it's a pleasure to be here today and i want to thank all of you for coming to this important and timely gathering i'm going to talk primarily about how things have changed since two thousand and six in two thousand and six almost eight years ago mearsheimer and i published an article in the london review of books in titled the israel lobby by that summer it had been downloaded about three hundred thousand times had it generated a firestorm of criticism including some intense personal attacks on john and myself and although most of the criticisms were without foundation and the personal smears were predictable by mid summer the tide actually had begun to turn a bit the journal foreign policy organized a symposium on the article and by fall we had a book contract we wrote the article and we wrote the subsequent book because the israel lobby was a taboo subject that many people knew about but hardly anybody talked about openly and we wanted to challenge that to boo and open up a broader discussion so again i want to take the opportunity today to look back and reflect on what's changed since two thousand and six and to do that first i'm going to summarize briefly what we said in the book and also what we didn't say second i want to consider what's changed since two thousand and six but also what hasn't changed and lastly i want to offer some recommendations based on our experience at this point what course of action would i prescribe going forward so what we said our core arguments were actually very straightforward and not especially surprising first we argued there was a special relationship between the united states  that was unlike any other bilateral relationship in american history we gave it enormous economic military and diplomatic support and did so almost unconditionally moreover israel was largely immune from criticism by american politicians in fact american politicians routinely expressed a level of devotion they would never utter toward any other foreign country second we argued you couldn't explain this on either strategic or moral grounds israel might have been a strategic asset during the cold war but the cold war was over it was increasingly a liability the moral case was undermined by israel's treatment of the palestinians and especially by the occupation yet the special relationship kept getting deeper and deeper and the question was why third the answer was the political influence of the lobby we defined the lobby as a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively worked to promote that special relationship and those groups didn't agree on every issue but all of them worked to convince american politicians to support israel no matter what we emphasize that these activities were in most respects no different than other interest groups like the n r a the financial industry the farm lobby other ethnic lobbies they just happen to be particularly good at it and we showed in considerable detail how groups in the lobby worked within the political system to get sympathetic people elected or appointed to keep positions to keep those who might have different views out of power and to pressure politicians to embrace their policy preferences we also documented how individuals and groups in the lobby tried to control discourse on this subject by writing books and articles themselves by funding think tanks like the washington institute for near east policy by putting pressure on other media organizations whenever they published or broadcast things that were critical of israel or critical of the lobby some members of the lobby also tried to smear opponents usually by accusing them of being anti semitic even when this was completely false fifth we argued that the special relationship and the other policies pushed by the lobby were not in the american national interest or for that matter in israel's interest either the lobbies influence made it impossible for the united states to be an honest broker which is why american efforts to solve the israeli palestinian conflict had failed and the settlements had grown steadily for more than forty years the lobby and especially the neoconservatives within it played a key role in convincing the bush administration to invade iraq in two thousand and three and the lobby it also worked to thwart any possible detente with iran a policy by the way that had failed to halt iran's nuclear program and it increased the risk of war so we argued the united states should have a normal relationship with israel not a special relationship we said the united states should come to israel's aid if its survival were at risk but we should also use american leverage to get  state solution and in fact in the conclusion we even suggested that a powerful pro israel lobby would be a good thing if it was supporting smarter policies that were in america's and israel's interests now we weren't saying anything that other writers hadn't said before people such as paul finley edward tiffany and george ball michael massing what we wrote was also common knowledge inside the beltway bill clinton had said that a pact was quote better than anyone else lobbying in this town politicians as diverse as lee hamilton fritz hollings barry goldwater newt gingrich and richard gephardt had written or spoken about a pacs power in the past even it even passionate defenders of israel like jeffrey goldberg and alan dershowitz had written proudly about the lobbies clout yet we provoked an extreme reaction partly because we provided more detail about the lobbies influence partly because we were both rather middle of the road boring figures from well known universities partly because we weren't leftwing we weren't muslim we weren't arab we weren't married to palestinians and partly because it was obvious in the wake of nine eleven and the iraq war that something had gone badly iraq in the us middle east policy now let me turn now to what we didn't say the rather hysterical reaction to our work confirmed one of our main points it was very difficult to have a calm reasoned fact based discussion on this topic because most of our critics could not find fault with our logic or fault with our evidence they accused us of saying many things we hadn't said and in most cases things that were the exact opposite of what we had actually written i'm not going to bore you with all the false accusations but just for the record here's what we didn't say we didn't say that the israel lobby was a cup all or a conspiracy part of some deep plot to control the world in fact we said over and over it was nothing of the sort it was an interest group like so many others here we did not question israel's legitimacy or right to exist on the contrary we explicitly defended it third we didn't blame israel for all the problems that trouble the middle east and we didn't say that a normal relationship with israel and a two state solution would immediately solve all of them we said it would help but it wasn't a magic bullet or anything like that we did not say the lobby controlled every aspect of u s middle east policy or argue that it was the only reason the united states invaded iraq or has a bad relationship with iran we didn't accuse members of the lobby of disloyalty and we neither are geared nor hinted that some shouldn't should be done to limit the lobby's political power or marginalize its supporters finally we did not connect israel or the lobby to the nine eleven attacks themselves we didn't say any of these things because we didn't think they were true right and that's important we were accused of saying all those things of course and people in the lobby made repeated and sometimes successful efforts to silence us virtually every place we were invited to speak told us that they had been pressured to cancel our appearances and a number of places the chicago council on global affairs google headquarters the city university of new york succumb to this pressure but the campaign to silence us failed the book sold well it's been translated into over twenty languages and john and i have remained active participants in the debate on this and other foreign policy issues the real question is what impact did any of this have what's changed and what hasn't i think the most dramatic an obvious change since two thousand and six as been an opening up of discourse on this general topic discussions of middle east policy and u s israeli relations are more open a wider range of views is now being expressed let me just give you some of the evidence behind this claim media figures such as tom friedman nick kristoff roger cohen and andrew sullivan now right openly and at times very critically about israeli policy about american support for that policy and the lobbies role in promoting it even jeff goldberg has written a couple of pieces that sound a bit like us although i doubt he did midget articles about american middle east policy more generally increasingly mention apacs influence it's just no longer a big secret or stuck in the background of the piece jon stewart if you watch comedy central jon stewart has done a number of segments is making fun of apac as well books like peter beinart scraps of zionism and flesh loose transforming america's israel lobby john judas his recent genesis have followed in our footsteps documented the role the lobby plays in driving u s policy other people like m j rosenberg have emerged as articulate and knowledgeable critics writers like max blumenthal have published critical accounts of anti democratic trends in israel itself websites like mondo weiss m watch electronic intifada and others now provide alternative perspectives and groups like j street jewish force for peace code pink americans for peace now and many others have become more visible and effective in presenting an alternative view to the traditional lobby organizations now note these groups are not homogeneous they don't all agree on every single issue my point is simply that there is a much wider range of views out there now and they are getting noticed this development is of course not entirely are doing because a number of events in the real world have made the lobby's power hard to miss the complete failure of barack obama's push for a two state solution and a settlement for use in his first term the craven american response to operation cast lead including the american trashing of the goldstone report the spectacle of the twenty twelve election when the g o p candidates looked like fools trying to out pander each other in the g o p primary season and where sheldon adelson spent one hundred million dollars trying to buy the election first for newt gingrich and then f mitt romney because discourse was more open and people were now aware of the role of the lobby more people notice these things and could put two and two together a second development the accusation of anti semitism is losing its power to intimidate and let me be very clear about this like all forms of bigotry anti semitism is a despicable practice every one of us should condemn it whenever it appears at the same time using false charges of anti semitism to stifle debate and destroy people's reputations is an ugly tactic that has no place in a democracy and people who use it in that way should also be called to account and i think for surely this tactic this tactic has been so overused and used against so many people who are obviously not anti semites that it's no longer able to stifle reasonable discussion and that's going to make it easier to have an honest conversation going forward the third change is that some of the policies the lobby has promoted are increasingly hard to defend instead of a weak israeli david surrounded by a hostile arab goal lyeth we have a powerful nuclear armed israel maintaining a brutal occupation for more than four decades using its military power to dominate the palestinian population denied political rights fourth apac and other groups in the lobby have lost several important fights in recent years they could not convince the bush administration to use force against iran or support and israeli attack on iran they could not derail the nomination of to be secretary of defense although some hard line groups tried to do so and especially ugly ways earlier this year they could not convince obama to bomb syria and more recently a pact could not get the senate to pass a resolution threatening greater economic sanctions on iran because it was widely recognized this would immediately de rail any possibility of a diplomatic deal these episodes remind us that the lobby does not control middle east policy does not get every single thing it wants especially when what it once might push the united states closer to war that's a lot for any lobby to ask for and it takes very special circumstances to pull something like that off those events i think also tell us that a pack and company are not invincible now those setbacks have led a number of observers to conclude they pax in deep trouble with the lobbies influence has been broken let me say why i think that is premature because there are a number of things that haven't changed first of all the special relationship is still intact we still give generous economic and military assistance even though israel is a wealthy country and has clear military superiority over its neighbors and we give this aid unconditionally there's no hint we might reduce our assistance to get israel to stop building settlements or to allow creation of a viable palestinian state second that's of course why the peace process continues to go nowhere remember obama came into office promising a two state solution in his first term and called for a settlement freeze in his famous cairo speech in june two thousand and nine he's been in steadfast retreat ever since he basically gave up on this in the first term and handed the problem over to john kerry but there is little evidence that  efforts are going to succeed the settlements have been expanding all the while notice by the way that a two state solution may well be impossible at this point but politicians in the district of columbia continue to pretend that it is the only american goal i'm a two state person myself but i'm also a realist and at some point when ben has one does have to start acknowledging the possibility that we're not going to get a two state solution third the lobby still gets enormous deference from american politicians a few weeks ago the left wing progressive mayor of new york city bill de blasio was recorded telling in a packed group that defending israel was part of his job description as mayor of new york if you were paying attention earlier this week and number of prominent american politicians including secretary of state kerry nancy pelosi and john mccain all gave the usual flowery speeches at the apec policy conference and even today there's really no other lobbying group that gets this kind of deference and attention here in washington fourth although discourse is more open now it is still i think extremely risky for young ambitious foreign policy wanna bes to question key elements of u s middle east policy and especially the special relationship you can if you have tenure at university if you don't have your heart set on working in the u s government or if you're retired but it's hard to find people inside the foreign policy establishment who are willing to say what they think on this issue out loud just look at how  samantha power had to contort themselves during their confirmation hearings and you see the lobbies continued influence and please don't forget that we're still a long way from a deal with iran or a two state solution and the lobby be working twenty four seven to make sure that the united states doesn't do anything israel doesn't want in short reports of the lobbyist demise have been greatly exaggerated and given that fact what do i think we ought to do about it i just give you i think four basic lessons here lesson number one it's just politics stupid the first lesson i would emphasize is this is all about politics the israel lobby is powerful because it has all the features that make an interest group powerful and it uses all the tools available in a democracy direct lobbying financial contributions grassroots organizing pressure on the media etc there is nothing magical nothing  this they're also influential because they haven't faced strong and well organized opposition and if they're facing greater headwinds today say on iran it's because others are starting to play that political game more effective that's number two it's going to get worse before it gets better the lobby's main goal is protecting the special relationship and that's going to be harder to do as israel moves right word and as it becomes obvious that there's not going to be a two state solution control over the west bank will be recognized more and more as apartheid pressure to give the palestinians political rights the going to grow one person one vote is easy for americans to understand and if you saw the recent poll by shibley telhami that's what americans overwhelmingly favor if they believe a two state solution is no longer possible then they favor one state democracy getting the united states to back a state that privileges one ethnic or religious group over others is going to be an increasingly hard sell over time and to try and make that cell groups like a pack are going to have to do even more to try and influence discourse to try and discredit critics but in my estimation the more strident and heavy handed their tactics are the more resentment it will sow and the more people will be turned off over time lesson number three be realistic and build a big tent reversing politics the policies that have been in place for decades that's not happen overnight and you don't do it by writing a single article or a single book what one needs is a big tent for people who want to normal relationship with israel and a middle east policy that conforms to a broad conception of the american national interest that doesn't mean that everybody in this room has to agree on everything the israel lobby is a loose coalition united by a couple of shared goals and we should take a page from their playbook while making sure that our ranks are not filled with those who so hatred or spread discredited conspiracy theories lastly if we were to write the book today how might it be different well it would have to be a lot longer because a lot of new information has come to light since two thousand and seven and you could even argue that the entire obama administration is a case study of the obvious continued influence so you know we'd have to do volume two and it would have to be just as long as the first edition was but to be perfectly honest i don't think john or i would change our central arguments at all because  events since two thousand and six two thousand and seven have indicated almost all of what we wrote to repeat we wrote the book to encourage a more open discussion of these issues because we thought a more open debate would bring a lot of additional troops to light and would be better for everybody in the end i think that's precisely what has happened though again we do not take all the credit for it so i just want to close by thanking those of you who have worked for many years long before we got into this to counter the lobby's arguments and hasten the day when the american relationship with israel is guided primarily by strategic interests and moral principles and not by domestic politics when that day arrives it's going to be better for us but also better for israel and also for its neighbors as well thank you very much my question is with all the other things on the table like settlements and resettlement and b d s and such why aren't nuclear israel's nuclear weapons on the table  between seventy five and four hundred nuclear weapons that's much more than needed to demolish the world why aren't we pushing back on that why are we only threatening iran which i think that have nuclear capacity for power the assumption is that israelis would never use them irresponsibly it's purely a function of national defense deterrence you know the historical record shows that they have been quite aggressive in the past but you know there's this assumption that there are safer posits ory of nuclear weapons and frankly nobody wants to take that issue on because it would go nowhere my question is about the the legal status of israel itself that is to say that there was a partition according to resolution one eighty one which was never implemented as i understand and the declaration  or the proclamation of the state of israel was unilateral and it was simply accepted and i think this is this may be the way that states come into being anyway but that's a difficult question i mean i short answer with respect to whether something is a state in particular whether israel is a state is whether it is accepted in the international community and whether it has in the past committed genocide done you know really horrible things is unfair to all of its citizens that's not really relevant to the question of whether it is or is not a state so i think in to that extent is you can say israel is a state you can also you know raise the question of self determination and you know and ask whether it should have been a state which is really what what what you're going to self determination is another issue on which i think the united states has been a bit weak i've had to think about self determination and knew in the last few days because in one nine hundred ninety four i was asked by the clinton administration to go to a little backwater place in the southern part of russia called crimea and do some negotiating about the status of of crimea within ukraine actually and the leadership of the crimean parliament pressed me on this very strongly and they said you know we should have self determination we should be able to decide where we want to go and you can raise that certainly coming out of the british mandate there should have been some solution for palestine that took into account the entirety of the population jeffrey wall ro and others mentioned  israel was according to reliable sources prepared to use that nuclear capability just a couple of quick points there i i don't think there was ever sort of serious preparations on israel's part to actually use them and we shouldn't overstate the degree to which israel's was in danger of being overrun during the seventy three war you remember that they were losing at the beginning badly in the in the sinai but that was a long way from the borders of israel proper and in fact the military tide of battle actually turned before the american resupply operation took effect the israelis had already started to stop the egyptian advance so one has to be a little bit careful about both attributing our intervention as having been decisive in the outcome of the war and secondly whether how close israel was to using nuclear use is absolutely right they they made earlier the egyptians made early advances because they've been rearm with  controlled soviet way where they were able to actually attack out from from this defensive you know they had this sort of move forward have the screen the missiles in front the israelis would attack they shoot down the planes kill the tanks but then they couldn't aggressively pursue into israel because they didn't have the doctrine for that so i would agree they were never really in danger and the funny thing in my book i talk about this is that it was all a lot of theater the israelis claiming they were on the ropes and that they were at death's door and that they were might resort to extreme measures you know nuclear weapons maybe but everybody in washington and in tel aviv knew that they really weren't and then the israel lobby got involved sending fat you know phantoms was a big deal we were in the vietnam war the phantom was a new weapon it was a miracle weapon it was the strike fighter the carry seven tons of bombs and missiles and still fire fly like an interceptor so we need everyone in vietnam but we stood up peeling off die dozens of these and sending them to israel at a time when as steve just point out they were actually counterattacking and winning and all this stuff w gravy so and the lobby got involved and it was a big sort of you know stewart simonton you know center for mcdonnell douglas scoop jackson the senator from boeing they were heavily involved in these decisions to sell products from their own states so as as in most cases a lot of this stuff was a lot it was really smoke and mirrors intended to extort as much stuff from the u s as possible