Hello, everyone. Im the Media Public Affairs director for the Public Affairs council. Attending the round table. Esteemedateful to the panelist who are agreeing to speak on the critical and timely to all of the viewers who are watching on cspan2 and cspan radio. We would like for the panel to be as interactive as possible. The table foron the guest here in house to make questions for the q a. Arelso for the viewers who watching on tv please tweet us questions at askmpmc. Pass the mike on, i would just like to say a few mpac. About it is a national Public Affairs organization that works to pro mote and strengthen pluralism for the American Public. Increasingthrough understanding and working on policies that affect our community. We four policy areas that work on are National Security immigration,erty, human security, as well as religious freedom. For our purposes here on the panel, we will be discussing the how tof extremistism and counter isis. It has been the position for robust approach to terrorism between foreign and domestic is necessary. At the same time, the nation can when thetruly secure Civil Liberties of any community are curtailed. And without taking a holistic addressing all forms of terrorism. State, and, federal, local government should never censor their engagement through the lens of National Security alone. With that said, i would like to officiallye mike to begin the panel. Thank you. Were here today to talk about off debunked and still wide ly used clash of that the westmyth and islam are incompatible and further theres a war between islam and the west. Recently weve seen a number of policies and announcements with andrds to both Domestic International issues. Trump recognizing jerusalem as the capitol of israel, the securityn, a National Announcement to be announced later today, and the shift from countering violent extremism that focuses on all forms to on the islamicng extremism. Just to name a few. Seeing in my opinion the implementation of a white agenda. Ist this seems like it is the whenent to address 2040 white americans will no longer be the majority in america. Need to have serious policy discussions about had this. We need to engage our members in on capitol hill. We need to engage the think tank engage Civil Society to really talk about the impact of on our National Security. So all of these policies announcementsand have happened and are happening in a time when we seize a nation terms with los angeles, what happened in springs, southern texas. Again these are just attacks and few. Ents just to name a and against the backdrop of a president who uses the power of his digital bully pulpit to bully minority communities daily. Today like i mentioned earlier, President Trump is going to be securityg his national strategy. And from what we know, his strategy will focus on four area s. Defending the homeland, american americany, advancing influence, and peace through strength. Reports, one passenger of the draft strategy reads, and i quote, the united rejects bigotry, ignorance, and oppression. Future built on the values as one american people. An active and concerned american is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. Our society has protected the free press, free speech, and free thought. No external threat must be allow ed to shake the commitment of the americans to the value, undermine the system of government, or divide the nation i think theres a lot to un there in the one passage. I want to focus on one point. Takes back to the theme of todays panel. Thats that this president perpetuate the myth the west are in compatible. In choosing to agrees the first to saudi travels arabia and overlooking talking directly with american muslims here at home. And the this lie president s constant contradictions impact the american muslim communities . Well be focusing on that question and more with our esteemed panelist today. I would like to introduce them. Have dr. Shadi hamid. Right we have salam almar ayati, and to my far right have former white appointee and most recent ly the u. S. Deputy special Israeli Palestinian negotiations. We would like to start the Panel Opening remarks from all of our panelist. This to be as endangered conversation as possible. Time for questions and answers later. Hoda. Nk you, i just want to jump into two all bethat we should looking at in terms of looking at the Trump Administrations agenda. Security is the departure policylongstanding u. S. That was arctic articulated on 9 of the 2015 National Security strategy. States, and i quote, we reject the lie that america is islam. With and the question to the Trump Administration is that does it that policy, because the rhetoric and the policies are saying exactly the opposite. That the United States is not just at war with violent groups, but it is at war with islam. Are entering that era, we are in a very dangerous part of our own history and of World History for that matter. So thats the first thing that not just inok at terms of the introduction and peopless statements, of that may backtrack from what the president himself may tweet. What is the actual policy . What are the actions . Way is our country going as it relates to the islam that matter. On for the second departure is another long standing it is from another longstanding policy articulatirst arctic ed by ambassador edward in the early 1990s. Ambassador ander the former am bad door to syria u. S. Ambassador to syria and israel at the tile. He said theres a twotrack approach in the National Security as it relates to terrorism. Bring perpetrators to justice and secondly to deal causes thatte create the environment to make terrorism more of a reality. To deal with social politicaller s and deal with corruption and war and weak central governments. This new look at National Security strategy on how it relates to all of the above. Does not address those isues what we should expect more war that will cause more morecan tax dollars and lives all together. Without any real sense of country. For our it is amazing that as we see isis have less capability for Terrorists Attack s, in other words they are now. Trucks and very primitive methods of violence. That as they lose the ability for reek ing havoc, the american more hysterical about the threat of isis. It should be the opposite. As we reduce the ability of terrorists groups, the american secure. Hould feel more if it does not feel more secure, theres a problem at at the top in terms of leadership. That goes to what hoda was say ing. Were not having a real conversation about the issues in terms of policy discourse. A senseer two theres that this administration wants himo on the warpath against nothing is against him. And let me explain that in more detail then. Is right when she said that we are witnessing the of a White Nationalist agenda in u. S. Policy. Policy based on ideology values. Sed on it is a policy thats based on fear that a group of americans are going to lose power as to sharing powers with other americans, they are build ing walls and calling for bans, and they are war. Ments that does not bode well for the National Security. My opinion is in also that religious nationalist is an international problem. Are witnessing white religious nationalism in america witnessingso muslim religious nationalist a broad. We are witnessing injuryish religious National Nationalism in israel. What is happening then is that the extremist are dictating the direction of the future. Not the mainstream. And if this is administration and future administration do not figure out a way to bring back conversations about religion as opposed to only extremist about schedule religion, then it is going to stronger foothold in america as well as what we are witnessing abroad. Theer two, we are under threat of eroding American Value s as it relates not just to security, but a number of policy issues. The first and foremost is the equality underof the law. If we lose equality under the aboutile were talking the rule of law, then people asl look at the rule of law an instrument of oppression. Thats whats happening abroad. This is what we are in danger of entering in our country here. In power will talk about the rule of law. It will be a way to intimidate violence and the arrest of people. People who are political dissent intimidated. For example, in the United States theres something called antibds, boycott divestment in the israel territory. Becauses powers that be how means ofegislative antibds, those who are express ing their right to pro israeli policy of the treatment of palestinians are going to be intimidated and silenced and arrested if they boycott divestment sanctions. Thats just a small example of whats happening in the country today. Then theres the other problem policy thatsecurity is void of the initiatives. Communities involved in this course on these issues, surveillance,e more informants, more arrests, and people feeling less and less secure. There needs to be a means of having communities involved in the discussion and example is the new york state, the state of a counteras announced Terrorism Commission and again we have a number of Law Enforcement people involved. Communitybased organizations involved in the discussion. Another point thats very troubling. Thats that the trump killingration is partnership between Law Enforcement and communities the country. What weve been working on in the last 20 years in partnership with the Law Enforcement is eroded. Theres less of a public trust toward Law Enforcement. That does not bode well either for any serious or perspective a policy orer it is violent extremism or policy on looking forat is the interest of our country. That if thent is United States government wants with the notion that america is at world. This is what started by groups isis and al al al qaeda as popularto generate the ity. They are fighting america. America is at war with islam. Government istes adding more fuel to the idea. On thesis is defeated battle field, it is looking for other ways. There might be another group that might rise who will be the more extreme version of isis. Witnessedhat weve historicalically. I want to go back in history. The afghani people sacrificed a million lives to union thatsoviet lead to our country, the united wares victory, and the cold , did we show any gratitude . Did we say thank you to the afghani people . Cia, ourad our intelligence agencies, sent al the line against the soviets. Qaeda. To the rise of al and what we saw there was was basically trash ed. We did not offer any piece dividends to the afghani people. Chaos, civilre strife, and a destruction of their society. When the iraqi people and the people stood up against isis that lead to the defeat of tos, are we saying thank you them . As an american people. No, we are not. Simple gesture to say thank you for being on the side america against these forces that definitely take on more than any lives altogether. There are more muslims lives isissuffer at the hands of than other violent there are more muslim lives that suffer at hands of isis than anyone else. Do we say thank you to them . No, we tell them there is a travel ban, we want to build more walls, and we have more antimuslim rhetoric. This does not work well for American International interests or american domestic issues. So, i leave with that very sobering and unfortunate reality that i see here and on the horizon. On theyou comment rhetoric and the policies that we see coming out of the Trump Administration and the impact that that has on islamist movements in muslim majority countries and how that impacts the American Muslim Community . First of all, thank you to the muslim Public Affairs council for having me. The first thing i want to say us on this fundamental of his islam compatible with the west . If you look at various elections in western democracy of the u. S. , islam and muslims have in some ways become the primary. If you look at partisan divides, people are debating about what of thentially 1 to 5 population in most western democracies. It is an interesting question about how a relatively small minority has become such an controversy ing our democratic contest context today. This is why does not just about the role of american muslims in the west. It becomes at the very heart of what it means to be a democracy and how we live with difference in these ids. Proof if we want proof that muslims and the west are compatible there are different islams and it is a complex religion if we look at american muslims and the four of us here are american muslims, that that by itself is proof of the compatibility. If we look at how american muslims have been relatively well integrated, there has been a sense that you can be fully muslim and fully american without having to choose, where in europe it has been more complicated, where there is a tension sometimes between being french and being muslim. Asked to betimes more secular or less religious. We are a country that religiouss expressions in public life and we dont see that as something to be thought you can be christian, muslim, jewish, and express that in the public one of thet has been very important aspects of american identity. For the first time at least in recent memory, we have an administration that wants to challenge that basic idea. Says you have to choose to be american over being muslim. If muslims expressed their resume religiosity or say shariag positive about and all sharia is his muslim if we havetion muslim politicians allowing to disavow sharia, they will not how to does not know how to pray or fast or go on pilgrimage. Were moving into dangerous rhetoric that has more in common with europe with the past, in terms of racism in the european context. It is not something very indigenous to the American Experience and to the muslim experience of living here. When it comes to the foreign isis, as isis is on the back foot and as we have andess in fighting isis limiting its territory, isis will feel more need to show that it is still relevant. We will see more terrorist attacks unfortunately. We have to do everything we can to limit that, but it is something that we will have to live with in the foreseeable future. This idea that terrorism can disappear is disconnected. We will see politicians using this specter of terrorist attacks to target american muslims and to question their americanness. What im really worried about is that every time this happens for , americaneable future muslims will come under scrutiny and i think it goes beyond that. Desire to askis a american muslims to condemn terrorism every time it happens. There might be some disagreements on how to do this in the Muslim Community. Groups should be on the forefront of speaking out about what islam stands for and does how islam andand extremism are not the same and are at odds with each other. When it comes to individual muslims, this idea that there is an expectation of for us as individuals to condemn a terrorism every time there is an attack, i think that is problematic. It should not go without saying that it should go without saying that im against terrorism by virtue of saying am american. They should assume from the getgo that i oppose whatever terrorist attack against innocent civilians as all americans do. About this idea that individual muslims feel such a responsibility to speak out and that contributes to a sense that there is a collective responsibility. People are always asking us to it is never enough. The last thing i will say about how we counter extremism and radicalism in the broader muslim world, how we think about the how in policy element is riyadh speeches how to counter extremism, fighting extremism. I think all of us in principle agree, but what was so striking about the speeches that you if you look at what we talk about, there is very little substantively on what we should actually do in practice to fight extremism beyond just saying it. This is more than just a rhetorical strategy. Words, you cant fight extremism just by fighting extremism. You have to go to the environment that gives rise to extremism and you have to look beyond the very narrow phenomenon. That means it cannot be a narrow security minded approach. He talked about root causes. That is one way of looking at it. Gives rise to extremism . That is the number one question we have to be asking ourselves. I did not see anything in his strategy that gets at the deeper issue. Terrorism does not just fall out of the sky. It comes out of a particular context. If we look at most of the terrorism we have had to deal with in the west, it draws on the civil wars that we continue to see in syria, iraq, and the list goes on. Civil wars are one of the major drivers of extremism and terrorism. That the twodent countries that isis gained the most ground and where the two countries most riddled by civil war and conflict. Syria and iraq. If we dont have a longerterm strategy to address governance failures, the fact that states are falling apart, the fact that there is no vision for helping the economic and Political Development of these countries, the fact that we no longer even mention publicly the word democracy or political reform, that has been totally put to the side. These elements all get to the broader context. If we have nothing to say about the broader context, then it just becomes a rhetorical strategy of saying radical muslims are bad, extremism is bad. Thank you. I would like to turn it over to you. Same quest