proper israeli official, eventually to debate on television. ..

>>

>> i grew up watching arabic television where i knew some house somebody had written a question and maybe the answers. [laughter] so with that contrast thinking, needs to change. when i work with italian television they hired me because i was the only woman who spoke arabic per cop they needed someone native to explain that this article i remember going to my director to explain the difference between shiite and sunni and why the war would be disastrous just looking at the numbers of

the population of iraq 6% gsa said me to cover the iraq war and i always love to be underestimated because somehow gives me more freedom because they all realize what they haven't as soon as they realized what i was standing for and what i was doing and some of the weapons they used against me obviously it makes me laugh but also think that there is a lot to be done. american media has been the most disappointing thing i have ever seen in my life even working in countries like egypt i have seen no push back certain journalists reporters much more than in this country and they say that because what does that produce?

iraq was the and sequitur country that was invaded and it could have happened without local consent of the american media. now and these people have never been fired there just recycled they are called experienced and the experts of many issues of the every and nuclear deal. and with field of the doctrine nobody ever questions none of that has happened. whether there islam or short. to allow every lobbyist to get away for murder for donald trump to come

forward. it is very much of the media for the revolution. is this good for america? and with the israeli borders and for the middle east to talk about $4 billion think of the $2 billion for egypt? but basically created a deep police state indian democracy of that country. number one of al qaeda into a country that the best political is on.

those that radicalizing an entire generation of trans national jihad. in with those terrorist groups and every one of the backers so somehow we enable the government because of one issue because of the count david accord. they give money to a regime to violate human rights and douses the people in imprisoning 60,000 as we speak because of that peace accord with israel for example, to close the borders with the allies but

if you think what israel is trying it goes beyond that israeli-palestinian issue. and his word was we need to go into iraq to do the regime change this will have a positive effect on the entire region. i don't see an area where you can see that the whole issue that they have been a focal. in the iran issue so you have the prime minister and minister of defence, and

those that tell us they would rather have sunii radical groups in the shiite group said the answer is let's wage war on the shiites in the cities to give us every group that has committed atrocities to turn a blind eye. this is the same reasoning in the same mindset of the cold war. and those that have established in the middle east have collapsed already in does not exist anymore because of their choice is. the iraq war basically ending the colonial era.

sell this is the cold war mentality. we need to create an alliance so we created the frankenstein monster. to keep repeating the same strategies and mistakes. it is hard for politicians to change. sadly they call that legal corruption. here they call it citizens united. [laughter] but those who are sitting on television with the revolving door the.org years earlier than they are on cnn

as a tv host or a prison guard who served is lecturing people on a website how they need to behave as a journalist. and with those establishments voices. and listening to people debating but the signs are all there. there on the wall what rethinking when for years since the 11 it became a mainstream ideas from marginal idea?

but that war on diversity started by those critical voices in mainstream media. in that led serious investigation in journalism that is a country that allow not only the administration to abuse the power or with a secret memos to spy on their citizens or torture people, some of these speakers are a surprise that fascists are on the rise in you did not do enough will listen to the debates and

don't even have a follow-up question with these candidates who say it isn't enough. that you need to kill his family and relatives. >>. >> i never worked so hard to make people understand what are the stakes. but i am concerned for the next generation because when i grow up i watched dan rather a and others if they look for people to inspire them if that person is anderson cooper i want to jump out the window.

but to push back it your job is to expose lies and corruption and surprisingly the people on fox news. we are looking at making kelly to challenge some of these candidates. we looked for years at the first african-american president being smacked leader of a country as an bin million people. here you have 300 million supposedly the leader of the free world that can lead only in one direction that this is the beginning of the dismantling of the democracy

of this country. it is part of the american model. so the police who abuse their powers have been trained. is considered normal. nobody is investigating these cozy relationships. and the executives at cnn who are speechwriters bell level of cooperation and propaganda has reached such a level that today it is normal we are that abnormal and the aberration. these people write a chapter of this nation's history.

from my favorite european intellectual approach from his prison cell as he was asked about mussolini in said he was not an aberration. and with the system that turns a blind guy. we need to push harder in fight more a create a community that we are part of an ecosystem to help each other to expose this we cannot allow ourselves, i mean, 15 years ago i used to throw my chouette the television. i cannot do this anymore i am happy to be ejected from certain tv networks to be happy from a system that we

need to cooperate to push the message. to must be united because that way that is coming is far more dangerous icy in the middle east. they are beyond ruth this. elected 1994 the first three things is to 18 journalist, people if they would dare criticize him some of them were my friends. and in 2009 and though the people who worked with me

and while that establishment was talking there is actually the three things. freedom democracy in in the dignity. this is what i would hear from the ground. and though believe the establishment will any more. to those in the arab world stood up one morning with no reason three months earlier but it is less stable country. these people stood in the streets and demanded dignity

to overthrow the regime with the setbacks that kind of power in and sentiment is out there. i am sure it will rise again. >> and to build the of bigger bridge to unite us here in the middle east. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much to remind me of the speech last year and we're all inspired. and american journalist who is the founder and co-editor

of the widely read news web site devoted to covering american foreign policy in the release. beginning his career in mainstream journalism with harper and "esquire" and in 2006 he began writing a daily block. as he began to explore more deeply the relationship between the jewish and israel he became increasingly uncomfortable. to be the independent blogging and today is a valuable from a variety of authors. we're so glad to have you with us here today with the observations from "the new york times" please join me

to welcome philip weiss. [applause] >> thank you very much. i just have to say that the indication of the vietnam war in what journalists did was very important to meet to as a young journalist at the philadelphia end daily news 35 years ago and the guys at the next desk had read the book about the pentagon papers when "the new york times" took on the government the government tried to shut down the publication of this document to explain the history of vietnam war and the times stood up to the government

and it helped and is very important to bring an end to the american and participation and that disaster. my friend said we will never get a story like that. so we wrote the letter, how do you plan? as a young and ambitious journalist how deeply in your career to get ready to take on the government and have a big story like that? to hang in there and be a good journalist and what i find moving about that it is we did get that big story in the shape of the iraq war

and what american foreign policy has been in the last 10 years and i may have said this last time. it to see how much people in this community are developing and to develop information as the colonel said earlier the extent of the package to egypt is essentially a bribe a central fact of the foreign policy that you won't find stated anything that was in the "pentagon papers". and here to talk about "the new york times" chiefly because it sets the parameters.

in just moving non to why. to be a supporter for a long time now i will be hopeful but to be the character of that support. and i would be describing it into use that turned zionism it is indebted and in force at "the new york times".

with the idea of a jewish state in the need to preserve jewish state in israel. and david brooks said he gets glassy eye when he thinks that israel. and roger cohen says end with that occupation openly a zionist that is a good thing with his it here is to the ideology. and senator krug mitt is the liberal's zionist but never expresses it and says as

little as possible you would think winning a nobel prize gives freedom but that demonstrates the principle the higher you get the less freedom you have. i am leaving that to other columnists out of this list because while fried bin began his career as a supporter in the suburbs of minneapolis, one of the principles of the conference is that people can change. and i sense that friedman has fallen away from the ideology that congress is bought and paid for. and then to brand as he anti-semite.

and that was produced by and then other than netanyahu. openly speaking of right wing jewish influence. and that is the heart of what i have understood journalism to be. and what is new and true and important. but serving in the military in one of those has served in the military. the example was the previous

speaker chief. in then shortly after when israel slaughtered for 200 palestinians. en she paid to "the new york times" logo. but to introduce a guessing game into journalism is he or is he not a zionist? and as journalist in the block was the year did he left the newspaper in the last year he left less and less doubt about this question to resolve it

entirely when he hosted right wing military figures on now program about the incredible courage of israeli soldiers. so when we started this seem guessing game, isn't taking off after him, i remember i was a little more credulous credulous, i am not proud of this but to think but what we wrote totally out of that experience that they open the related to more and made little effort to get outside the comfort zone so there were pieces about the young israelis getting tattoos

when the grandparents had auschwitz tattoos there was an episode where she went to gaza in 2012 and facebook said palestinians were ho-hum about death of the family members. and observed that they were ho-hum. it was a shocking incident. and something she had to apologize for but it wasn't the prejudice she wanted to get out of the recently she gave a podcast where she said she spoke one word of arabic actually i am sure she speaks more alcohol and algebra to begin with. [laughter] but it is a reflection of

her curiosity of the up palestinian experience. . .

you know, that's the background and she said you know, i went to lake winnipesaukee too. [laughter] so it was one of the most disingenuous that selections i have ever experienced. i mean, because those united synagogue youth and other jewish organizations were highly ideological and character. they weren't like vacations in the white mountains and it was a measure of how obtuse she would be, that she would make that kind of statement. and my one meeting i told her that her great challenge was to tell americans that this was four years ago that this two-state solution is over and that if you just go to the west

bank you see it's over. they won't deal to make a viable palestinian state there. those people don't want to leave. just a little but i'm going to add some the journalism i've done myself lately about the west bank we have in the adjoining room and i said that you know she had to explain this to delete, the vital function of a journalist to bring this news and he never did that. it's not that i made this challenge. you will notice that john kerry and dan shapiro from the state department have both said are approaching this one state reality. well they have got no support from the leading american newspaper to explain what that one state reality is so the times of sort of abandoned this kind of vital journalistic function of telling people what's going on in this most important american relationship

that exists, and i think that again is one of the great things about this tom friedman column was he said the israelis don't want to leave. they have been supported in the west bank. they have been supported by american jewish and they want an unending civil war with greater and greater isolation in israel and the world state, all true and this is then true for the last five, eight years at least and it now that times columnist and the secretary of state or the people who are bringing this information. so with the time i have left and i think by the way there's something very cool about maintaining the two-state solution because it's saying that oh these horrible conditions, they are just temporary. people are 5 million people

under some form of apartheid or ghettoization in gaza, in prison. we are going to take care of that sin and so it's barbaric hating about a tremendous human rights atrocity. if you think about the great jewish rabbi, this is a situation which demands if not now when and the position of the times is kind of whenever and the position of the illusion of the two-state solution is kind of whenever with respect to a tremendous amount of suffering as suzie suh beautifully showed us. so i brought in the parochial jewish peace. i'm one of the american who is in this common the conference

today and in my parochial capacity i would just have to acknowledge that zionism comes out of, zionism comes out of the jewish community. it was an answer to jewish persecution in europe and was embraced by the world or the western world, the corneal world and the solution of the jewish question of europe, and now and through the 40s, 50's and 60s and now what we are seeing is, because the unending, the 50 year occupation we are seeing even inside the jewish community some questioning of this ideology. and i think that if bernie sanders says there is a war for the soul of islam, and you know

america has to help islam in that respect, there's also a war for the soul of judaism right now. whether there is a religious conflict or not i'm not getting into that but the american jewish community including large parts of "new york times" itself were jews of my generation were getting great number to the extent the american jewish community married this ideology inside the estate to leverentz ideology. that is something that is now beginning to come undone among younger jews. so why would remind you if you don't know it that there was a time when "the new york times" is anti-zionist, when it did not see zionist is the answer and set our homeland is here. we don't want our patriotism undermined by the creation of

the jewish state and we are going to oppose it and we are not going to send jewish reporters over to jerusalem because of their loyalty. we don't want to place them in a position where there is any question about where our loyalty lies. so that era passed in the 1960s. the times ultimately became an organization where many zionist jews were and i think there are no ante in scientists at the time but that will come. it's bound to because of the changes not just in the jewish community but throughout the american community which is i think what we have witnessed in this conference. it's one of i think the great things about this conference that it has brought together so many diverse perspectives,

american interest, israelis, left-wing, palestinian solidarity people and anti-zionist jews as well. and i think again just a return to what i said at the beginning this gives our community term and is power from the storytelling journalistic perspective. we either want to or are developing this situation. we are working through these extremely difficult questions of anti-semitism and anti-zionism separating those and we are developing experience in talking about these things that make us information leaders. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. i really recommend everyone starting off their day with a

column, reading all the columns. thank you very much for your work. [applause] we have had tv media. we have had -- talked about the mainstream press. now we are going to talk about israel's influence on the film industry and catherine jordan is the award-winning producer and coeditor of valentino's ghost, why we hate arabs. a journalist for 14 years and been spent five years working with director michael saying to shape this film first released in 2013. viewers from 127 countries watched valentino's ghost when it was produced on al-jazeera english in 2015. valentino's ghost had just been rereleased and copies are available from the web site. it now includes the israel

bombing, israeli bombing of gaza charlie hebdo murders, the hollywood film american sniper and donald trump -- catherine was an editor and staff writer for "the los angeles times" in a correspondent for the daily telegraph in london, the hollywood reporter, los angeles magazine, tattler. she has spent three years as a writer of hollywood's clairemont studios researching pair months the ethical library. jordan was honored as the muslim public affairs council 2014 media awards and the voice of courage and conscience for her role in producing valentino's ghost. please welcome film producer. [applause] >> ion the final act.

i'm just going to talk for four minutes and then show you some of our films. the director of the film michael singh is in egypt today where he showed the full film last night in tahrir square in cairo. he e-mailed me to tell me that the film is out of sync with the picture by three or four seconds and despite this disastrous blunder it was met with enormous enthusiasm by the crowds i think this is good to most americans have been hearing from the media all their lives that the middle east is somehow inherently innate permanent inexplicable pull -- inexplicable -- in magazines in the less important than there we see in movies and even in children's cartoons. like most people in the country i never understood why they

couldn't all just get along. until i got involved with this film in fact i always came from media coverage in the middle east with the conclusion that it was just somehow too large and complicated to understand and it was all over my head. the media seem to convey the worldview that palestinians and other arabs were just somehow inherently violent and irrational people doing hijackings throughout the 1970s and suicide bombings for seemingly no reason. after 9/11 i think a lot of people in our country found themselves asking huge questions who are these people? why are they so angry, and how is it that i know so little about this subject? our film, i'm very pleased to say much of what has been said

today by all the incredible speakers. we seek to expose and explain the reason behind their long-standing hatred and fear of islam in this country. we also seek to show that u.s. foreign policy in the middle east and especially that of israel is what really dictates of public perceptions and attitudes towards the middle east and the country and have done so for more than a century. it should astonish and appall the public that the mainstream media typically goes along with the government's narrative and then in turn the government ran to just those media reports and says he hears the evidence right here on the front page of "the new york times." the yellowcake debacle in iraq was a flagrant example of this but certainly not the only one.

and so the government then recycles those stories to further reinforce their own narratives in support of policy decisions and military invasions and so on. so there's a vicious circle here. the stereotypes of arabs and muslims inform the behavior of policymakers who then create policies which unashamedly plays extremely low value on the lives of palestinians and others in the arab world and then policies and turned reinforce the news and the entertainment industry and so on. so what you get is this self-reinforcing cycle, this infinite loop if you will and very destructive results. this cycle shows the enormous power of the mass media to shape the public's ideas and mold our opinions for us. so i feel it's really valuable for us to be able to tell the story in the medium of film which of course we believe can have a very powerful impact in the medium which will have a

lasting impact and can be widely shared by huge numbers of people. two months ago are film was broadcast worldwide on the al-jazeera news network. as i'm sure you'll you all know the network is an english language tv network carrying more than 100 countries around the world so the film ran a great written a ran thread asia and iran threat europe and it ran through potential base of 130 million households. which sounds like a fantastic success however there was one country that was on the list, the united states. you knew that was coming. the film did not play in the united states and has not played in its feature length in the united states. again we were thrilled when our film premiered at the venice film festival which along with the canon festival is the most difficult festival to get into in the world of filmmaking. almost unheard of in fact that

they accept a documentary film. and the film was welcomed in 12 of the festivals in europe and asia that every major festival a nice safe has turned us down. a top-tier festival for filmmaker is a launching pad. it's a marketplace. it's where you get attention and that's where you sell yourself to the distributor often right there at the festival itself for the meeting takes place in the deal is made. so is key to the success of your film. after our success in venice where the film got a standing ovation and a lot of good press buzz our phone started ringing with all the major u.s. festival saying they had heard great things about the film and they would like to show it. even michael moore called us for his annual festival so we

submitted the dvd to the selection committee about these top notch festivals at their behest of then we never heard from any of them again across-the-board. there was a virtual blackout. you are all familiar with this. maybe the film wasn't good enough. you have to face that is if they'll make her. was it just not good enough? we looked at that. that said and with all the humility are film received a standing ovation than this. it received a glowing review in "the new york times" and in "the los angeles times" and the village voice and "the new york times" designated it a favorite critics pick which is a real honor. the magazine the american conservative published a brilliant feature saying that our film essentially got it right. yet, we had a blackout for festivals and distributors. ironically the very forces with which we are trying to expose

and discussed in the film are the forces that are essentially virtually suppressing why distribution in our own country. maybe we should have thought of that after spending years and years baking the film but we persevered. perhaps if the wider public had informed and educated on this issue and learn the answers to so many questions we can begin to take the steps towards a future not of violence for the peace prevail would like to shed a few lips from the film might now i'm just by way of explanation it's not a tightly edited trailer. it's basically a series of short clips -- quips or experts -- excerpts throughout the whole duration of the film. thank you. [applause]

♪ ♪ >> media is so central to how americans think about rings. it didn't happen if they came on tv question happen if we don't have a picture of the? >> where do these images come from? what is the relationship between these images and american foreign policy in the middle east? >> quite the impact, why do they matter? america's love affair with arabia reached a frenzy with the 1920 british novel the shake and hollywood turned into a film starring rudolf allin t. -- with rudolph valentino. the shake would create the popular mail in the history of american cinema.

♪ what and at america's love affair with arabia was actual contact. the west was invading the arabs land and meetings were violent and hate filled. as with news headlines most movies depicted arabs as assaulting the foreigners, not defending their homeland. the european political movement which chose palestine as a destination for jewish settlers calls itself the zionism. >> it's a land of palestine and the palestinian people living there. they came out with this mantra. >> jews created the state of israel and ethnically cleansed

large parts of palestine. what many people forget is the israelis themselves use terrorism as a principle weapon for driving the british out of the middle east between 1945 and 1948 and garnering a state of their own for the jewish people and was one of the main weapons. many supporters of israel like to make the argument that the reason they have to build a wall, the reason they have to occupy huge amounts of palestinian territories that they have to the volcano. they have to keep these palestinian terrorists under control. this line of argument as the causal arrow backwards. the occupation causing terror, not terrorism that is causing the occupation. >> america has to defend itself. how? by giving force and blood to

this military base. in order that israel will crush any movement. this is our robert a.. therefore our real enemy is not israel because israel is totally backed by americans. >> who will take actions against america. ♪ within two years the portrait of the articulate palestinian commando disappeared almost completely acid media investigations into the root cause of the violence. >> they have now said there were 11 hostages and they are all gone. presenting palestinians as freedom fighters or even as

terrorists for the human dimension was gone in the blink of an eye. in every case those who oppose israel are against the forces of goodness in the world. they are evil. >> and so terrorists came out very badly in the scenario. ♪ >> those who are in conflict with israel for an complex with god. >> of america does not stop pressuring israel to give up land i believe that god will bring this nation and to judgment because i believe what this book says.

>> i don't think jews invented the whole idea of being chosen. god shows us and he promised us this land. you see this uninhabitable desert right there? [applause] >> why do british rock stars, film stars shirtless and other influential voices bring images of palestinians to the world while their american counterparts are silent? >> the american israel public affairs committee aipac employ several professional lobbyist to push the israeli cause on capitol hill. >> as reporters one of of the few american television broadcast ever to investigate the highly influential israel lobby. it aired over 30 years ago. the surprisingly renews event gave americans for information about the lobby than anything found in the mainstream media

since that time. >> is a real struggle is our struggle. >> the united states will end with israel now forever. >> israel is not alone in this fight. nor will she ever be. >> it is very difficult for mainstream journalists to talk about israel in a critical way. i have talked a number of journalists who fully understand this and who in private will say just what i said. >> but i want to push the boundaries of what can be written and what can't be written. >> what's going on here is definitely not a conspiracy. it's not a cobol. what's going on here is good old-fashioned interest group politics. >> anytime anyone whether that person is jewish or not criticizes israel, criticizes israeli policy or are the sizes

the u.s. israeli relationship he or she is almost certain to be labeled an anti-semite by the israel lobby. ♪ >> why isn't there are more fundamental debate about this conflict, about the conflict itself? i don't know. i asked myself the same question and i don't have the answer. in the peace we refer to the charge of anti-semitism is the great silencer. we have got a really spectacular terrorist event and we have a very rapid -- casts listed lo and behold don't you think the guys should be -- the 9/11

commission you would think would have investigated the question of why they hated us and why we were attacked on 9/11 but in fact the 9/11 commission was not able to investigate that all-important question in a meaningful way. >> the gorilla in the room is u.s. support for israel. you made the mistake earlier and you said the israeli-palestinian issue is not addressed in the 9/11 commission report. i begged to differ with that. the slaughter of 9/11 khalid sheikh mohammad was driven to attack that because a radical ideology. >> mr. blair. >> it because of u.s. support in israel. why are we addressing that sir? >> that's a conversation you and i have to have that we will go to the next question please. thank you very much. >> has the answer would have been that our relationship with israel is one of the main

reasons we have a terrorist problem and the israel lobby does not want that message to get out to the american people because it would then force washington to change its policies towards israel. >> what if you found out about why these men did what they did? web motivated them to do it? >> the answer is unknown to most americans because the government and the media have not made it available. here it is. >> i believe they feel a sense of outrage against the united states. they identified with the palestinian with people who oppose repressive regimes and i believe they tend to focus their anger on the united states. >> it is widely seen in the

muslim world that the west is going after, is attacking islam. on the same show the host has different set of rules. [speaking french] the protection against hate speech provided to jews but not muslims was present at charlie hebdo magazine itself. in 2008 at charlie hebdo cartoonist was seen by some as anti-semitic. this gentleman to his poking fun at sarkozy's son was effectively

fired from the magazine because he had behaved in an unacceptable way. with regard to muslims there is almost nothing that is unacceptable. it's a no-holds-barred atmosphere. this hypocrisy, this double standard is what outrages muslims. ..