Public affairs council. Thank you so much for attending our round table, entitled islam versus the west, the lie that keeps on giving. We are grateful to our esteemed panelists for agreeing to speak on this very critical and timely topic. To all of our viewers watching on cspan2 and listening on cspan radio. We would like for this panel to be as interactive as possible so we have cards on the table for our guests here in house to submit questions for the q a, and we also, for the viewers watching on tv, you can tweet us your questions. Before i pass the microphone to our director of policy and advocacy program, and the moderator of todays event, i would like to say a few words. Mpac is a National PublicAffairs Organization that works to promote and strengthen pluralism for the american doublet. We do that by working on policies that affect our community. The Foreign Policy areas we work on are National Security and Civil Liberties, immigration, human security, as well as religious freedom. For our purposes here on this panel, we will be discussing the issue of extremism and how to counter isis. It has been mpacs position for years that a robust position is necessary but at the same time our nation can never be truly secure when the Civil Liberties of any community are curtailed and without taking a holistic approach to addressing all forms of terrorism. Furthermore, federal, state, and local government should never center or condition their engagement with any community through the lens of National Security alone. With that said, would like to pass off the mic and officially begin the panel. Thank you. So were here today to talk about the of the debunked yet still widely used myth that the west and islam are imcompatible. Weve seen a number all of these announcements with regards to both domestic and international issues. Trump recognized the capital of israel after a slump. And and the shift from countering violent extremism that focuses on all forms of viole violent extremism to strictly focusing on islamic extremism, just to name a few. We are also seeing, in my opinion, the implementation of a nationalist agenda. This seems like it is a movement to address 2040, when white americans will no longer be the majority in america. We need to have serious policy discussions on this, and we need to engage our members in congress on capitol hill. We need to engage the think Tank Community and we need to engage Civil Society to really talk about the impact of this agenda on our National Security. All of these policy shifts and announcements have happened and are happening at a time when we as a nation are coming to terms with las vegas, what happened in manhattan, southerland springs, texas. These are just some to name a few. This is all happening against the backdrop of a president who uses the power of his digital footprint to bully communities, including american muslim communities almost daily. Today, like i mentioned earlier, President Trump is going to be announcing his National Security strategy. From what we know, his strategy will focus on four areas. Defending the homeland, america prosperity, advancing american influence through peace and strength. One passage of the draft strategy reads the United States rejects bigotry, a persian, and seeks a future built on our values as one American People, and activity and concerned american citizenry is a fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. No external threat must be allowed to shake the commitment of americans to their values, undermine our system of government, or divide the nation. I think theres a lot to unpackage there in that one passa passage. I want to focus on one thing which takes us back to the theme of todays panel and that is that this president continues to perpetuate the myth that islam and the west are incompatible. And yet, in choosiing to addres his first audience, he travels all the way to saudi arabia and overlooks talking directly with american muslims here at home. So, how does this lie and the president s contradictions impact muslim communities . We will be focusing on that question and more with our panelists today. I would like to introduce them. To my left, the senior fellow at the Brookings Institution center for middle east policy and author of islamic exceptionalism how the struggle of her islam is reshaping the world. To my far right we have nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, former white house appointee and senior diplomat in the Obama Administration and most recently the u. S. Deputy special envoy for israelipalestinian negotiations. So we would like to start the panel off with a few opening remarks from all of ouri panelists. We want this to be as engaged in conversation as possible, so we will have time for a questionandanswer later. Thank you. In the name of god was gracious most merciful. I just want to jump into two points we should all be looking at in terms of looking at the Trump Administrations National Security agenda. The first point is the departure from a longstanding u. S. Policy. And that longstand g u. S. Policy was articulated actually on page nine of the 2015 National Security strategy under the Obama Administration and its states and i quote, we reject the lie that america is at war with islam. And the question to the Trump Administration is does it continue with that policy because the vatican the policy are saying exactly the opposite. That the United States is not just at war with violent extremist groups, but it is at war with islam. If we are entering that era, we are in a very dangerous part of our own history and of World History for that matter. So, that is the first thing we should look at not just in terms of the introduction and the press statements of people that may backtrack from what the president himself may tweet, but what is the actual policy. What are the actions . And which way is our country going as it relates to islam or any religion for that matter. The second departure is from another longstanding policy that was first articulated by an ambassador back in the early 90s. He was the former ambassador to syria and israel at that time. He said that there is a twotrack approach in our National Security as it relates to terrorism. First is bringing perpetrators to justice. Secondly, to deal with the root causes that create the environment to make terrorism more of a reality. To deal with sociopolitical issues, corruption, war, weak central governance. To deal with authoritarianism. We should look at this new National Security strategy on how it relates to all of the above. If it does not address those issues, then what we should expect, unfortunately, is more war, that will cost more american tax dollars and more lives all together, without any real sense for security for our country. It is amazing that is as we see groups like isis have a less capability for terrorist attacks, in other words theyre using trucks now and other primitive methods for violence, that as they lose the technological ability for creating terror, there the American Public is more hysterical. It should be the opposite. As we reduce the ability of terrorist groups, the American Public should feel more secure and if it does not, there is a problem at the top of leadership. That goes to what she said the issues were not having a real conversation about the policies, in terms of discourse. Number two, there is a sense that this administration wants to go on the warpath against islam, not just against extremist groups. Let me explain that in more detail then. I believe she is right when she said we are witnessing the rise of White Nationalists agenda in u. S. Policy. It is a policy based on ideology, be not based on values. And fear that a group of americans are going to lose power and they are calling for travel band and they are implementing for a broad. That does not bode well for our National Security. And the reality is religious nationalism is an international problem. While we are witnessing White Nationalism in america, we are also witnessing muslim nationalism abroad. We are witnessing jewish religious nationalism in israel. And what is happening then is that the extremists are dictating the direction of our future, not the main stream. And if this administration and future administrations do not figure out a way to bring back mainstream conversations about religion, as opposed to to nationalism conversations about religion, then i fear that religious nationalism will take a stronger foothold in america, as well as what we are witnessing abroad further more, we are under the threat of eroding American Values as it relates to a number of policy issues. The first and foremost is a quality under the law. If we loose equality under the law as were talking about the rule of law, then people will look at the rule of law as oppression. That is what is happening abroad and this is what we are in danger of entering in our country here. It will be a way to intimidate and silence and arrest innocent people people will be intimidated and silenced through various means. For example, in the United States, there is something called the antibds movement. Boycott divestment and sanctions that protest israeli in pal stin ya. Because the powers that be have created legislative means of ideas, those who are expressing their right to protest u. S. And israeli policy are going to be intimidated and silenced and arrested if they engage in boycott divestment and sanctions. Thats just a small example of whats happening in our country today. Then, there are other problems of National Security policy that is void of Community Led initiatives. If we dont have communities involved in discourse on these issues, we will have more surveillance, more informants, more arrests and people feeling less and less secure. There needs to be a means of having communities involved in these discussions. For example, the state of new york has announced a counterterrorism commission. We have a number of Law Enforcement involved. But we have no communitybased organizations involved. That leads to another point that is troubling and that is the Trump Administration is killing partnership between Law Enforcement and communities throughout the country. What we have been working on for the last 20 years is eroding. Theres less public trust towards lawmakers. That does not bode well for any serious or effective policy. On any issue that is looking for the interests of our country. My final point is that if the United States government wants to do away with this notion that america is at war with islam. It started with groups like isis, because they are the ones fighting america and now the United States government is looking to add more fuel to that idea. While isis is defeated on the battlefield, it is looking for other ways that might rise, which is what we have witnessed historically. I want to go back in history. When the afghani people sacrificed one million lives to defeat the soviet union that led to our country, the United States, victory in the cold war, did we show any gratitude . Did we say thank you to the afghani people . No. Instead, our intelligence agencies fed al queda to be the line against the soviets, it led to the rise of al queda. And it led to more chaos, civil strife and destruction of their society. When the iraqi people in syria people stood up and it led to the defeat of isis, are we saying thank you to them as an American People . No, we are not. Just the simple gestures to say thank you for being on the side of america against these forces that definitely take on more muslim lives than any lives altogether. There are more muslim lives that suffer at the hands of isis and other violent extremism groups than anyone else. Do we say thank you to them . No, instead we tell them theres a travel ban, we want to build walls and we have more antimuslim rhetoric. This does not bode well for American International interests and american domestic issues. So i leave with that very sobering and unfortunate reality that i see here and on the h horizon. Can you comment on the 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. Sure. First of all i thank you. I thank you to the muslim Public Affairs council for having me. First thing i want to say is islam compatible with the west. If you look at various elections in western democracies, the u. S. And jueurope as well, islams ha become the divides. If you look at it, people are debating about 5 of the popular. So its an interesting question of how a small minority has become such an allencompassing concern in our democratic context today. And thats why this isnt just about the role of american muslims or muslims in the west. It comes at the heart of what it means to be a democracy and how we live with difference in these societies. And i think if you want proof or we want proof that islam i should say, muslims and the west are compatible, because there are different islams and islam is a complex idea and religion. If we look at american muslims, i think the four of us here are american muslims. That by itself is proof of the compatibility if we look at how american muslims have been well integrated, there has been a sense that you can be both fully muslim and fully american without having to choose. Where in europe, i think its been more complicated where there is attention sometimes between say being french and being muslim and youre sometimes asked to choose one over the other. To be more secular or less religious or less conservative. Because were a country that appreciates the religious expressions in public life and we dont see that as something bad to be fought, you can be christian, muslim or jewish and express that, that has been one of the important aspects of american identity. Now for the first time, at least in recent memory, we have an administration that wants to challenge that basic idea and say you have to choose being american over being muslim. Or if muslims express their religion or say anything positive about sharia, islam law or tradition. So if we have prominent politicians asking us to disavow sharia, they wouldnt know how to pray. So were moving into this dangerous rhetoric that has more in common with europe in the past in terms of racism in the european context. Thats not something indig nous to the American Experience and muslim experience living here. So thats what i wanted to start with. When it comes to the Foreign Policy aspect, isis, as i think was correctly noted, as siisis on the back foot and we have success in fighting isis and limiting its territory, isis will feel more need to show that its still relevant. So we are going to see more terrorist attacks, unfortunately. We as americans have to do everything we can to limit that and counter that, but it is something that we will have to live with in some form for the foreseeable future. So the idea that terrorists can disappear is not realistic. But that means every time there is a terrorist attack here or in europe, there will be additional threats to american muslims and our democratic thoughts as a country because we will see them using the attacks to target american muslims and question their americanness. What im really worried about is that every time every time this happens for the foreseeable future, perhaps for decades to come, american muslims will come under scrutiny. I think it goes beyond that. I think theres this kind of desire to ask american muslims to condemn terrorism every time it happens. And i think this is i think maybe there might be some disagreements on how to do this in the Muslim Community, but from my standpoint, groups like mpac should be at the forefront of speaking out and talking about what islam stands for and doesnt stand for and how islam and extremism are not the same are at odds with each other. When it comes to individual muslims this idea that theres an expectation or responsibility for us as individuals to condemn terrorism every time theres an attack, i think thats problematic. It should go without saying that im against terrorism just by virtue of the fact im american. No one should have to ask me after a terrorist attack, do you condemn terrorism . They should assume from the get go that i oppose a terrorist attack against innocent civilians as all americans do, right. Worried about this idea that individual muslims feel such a responsibility to speak out and that contributes to a sense that theres a collective responsibility. And i think that that actually plays in some ways plays into the hands of extremists who want to paint us as a community that should speaking out against terrorism in an endless way. I think also part of the problem here too is its never enough. People are always asking us to condemn