palestine remains the longest running problem that belongs to the united nations. thes come at the same time, greatest failure of the united nations. the longest lashed and -- honest lasting failure of the united nations. the u.n. is supposed to be responsible for palestinians until they have achieved their inalienable rights. not until they achieve alienabl. -- you know, you can call anything a state. it does not make it viable. does not make it just. does not make it any of those things. bits ofpoint to territory that are not contiguous -- if you can imagine swiss cheese, the israeli controlled parts are the cheese. the palestinian areas are the holes. meaning they are the ones that are not contiguous. the israeli territories are contiguous. you can get from there to there. sharon, long known as the

roleer of beirut for his in the slaughter of citizens during the war of 1982, was very creative when it diplomacy. he talked about transportation all contiguity. what? it means if you can get from there,o dare -- there to you can say it is contiguous. aen if you have to fly in helicopter, even if you have to go through an underground tunnel, even if you have to go over a bridge through someone else's land -- but if you can get from there to there, we will call it contiguous. sorry, that does not work. that will not make a state. you can call it a state, given -- give it a telephone code and

postage stamps. that does not make it a state. state means control of contiguous territories of the entire population. and crucially, it means control of the use of force. that is what every state does. this country. we do not do it very well. as anyone who has seen this country flooded with guns knows, we do not do that very well at all. the problem for palestine is no one is even talking about allowing palestinians to have control over violence in their territory. that responsibility -- everybody knows. palestine will be disarmed from the outside and it will be israel that controls the use of force and violence in any constant state. palestine was defined at the you win as a problem. the palestine problem. ben it was changed to

questioned, the palestine question. i just did some work rewriting their book on the question of palestine. really, is it a question, 65 years later? don't we have the answers already? i thought we did. apparently we do not. defined as a question because none of the answers that make sense were ever allowed to be imposed. when you look at the u.n. charter, the question off, why don't we just go with what it says? the answer lies down the road half a mile -- a little more than that. the statehouse, the white house, the congress. those are the forces that determine how the u.n. charter is to be defined and how it is, or is not, allowed to be implemented. that is the problem we face today. the u.s. goal in the united

nations is based on its special relationship with israel, which began in 1967. the united states had a pretty good -- vertically good supportive relationship with israel before 1967. but it's relationship was quite tactical. it was not so close. it took the 1967 war for the pentagon to look and say, wow. these do business with people. and business, of course, became the operative conception of the relationship. of the pentagon looked at what the mythologies israels tiny, plucky defeating six arab armies. of course, that did not happen. four of those big arab armies did not even fight. but it was clear israel did pretty well militarily. they defeated the other side and at the end of six days, they controlled all of the territory. the palestinians had been left with 22% of historic palestine.

now they were left with 0%. there was one government in control of all of the territory of historic palestine. that includes the state of israel, the west bank, gaza, and occupied east jerusalem. together they made up the old palestine mandate that was turned over to the eye nations -- the united nations, and it was that law of the u.n. that divided historic palestine. so, what does it mean when you have one government that controls all of the territory, but has different sets of laws governing different populations within that one territory? oft is the legal definition apartheid. not because the israeli version is just like the south african version. it isn't. it is very different, for a whole host of reasons i will not get into. but they both stand in violation of the international covenant against the crime of apartheid,

signeds a u.n. document, by a majority of countries in the world. not, we should note, by our own. that is what we should look at. the question of how to look at the situation in palestine is not just how do we get that to the two state solution, how do we get people back to the table? i promise you, they will go back to the table and it will fail again. not because people do not understand each other's narratives, not because israelis and palestinians do not get along. it is because it will be based on the failed diplomatic approach of the last 23 years. going from 23 years of failed diplomacy to 24 years is not my idea of success -- likely success. it was the great scientist who once said the definition of being crazy is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a several -- expect a different result.

that is why i called the last einsteintalks the talks. they expected it to be different because it was obama and kerry doing it. really? it will take a few more times before we get to the point that says, that is not how you solve the question. you answer the question the way the united nations should have years and years and years ago, on the basis of human rights, international law, and equality for all. arrangement of the -- one state, to state, red state, blue state -- that is not thatusiness of the u.n., is not the business of the people in this room, except those in the room who happen to be israelis and palestinians. froma jewish girl california. i do not get to say how many whoes people should have

live half a world away. i pay taxes in this country. i have a right to say something to our government and one of our commands should be let the u.n. be the central actor, rather than the situations we have seen. there are so many examples of how the u.s. relies on its goal of the special relationship to ensure that the u.n. is not allowed to play the major role. what does that look like? let's look at the history of the u.s. veto. since 1970, the u.s. has cost far more vetoes than anyone else in the security council, but if you count them up, you will see that two thirds of those vetoes were in defense of apartheid policies. either in south africa or in israel. two thirds of u.s. vetoes cast in defense of apartheid. you can look at the madrid peace talks in 1991. a lot of people point two that as the beginning of the current

phase of diplomacy, right? big international hundreds at the crystal palace in madrid. it was the big issue. i am looking around the room and i am seeing that most of you are old enough to remember that. that is not a good thing -- i am just saying. -- at the first time there was this international conference. well, it wasn't. there was an international day that opened it up and then it was divided into these working groups, which was a problem because the palestinians were not allowed to have their own systems, there are representatives. they had to go through the jordanians. but more important than that even, the israelis were promised by the united states that the representatives of the secretary-general of the united nations would not be allowed to speak. it was always assumed to be a he, and of course it was, he would be allowed to talk to people in the hall and report

back to the secretary-general, but not be allowed to speak. that was the official position of the so-called international conference. in 1994, madeleine albright, her goals stated in the letter to the u.s. generally assemble -- general assembly -- now the oslo was underway, they should not be on the u.n. agenda because they were being discussed by the parties, and she specifically mentioned settlements, refugees, and jerusalem, the three most important issues that were not under discussion in oslo. that were postponed. she got up in life, and no one said anything except, ok. international law is limited, not by the law, but by political will, and that is where society has a role.iety to legitimize the ability of the u.n. to be at the center of what

it is going to take. top. call it r responsibility to protect. it is the real buzz word. it a humanitarian loss. you think? obviously, that is what it was. the problem is, it is not any different. a lot of people are riding about how the so-called responsibility righting about how the so-called responsibility to protect is not point to work because of the so-called interest of the powerful countries. i thought at the time, maybe what we should do instead of p, get rid of r to of it because it does not reflect international equality, we should actually demand it is the principle that is used to

her by protection for palestinians. and then we would see how thelar r to p really is at u.n. the idea of providing protection when the force that you are rejecting people against -- protecting people against happens to be the most powerful the world the part of would be a challenge for the united states and other hundreds in the world. really quickly i want to get to this and then we will get back to questions. the role of the united states, right now, is complicit in israeli violations. that raises all kinds of questions about the role of the international states in the international organizations from the u.n. to the international criminal court, where it has not unwilling to sign on as a full member of the rome treaty, precisely because the u.s. has determined its soldiers and officials will

never be held accountable. for that reason, they signed off on these bilateral agreements with countries -- particularly the poorest countries, particularly the african countries, saying if you turn over any american citizen, soldier, anybody to the international court, you will lose all aid you might ever get and we will bring other unspecified pressures to bear on you. so don't even think about doing it. and then there was what was called the "invade the hague" which was passed. which says of any u.s. official is arrested by the international criminal court and imprisoned in the hague, the u.s. will invade the netherlands and get them. support our troops. the question of accountability is fundamental. israel is not held accountable either from the goldstone report or the other marriott of reports

that were done, and at the moment is not going to be held accountable yet until something changes. not because they are not -- i will not say they are guilty, because we have not had a real investigation. not because there can't the an investigation, but because they are protected by the united states. that is what has to change. that is what brings us back to washington. this is not an issue for the u.n. us. is an issue for because -- and this is my last point -- the role of civil society in the u.s. and globally is crucial for any possible way of keeping accountability at the united nations. for keeping the legitimacy of the united nations. be able to u.n. to act on behalf of its charter rolesays it's role -- its is to end the scourge of war. it has to be empowered to do that. when the human rights council votes -- i think it was 38 yes,

a few abstentions, and one vote said there that should not be an investigation of war crimes -- by all sides, i should know. not only the occupying power, as well. occupied which i agree with. the u.s. said, no, we can't do that. we won't allow it. luckily they do not have a veto, but they do have economic and political and diplomatic pressure they will bring to bear on any country that dares to challenge these kinds of issues. that is where we come back to the role of civil society and organizations that are part of bigger organizations. 400u.s. campaign has organizations in the country. a broad global network of organizations accredited to the united nations, who worked on

the issues of enforcing international law and keeping who worka central, with the human rights council, who work with the general assembly, when we can get access , etc., these are the organizations who are going to make a difference in changing that understanding of what does the law say? whether it is the u.n. charter or the universal declaration of human rights -- what does the law say versus how does a get interpreted, enforced, or ignored, and therefore violated, by our own government? thank you. [applause] >> thank you. it is good to be here. i will try to be brief, as much as i can. it is good to be here.

to talk about palestine and international relations. i will try to be brief, as i mentioned to allow for more -- i want to talk about the future role. presentationf my will be more on that potential future role that organizations -- international organizations can play in ending human rights abuses. the focus will be on the main international organizations and mechanisms that can likely advance a peaceful and just resolution to the conflict. there are you marriott -- there are a myriad of options palestine can have in the future. there is unesco, of course, that we are all aware of. there are other u.n. agency palestine can join. there is the international court of justice. there is the international criminal court. by there is also a call

palestine to put it under protection of the u.n. charter. inknow that membership international organizations does not produce agreements, right? but it should be part of the national liberation struggle, specifically involving organizations. to hold responsibility to comply with and enforce international loss. and there are challenges to achieve all of these. but we have to remember they are tools in the struggle for justice and human rights. the united nations lists the

main purposes of the organization. maintainall, they peace, uphold international law, protect human rights, and promote the peaceful resolution of conflicts through international cooperation. palestine would be provided, as any other state, with the right s. -- thention briefly existence of states under --ernational law is membership does not create states per se. also theent has

capacity to enter into international relationships with other states. the creation of states, visibility can matter and should be separated. statesly there are 140 that have recognize palestine as a state since it's declared independence in 1988. section isportant charter4.2 of the u.n. says the membership of any state will be affected upon the recommendation of the security council. palestine, as we all know, officially apply for membership in december 2011. but its membership has been effectively blocked by the committee. that is basically because of political reasons and the threat of the u.s. veto power in the

council. the legal reason for this is in advised theg has general assembly can only admit members up on the recommendation of the security council. that decision was accepted widely. to vote would be able frustrate the votes of all other members of the united nations, and that would be an absurdity. some have proposed to amend article 4.2, however, others believe there is no need. the current charter can be read to limit the 4.2 power. it has shifted the power since

modification,out the membership of palestine will essentially be blocked. many states have although myor, voted against, which is really less than 5% of u.n. members. granted all of the powers and privileges, except maybe the power to vote. why was that? [indiscernible] the real legal value of in itsion 67-19 is legal question

concerning its status under international law. directe resolution has impact on palestine from status and standing as a states. -- u.n. is old state forumula which a practice the u.n. to obtaingeneral has disputed.hen it is they are open to -- [indiscernible] about unesco. 2011, palestine became a full member of unesco.

oft was a confirmation palestine's status as a state. it also meant it was able to join international organizations. enhanced the status and standing of palestine as an official third-party state and demanded israeli compliance. in addition to the constitution, palestine has ratified a treaty is, and the most important one -- 1954 the 19 for convention. there was also the convention on illegal trade and cultural property, as well as the 1972 protection convention. to go through them, but they are up there. as i mentioned