Global Crossroads Videoconference Transcript

After Obama's Cairo Speech, What's Next?"
November 10th, 2009

GU: Welcome to Global Crossroads, in New York City, in Cairo, and in Doha, a conversation among university students in three countries on three continents about key issues of our time and our world today. Students at the American University in Cairo, Egypt, at Northwestern University in University City in Doha, Qatar, and here in New York at the Levin Institute of the State University of New York. I’m Garrick Utley. I’m the president of this institute, and Global Crossroads, with our great pleasure, is produced in collaboration with the Chronicle of Higher Education, a leading chronicle of higher education in the United States and increasingly international. The subject today is the Middle East. It’s about Iran, about Iraq, about the long running conflict and issues between Israel and the Palestinian people, who seek a state of their own. It is also about what the United States policy in the Middle East is, what its actions are, and where it wants to go in the future. Recall that in June 2009, President Obama went to Cairo to make a major speech. It was eagerly awaited by people both in the Middle East as well as here in the United States. But what has followed that speech? What actions have followed the President’s words? What is the situation today? That’s what we’re going to discuss at this live video conference session. Joining us are students at the American University in Cairo just outside Cairo itself on its new campus, and faculty member Professor Jerry Leach is there. Good morning, or good afternoon, Jerry.

JL: Garrick, thanks so much. We’re delighted to be on the air with you here. We thank you and David Wheeler of the Chronicle of Higher Education for making this possible for all of us. We’re in one of the brand new classrooms on the campus on the eastern outskirts of Cairo. We’ve got much, much, much better facilities than we’ve had in the 90 years of our existence up until this time. I’m surrounded by students from the American Studies Center, students that have worked on the topics here for some time and are raring to go. We are in the room with students from all over the campus, most of them Egyptian, most of them undergraduates from all kinds of different majors, and we are just looking forward to the discussion which is about to start.

GU: Thank you very much, Jerry. Thank you, Jerry. Let’s go on now to Doha to Northwestern University in Qatar and that’s where Janet Key is. Good morning, or good afternoon, Janet.

JK: Salaamu Alaykum, Garrick. Salaamu Alaykum to the rest of you in New York and to you in Cairo as well. This is our second year in Education City in Qatar. We’re part of a unique global experiment in education. Education City here houses six top United States universities and it aims to be the educational center for excellence in this region and a world leader in education as well. It’s the brainchild and the flagship of the Qatar Foundation. Northwestern arrived here in 2008. We offer programs in journalism and communication through the Medill School of Journalism and through the School of Communication. Medill, as some of you know, was founded in 1921, and has produced more Pulitzer Prize winning journalists than any other undergraduate school in the U.S. Here in Qatar we aim to build on that tradition. We offer print, broadcast and multimedia programs to 33 students from 14 countries. The School of Communication here currently offers programs in media history, communication theory, and production arts to approximately 40 students to 15 countries. This evening we are joined by some students from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Relations as well. So thank you, again. We’re pleased to be here.

GU: And thank you Janet. And here at the institute of the Levin Institute in Manhattan we have students from Fordham University and from Columbia University. Welcome. And also we have John Entelis, who directs the Middle East Studies Program at Fordham, and Lydia Khalil of the Council on Foreign Relations, and they’ll offer some comments as we go along.

Several decades ago, someone prophesized that one day we’d all be living in a global village. Well, it hasn’t really worked out that way. Rather, we live in countless villages that are connected globally. That includes students, faculty at university campuses around the world. We’ll learn more about the new campuses at the American University in Cairo and also at Northwestern in Doha in just a moment, but first, let’s take a look at where we are today at the Levin Institute.

The Levin Institute is a new institute, part of the State University of New York. Our focus is on key aspects of globalization and particularly how we and universities around the world can connect and converse and learn from each other. Today, people are learning from working with each other, and they’re working with each other not just in midtown Manhattan, they’re working with people here and students in China and students in Europe and students and faculty in the Middle East. It is breaking down the barriers that the technology allows us to do. We don’t have to bring students from around the world to study here—we can use our global classroom to go around the world. The only way you can conduct really effective learning experiences these days in this world is to move out beyond the four walls no matter wonderful this building is. The technology is the key to our future. And now on to Global Crossroads.

And now, on to Global Crossroads. First topic up is Iraq. We all know how President George W. Bush invaded with American military forces Iraq, how Saddam Hussein was toppled, and now President Obama has to get the troops out of Iraq and hopefully leave behind a stable Iraq. So, what did he have to say in Cairo in his speech there about the U.S., Iraq, and that country’s future?

[Obama speaking] Today, America has a dual responsibility, to help Iraq forge a better future and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people… I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I’ve ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron. [end Obama]

Well, that was the American President’s comments on Iraq last June, June 2009 in Cairo. Jerry, let’s go to you in Cairo with the students. He spoke in your city. What was the reaction then, what’s the reaction now, as far as Iraq and the U.S. there is concerned?

JL: Well, thanks so much, Garrick. I’m going to turn to the students on either side of me, starting with Ramadan Mussa, who’s worked for the American Studies Center for about four years now. Ramadan, why don’t you take off? What was the reaction to the speech and how do people view the Iraqi democracy now?

RM: Okay, my name is Ramadan Mussa. I’m a graduating senior studying International Relations and I’m from Botswana. When President Obama delivered his speech in Cairo, like it was received with a lot of welcoming and joy for the Egyptians and Middle Easterners, and people like had big hope on what’s going to happen in the future regarding the Iraqi issue. Nonetheless now like people don’t see a lot of like improvement on the Arab situation, and I don’t think like there is going to be any democracy soon like in the short term or in the coming few years in Iraq for some reasons. First, like even if the Americans leave Iraq now, like there is a lot of sectarian influence in Iraq between the Muslims and some like Shiite and the Sunni and the Kurds. Also the current issue now they want to have their own country with their own territory.

The second issue why Iraq is not going to be a democracy soon is the big involvement and interest from Iran and Iraq, and now they have a big hand on Iraq like terms of forces, in terms of like the operations are done in Iraq. So I don’t think the situation in Iraq now is very promising, even like with the big promises with President Obama, it’s not because of his like policies themselves but because of the situation now, and like when the American soldiers will leave it’s going to be a big mess. Thank you.

JL: Ramadan has just said that he doesn’t view the situation in Iraq now as democratic, and yet the U.S. government does. Ahmed, Ahmed Sudikah on my right, also one of the staff members of the American Study Center, do you think Iraq is a democracy now and do you think that democracy can last after the American troops go, and do you think that democracy might have some influence on the rest of the Middle East the way George Bush hoped?

AS: This is Ahmed Sudikah, AUC. Well, let me say first, there is many problems with the government elect, so it’s very hard to define is it democracy now or is it going to be a democracy. Well, it’s a question and the way to define it is in a new coin. I call it indeginescence, so it’s in the process of getting defined. That will take time. Well, Iraq might fall apart and then it will take a new dictator if Mr. Obama’s administration is not alert to this, to take a new dictator to pull that Iraq together. So I think the situation in Iraq must be monitored slowly and carefully unless we get something run amok or go awry.

JL: Is America making a mistake by announcing a date for withdrawal by the end of 2011? Mohammed El Gindi, you want to take a crack at that one?

ME: Yes, I’m Mohammed El Gindi. I’m political science from the American University and a political science student. I think by 2012 it’s going to be a good time for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, but to me I think the problem that democracy in Iraq, I see it’s going to be similar to the situation in Lebanon and nowadays even after the withdrawal of the U.S. troops that situation is going to look like the situation in Lebanon nowadays. There would be conflict there, there would be instability and things like that.

JL: I also want to pose that third question I mentioned and hand the ball over to Ida Mohammed, who’s sitting next to Mohammed el Gindi here, and the question is if Iraq can be viewed as even a flawed democracy now and that democracy holds itself together after the American troops leave, will there be a democratic impact on the rest of the Arab world, on the rest of the Middle East? Is there going to be any influence that comes out of Iraq that affects governmental practices around the Middle East? Ida?

IM: My name is Ida Mohammed. I’m a political science grad student in international relations here at AC. I think democracy comes gradually, and if we consider Iraq now it’s not a democratic state. It is actually in a transitional phase, and I think hopefully our countries right now are trying to adopt the same methods and they are in the transitional phase to democracy, and by time there would be democratic states.

JL: With that, I want to see if anybody else around the table would like to add anything. We have sitting on my far left a Fulbright Scholar from the University of Houston. He’s with our center this year. His name is Mike McMullen. Mike, you have any points you want to make at this point?

MM: I guess I would agree with my panelists here that I think it’s going to take time. There will probably be stability and then as soon as the troops leave there will be chaos for a while, but then hopefully in the next three years civil society will develop, homegrown institutions will take root, and then there will be that transition from chaos to a more stable, democratic Iraq.

JL: 60% of the people of Iraq today are Shiites, and the Shiites now dominate the government, unlike the past many decades where the Sunnis dominated things in Iraq. With Shiite dominance in Iraq and of course Iran sitting next door, traditionally a rival state being more or less completely Shiite, is Iraq going to become a satellite of Iran over time. Is that what’s happened? Is that where all this leads to, Iraq becoming a satellite of Tehran? Noah, you want to try that?

NG: My name is Noah Geillie, I’m from Dallas, Texas and I attend AC, and I think it is highly improbably that Iran will continue to use more involvement in the Iraqi government as U.S. troops pull out, and I think if, you know, that 60% of the government is controlled or 60% of the population is Shiite and they control the government that will favor more Iranian and Shiite views, which will cause trouble in the Middle Eastern world.

JL: Anybody else around the table? Ramadan?

RM: I think in Iraq that American forces will leave. I think it’s going to be a new experience of Rwanda in 1994 when the Hutu like were the minority in Rwanda and then during the colonization period, but like after the colonizers left, the Tutsi like were the majority and they tried like to take their revenge and they had more power from the Hutu, and that’s why this massacre happened in Rwanda in 1994. So I think Iraq is going to be that experience almost, like revenge of the Shiite in the Sunni.

JL: Ramadan’s predicting civil war and possibly a massacre, a blood bath. Anybody want to address that question?

GU: Jerry, why don’t we move on to Doha right now.

JL: Okay.

GU: We’ll come back to, get more thoughts from Cairo, but let’s go to Doha and Janet and her students.

JK: Thank you, Garrick, and thank you, Cairo for those thoughts. I want to take this back a step and ask all of you here in Doha what’s your reaction to the question “Is Iraq a democracy?” Is it? If it’s not, what is it and what does that portend? Sayif?

SA: My name is Sayif. I’m from Afghanistan and I go to Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and I study international politics. First of all, if we are going to define democracy, I don’t think it can be… there is, okay, of course there is a definition for democracy, that we have involvement of people, people have civil liberty as well, but in case of Iraq we can’t actually define democracy as the panelists in Cairo defined that democracy comes gradually. I think in case of Iraq it should be defined. It should grow gradually. We cannot see an import of democracy to the Iraqi states and the Iraqi citizens. So in that case we can’t actually have a definition unless we are going to have a consultational of democracy something, which is a concept of all different ethnicities and different sects in Iraq. So in that sense we should have something, a conficial system, which I guess we have in Lebanon as well. So in that case, Iraq is not a democracy and it can’t be a democracy in the sense of other definitions I suppose.

JK: Okay, but if it’s not a democracy, exactly what is it? And then I want to move to Latifah. Do you want to try that one?

LF: Well, I can’t really answer that question, but I do have a comment on that, on democracy in the Arab world in general and in Iraq specifically. First of all we have to take into consideration where the President, Obama, addressed the Islamic world. It’s from Cairo and not from Saudi Arabia, for instance. Saudi Arabia is the epitome of Sunni Islam, of something very specific to the Arab world and the Muslim world. He chose Cairo, which is somewhat more moderate because of the lessons over there and all that.

So if we take that into consideration, I suppose the reason that made Obama address the Islamic world from Cairo is to signify that Shiite and Sunni ought to stop that differentiation and that democracy ought to be received and absorbed in the Arab and Islamic world because democracy is a secular movement. We have to all agree on that. So if this is going to be accepted, then perhaps this difference between Shiite and Sunni ought to be forgotten, and that is going to be slightly difficult in a situation such as Iraq because there is a huge conflict between the Shiite and Sunni, and as we all have noticed, the Shiites are almost all over the government, and I suppose it’s going to be difficult for a while.

JK: Zaneb? Thank you.

ZS: Hello, I am Zaneb Sultan and I’m from India. I think basically I would try to take the question even further back and go ahead and say why exactly are we forcing ourselves, if our countries are enforcing democracy on different countries, because it’s not really a question of which form of government do we, the world has to follow. I mean, a lot of countries, like in the Middle East it’s basically about monarchy and I think even if you take the example of like, I suppose if you take the example of Qatar, it’s a monarchy but it’s, it’s on its way of development. There’s a lot of progress which has been going on.

So I think the whole idea of the United States coming in and imposing something like democracy seems really weird to me, because that is not necessary or that is not the important factor for a country to function, because at times you might have a, I mean a President, who you would actually prefer a monarch or king who’s much better or much smarter than the president. It’s about the policies that the leader actually puts in. I mean, if you really talk about George Bush and what has happened in states in these past years in the past term, and he was a president. It wasn’t a democratic country. And if you talk about a more sensible monarch which has a stable form of government, I don’t know, it’s out there in the open what people decide to choose.

JK: Okay. Let’s look at the question of, all tight, whatever we think Iraq is now in terms of its government, what happens when the U.S. troops pull out? We heard students in Cairo say that there may be a period of chaos. They may move to a civil society. They may not. They may go to civil unrest, but that could take three to four years according to what some of the students said. What do you think of that? Ishmael?

IL: Hello, my name’s Ishmael. I’m from Bahrain. My father’s originally from Iran, yet we followed the Sunni way of Islam, me and my family. I agree with what specifically Ahmed said and Hamad from Cairo. Yes, there will be instability if you think. As much as the world would like to believe in themselves that yes, sectarianism does exist but it’s not big of a problem, there is silent tension between the two sects coming from a Sunni origin boy who lives in the GCC, which is like mainly dominated Sunni countries, and yes, once the troops leave out of Iraq I think there will be chaos, there will be civil unrest between tangents. Some silent tension already exists over here. It might be silent but we see it from day to day within the rule of villages a lot of unrest, and it will continue if there was no carefully monitoring by say for example the United Nations or by the U.S., if they just so choose to leave Iraq without any monitoring afterwards.

JK: Safi, sorry.

SF: Safi, yes. I would like to like touch upon what President Obama said, that when he promises a point that we are going to withdraw from the country, I guess that’s a very strong argument, a strong point that that person makes, because as a president who I think his country is a big presence in Iraq, for instance, he can’t actually promise a time that he’s going to withdraw all these troops from the country. The country is in a chaos. There are clashes between sects in Iraq. So actually I’m going to open that question as well, that is that going to be happen in Iraq, that we don’t see any American soldiers in the country, but I think it’s impossible to see no American soldiers in Iraq, and what the person promises is that there is not going to be any American bases in Iraq. So I think that is going to be a big issue if that happens, which I don’t think it’s going to happen.

JK: Okay. Lala?

LE: My name is Lala el Jabar. I’m a student at Northwestern University. I study journalism. I just want to make a comment concerning the timeline. I think it’s great that President Obama has a specific timeline because a lot of the questions, like the questions we asked as well was when is this really going to happen, when are the troops going to leave Iraq, but at the same time I think it’s important to consider the situation on the ground. President Obama was against that, against the surge and that has shown to be successful, so I think it’s kind of unrealistic to have that timeline, because once again you need to consider what’s actually going on in Iraq and whether that’s really realistic.

GU: Janet, let’s come back to New York now. We’re going to return for an active discussion with the students in Cairo and Doha on Iraq. Back here at the Levin Institute in New York we’ve been listening to the comments from students in Cairo as well as in Doha. Let’s get some of your thoughts, particularly since you are for the most part Americans studying here. When you heard the Obama speech, when you heard his promise to pull troops out, what do you think as Americans or people living here about his sincerity, about whether it can be done, and what you, we as Americans see happening afterwards? Who wants to take a crack at it. Go right ahead.

AS: Thank you. My name is Andrew Sinclair. I’m a graduate student at Columbia University. I study international affairs, concentration in the Middle East. I think when we focus on Obama’s speech we really need to focus on the positives. He really set a new tone and changed direction from the previous Bush administration. We need to think about where these sectarian tensions kind of blew up from. It blew up from that third factor, which was the presence of American troops. And in a country where, yes, Saddam had put a lid onto rival factions within Islam, the Sunni and the Shiites, we do need to keep in mind that I think the American forces on the ground and the perception of occupation really drove a lot of that. So his statement saying that the U.S. had no imperial ambitions, that the U.S. had no goals for territorial gain, really signal the way forward and I think can’t be underestimated. Clearly there are going to be obstacles involved. Clearly there needs to be some type of monitoring as some of our colleagues suggested, but I think we shouldn’t underestimate the significance and importance of his words. Thank you.

GU: Let me go to a point that’s often debated here. Was the invasion itself and the toppling of Saddam necessary in your point of view? There’s one hand up here. Maybe you’re speaking to that topic or a different topic.

IC: Ian Christie. I’m with Fordham University. Just to actually go back to that. I’m sorry to deviate, but this issue of whether or not withdrawal will be completed, whether it will be lingering U.S. troop presence, I don’t think that’s really the most difficult issue. There is a lack of American political will to spend more time, more resources, more blood in Iraq. The U.S. Army’s been engaged in one of the massest, most massive logistical operations ever to just get things out of Iraq. Trucks are going every day getting things out, and now we’re sending, or we may send more troops to Afghanistan. But this goes back to this question about whether or not democracy has to be secular or not. I’d like to challenge that. You look at the popular democratic movements in the Middle East. Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah, Hamas, these are figures that have popular support. If we automatically say that there’s a litmus test for democracy, that it must be secular, that it must be influenced by John Lock and the thinkers that gave rise to the American political system I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere.

GU: Other thoughts on this?

AA: I would agree with that…

GU: Name please.

AA: Sorry, my name is Anna Almactar from Fordham University. I would agree that it doesn’t have to be a secular government, but the fact, within Iraq you have Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds and like all this sectarian violence going on, so if you were to have a religious government in place it wouldn’t be a democratic one. There was a recent Near Times article about those who are running for the election and their realization that all the people are growing really impatient with all the sectarian violence that’s been going on, and I guess a sense of nostalgia for prewar Iraq when it wasn’t that bad. So I mean I don’t know how sincere their efforts are to really reach out to other sects, but they’re definitely feeling pressure to, you know, make that attempt.

GU: Please.

MM: Back to your question about…

GU: Your name, please.

MM: Oh, my name is Megan McGuire and I’m a student at Fordham University. Back to your question about was the invasion necessary in 2003. Is that the topic that you were touching upon? When George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq in 2003 he sent them into the country with the intentions that he wanted to topple the Baathist regime and take down Saddam Hussein. With that in mind, it is the United States’ responsibility at this time to pick up the pieces for a project in essence that it started, and with the idea that democracies do not go to war with other democracies it is only logical that the United States would push for a democracy, therefore an attempt to create a political, a political type of government, structure of government, that would in fact be able to cooperate with the United States. So although a democracy may be debated whether or not it is the right form of government, it was the United States’ idea that it needed to form a stable government in Iraq so that it could work with that government to hopefully bring about a more peaceful global type structure.

GU: Well, that was the hope. Now we have the reality today we’re hearing from Doha and from Cairo. Let’s just follow up with another opinion or two on this. Do you think that when this ends, when American… do you think American troops will leave A) totally, and B) will it be a stable society there or will it be—people say chaos—but really will it be a blood bath?

AD: Alexandra Duke from Fordham University. I believe the issue was raised in both Doha and Cairo whether Iraq is a democracy now and whether, or if not what is it, and following up on your question about whether there can be stability in Iraq, democracy is inherently conflictual. That is the nature of democracy. The only difference between a stable democracy and one that is unstable is that in a stable democracy the conflict is contained. There can be turnover with elections. If a party loses, that doesn’t mean they’re going to pull out their guns and continue the conflict. And so in Iraq what we have is there hasn’t been enough turnover yet, there hasn’t been enough time. The conflict is still not contained and the democracy isn’t stable yet. I think that there can be hope for a stable democracy and I think that part of this hope would rest with the fact that United States maintain if not a military presence in Iraq a… I don’t want to say political but essentially some sort of role in helping to establish infrastructure and helping to establish civil society in Iraq that can lead to a more stable democracy and basically the containment of that conflict.

GU: A couple more quick opinions. Sue, you’re at Columbia. Give us your name.

SY: I’m Sue Yang. I study Middle Eastern and Asian languages and cultures at Columbia University, and I would agree with what Sasha, what Sasha was saying, although I would also even challenge the question of what is a democracy, because I think what you need before you even talk about the kind of government is stability. I think stability really is the key issue, because you have these sectarian divisions and I think, you know, until we can contain that democracy kind of a thing, which you can’t really apply a timeline to, there is very fundamental issues that are being overlooked. They need a stable kind of economy. There is also a bulge at the younger end of the population. A lot of the, I mean the median age being like 25 in the whole region. You know, a lot of people are moving into the job sector looking for jobs and there aren’t jobs there, and until those kinds of issues can be resolved, I don’t see stability kind of moving in. So I think the U.S., yes, moving the troops out is important, but what other services are we going to provide to make sure that stability is there.

GU: Important point about the economy, jobs, the stability, the ability if peace does return to really improve your lives. Let’s get a word from our experts here today, just comments, first from you, Lydia Khalil, Council on Foreign Relations. What have you been hearing from the students and what perspectives do you have?

LK: Well, first of all my name is Lydia Khalil. I’m with the Council on Foreign Relations, which is a research institute in New York, and I thought a lot of the students brought forth some really important points that I’d like to address and also maybe give a couple of other points as food for thought for later on. I think that Ramadan and Ahmed back in Cairo, they pointed correctly to a lot of challenges that Iraq is facing and has faced. Iraq is in a really unusual situation in that we see democratic institutions taking place. There is a robust parliament, we have elections. An election law was recently passed in which Iraqis will soon be choosing new members of parliament on an open list. There are very robust local councils and so there’s a very active civil society going on. However, we don’t see the security yet that is normally associated with a democracy, and so that causes a lot of confusion I think in the minds of a lot of people, and so it’s like Ida mentioned also in Cairo that Iraq is in a transition, and a lot of other people pointed to. However, as Zaneb in Qatar said and Sue here, she said democracy does not necessarily equal development and it doesn’t necessarily equal good policy. So we have these kind of conflicting ideas with Iraq. Elections are not enough, but they’re a very important part of democracy, and as Sasha alluded to earlier they are a part of that transition process. I just did want to make a point about this idea of chaos and sectarian blood bath. We still have this idea that Iraq is still going through that process. That is largely over in Iraq. The bulk of the sectarian conflict, the blood bath that we saw in 2006 and 2007 is largely over. It doesn’t mean that it can’t happen again, but right now we’re seeing lingering tensions, not necessarily violent conflict like we saw. But back to President Obama and his remarks. Even though Iraq is not his war, so to speak—it was “Bush’s War”—Iraq is still very crucial for his agenda back home and for the Middle East, and it’s very important for Iraq to become stable if he’s going to realize a lot of his goals in terms of dialog, Middle East peace with Iran. So Iraq is a key part of the United States’ agenda in the Middle East.

GU: And Professor Entelis, what have you been hearing here today?

JE: Well, the relationship between democracy and development is important not just in Bagdad but in the region as a whole. Given the absence of democratic politics in the region, this becomes the focus of not just the Middle East but the Muslim world as a whole, that if this does not succeed, if in fact democracy does not take hold, what lesson will be derived for the countries in the area and beyond. So Obama’s speech in the sense was inspiring to an audience and a world that has been for a very long time pessimistic and cynical about the value of democracy and participation. So to the extent that this is an opportunity that presents itself, I don’t think it should be missed, and if it is, I think the danger for the chaos people have talked about being quite high.

GU: Well, if we’re talking about the Middle East as a whole, let’s go back to Cairo and Doha and get some thoughts, and perhaps we can offer questions with each other. Jerry first in Cairo, we were talking about democracy in the Middle East, there you are at American University in Cairo. There is Egypt, which in many ways is one of the big examples of the debate over democracy and what the political future is, so we’re talking not just about Iraq. Any thoughts among your colleagues there, your students there, or questions they would like to ask of people in Doha or here?

JL: It’s a sensitive topic generally, Garrick, but I’m going to ask the students around me to be bold and speak up on how they feel about the state of democracy in Egypt. Anybody want to take a crack at it? All right, Ahmed.

AS: If I may take it back to the question of definitions of democracy. One definition of democracy that is intellectual bedrock has two components, that is security and freedom, but then when you are covering freedom and putting limits on freedom, as I think Kennedy once said, he who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

JL: Others? Ida, you want to have a crack at it, the state of democracy in Egypt, the state of democracy in the Middle East as a whole?

IM: I think the state of democracy in Egypt has been developing recently, especially since the Iraq war. Actually by 2005 we had the constitution amendments to have the first presidential elections. It happened by 2006, and we didn’t have this thing before. We were not used to it before, so I think we are starting a new step. The other step is very obvious in the media. The media right now we have different channels, we have different TV programs that are having talk shows about the current issues that Egypt is facing and the problems that Egypt is suffering from. We weren’t allowed to talk about these issues before, so I guess that it’s coming gradually, freedom of expression is moving slowly, and democracy in terms of elections, yes, it’s true, it’s not very open or free but at least we do have elections right now for a president or something.

GU: All right, Jerry. More comments, and/or questions for the students in other locations, either one.

JL: Sure.

ME: We are in the transition period where we will reach democracy sooner. (incomprehensible 1:38:46) This is the first time I feel that the National Democratic Party here in Egypt is afraid from elections. They prepare for the elections for the Parliament elections. They are really afraid that they are going to lose a lot of seats in the Parliament. Before this was a guarantee that they are going to win the elections, but the acceptance of Barakati to nominate himself in the Egyptian presidential elections, he put it that Egyptian government and the Egyptian system in a very, very harsh situation where the elections has to be transparent and has to be no corruption or fraud in it, so I think 2011 elections is going to be a turning point in Egypt and I think it’s going to be a turning point in democracy in the region as a while.

GU: Okay, Jerry, let’s go on to Doha. Janet, your students have been listening to comments both in Cairo as well as here in New York City. Any questions though or thoughts?

JK: We’ve heard about democracy yea and nay in Egypt. What about the idea of democracy in Qatar? And I’m going to be a real devil’s advocate here. Is the question of democracy even relevant in the Middle East today? Zaneb, want to have a try? (laughter) You knew I’d nail you.

ZS: Well, I’m actually just thinking about the comments which is going on in Cairo. It’s kind of, I don’t know, it’s kind of uncomfortable to really think that probably like, okay, yes, you are talking about democracy, but I think I was being cynical about democracy when (incomprehensible 1:40:44) is kind of like the best one for about 27 years, so is that what you really call democracy. I would rather not want a democracy like that, that if I’m from the opposition party and I run for election if I don’t win I’m being sent to jail. So you know, it’s really that sad of a situation, so I don’t know. I just feel that there shouldn’t, when the market really advocates for freedom of choice, freedom of what you really want to do, if the public feels comfortable with a king and they feel that things are going right, then I think, I mean I don’t think there is an issue for us to really push countries towards democracy, but at the same time there are a lot of countries which function best in a democratic form of government, so it totally depends on where you come from I think.

JK: Florent, you want to pick up?

FS: Hey, my name is Florent Sosa. I would just want to add on what Zaneb was trying to say. It’s not just the democratic form of government. In Qatar, in Doha what we do is we advocate, we take elements of democracy like freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and we adapt those. So we redefine what democracy is. For example, we have a platform like the Doha debates or there’s an Arabic show—I’m not sure what it is, yeah, exactly that—there’s an Arabic show where people can go on television and talk about the problems in their society, so we try to redefine democracy, because we are happy with the political system. At the same time we adapt values and elements of democracy.

JK: Zena?

Z: Hi, my name is Zena. I’m Palestinian. I’m currently studying journalism at Northwestern University. I’d just like to add on what Florent was trying to say. The establishment of Al Jazeera in Qatar was a milestone in the Middle Eastern history, and its success definitely reflects the people’s need for democracy and freedom of speech.

JK: Okay, thank you. Latifah?

L: I think it’s important that we consider the individual, the individual Islamic or Arabic person in Qatar or in the Middle East in general. I don’t think the person, the individual wants democracy to really flourish in the Middle East. They want freedom of speech, yes, as Florent said. They do want certain elements of democracy but they don’t want democracy itself. I don’t think so. I’m Qatari so I know.

GU: Janet, let’s come back to New York City.

JK: Huh?

GU: Let’s come back to New York City. You’ve been listening to Doha and Qatar and very interesting views on “democracy.” Americans perhaps take our style of democracy for granted. Thoughts on what you’ve been hearing?

CK: Hi, my name is Charlotte Kauffman. I’m from Columbia University, and this is in response to what was mentioned that perhaps the democracy that’s being established in Iraq will create democracy in the broader region. And I spent some time in Yemen last year and I noticed that Saddam Hussein had become a hero. His poster was everywhere, he was on lighters, and I’m not sure if… and that is an emerging democracy in the Middle East so it’s having a lot of troubles right now. If the conflict in Iraq created a hero out of Yemen, I mean out of Saddam Hussein, I’m not sure what that means for the way and encouraging democracy throughout the region. If anyone has any comments on that.

GU: Any other comments?

??: Yeah, to kind of piggyback on that point, I think before we really start examining, you know, the democratic deficit, which is a much written about topic in the Middle East, we need to kind of examine why that’s the case. I think we need to kind of put this in a context, because what we’re looking at today are legacies that came about from the breakup of Ottoman Empire, World War I, World War II, and I think very lasting legacy is the legacy of the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold Way in the Middle East. And so that kind of explains, you know, the Western powers have not really been viewed as, you know, fair handed and even handed partners in building democracy. Very often the Western powers often undermine democratic and national movements in the Middle East. So that kind of set us back here when America took on its drive in 2003 to build a democratic government in Iraq, and that’s why it was looked on with such suspicion and we can’t hide that fact, and I think we all need to acknowledge it.

GU: I’m sure this topic is going to come up again and again as we go on to other topics the morning or the afternoon as the case may be. But let’s just take a break for a moment. As we know, we’re talking amongst ourselves on three campuses, and in the media these days… what’s happening in higher education. It’s taking on a new dimension through the connection, the technological connection, and many cases new campuses. We have two good examples, actually three, with us here. So let’s take a moment and look at the new American University in Cairo campus. This introduction was prepared by students there.

[video playing] This is our original campus in the heart of Cairo. We started as an English language university in 1919 with 140 students. AUC has become a central forum for quality education, debate, and new ideas. In 2008 we moved to a new $400 million campus on the eastern edge of Cairo, keeping our original campus downtown. For the first time, we have a gymnasium, swimming pool, track, and soccer field. The university has to bus its students to and from all points in the city 18 hours a day. Our press is the preeminent publishing house in the Middle East.

AUC has 6000 students. It has a core curriculum and 41 majors for undergraduates as well as 43 major programs. Tuition and fees are $12,000 a year and about 58% of our students get financial aid. 83% of our students are Egyptian and 10% American. The other 7% are from all over the world. Our School of Continuing Education serves 42,000 adult students each year. “I’m Ida Hamas. I’m a happy student in the political science department and a teaching assistant at the British University.” “I’m Ahmed Getty, a junior double majoring in mass communications and political science.” “I’m Nolda Assad, a senior from Botswana majoring in international relations.” “I’m Noah Geillie, a Libyan Italian majoring in political science and economics and the narrator of this film.” “I am Ahmed Sadin, a VA student, a free lance translator, lecturer, and guide in Egyptology.” “I’m Jerry Leach, head of AUC Center that seeks to improve understanding between the American and Islamic world.” [end video]

Well, in the Persian Gulf region there has been a major investment in higher education in a number of locales, including Doha with Education City. Here’s a look at Northwestern University’s campus and program and education in Qatar.

[video playing] Opened in August of 2008, Northwestern University in Qatar now has 80 students from 15 different countries in its journalism and communications programs. “I grew up in Saudi Arabia. I from Egypt originally but I did my entire high school in Saudi Arabia.” “Well, I live in Pakistan. It’s just right next door. Education City I think it’s part of the vision of this country, and I really want to be part of this vision, bringing international education to Doha.” “I’m from Brazil and I already planned to do journalism, so I thought it was a great opportunity to study abroad. Culturally in terms of lifestyle I knew I didn’t have to change much, but at the same time I was getting a kind of education that I could literally be able to go different levels wherever I wanted.”

“You know, we have a hunting season where all my brothers and cousins are, out in the deserts hunting. So it’s not easy.” “I think the opportunity’s great, because I get to understand different cultures and different religions and different parts of the world. I’ve always traveled a lot because my father was a pilot, so I’ve seen most parts of the world, but not in this depth. You have this Middle Eastern Arabian background and then have the American education. It truly makes your lives much more balanced and your viewpoint much more balanced and stronger, and more acceptable at a global level.”

“I look at communication as part of the industry, part of the business that is really wanted in this region, and I see studying communication as an opportunity to be part of that or work on that and hopefully improve in the future.” “I think it’s really important. I know it’s extremely difficult to be doing stories here, the kind of story that you want to do, and the thing that is important that the floor information also starts to begin from the east to the west.” “My hope is not to get back to Brazil just now. I want to get back to teach actually in the future.” “I think of it as part of my identity. I want to be part of anything that will help this country grow and improve in the future, and being a student at Northwestern in Education City is part of this climate.” [end video]

Well, Doha, of course, another locale that in the region benefit from great oil wealth and they’re located just across the Persian Gulf from Iran. So let’s turn to Iran now and hear what President Obama had to say about Iran, the Middle East and the United States in his speech in June in Cairo.

[begin Obama] This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build. I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path. [end Obama]

President Barack Obama speaking in Cairo about Iran. Let’s go to Doha. Janet, you and the students there across the Gulf from Iran, how do you see it? How do students there see Iran, its government, or recent elections, and also the prospect of Iran one day having nuclear weapons?

JK: Okay, let’s start with the recent elections in Iran. Do you think now that Iran is a stable country? If so, why, if not, why not? Benazir, did you want to handle that, or do you want to take up the nuclear issue? Okay, let’s do nuclear first then.

BK: The nuclear issue, I just wanted to say how…

JK: Benazir, can you give us your name, your school and your country?

BK: My name is Benazir Kareem and I’m from Tanzania and I go to Northwestern University. I’m doing journalism. When it comes to nuclear weapons I just wanted to compare Iraq to Israel. Israel is a very small country yet it has nuclear weapons and yet President Obama says like it’s well known that U.S. has very good connections with Israel. Then why is the U.S. not doing anything about the nuclear weapons that such a small country has? And when it comes to nuclear weapons for Iran, President Obama says that the U.S. is ready to move on, is ready to, you know, make peaceful agreements with Iran, then by suspecting their intentions that nuclear energy is equal to nuclear weapons, by suspecting their intentions, I think that that’s already posing a threat to making a peaceful agreement and a peaceful relationship with the Iran and U.S. in the first place. Thank you.

JK: Safi?

S: I want to go back to your question about is there, the question was is it the arm peace for right now or after the election. I think there is a consultations going on between Irani top leaders. I just recently read an article by Karroubi who was defeated during the election who actually was criticizing Ahmadinejad and his government that he is trying to approach U.S. government, and according to him sending congratulations and letters to Barack Obama and other officials in the United States actually against Iranian wishes. They do not want to move forward. I can quote him as well. It seems that Iranian politicians, especially their religious leaders, they think they are actually being pressured by the United States. There are some countries that they have to move and have to start having a dialog with the United States, but at the same time we see that President Obama at the end of his speeches, not in Cairo, but he says that we see all the options on the table, which means that if it comes to a point definitely the United States will go to a war with Iran if the nuclear weapons is going to be the ultimate goal for Iranian politics.

I think in that sense, no we are not going to have right now a peaceful situation in Iran. At the same time I think there is a possibility for Iranian politics to actually develop their nuclear energy by what is going on in this state in Iran, which I feel whenever there is a tension around, which means that Iran is going to make a bigger decision in its domestic and foreign decisions.

JK: Okay. Zena?

Z: I’m kind of throwing out a question. If you really go back and read the nonproliferation treaty, the countries which have basically, like U.S. is one of them who has signed it, and even then, and President Obama was talking about the fact we should try and limit the whole, you know, the race to get nuclear weapons. So my question is like when other countries like North Korea or China, Russia, UK, France, so many countries, they have nuclear weapons and they become open about it, so why is there an exception about Iran, you know? And basically the permanent members of the UN Security Council, even they, they do advocate the fact that there shouldn’t be nuclear weapons, there shouldn’t be a race for nuclear weapons, and they themselves are going against that. So I don’t understand the whole point of advocating something and then being hypocritical and going all the way like talking a different direction. And also on another note, the fact that Iran is actually given permission to the IAEA to go ahead and send inspection agencies, so when it’s been open about the fact that, okay, international organizations can come in and check its activities, so I don’t see that the world should really have a problem of its investment in nuclear research,, enrichment, or whatever, because today if someone really questions that, oh, can an international organization step in, go do the same thing to North Korea or to United States, I don’t think they would really like that.

JK: Lala?

LE: My name is Lala el Jabar. I just want to respond to Zena. Like I don’t think that the problem with Iran is that they have nuclear weapons. I think it’s that they use, Iran has blatantly threatened like Israel. They said that they considered wiping them off the planet, so I think that’s the issue, that they’re going to use these nuclear weapons as a threat like for political leverage.

JK: Okay. Florent?

FS: I just wanted to comment on what Zaneb was trying to say, that Iran is being very transparent and being very open with the IAEA, and just to rebut what Lala was trying to say, Iran’s nuclear projects I think it’s up in the mountains… up in the mountains. Their whole project, it’s monitored 24 hours by the IAEA. All right, on another note, another note, I would just like, because this is from an argument from last night, the Doha debates, which was live from our campus, the only reason why Iran has nuclear weapons, I mean, we can claim that they are developing nuclear weapons is because Israel is in a very awkward situation right now in the Middle East, and does the Muslim nations are concerned about their security and their safety? Well, it comes down to the question of the Muslim world versus Israel.

GU: Janet, we…

JK: Okay, Kafi? Oops, sorry. Garrick?

GU: Just going to have a question. It might be interesting, and we’re seeing the students there, if we could ask them how many think that Iran’s potential possession of nuclear weapons or that even Iran today in its nuclear program could pose a threat to the region, that is, Doha, the Persian Gulf Region, or the broader Middle East. How many see Iran and its nuclear program as a potential threat? Just a show of hands.

JK: Give us a show of hands so we can see. So this is if you think it’s a threat.

GU: What percentage is that approximately, Janet?

JK: It’s about half. Half?

GU: Let’s come back to Doha, but let’s go to Cairo, where students have been listening at the American University in Cairo. Jerry, you’re much further away from Iran but students there obviously are following the elections, the political situation, the religious leadership there and the nuclear issue. Let’s pick up on that subject. What are your thoughts of your students about Iran, its political system, above all its nuclear program?

JL: Thanks, Garrick. Let me pose the question this way. About this time last year, I believe the president of Egypt announced the creation of the country’s first nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes, that is for electricity generation. I’d like to just pose it to the students around me, do they see any connection between eh beginning in 2008 of an Egyptian peaceful nuclear energy program and the potential toward nuclear weapons in Iran. Is there a connection there?

Mike: It’s clearly said by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs here in Egypt that the Iranian nuclear program is a viable threat for Egypt because changes in the balance of power and the status quo in Egypt and the whole region, and I think there is no clear connection that has been taken from the government that because of the Iranian problem, Iranian program Egypt is starting to makes its peace with the Iranian launch again because it stopped in 1989. There is no key connection that has been stated by the government or the president in Egypt, but all the thinkers believe that there is a lying between votes because it’s going to be a threat through the whole region, and I believe that the GCC countries is going to face the same problem that if they are sure that Iran has a real threatening nuclear power, they are going to prepare themselves to start their own nuclear powers, and by that the region as a whole is going to start to be a nuclear competition in the region as a whole. So Egypt started and we don’t know how it’s going to end, and as we all know, yes you can start as a peaceful nuclear program, but how you are going to end by that program we don’t know yet.

JL: Asa here on my right would like to pick up the ball next. Asa?

A: Well, I’d like to address the issue of moving forward that President Barack Obama addressed in his speech. As Egypt is preparing the nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes, it does in a way get aligned with Barack Obama’s plan for advancement and moving forward, but as Iran is working on its nuclear purposes, it’s planning to use them to threaten American goals for the rise of democracy, etc. I think perhaps this is the reason that America is kind of coming to Cairo and speaking from Cairo and handling the issue of the nuclear weapons of Iran personally. Like the President himself showed up but wasn’t an ambassador or a minister, for example. Thank you.

JL: Yes, Ahmed?

AS: I believe that Obama has lit the light for diplomacy in the Middle East, but that stone is only translatable into not only English or Arabic or Greek but into actions, and to translate it to action, as Obama said, with mutual respect. We must respect the Iranians and the Arabs, so when you say with respect must have more faith in the Iranians and more peace and more peace making until we have nuclear energy or even nuclear power, nuclear weapons. So what? Is it a hazard? Maybe more countries will have it when they feel it might be safe to have it. So what? You must have more faith, more respect, address your concerns. There’s a potential war between Iran and Iraq, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia, okay. This is what we need to think about, potential war, not what kind of weapon. This is what I think is marginal and beside the point.

JL: Iran clearly feels an isolated power. It’s isolated in the world with just a few groups that support it, and many of those are secretive of course and not above board. It also feels like the rest of the world is against it, essentially led by the United States. Is there anything that Egypt can do to contribute to making a better relationship happen with Iran? What can Egypt’s role be in improving relations with Iran. Asa?

A: I would like to respond to the professor’s question. Egypt is known to be a very supportive ally of the United States in the Middle East in general and because of Egypt’s very ancient history it’s generally followed in a way by other Arab nations, and by taking a stand and continually supporting the issue that Barack Obama poses towards the Iranian possession of nuclear weapons, Egypt kind of leads the way for other Arab nations to take a stand on the topic. This would probably cause Iran to think twice about targeting countries such as Israel, for example, due to their possession of nuclear weapons, because in a way that would conflict with U.S. goals and therefore Arab goals, and that pretty much might lead to a third world war on a bigger scale.

GU: Jerry, let me come back to the United States. Jerry, let’s come back to New York for a moment, get some thoughts here on what we’ve been listening to in Cairo and in Doha. I think students here from Columbia. Fordham in New York City and all Americans remember the inaugural speech of the President who said that he was going to offer an open hand to Iran or any nation and hope that others would take it and relations improve, and if necessary of course the hand would close. Where are we now? Is the hand open or is the hand closed, from the United States’ point of view, Barack Obama’s point of view, and Iran today?

IC: Ian Christie, Fordham University. I think he very much wants to be open. I think he’s trying as hard as he can. Everybody wants to solve the peace process. Everybody wants to solve all of these problems, but let me ask a question relating to that, particularly to Zaneb and Latifah, and this may provoke some bitter laughter, but how long until the United States can be seen as an honest broker in the region? I’m not talking about the political classes you see engagement with Syria and things like that, but on the street. And if we acknowledge that this is impossible in the near term, how would you like to see the U.S. acknowledge the increasingly multi polar world, and perhaps more to the point, who steps up to fill that?

GU: That’s a very good question, and we’ll just hold it for a second and finish up on Iran, and we’re going to come back to that at the end of the discussion.

IC: Well, with Iran we saw a very clear line of action in the United States during the election term, which was measured, very restrained, very reluctant to get involved, so maybe Obama does acknowledge this, that we can’t do all the heavy lifting because we’re not an honest broker.

GU: Other thoughts here about Iran? We’re a long ways away. Iranian missiles, if they had them one day with nuclear warheads, are not going to reach the United States. They conceivably could reach Europe. How do you feel about that, the Iranian “threat” if indeed there is a threat?

??: Well, I think you know, all of our colleagues raise great points on the Middle East arms race originates I think with Israel. They have weapons. But clearly Iranians having weapons or the Iranian regime having weapons poses an even greater threat of proliferating with all of the other Sunni Arab states in the region, which Egypt is trying to get civilian nuclear technology for that purpose. We have to admit that the United States has reached out, President Barack Obama has reached out with an open hand, but with the tumultuous election and Ahmadinejad’s kind of still, he’s very intransigent on reciprocating these overtures by the United States that we haven’t moved forward, and I think it’s not for lack of trying on President Barack Obama’s part, and I really think the fault lies with the Iranian regime. And to some points that were raised, they have not been 100% transparent with the IAEA. If they were, we wouldn’t be in this situation right now. So I think a lot of the blame rests on the Iranian regime.

GU: A couple of other thoughts.

AD: Alexandra Duke, Fordham University. I think the issue was raised in Cairo that it’s not so much about the nuclear weapons as it is about the conflict itself in the region, and I think that’s important to remember, that as important as the issue of nuclear weapons is not many people have died from nuclear weapons since they were last used, but conventional weapons are really the main cause of death in the Middle East at the moment.

GU: And there are too many conflicts right now causing too many deaths. Just a couple more quick opinions. Let me just call on some. Amy, I know you’re at Columbia? Fordham, you’re at Fordham. Do you have any thoughts on this? Give us your name again.

AC: My name’s Amy Cohen. I’m from Fordham University, poly sci major and Middle Eastern studies. To digress a little, go back to the Iraq issue, I’d like to combine the two if I can. My general inquiry, I guess it’s a question, the question really isn’t why did we try to implement democracy but why is Obama still supporting the build up of Iraq despite the fact that we were the ones who originally destroyed the regime, so to speak, and the question is, is President Obama supporting an Iraqi democracy to build up a check on Iran’s nuclear ability, because it can be speculated that with the removal of Saddam Hussein he allowed Iran to pursue their modern nuclear intentions by defeating their largest enemy so to speak, so is he trying to rebuild Iraq to make a check on Iran on their nuclear ability. Are those his intentions? Can that even be considered?

GU: Keep the question in mind. Anything else? You have a comment? Use the mike and identify yourself.

LN: My name is Lindsay Novison. I’m from the Middle Eastern Studies Department at Fordham, and to address the question that Ian posed, the first one, and something that Zaneb said in Doha, I think that in order to get beyond this image that the U.S. has, as Zaneb said, we really need to address the United States double standard in foreign policy, because as she pointed out we’re supporting Israel with its nuclear weapons but at the same time we have Iran and in their attempt to get nuclear weapons we’re contesting it, and in Iraq with our promotion of democracy yet we support authoritarian regimes throughout the region. So I think that is something that’s fundamental to really like improve our image because otherwise it really undermines the validity of the U.S. in the Middle East.

GU: This is a main theme that runs through our discussion, will continue to run through it and we want to address it later at the end of the session, but let’s just get some of our experts’ opinions. John Entelis? Start with you.

JE: I don’t think we should minimize the significance of nuclear weapons not only in the hands of mainstream states but the fact that you can make miniature bombs in the hands of individuals. Anything that contains the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in my understanding in the ideal world is Obama would like to see a denuclearization of the world, so you only can achieve that by limiting and then ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons by those that possess them. In that sense I think the weapons do matter and as long as other differences exist, religious and political, then what attitude and policies we take towards nuclear weapons I think is quite important.

GU: Lydia? Your thoughts.

LK: Well, I think it’s important to remember that President Obama gave these remarks before the questionable elections in Iran and regardless of what we think about what happened there we need to acknowledge that many Iranian citizens do not believe that their government is legitimate, and this is not just secular or liberal Iranians. This is across the board. This is very religious and conservative as well. So the Obama administration is stuck in a way. It’s sincere in trying to find a way forward, yet it is also trying to negotiate this nuclear issue, but it can’t negotiate with a government that it labels as illegitimate, which is why the Obama administration has been very quiet about that, and I think prudently so. So there’s this tension between the legitimacy of the Iranian government within its own population and how it’s seen around the world and this nuclear issue, and it’s a very complicated tension that the Obama administration needs to deal with.

GU: Thank you, Lydia. Now, we’ve discussed Iran, we’ve discussed Iraq, we’ve discussed other aspects of Egypt, etc, and we turn to the central issue of the Middle East, that is Israel and the Palestinian question, the Palestinian issue. Here’s what President Barack Obama said when he addressed in Cairo in June 2009 the United States, its and his view of the Israel-Arab-Palestinian dispute.

[begin Obama] America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied. For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers—for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. [end Obama]

Again, President Barack Obama in Cairo talking about the Israeli-Palestinian issue at the heart of so much of the problems and the questions in that region of the world. I will add just personally that as a young man journalist I was covering the 1973 war, I was covering the war between Israel and the Egyptian third army in the Sinai desert and I was there through that whole process, so I know how this strikes home in Egypt particularly.

We’re going to go to Cairo now, Jerry, because it was Egypt that really was the first Arab country, significant Arab country, that really helped to defuse the critical nature of potential war there by signing the Camp David Accords and a peace agreement with Israel. So let’s pick up this question with you, Jerry, and your students in the American University in Cairo. Jerry?

JL: Thanks, Garrick. Well, I think it’s not widely recognized above and beyond the 1978-79 Israel Egypt peace agreement, the foundation of course of Egyptian Iraq policy. It’s not widely recognized how much else the Egyptians have done, how much else they have put into the search since that time for a more lasting peace around them, and I’d like the students to try to take that question up, partly just to lay out for everybody in the video conference to hear what Egypt’s contributions have been to the search for peace between Israel, Palestine and the wider middle East. Idia do you want to take over?

??: Yes. Actually, Egypt has played a major role since 1948 in happening to solve this Arab Israeli or Palestinian problem, and in ’48 Egypt was among the first troops to fight, and then ’56 Egypt was prone to a war in the 1956 Swiss crisis, and then Egypt only had ’67 war. Egypt has been, has called the poor Palestinian government to come and speak on the table of negotiations during 1978-79 peace agreement, and later on even when Egypt took its own position to have its own peace treaty, it got isolated yet still it didn’t give up the Palestinian issue, and it kept on sending many people over there and many diplomats and negotiators in order to have them solve the problem, and I think until now Egypt has not been hindered from solving this problem, has been trying to do a lot of efforts for this.

GU: Jerry, if I could just interrupt for a second, I think so much has happened since the President’s speech, and if we bring what President Obama was saying about Israel and the Palestinian issue up to what’s been happening in the past week or so. We know Secretary of State Clinton was there. She praised Netanyahu and Netanyahu refuses to freeze totally this building of settlements. We see the reports coming out of the Palestinian authority that the whole process may simply break down. What are the thoughts about the difference between what Obama was saying and what students there see happening right now, the core of the whole Middle East question?

JL: Ramadan?

RM: Now I struggle with Obama’s speech on June 4, like people are so happy and unrealistic about like what he’s going to achieve in regards with the Palestinian Israeli issue. Wasn’t it like in the last week or something when Secretary Clinton said what she said about not stopping Israelis from building their settlements? This was made with like met with a big uproar and upset among Egyptians and others, and they say like Obama’s promises regarding the Palestinian issue like were just unkept promises. So the question now I really want to ask like why Obama is doing this at this time. Is it because he doesn’t want to upset the Jewish lobby and the states to stop him from being elected for another term, or like is he being lenient about the issue so like he doesn’t want to be stuck with that, so it is so he will get the most space to work and have peace.

JL: Ahmed?

AS: I have a feeling that the whole process is like beating a dead horse, and I consider it a dead dog. Repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a new result, understanding how that’s stupidity. So I think we need more other solutions. I don’t know what the solution will be but we need to think a little bit out of the box. A 2-state solution has been offered in the past. So think about 3-states or peacekeeping forces. Politicians have depicted this over and over.

JL: Asa?

A: I would like to refer to what one of the New York students mentioned about the United States being an honest broker. The thing about Israel Palestinian conflict is that the United States is trying to kind of mediate between both groups and Egypt is assisting with that, but in a way the Egyptians are kind of misinterpreting the goodwill of the United States in performing this operation. I would also like to mention that the conflict does not only exist between Israel and Palestine as separate peoples and separate groups of individuals who follow different religions as well as have different systems of government, but the problem also exists in the presence of two separate groups in Hamas and Fatah and the Palestinian peoples in general and the presence of the country of Gaza and the Palestinian government. So it’s not only the outside issue between both people that should be addressed but it’s also something within the groups themselves, disregarding the religion as well as the form of the government and the way this is dealt with by the United States and Egypt as mediators and negotiators between both.

GU: Okay, Jerry, let’s come back for a moment to New York. We’ve been listening to the comments of the students there in Cairo. Here we are in New York. We’re familiar with this Middle East even at your young age. This has been going on for decades, familiar with this situation. You’ve been hearing the president’s comments, you’re following what’s been happening there recently, you hear comments in Cairo. What are your feelings about where this goes. Does it go anywhere, the peace process in the Middle East?

LN: Lindsay from Fordham. I think in order for it to go anywhere, at least from the stance the U.S. is going to take, it was really exciting to see Obama call for the freeze of settlements, but the fact that he backtracked and essentially like took that back was very discouraging. So I think for anything to really happen and really like change he needs to stick by what he says, and if he calls for the freezing of settlements absolutely stand by that because we’re being manipulated by Israel and probably the Israeli lobby.

GU: Other thoughts?

??: Yeah, I think the settlements obviously, as we’ve all been reading the papers and listening to the news, is the sticking point, but I think it’s important to keep in mind that the U.S. administration for a long time has considered settlements illegal and has been opposed to settlements. The sticking point are the negotiations and I think that’s where Fatah and President Mahmoud Abbas will not come to the table unless they are frozen completely, and Netanyahu has now of course said that he’s going to restrict them, and that’s the breakdown. So I think the U.S. position is clear, it’s the same, it’s consistent. President Obama hasn’t really changed that much on the issue, but I think I agree with what was said in Cairo. I think we need to start exploring some more creative options, because as the posturing of President Mahmoud Abbas right now saying he’s not going to run for reelection shows that we’ve kind of run out and the process is broken and we really need to start thinking creatively and outside the box.

CS: Chanada Salom from Fordham. I think that the U.S. where it’s been strong handed with Iran in its nuclear proliferation and its search to expand on nuclear powers, it seems to almost back down to Israel, and I don’t know if that’s because it’s been such an ally of the United States and with Iran you have an illegitimate government, quote unquote, and its lack of transparency with the IAEA, I just, I think that for the United States to be taken seriously with its efforts in Israel it needs to be much more strong handed and stop almost cowering down to Netanyahu and Israel as a whole when it refuses to stop with the settlements.

GU: Amy? Any thoughts?

AC: No. Can I raise another question? Is that okay?

GU: Well, let’s think on this question just for one more second. Do you want to address this, Ian? Ian, then we’ll come back.

IC: Just that Obama gives his speech in June. He tough talk on Netanyahu settlement freeze, all this, Congress goes on recess, the tea partiers come out, they start staging rallies, shouting down congressmen. Healthcare is the lynchpin of the Obama agenda. Without healthcare, nothing else happens, and when you’re trying to rally Democratic support, clearly there’s not going to be much Republican support, but when you’re trying to keep Democrats in line and have them support a healthcare bill that endangers, potentially endangers their political futures, doesn’t this to some extent all rest on healthcare, to some extent energy? Can he really, can he really be tough with the Israelis when he has to woo Democratic congressmen?

GU: I think, Ian, that’s a different topic for another two hour session. I think our colleagues in Cairo or Doha are not ready or willing or able to get involved in the U.S. healthcare debates, but let’s come back and pose this question. A few days ago Tom Freedman, a leading columnist on foreign affairs in the New York Times who has covered the Middle East for over 20 years, knows it very well, has won leading awards, finally in frustration wrote a column and said, “Listen, in effect let’s get out of this. When the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Arabs want us to be a mediator, they will come to the United States. Otherwise we’re just going through the motions”, which is what one of the students in Cairo was indicating just a moment ago. What’s the sense here among you Americans looking at the Middle East from New York City. Amy? Is this still an effort the United States should be engaged in?

AC: I think that’s a very intelligent response, that if they want our mediation they will come to us. I think at this point especially because we asked please stop settlements and it was almost like a slap in the face when it was refused, but once again Obama did back down from that statement. So I think it’s a very good statement to say that if they want our help or our mediation of the issue they will come to us when they want it.

GU: Other?

A: Anna from Fordham University. I think the problem with that is that the Palestinian people have no representation and if you just left it to Israel and Palestine they would be completely crushed even more than they are already.

GU: So the United States has to be involved?

A: Yes, but at the same time the U.S. involvement isn’t really going anywhere because it’s important to note that Obama began that part of the speech by saying the U.S. and Israel have strong ties, and I think that’s always kind of holding us back from really making progress on the Palestinian side and really like making an effort to empower the Palestinian people and give them representation.

GU: Sasha.

S: Thank you. I was just going to say that during the speech President Obama says that this bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable. That’s the exact quote, and what I thought when I heard that was perhaps that’s the problem, that it is so strong and solid and perhaps it needs to be more flexible for the United States to be an effective arbitrator between the Palestinian people and the state of Israel, because with its strong ties to Israel, how can the United States be an impartial judge? How can it be a fair mediator between the two?

GU: Let’s get a different perspective and go to Doha. Janet, you’re not as close to the issue, Israel, the West Bank, Gaza or even Cairo. How do students there look at what they’ve been listening here and as they follow from a distance what’s happening or not happening in the Israeli Palestinian dispute?

JK: Garrick, in fact I think we are close to the issue. There are certainly high feelings here, a lot of feelings. Qatar has repeatedly tried to become involved in the negotiations and in pushing something forward in that situation, but I think an interesting quote came from New York, when someone said the peace process is broken, we need to think outside the box, but we have some serious questions here about how you can think outside the box when you can’t get around a basic issue of trust. Lala, would you like to take that up for a second? Sorry, Zena. I’m sorry.

ZS: Hello everyone, I’m Zena Salam, I’m a Northwestern student. I’m in the communication program. I’m from the U.S. and my parents are actually both Lebanese and Palestinian. I’m Canadian too. I’d like to start off by mentioning that the term settlement is an actual cover to the actual operation, which is land robbery. And this land robbery continues today with little or no objection from Europe and America. So what is this unbreakable bond based on “historical and cultural ties between America and Israel” that makes America turn a blind eye on this unjust robbery? I think we in the Arab world, we have all the respect for the principals of equality, freedom, justice, human rights, and compassion that forms the very basis or foundation of America, but what we fail to understand is what are again the double standards when it comes to the support of this land robbery of Palestinian land that is committed on a daily basis with no objection from America or Europe under the term settlements. So in order, when we explain what these cultural bonds are, I think it’s a step in the right direction towards ending this mistrust between the Arab world and America.

JK: Zena?

Z: Hi, I’m Zena from Palestine. I’d just like to say President Obama said Palestinians must abandon violence, and how can this be justified when Israel was using the illegal weapons of mass destruction, including white phosphorous bombs, murdering thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians in response to the death of three Israeli citizens and less than ten soldiers. Why does Obama direct this statement at the Palestinians when Israel has more blood on their hands and have not been tried properly for being war criminals? Moreover, Obama calls for any negotiations and peaceful conferences to find a two state solution, but how can this happen when Israel continues to build illegal settlements, continues to destroy farms, continues to destroy infrastructure, continues to kill civilians. How can there ever be a two state solution when neither Israel nor Palestine can have justice or security? So I suggest that the U.S. position should be to settle agreements and stop Israel from its illegal actions because the Palestinian people have no recognition and the U.S. helped Israel gain the power they have today. So I believe that it is their duty to find solutions and help in this establishment of the two state solution.

JK: Safi?

SF: Yes. I would like to point two points that I have actually that I think the U.S. and its politicians let’s say, quote unquote, they failed in two points. One, that there is a contradiction in American politics, especially when it comes to Israel and Palestine issues. The issue of settlement of course as it was mentioned in New York, Secretary Clinton, she mentioned that settlement, it’s fine. However, I think the other point that American politicians they fail to actually understand our country’s position, is playing with Palestinian governments let’s say Mahmoud Abbas especially, because as I can quote, under pressure of Washington Mahmoud Abbas agreed to withdrawing support from this before. So in that sense if there was no, because with the expectation of seeing a mutual movement from the U.S. to actual freeze the settlement of Israelians. So I think in that sense we see that it’s a contradiction at the same time, and playing a risky game with Palestinian people and the Palestinian government. So in that sense I guess it’s really hard to actually see there’s going to be any movement from Palestinian government since Hamas is not a legitimate government, Iranian government is not a legitimate to be government, Iraq is not legitimate government, I guess America, they have to stand in a concrete position.

JK: Shad?

SD: Yes, hello. My name is Shad Doleh, I’m Palestinian. I think the issue with the Israeli Palestinian, with the American approach to the Israeli Palestinian conflict is that because the U.S. has failed over and over again to convince Israel to compromise or at least oblige to any law or rule possible, they have constantly tried to (incomprehensible 2:37:32) Palestinians into giving up more and more of their rights, like the right of return, the right of no more settlements being built in the West Bank, and I think what happened with the, when Vice President Clinton a few weeks ago talked about stopping settlements… yeah, I think what Vice President Clinton said is a perfect example of how the United States because it has failed to convince Israel to compromise or oblige to any law, it has tried to pressure Palestinians into giving up more and more of their rights.

GU: Okay, Janet, let’s come… we’ve heard very good, deeply felt comments there. Let’s come back to New York for a second, get some reactions.

JK: Okay, when you get done in New York, I think we may have some more to say in Doha.

GU: Well, we’re going to go back and forth here, because we’re also going to have a wrap up session in just a second. But comments here anything about what you’ve been hearing there. John, why don’t you just make a comment?

JE: Yeah, you know, Obama represented a new generation of political thinkers, and one of the expectations was that with that youthful generation there would be a new attitude towards the Middle East, and instead he’s brought together old hands, another generation that carries with it the legacy and the baggage of the past. And Tom Freedman’s article in the Times that you referred to is a reflection of the intergenerational difference and gap that exists between the young people and the older ones. For people of a certain generation they can’t look at this problem in any other way than in the way they have in the past. Among young people, as you listen to them in Doha, as you listen to them in Cairo and even here in New York, you can see there’s not yet that cynicism and jadedness about the possibility of resolving it. And for me at least I’m so disappointed by the team that Obama has brought together to try to solve this problem.

GU: Lydia?

LK: I think John makes…

GU: Lydia, you’re also a younger generation, if not still a student. So give your perspective.

LK: Well, I think John made a really excellent point about that generational divide about how we look at the Arab Israeli issue, but I’d say that my comments are really just a summary of what many people have already said. The Palestinians remain disorganized, the Israelis remain stubborn in the face of settlements. President Obama should be given credit for trying to tackle this issue early on. Most American presidents wait until the end of their terms to address the Arab Israeli issue in any serious way, but at the same time the two sides still remain stuck in this certain position, and I think one way perhaps to think about it differently is that the United States needs to come to terms with how it is going to deal with Islam’s parties. This is really one of the key issues that the Arab Israeli conflict has brought about with the election of Hamas, and it’s not just related to the Arab Israeli problem, it’s related across the board. The United States needs to think differently about how it relates to Hamas political parties, and perhaps that is a way to kind of break out of the stalemate.

GU: Lydia, John, thank you. Any other thoughts here in New York? We’re going to go back. We’ve heard those comments, let’s go back quickly to Doha for a final comment or two on this question, then to Cairo and then back, and then we’re going to wrap up the conference. But first, back to you in Doha.

JK: Okay. Ola, you had something to say.

OD: Hi, my name is Ola Dayeb. I’m a journalism student and I’m from Sudan. I just want to say I do agree that Israel should not break its bond, U.S. should not break its bond with Israel but make it equal to with Palestine, but furthermore, U.S. is not the main responsible country to be controlling what’s going on in Palestine, but since this is happening in the Arab region I think the Arab are not representing the Palestines, that they should take a bigger role in controlling what’s going on in Palestine, especially after the Arab summit. They met, they talked, but no action has taken place, so I really think the Arabs should be responsible for what’s going on in Palestine.

JK: Thanks. Hamad?

H: Hamad from Northwestern. I’m in journalism. I’d like to address Israel’s attitude and ask whether its commitment towards this issue is very serious. Some time ago, Benjamin Netanyahu gave a speech in Israeli university, and when asked about a possible peace negotiation, he said that the Palestinians can have a country, but they can have no weapons, they can have no army, and Israel must have control over their airspace and Jerusalem must go all to Israel. This seems very, it is very uncooperative and kind of aggressive and savage and very unfair and unjust. So it is really important that Israel changes its attitude, and result to a more fair and equal negotiation between both nations. Thank you.

JK: Yes, Islam? Quickly, we’re running out of time.

IH: Islam Hassam from Georgetown. I just wanted to put the Iranian nuclear program on one hand and the Israeli settlements on the other hand. If you look at the similarities, you’re going to find that the U.S. is against both, but actually the U.S.’s action on both issues is totally different. We can see that on Iran there is penalties, there are sanctions, but on Israel we can clearly see that U.S. is doing nothing, so why is that?

GU: All right, thank you, Janet. Let’s move on now to Cairo for any final thoughts on this, Jerry, and then we’ll go to our wrap up.

JL: Sure, thanks Garrick. I just want to take as a point of departure Tom Freedman’s article that effectively the U.S. should pull back and think outside the box just a little bit. There’s been a lot of people who expressed frustration with effectively what is an impasse and no clear way to follow it and suggest the idea that maybe the European Union could come into the picture as the principal mediator and the principal force trying to bring about the two state solution. Anybody want to speak to that issue around the table? Could the EU do the job? Yes, Noah.

NG: I’m Noah Geillie. I think before the EU can take the job of mitigating the Israel Palestine conflict that it needs to move away from the religious conflict and more to a political, because both sides claim that in their religion that this land is theirs and in Islam that this land is theirs and Jerusalem is definitely a part of that, and I think if both sides can move away from the religious aspect and look at the political and look at more how land should be evenly distributed that a situation of peace is more, can be. Thanks.

JL: Ahmed?

AS: I agree we can have the AU, Arab Union, the EU and the US to build more trust. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. We must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. Our doubts are big as we have to put ideas into action.

GU: All right, Jerry, we need to come back now if we can to New York. Let’s come back here. We’ve been talking about the Israeli Palestinian situation, about Iraq, about Iran, and we want to wrap it up now, and maybe one way to do it, since we’ve been referring to President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo, is to go back to a question that Ian raised earlier. Why don’t you rephrase the question about if we’re talking about the relationship, the policy, the actions of the United States government and its president vis-à-vis the Middle East and the American standing, prestige or lack thereof in the Middle East region, what is it you want to know from the others even listening to you today.

IC: I’d really like to know how students in Doha and Cairo see, you know, before the EU, how about Turkey, how about Syria, how about, you know, I would really hesitate to go to a new UAR, but really finding a political block that can bridge the gap between the east and the west and can marshal their kind of collective powers to put pressure, such as Turkey refusing to do military exercise with Israel, engaging with Syria on economic ties, can they take the place of the EU? I mean, Tony Blair to lead, you know.

GU: Let’s put the question in a more general way. In a general sense what we’re talking about right now, we don’t want to get into Tony Blair and all of this at the end of our session, in a general way the subject that runs through all of this. And the reason that President Obama went to Cairo in the first place was to not just explain his thoughts and positions but it was also to try to improve the understanding that communications between the United States, the government and its people and people in the Middle East, and what we’re discussing today is whether that has worked or hasn’t worked and where we stand. So let’s address that question. Let’s go to Doha first with Janet. Your students there who are not just from the Arab world but come from South Asia, from Latin America and elsewhere, but are in the Middle East, what is their view of what President Obama is and is doing today, several months after his Cairo speech?

JK: Who wants to take it? Safi?

SF: I would like to just say I guess President Obama the difference that we can draw between Obama’s administration and Bush administration is the difference that President Obama when he speaks, we don’t see a shoe is being thrown at him. The promises that he makes, I guess there is a hope to see changes with these conflicts that we have around the world, and at the same time I would just like to mention that I guess the United States, they have to look differently at this region. They have problems with Taliban, they have problems with the Iranian government, they have problems with Hamas, they have problems with Hezbollah, they have problems with Syria. I guess there should be a different approach and I guess the way that President Obama is actually promising, maybe not acting, is going to be the best solutions that is going to solve the problems in these nations.

GU: Janet, if you go to the other, it would be helpful if we could get a close up, we could see whoever is speaking. We were not able to see the last speaker. We just have a shot of the entire hall. But go ahead.

JK: Okay. Ola?

OD: I think the example of having President Obama in comparison with President Bush is like having two cops, the first one who would come, beat you, and then the other one who would come and give you a towel and he becomes your friend. So I think in this case at least Obama is better than the previous one.

JK: Okay. Zena?

Z: Hi. As President Obama mentioned earlier in his speech, it wasn’t on the clips themselves that we saw, but he mentioned change and ties with Islam are really important and the fact that someone with the name Barack Hussein Obama got elected as president is the first symbol that there will be change and there is hope for closer ties with the United States and possibly peace in the future. So I truly feel that Obama has potential and he has to be given credit for all his efforts, and he does bring hope to the Middle East especially, since it’s an area of conflict at the moment. But I wish him luck because the Bush administration tied a lot of knots and they confused a lot of issues, but I hope he can resolve it.

JK: Zaneb?

ZS: Well, yeah, just like as how Zena was pointing out, obviously we feel quite positive about what President Obama had to say, and the really good promises that he has made, but I think the time has come when we all need to maybe see some more action, and as a lot of students were pointing out in New York during the whole Israel and Palestine issue that like I think United States also has to realize that wait till the people in other countries actually come out and ask for help rather than honestly like coming in and trying to fix every single problem, wait until the countries approach you for help. And also on the other point, I think how our United States has a different level of standpoint. Like one of the students out there in New York pointed out that we need to have a stronger standpoint and how maybe on Iran it’s much more of a tough and stronger hold and it’s a bit different when it comes to the Israel and the Palestine issue. So in terms of being impartial, you know, it’s about impartiality and it’s about how U.S. can actually prove what it’s been talking all these months or the fact that Obama has been talking about changes.

GU: Janet, let’s go on to Cairo now and get some final thoughts there in terms of President Obama, who spoke there several months ago, and now what’s happening or isn’t happening in terms of his administration in the Middle East. Any final thoughts?

JL: Sure, thank you, Garrick. I’d just like to summarize three points and then open it up for discussion here. First, one thing that President Obama has done is he’s actually redefined the war on global terrorism. It’s now a war against Al Qaida and the Taliban, so it’s clearly a different orientation towards the issue of terrorism in the Middle East and around the world. Second thing, implicitly within his Cairo speech he effectively said there will be no more forced democracy exercises while I’m president. We’re not going to basically be forcing countries to be democratic because we think they ought to be. We’re going to return to the posture the U.S. has had for many decades and indeed two centuries. Support, stand for democracy, but basically understand that it evolves when it evolves in each separate place and not try to determine the pace at which is happens, etc. Finally, the president said essentially that he was going to deal with Iran without preconditions, he was going to try to open the door and start a new dialog and he did exactly that. I might add he made a mistake clearly with Israel and Palestine in the sense that he went into the process setting conditions at the outset whereas he should have gone in without preconditions the way he did with Iran. It hasn’t worked with Iran, it didn’t work with Israel and Palestine but it might in the case of Iran prove fruitful over time. I’d like to now ask the students for their final comments. Ida?

IM: I’d just like to say how do you (incomprehensible 2:54:27) one speech. At the beginning people said that Obama was the light in the end of the tunnel. He is hope, he’s opening the new page with the Arabs in the Muslim world, but I think later on this kind of honeymoon as I would like to call it is over. It’s not like this anymore. The real intentions of the U.S. has been out there, and right now we see that the U.S. is only serving its own interests.

??: Yes, I’m with you in what you have said, and I’m personally, I was one of the supporters of Barakat I used to put his picture at the back of my car and I was really happy by Barack Obama, and all the Egyptians, all my friends were really happy by Barack Obama, but I’m really afraid that from what happened lately the reputation of Barack Obama is going down and down, and I’m afraid that the terrorists and the right Islamists that are going to use what happened, the bankroll of the United States, they used it to legitimatize or to find ways to do their acts or to launch terrorist acts because the United States failed to address what they have said.

JL: Jerry do you have anyone..over on my right. He hasn’t been part of the dialog yet.

GU: And Jerry? Is there anybody in the crowd, in the group there who feels that may have a different opinion who still believes what Barack Obama is trying to do, or is there no one? I would just like to find that out too.

JL: All right. Dahlia?

DA: Okay. My name’s Dahlia Albez. I’m from San Francisco, California and I go to AC and I study political science. And I remember when Barack Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize a couple weeks ago, many Egyptians were left asking, well, what exactly did he do, and I would like to argue that he set the tone that no other American president has before, and the way he addressed the Muslims was something so novel and something so new, and I just really hope that he can prove to Muslims and Egyptians and people all over the world, I hope he can attain, I hope he can keep the hope that he created because what he did was really important and I still believe in him and hopefully he’ll be able to give us some concrete support for his ideas in his speech.

JL: Okay, Ahmed.

AS: I had and still have intuition that Obama’s audacity of hope will get him fruition. You can see it is still trying but it takes everyone to capture that Obama spirit, that kernel of truth, and the content already and I trust it will grow to a more prosperous selection.

JL: Asa?

A: I haven’t introduced myself before, but I’m a communication and media arts major here at AUC. I’d also like to emphasize what Ida mentioned and Dahlia as well about President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He has been given credit for what he’s been doing, but regarding this people here in Egypt have generally been very disappointed because they ask himself what has he actually done. All he did was give a speech and nothing really followed that regarding action and things, but I think that generally people by nature tend to judge others before they judge themselves, and since Obama is in the limelight he is harshly criticized by many people, especially Arabs, and certainly some Americans, but it should also be acknowledged that he has made a tremendous effort in changing the mentality of people in general and also by all his government’s diplomatic activities. It should also be mentioned that instead of people saying that America should do this and the EU should do that, people should also try to reform themselves in a way. The Palestinians should look at themselves for grouping together and forming a stable government with stable conditions that they should demand from Israel and the Arab world as well, as well as Iran and Iraq defining their position on their own people and their own population. Yeah, that’s all.

JL: Good, Garrick, last comment from, our man from Aswan, Ramadan.

RM: Thank you. I just have some comments. First, I agree with what Ida and Mohammed were saying about what their big hopes about Obama. Yes, like I read book. He has good hopes and he has good intentions, but like he should look at same time some sides of the problem. The problems we’re having in the Middle East are so unique, and it’s going to take a lot of time to solve these problems. Second, like Obama is not like the father of the world, like ask him too much. Like we should be responsible more for like our problems. Third, you said, yeah, Obama is taking care of the United States’ interests, and he said this at the beginning of his speech, like he’s focused United States and there’s no altruism in politics, so his main job like he was elected and he’s being paid for taking care of the interests of the United States. Last thing I want to say, like what Dahlia said, we should really take care of like our problems and we should like solve our problems first before like asking Obama for more solutions for situations we are facing.

JL: Garrick, back to you.

GU: Okay, thank you very much, Jerry and your students there. Final comments here or reactions from our students from Columbia and Fordham University here.

JK: Garrick? Can I interrupt you for just one second to remind everyone of the Twitter feed. That is live now, will be active tomorrow, so let’s continue the discussion.

GU: Very good. We plan to do that. Thank you, Janet. So, final reactions here at New York City at the Levin Institute. You’ve been hearing what students in Doha have been saying about Barack Obama and comments in Cairo. How do you view them? How do you think Americans view them in his foreign policy particularly directed towards the Middle East? Not many American presidents have succeeded there. Is Obama going to be any different?

??: I believe Obama still has plenty of time. I agree with all of the comments that he was brave to take on the Middle East issue early on in his administration, and I agree that a lot of what we expect of him might be a little unrealistic at this point, so I think a little perspective and a little kind of patience could be in due course.

GU: Amy?

AC: Earlier in his speech he said the Arab Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of the Arab nations from other problems, and I think that is a critical statement because I think that is a constant theme throughout Middle Eastern history, that issues that are of a more violent nature tend to overshadow older ones, and I think that we need to put the international spotlight on an issue in the Middle East before it is or it will be knocking at our door, and I think that’s a very important statement.

GU: Lydia. You’re quite young, just recently out of school, lots of experience in the Middle East, following American policy, I believe you’re even researching a project on Arab youth. You look at this question. What’s your comment?

LK: Well, I would just in summary make two points about this. While American presidents may change, American interests fundamentally don’t change as quickly as administrations, and so I think this kind of helps explain some of the disconnect between what President Obama has been saying and the hopes and the actions. So that explains the disconnect between some of the intent and actions. But the second point is I would circle it back to this democracy issue that we had brought about. The Middle East needs change and the Middle East needs stability, and democracy has been a way throughout history to bring change with stability, not in the short term but in the long term. So as the region moves forward, as all of the actors and this new generation and this youthful generation move forward, these are things that they need to be grappling with and thinking about. How are they going to be able to bring change with stability in their region, and that’s the responsibility I think of Middle Eastern youth going forward.

GU: John?

JE: Just to add on to what Lydia said and to strongly support the notion that democracy cannot come to the Middle East and to the Arab world in particular without acknowledging the important of Islamic political tendencies and being fully part and parcel of that movement of democracy. In the absence of the participation of those who identify one way or another with Islamic tendency, there can never be democracy. If there’s no democracy, there’s no stability. If there’s no stability, you have a continuous conflict, whether it’s Arab, Israeli, Palestinian and so forth. So if you believe there’s a connection between domestic stability and regional international stability, you need to emphasize the opportunity for all voices to be heard as long as they’re nonviolent, as long as they’re willing to work within the system, and that point I think needs to be emphasized.

GU: In June 2009 in Cairo one voice was very clearly heard out of the American president Barack Obama in his speech, and we want to close now with one of his comments that didn’t address itself to a specific issue or conflict but to the approach we have been talking about, the American approach, Obama’s approach, perhaps the approach of all of us as we look to the issues in the Middle East. Here’s what he said.

[begin Obama] I know there are many—Muslim and non-Muslim—who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort—that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country—you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world. [end Obama]

A message that is certainly eternal from Barack Obama. We want to thank the students, the faculty members at the American University in Cairo, at Northwestern University in Education City in Doha, and the students and faculty here at the Levin Institute at the State University of New York in New York City. And a special thanks to the Chronicle of Higher Education for collaborating on this project, and thanks for watching, for paying attention. We will see you next time at the Global Crossroads. Thank you. Okay, thank you.