especially when we talk about israel and palestine. all we hear within that discourse is that muslims hate jews and judeo-christian heritage forces muslim heritage. the reality of it is much more complex than that. the reality is that is long, at various point in history, was a lot more accommodating to jews than christianity was, certainly in the 19th and the 20th century in europe, given the holocaust that actually took place there. host: our guest is the washington bureau chief for al jazeera arabic, abderrahim foukara. he also worked for wgbh in boston. thought want to share with you one of the many editorials. this one is from "the wall street journal. a one of the points is that hanging over all of this, the question of iran and how to deal with it. then this point that if mr. obama is serious about stopping to iran, he has to do a couple of steps that i outlined. guest: the issue of iran is interesting. the way that the president handled it in his speech yesterday -- obviously, it caused some waves in the arab and muslim world.

palestine. i think what the president -- these are very treacherous waters -- what the president is trying to do directly or indirectly is try to support that part of the debate about israel and palestine that says it is time now for the west to try to find a grand, historical compromise with islam and the muslim world by restoring some of the rights that the palestinians have lost when they lost their land and their country in 1948. host: the president did talk about the horrors of a concentration camp. you can watch all of the president's events in cairo, egypt online. the president's news conference with german chancellor and also tomorrow, the events at normandy. the president's speech in cairo will read-share-air. joe is next. caller: good morning. i keep hearing -- first of, i think the president did the right thing. i think he delivered a very good speech. i am pleased that he spoke to a majority of people in the united states. i have a problem hearing that extremist muslims are a very small minority amount of people there. i do not see that they're making any money. i want to know how they are getting funded. they do not seem/r there are a lot of extremists in the

israel must recognize that there justice cannot be denied nor can palestine's. the united states does not except accept the legitimacy of israeli settlements. [applause] this construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. it is time for these settlements to stop. [applause] israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that palestinians can live and work and develop their society. just as it devastates palestinian families that the humane -- humanitarian crisis in gaza not serve as real security. progress in the daily lives of the palestinian people must be a critical part of the road to peace and israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress. finally the arab states must recognize that their peace initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. the arab-israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of arab nations from their problems, but it must be a cause for action to help the palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to r

there is a sensibility are around issues like israel, palestine, iraq, corporations with iran fall in a different category because that is a much more clear-cut difference. that sensibility does seem to unite people in the arab world from the atlantic to the gulf when it comes to issues like iraq and palestine. host: we are monitoring aljazeera now. is this what most of the world is now seeing? this is what we are getting right now? is there one version around the world or is it different here in united states? guest: what we are seeing here is international aljazeera. there are obviously two strands. there is one in arabic which is broadcast on satellite and you can see whether you have -- where you have set alight in any part of the world. you have aljazeera english which is broadcast on cable and it is still trying to put itself on cable on a large scale here in united states. incidentally, if i may do it quick and fort up as your english, as joof july 1, it will be on cable in the washington, d.c., area. these are two different strands. in many ways they represent two slightly dif

that is the israel/palestine issue. host: we're getting reaction to the president's speech. the numbers are on the bottom of the screen. you can also send us an e-mail or a tweet. "and the moderate element of the muslims effectively address the extreme element to bring about change on the ground?" guest: the issue of extremism is a real issue. having said that, sitting in the united states or in europe or anywhere else outside of the muslim world, when you hear about -- what you hear about constantly is extremism. the reality of the situation is that the vast majority of people in the muslim world from morocco to indonesia, where president barack obama spent part of his childhood, their overriding concern is that it just want to lead a decent, normal life, just like people in the united states or europe or anywhere else. there is that

initial round of policy refuse the interconnected issues of iraq and afghanistan and pakistan, israel, palestine at commanded most of the attention. transnational isu's extremism, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and trying to sort out the reality on the ground of all of these intersecting both national and transnational and multinational effects, identifying trends, trying to predict their effects. those have been a steady challenge for the intelligence community. as ellen mentioned i just returned from a trip to pakistan and afghanistan so let me report on some of the developments that are going on there. in pakistan, the primary security event is this offensive in the swat valley that is being pursued by the pakistan army. we have seen these operations in recent years, but i think there is some interesting and important changes to what is going on this year. in the first place, for the first time, the pakistan army operations in that part of the world have support of the government and of the public. there was a parliamentary solution, which occurs. defences takes place. there been state

not latin america compared to other parts of the world has been doing better than africa or israel-palestine, you know, the middle east, southwest asia, pakistan, central asia. so latin america has been relatively well off. second, the latin americans -- the lathan leaders do not help themselves in relations with the united states. when you have leaders of -- freely elected and democratic governments like chile, for example, going to havana to kiss the ring of fidel castro because that's basically what they were doing, it doesn't elevate the president of chile to the level of fidel castro. it lower them to the level of fidel castro. it helps fidel castro. or when you have a summit meeting like in brazil not too long ago where all these presidents of latin america get together and all they do is criticize the united states. that's all they did. they were lucky, frankly, that this received zero coverage in the u.s. media because if it had been covered, it would have just added to this bad image that latin america has in this country. so when latin americans why don't we get more attention from

[applause] that is in israel's interest, palestine interest, america's interests, and the world's interest. that is why i intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are key. -it is time for them and all of us to live up to our responsibilities. palestinians must abandon violence. resistance to violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. for centuries, black people in america suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. it was not violence that won full legal rights. it was a peaceful and determined resistance upon the ideals at the center of america's boundaries. this same story can be told by people from south africa to south asia. this is from eastern europe to indonesia. it is a story with a simple truth. violence is a dead end. it is a sign neither courage or of power. -- or a power to throw rocks at the sleeping children. that is not how moral authority is claimed. that is how it is surrendered. now is the time for pale

ask you about one specific part of the president's speech when he talked about the right for israel and palestine to coexist. what did you take away from what he said? guest: what he was trying to do is engage in truth telling in many ways. in dealing with the arab states, he was trying to say israel is here to stay. the u.s.-israel relationship is solid. the holocaust happened. it is crazy to deny it. it is crazy to a cage in anti- semitism. arab leaders should not exploit this conflict. -- it is crazy to engage in anti-semitism. at the same time he's said things a lot of muslims wanted to hear, specifically the need for a two-state solution, they need to imagine a better future for muslim youth all over the world. that was one of his main audience, was to reach out to young muslims. to reach imagine their future. he had multiple audiences. he was trying to hit multiple things. he did not break a lot of policy ground, but i don't think that was the purpose. the purpose was to open a conversation. he clearly did that. host: charles krauthammer and said today -- he was on this program two weeks ag

[applause] that is in israel's interest, palestine's interest, america's interest, and the world's interest. and that is why i intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patients and dedication that the task requires. the obligations-- the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. for peace to come, it is time for them and all of us to live up to our responsibilities. palestinians must abandon violence. resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. for centuries, black people in america suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. but it was not violence that one full

that there should be to states in israel and palestine? let's go by what he says pertaining to this. the reason that ahmadinejad won in a landslide, you know that iraq had no bombs or anything? we preemptively attack of them and killed millions of their people. he is popular among his people because he is standing up, otherwise we will do the same thing to him. let's do what obama says and let them have nuclear power. thank you. host: baltimore, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to ask the public a question. if a foreign power invaded canada and mexico, two of our bordering countries, what with the united states do? iran is in the same situation. we invaded iraq and afghanistan , but both border iran. what is the iranian government to do? they have to have some method from deterring the united states from invading them. that could be a very popular point of view. so, you cannot really blame iran for attempting to have some kind of a power against the united states. host: if we go with your notion that this is a defensive posture,

squads and latin america, what happened to vietnam and cambodia, what is happening today in israel and palestine. his opposition to the wars in iraq, his relentlessness that is such an inspiration to us all. [applause] i think looking at the essential noam chomsky, of this a book case of that is on the cover is filled with noam chomsky books. he has written over 100 of them. and is not just writing, because when he excludes the line he is saving lives because the allies take lives. i don't know who said this quote, but someone once said i think back on my life that all the times i thought i went too far i realize now i did not go far enough. well, i think noam chomsky has clearly gone to the distance and as we celebrate his 80 years i am encouraged by a woman who told me about celebrating her grandmother's 106th birthday and her grandmother stood up at her party and said, to be 100 again a. [laughter] we look for into your noam chomsky for many years to come beginning with tonight. noam chomsky. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> thanks, is really exciting to watch amy a couple days ago when sh

with democratic iraq and britain, absolutely agree for its vaunted-state solution between israel and palestine and welcome what prime mr. netanyahu said, yes, we need answers about the conduct of those iranian elections. but want to focus light weapons on the inquiry announced by the prime minister. we welcome the inquiry -- indeed, we have been calling for now for many, many months. but i have to say i'm far from convinced the promise there has got it right. the whole point of having an inquiry is it got to be able to make clear recommendations to go wherever the evidence needs, to establish the full truth and to make sure the right lessons are learned. it has got to do so in a way that builds public confidence. isn't there a danger that what the prime tester has announced today will not achieve those objections? the membership looks quite limited, the terms of reference in restricted and inquiry is not specifically tasked to make recommendations and none of it will be held in public. so, will the prime minister answer questions about the following fou arear? timing, membership, covered and c

democratic iraq in britain, we absolutely agree about the need for a two-stage solution between israel and palestine and welcome what netanyahu has said it and, yes, we need answers about conduct of those i read in the elections but i want to focus my questions on the inquiry and by the prime minister. we welcome an inquiry and have been calling for in now for many months but i have to say i am far from convinced that the prime minister has got right. the whole point of having an inquiry is it's got to be able to make clear recommendations to go wherever the evidence leads to establish the full truth and make sure the right lessons are learned and got to do so anyway that builds public confidence. isn't there a danger that while the prime minister has announced want to achieve those objectives and the membership looks quite limited and other terms of reference in restricted and the inquiry is a specifically task to make recommendations and none of it will be held in public so will the prime minister to answer questions about the following four areas -- the timing, the membership, the coverage and co

democratic iraq and britain, we absolutely agree about the need for a two-stage solution between israel and palestine and welcome what prime minister netanyahu said, we need answers about the conduct of those iranian elections but i want to focus my questions on the inquiry announced by the prime minister. we welcome the inquiry and have been calling for it for many months. but i have to say i am far from convinced the prime minister has gone right. the whole point of having a inquiry is got to be able to make their recommendations to go with the evidence leads to establish the full truth summation of the right lessons are learned and has got to do so in a way that builds public confidence. isn't there a danger with the prime minister has announced today will achieve those objectives? the membership looks quite limited, the terms of reference seem restrictive and the inquiry is a specifically task to make recommendations and and it will be held in public. so will the speed to answer questions about the following four areas? the timing, the membership, coverage and contents and the openness. first tim

left and right, especially around questions in the middle east and israel and the war in israel and the palestines, we're going to hear from them, we have already begun to. >> illinois is hanging on the line. john, you are on with liz garbus. hi there. >> good morning. >> i have a comment i'm hoping you can address about the misunderstanding i see about the meaning of the freedom of the first amendment and freedom of speech in particular. since i lean left, i'm more concerned about when democrats misunderstand did it, i don't care as much when the right misunderstands it. i'll use the ward churchill example you used. you brought that up. one of the things i see is people don't understand the first amendment is to protect freedom of speech from the government, the government cannot repriest our freedom of speech. but what you see more and more is people when -- again, you see the ward churchill example. when bill o'reilly said we should boycott, tell the alumni not to send in money, people were up in arms. they wanted him -- that that -- he should be investigated, brought up on charges, violation o

asked them to find certain countries, 80 percent couldn't find iraq, 80 percent couldn't find palestine, israel, and something like 10 percent couldn't find the united states. i know that makes you laugh, but the problem is as bernadine often says, there ought to be a rule we can't bomb a country we can't find on the map, and that way the level of violence would go way down. [laughter] the question of recruitment. i think it's a huge and important question, and the problem, again, around controlling metaphors around education is that we have bought into the idea, for example, that teach for america -- that type of program, alternative certification -- is the way to go. now, i can't defend the status quo, i wouldn't defend the status quo because we do a poor, poor job in colleges of education. but the idea that all we need to fix the schools is a smart kid from michigan or penn or columbia who gets two months of training then goes into the worth school in america and leaves in two years, that's not a model for success. we need to invest in teachers, and that means higher pay, that means recognit

them to find certain countries on a blank world map. 80% couldn't find iraq, couldn't final palestine and israel. 40% couldn't find great bait tan and 10% couldn't find the united states. that makes you laugh but the problem is as nelson says through aught to be a rule we capped bomb a country we can't find on a map and that way the level of violence would go down. the question of recruitment. it's a huge and important question, and the problem around the controlling metaphors around education, we have bought into the idea, for example, that teach for america, that tip of program, alternative certification is the way to go i wouldn't defend the status quo because we do a poor job in colleges of education, but the idea that all we need to do is fix the schools is a smart kid from michigan and goes into the worst school in america and leaves in two years, that's not a model for success. we need to invest in teachers and that means higher pay, that means recognition of the actual work that they do, which is backbreaking and mind-bending. it's the idea of whether they work six hours, for got to abou

he begins a process -- he believed it is essential for security that israel achieve peace with palestinelebanon, and syria. he wants to achieve this in a fairly short period of time because he thinks it can only happen when president clinton is there. and arafat -- and before assad would become ill, too ill to do it and arafat so he wanted to move. he thought it was critical for israel's security to move. two-thirds of the country were against dividing jerusalem and then over a -- but over a two-month period, you know, he educated the public. he opened up the debate without this question about a final settlement and, you know, the end of the conflict. and the country moved. over actually during the two week period of camp david. the majority at the end supported an agreement with a divided jerusalem. now, as a leader who was listening, if you just said two-thirds opposed, i don't go there, but you had a leader who was acting what he thought as a patriot. he was the most decorated soldier in the israeli army. people trusted him even though his popularity was not high they trusted on him s

palestine and iraq. the areas allotted to israel had been under the control of the on the man empire from 1517 to 1917. during this 400-year rein, it was only sparsely populated. it was the oppressed jewish population and muslim immigrant groups and small groups of christians in the area. the actual boundaries of what became the state of israel were set by the united nations in 1947 when formally established in 1948, the attacks on the state of israel began immediately by the neighboring arab states. arafaf formed the palestinian liberation organization or the p.l.o. in 1964. he formed a state within a state and the palestinian homeland of jordan. arafat stated that jordan was palestine. not until the 1967 war that the arab nations backed the p.l.o. for the purpose of taking back land that israel had won in that defensive war of 1967. in 1967, arab forces massed against israel surrounding the tiny nation. the egyptian president sicked them out which acted as a buffer. the world watched hundreds of thousands of troops tried to quote, drive israel into the sea. the unexpected brilliance of the israeli mi

on the other hand, they gave israel to truman the first economic loan they desperately needed in order to be able to settle jews in palestine and truman put through that economic law. so, you know, truman was not really a zionist. even afterwards. he didn't do everything israel supporters wanted. >> also, i think he was picking his battles with the state department, and i got the feeling that after the recognition of israel he just wanted to back off for a while and he was well aware that israel was getting arms from czechoslovakia and they were receiving a lot of money from american jews to buy arms and after that the french came in and sold israel arms. >> even j. edgar hoover looked the other when they broke up and raided -- there was a famous incident when marlon brando was packing arms for israel but vegetables and foodstuff and they were putting arms in the crates and the fbi busted a whole -- and hoover said let it go throughúu and looked the oth way. we're not going to stop them and we know it's illegal but let it go through. >> we'll have two more question questions. >> i believe eleanor roosevelt was very sympathe

these are not people who came from jordan that came from what was palestine is now israel.and they have settled in lebanon. many of them actually have identified with lebanon in a way even though they're not part of the political system of lebanon. jordan, by the way, to its credit, i think, after a 1948 was one country, really the only country that have offered citizenship to palestinian refugees. not only palestinians who are jordanian but who became refugees both after 1948 and after 1967 and incorporated them into the jordanian political system. that doesn't mean there aren't many refugee camps in lebanon still in jordan that are still in difficult conditions, being serviced by the u.n. services. but at least they carry jordanian passport. they're entitled to service from the jordanian government that's not true of the refugees. that's why i say it is the most pressing and most difficult immediate problem in the comprehensive solution to the palestinian-israeli conflict. this is going to be one of the more difficult ones. i think plans should be underway now to address

you have a hamas as part of a unity government and hamas are projected israel and actually rejects the legitimacy of the plo palestine liberation organization and i don't know how you before in this. people have suggested that hamas just nominally take part in foreign relations but really it is about control over the west bank and gaza but i believe at the end of the day there will be no compromise because both sides have their hands on a state, in any state. you have it hamas speetwo land in either one wants to let go so i think it is for that reason alone forget about ideology i just don't believe that a compromise is imminent. >> the other proposal is you would have a truce and that hamas while at can't have peace with israel could have one that lasts up to 10 years based again on theology and then those who are hopeful say that troops will allow ideas and attitudes to a halt overtime and the investment in peace and you'll get something out of it, those who are less optimistic would say over those 10 years you'll see an arms buildup for a round of fighting that will make everything else looks like kindergarten. >>

on the other hand, they gave israel and truman the first international economic that they needed it desperately in order to separate jews from palestine and to truman did put that through. truman was not really a zionist even "after words". he did not do everything israel supporters wanted. >> also i think he was picking his battles with the state department and i got the feeling after the recognition of israel he wanted to back off four while and he was well aware israel was getting arms from checklist a pocket and receiving a lot of money from american jews to buy arms and after that the french came and sold arms to israel. >> even j. edgar hoover look to the other way when they broke up, there's a famous incident marlon brando was packing arms for israel and crates marked oranges but decibels or fruits and they were putting arms in the crates and the fbi busted and hoover said let it go through. and looked the other way. we're not going to stop them. we know it is illegal but let them go through. >> i believe eleanor roosevelt was very sympathetic to the jews and even tried to influence franklin roosevelt. did she have any role in

palestine from the arab inhabitants. the fifth point* where this thing we could figure between bed jewish head of the agency in new york that would become israel's first ambassador to the u.s. he changed his name later, editor of the magazine and her associates believe schultz, now if you know, "the nation" magazine today if you know, how important it was to the zionist cause it was the single major influential media organ fighting on a regular basis on behalf of the jewish state. and epstein wrote to one of the editors lilly shoals "i can smell of official washington is not all jubilant about the decision taken by the united nations and backed by the white house. he wrote i see a great deal of disappointment coupled with bitterness among many who do not like the idea of the jewish state's and who will not easily digest it. he was right. the state department went out on its own to do what they could to reverse the policy. first, without telling truman, the state department instituted the famous arms embargo so they could defend. of the embargo was declared on the state department without checking with tremendous and was it was done he felt he co

israel. >> also, he had a long talk right before the leaders of the jewish agency going to vote in palestine whether to proclaim a jewish state. he had a long talk and he came to see him in his office and the text is available. and he gave him and allergies between his experience trying to negotiate between the nationalists and communists in china and the chinese civil war and the chinese army and how everything he believed collapsed as eight reality hit him in the face with the strength of mao's zombies and he tried to get warnings and long arguments, serious long arguments using the situation in china's and algae as to why the how ghana would not be able to win and he tried to warn them. i understand what you're saying and your passion but please, go back there and tell ben-gurion we can't proclaim the jewish state and they voted against it because you are open to lose, and i found reality was and what i expected in china and you're going to find the same thing when your flight starts. he really believed that. he spoke as a military man, giving him a military assessment. he said i can unde

palestine are fleeing communism. they hate them. >> so what conclusion then were drawn when the soviet union recognized israel, what, minutes after- >> well, no, they played a bigger role than that. they came out -- and it was a big surprise at the u.n. that they supported partition because everybody assumed they were going to be against it. and the british were especially shocked because they thought partition was going to die at the u.n. because the british would -- the russians would never support it but they did. i mean, the russians were trying to uproot the british empire in the middle east. and they saw this as a wedge issue between britain and the united states that they could play on. >> one week before andre gave his famous speech on the u.n., actually, if you read et text of the speech it's a very noble humane speech, we cannot fail the jewish people who have been oppressed, killed in the camps. we care for them. they must have their own state. it was a powerful, emotional, almost zionist speech. and one week before dean rusk who have under-secretary of state prepared a position paper for the white house on the soviets

modern arabic ledger and at peace with israel and what they may not know is what we call the country of jordan is in the eastern part of what historically was palestine, a chance starting in palestine, and that most of its population is palestinian without any difference from the folks on the west bank. happens to have a king who was exiled by the saudi family from arabia man in saudi arabia, he was exiled so now he is in power in jordan, a chance jordanian palestine, and there are those who say that west bank as an independent entity cannot possibly be liable unless it is integrated at least economically with what is now jordan. talk about jordan's role a little. >> jordan is in the top spot -- there is no doubt this is a historical link from a controlled the west bank from 1940 to 1967 and continues to be good relations between the power structure is of the west bank and jordan. the problem stems from jordan's on palestinian population. jordan is more than 60 and 65 or 70 percent palestinian and so there is a lot of concern over the demographics. people talk about the demographic threat to israel, it is far worse in jordan at this point and the has

israel back in 1948 which was essentially an invasion of muslim territory. it has been muslim territory for 1300 years. these jewish people in europe and in north america thought there were entitled to invade palestine. to take over that territory. there has been a war ever since. host: connected to the iranian election? caller: i america does: iran just the way it did not like iraq because they are the biggest enemies of israel. host: a republican as a line from minnesota. caller: good morning, i think the president is taking the right approach. in the past america has been blamed for meddling in the affairs of other countries throughout the world. many callers yesterday work using the president of meddling in the iranian effort. since he based his foreign policy by coming into office on a general policy he would like to establish and it is unclear whether ahmadinejad will prevail or someone else will take power he cannot undermine ahmadinejad because he may have to sit down with him and negotiate for resolution to this 30-year lull in foreign policy with the country. however, there seems to be more -- what is going on in iran is to be more of an internal battle between the muslim head of the revol

israel while not requiring similar concessions from the palestinian and other arab states. starting with the british partition plan in 1937 when they were offered the western part of palestine, then again the u.n. partition plan in 1947 to the camp david talks in 2000. and most recently in december, 2008, the palestinians have rejected every plan to divide the land into independent states. each time their answer was no. no outside party, president obama included, can arbitrarily impose a peace agreement nor can peace be achieved by setting conditions on just one party. israel, which has been willing to take the necessary and difficult steps towards peace and consider compromise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and permission to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. arcuri: mr. speaker, it is undeniable that we have seen many positive signs in our economy since january. the unemployment rate, while still far too high, is improving, and money is starting to flow through the economy and into ou