"president obama sounded like he was channeling president george w. bush during his cairo speech yesterday. much of the substance of his address, titled "a new beginning, some of like the same old song. one could easily remove the biographical references, redact a few sentences that were clearly critical of specific bush administration policies, and pass it off as old republican talking points." caller: i find that hard to believe, particularly because the response to what he has said is entirely different. if it were the same rhetoric or the same intent wrapped in slightly different language, delivered by something who looks a little different than george w. bush, i am certain that the reaction to it would have been identical. but, in fact, it was polarly opposite. so i think that editorial view may be a little out of the

realm. . guest: we shall see. on the democracy issue, is he different than what president -- with the previous president, george bush, advocated? i think there might have been and difference in emphasis. the last president focused, it seemed, mostly on elections on

the only -- as the only test of democracy. given that hamas won elections, this president seemed to put more brought focus on creating liberal institutions, the judiciary, women's rights, things like that that are creating the foundation for elections. while some of the words are similar, a think there were definitely some major differences as well. host: we're spending much of the morning getting reaction to the president's speech in cairo yesterday. our guest is david makovsky. good morning. caller: good morning to david. thank you for c-span. today, i listened to the entire speech. i listened to the whole speech from the beginning to the end.

the reason i want to call today is i feel very close to the palestinian issue. i was born a year after 1948. we were moved from a major palestinian cities. they were moved in a sense -- removed in a systematic way. most of us ended up in refugee camps. some of my family came back with the help of the red cross. i was born in 1950. the city overnight turned into a jewish city. yesterday, the president -- which i'm very proud of -- he alluded to the issue of the

palestinians by saying that we have a just cause. he said that we were misplaced. i would like you to talk about it. guest: he used the word displacement. i think there is no question that as the historians go over the 1948 war, this has probably been one of the most hotly contested issues, the refugee crisis and its origins. historians tend to say that the caller is right partly. some of the arabs at the time were displaced. a lot of that displacement -- i do not know his specific case -- happened when the arab states attacked israel the day it was born. i think if there was not a war, you would not have seen a

refugee price -- and refugee crisis. you did not see the arab world doing with the arab refugees. you can't just look backward, we have to look forward. how do we bring a solution to bring dignity to all sides? it seems to me, the way is through the peace process. the refugee issue is one of those four core questions that are going to be addressed. arab leaders admit privately that a lot of the palestinian refugees -- the way to solve this problem is to help those who want to go to this new palestinian state. this is an issue that has followed this conflict for decades. i think there is a way to solve it.

host: "the houston chronicle" has this to say about refraining the relationship. among the issues facing the president, stopping violent extremism, dealing with the israeli-palestinian situation, dealing with nuclear proliferation, injuring religious freedom, dealing with a woman's rights among the muslim world, and economic development throughout the middle east. good morning. caller: the morning. i would have liked to hear the president ask each and every one of the muslim world, does israel have a right to live here? host: how would you answer that? caller: i would say yes. i love that country. they have made it a beautiful, marvelous country. what did yasser arafat do with all the money that we sent?

we sent him millions of dollars to help palestinians. what did he do with all that money? what did the palestinians do? they help themselves. they cry that israel has taken their country. i must admit that i do not like the president. i think he has a moslem art. i really do. thank you so much. guest: the caller raises a lot of points. briefly, i would say the following. where she is correct is, -- there is a difference between the arab world and the muslim world -- many of the muslim countries do not have relations. he jerked and jordan have diplomatic relations. there are some arabs to say that you have to accept israel as a fact that it exists. i think what the caller may be a learning to is the question is,

how many of the arab leaders say, beyond it being a fact, is it morally legitimate? to what extent would they say that there is a right to a jewish homeland like there is a right to a palestinian homeland? i think you need to take it to the next level. both sides have legitimate rights. both sides have a right for a homeland. i do not think the israelis have a problem with saying that palestinians have that right. i think the president recognizes that. i think that is why he wants to be engaged. host: if you cannot reach us on the phone line, send us an e- mail. good morning. caller: i have a number of points to make. i would like to make a few points. one, the bushes did gulf war one

and two for oil. conservatives do not ask very aggression. they do not care about poor very much. they use this bogus argument that says that he jesus never meant for the government to be used to help the poor. they hate the boorish republican party. if people want single payer health care, google single payer. guest: i have nothing. it was not related to the middle east. host: are you with us? please go ahead. caller: i would like to make a statement about the anchor

babies. non-registered citizens -- host: caller, i'm going to stop you there because we are trying to focus on the middle east. guest: we think that sometimes these broad templates of people saying it is all about linkage and everything is linked in the middle east and other people think that we can just sustain the status quo, we believe that this conflict needs to be solved. we do not buy into the idea that there can be -- it can be addressed through just a lot of pious statements. there has to be a relationship between what happens on the

ground with building this to state solution and israel's legitimate security concerns. we think a lot of these myths are perpetuated. we certainly believe in the united states being involved in helping to solve the problem. we just do not think -- america thinks that you can't impose peace on the parties. we can help them, but we cannot do this for them. we do not believe you can impose peace. some people say that you can impose democracy. the u.s. can try to be a catalyst, but the united states cannot impose. host: our guest is david makovsky, who is the co-author of this book. johnny is on the phone from dallas. good morning on the independent line. caller: good morning.

you keep saying, "look forward, don't look back." a man said that his family was killed at gunpoint when he was a child. here is your problem. you want people to look forward, but you never want to fix your past problems. how can you go forward if the past keeps getting in the way? guest: there has been a lot of suffering here on all sides. the israelis feel that for the last 60 years, there has been a lot of terrorism. the palestinians feel the trauma of 1948 and the trauma of israeli occupation. each side has grievances. i am not saying forget about the past. of course we have to remember the past. i think we cannot just wallow in

the past. if we allow each side to just focus on their own agreements, we will not solve the problem. we have to do what we can to say we recognize the past, but we have to move forward in creating hope for both. host: let me pick up on that point. danielle pletka has a piece in "the washington post" this morning. "consider the task of dennis roskam obamas special adviser to the persian gulf and southwest asia he brought enthusiasm and a deep knowledge to the job, but the peace process was constrained by u.s. laws that reasonably require the palestinian liberation organization to abandon terrorism and recognize israel before receiving aid from the united states. the plo took tentative, initial

steps toward recognizing israel, but followed those steps with terrorist activities. iran has until the end of the year to signal serious intent to negotiate a resolution to its nuclear program. administration officials are optimistic that iran is willing to engage sincerely. this final point. the administration should remember a simple rule. once is a mistake. twice is a pattern three times as blindness." guest: the point is to say that somehow dennis ross might turn a blind eye to the iranian nuclear program. i do not think that is correct. this is a threat to regional peace. it is a threat to american interests. it is a threat to the countries in the region. you could say i am biased because he is michael author, but i cannot imagine any

american who is more dedicated in pursuing american interests and to ensure that iran does not become a nuclear weapon state. host: good morning. caller: good morning. praise god. i just wanted to say that i thought obama's speech was a message speech. we all must make peace with god in order to make peace with each other. i do not care if he is a muslim or a baptist or a catholic. whatever. we all were shipped in different ways. there is only one god. that god is jesus christ. he is trying to gather people -- he is trying to make people come

together so we can try to make peace with each other. he has accepted him. let god do his part. we will do our part. guest: i think she is saying correctly that the president is trying to transcend these rifts. the problem is in the middle east, in the name of god, there has been terrorism, violent extremism. that has been part of the problem. what the president was trying to invoke was the idea that the killing of innocent people is never justified. i think it was a message of uplift. it was a message of trying to use religion for peaceful purposes. host: is democracy viable for the middle east? guest: every country moves at

its own pace. i think the president's approach by focusing on institution- building is the long-term approach. if we only define democracy as an election tomorrow morning, we will encounter surprises. the only people who are organized in many places in the middle east are extremists. i think laying the foundation for an independent judiciary to focus on women's rights, media, all sorts of things like that, laying the foundation is the best hope to ultimately have democracy in these countries. it might not be self-fulfilling immediately because you feel only an election is democracy. you have to lay down that path. i think as we tried to point out in the book, there are those people who say, i do not care what happens in the arab world internally as long as they have a moderate foreign policy.

what we found out also is that the internal dynamics in these societies do have an impact on their external behavior. the question is, in what way should we focus? i think a more gradual approach that may be slower is ultimately the surest way over time. host: david makovsky is the middle east peace director for the washington institute for near east policy. thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. abderrahim foukara will be joining us to give his perspective. amy walter is joining us from the hot line offices. the headline is "state to get a disputed $700 million." >> this long-running battle

between south carolina's republican governor and the republican-controlled legislature is finally over. mark sanford had refused -- he argued that it would actually devalue the dollar and run up a deficit in the state. he had refused to implement the legislature's plan. they argued it was to fill gaps in the education funding for the state. the supreme court weighed in yesterday saying that the legislature, not the governor, is the one with the purse strings. the legislature wants to spend the money. it is their right to do that. the governor must help them do that. in other words, he cannot block them from doing this. in some ways, it was a blow to mark sanford, who had made this a very big cause. he even embroiled his attorney general, who is also seeking the governor's seat in 2010. mark sanford is not seeking

reelection. the question is what impact it will have on his 2012 ambitions. today, the state also noted that "some conservatives think the move has put him among the republicans who should seek to challenge president obama in 2012." at this point, republican legislators are the one who came out -- the ones who came out the winners. in other news of a new york, the battle for the new york senate seat just got a little bit smaller. the democratic field just got a little bit smaller. carolyn mccarthy announced that she would not challenge new york appointed senator kirsten gillibrand. and she is saying in a statement from her office that this was for personal reasons.

she decided not to run. her spokesman would not elaborate on what those personal reasons were. the spokesman did say that she was not called by anybody to get out of the race. in recent weeks, we have learned that president obama called on other democratic challenger, urging him not to run. we learned that vice president joe biden called on other potential opponent, congresswoman caroline maloney. she has not yet announced whether or not she is running. for kristin gillibrand, it means one more sign of relief. it seems like all of her challengers, but for maloney, are sitting on the sidelines. when president obama chose

congressmen john mchugh for army secretary, the cry went up that this was another chance to win a republican seat. it has been held by the republican mchugh since 1982. the problem here for democrats is that one of their strongest potential candidates is also somebody that the new york senate democrats want to keep. his name e won a special collecr the state senate. it is a very republican seat. the concern among democrats in that state is that if he leaves, he could lose the state senate seat in control of the senate is a tie. as "the new york times" reports, the state senate would have a leadership impasse. even more important for those

people down the road, if democrats are not in control of the redistricting process, that could be bad news for the congressional delegation. by the end of 2010, democrats could control, if they did win this special election, all but two of the state's 29 congressional districts. that, steve, is the news from the hotline today. host: i want to have to quickly look ahead. you are going to have two senate races in new york and a governor's race. host: that's right. the other person who is up is chuck schumer, who is not only a favorite, but a heavy favorite. he does not have any serious opposition. he has an incredible amount of money on hand.

the only person who seems to be talking about being a republican opponent to gillibrand is one that's representing long island in congress. the governor's race is a big stumbling block for democrats. david paterson has very low approval ratings. the democratic establishment in the state as narrowly won a primary. the question is, will david paterson run for reelection? for all the candidates running, the person at the top of the ballot could have an impact on their own races. host: amy walter, thank you for being with us. have a good weekend. we want to malcowelcome abderram

foukara. i want to begin with this treat that gives us an account. it says "we will never solve their problems. the u.s. should get out of other people's business. there are enough problems at home to worry about." how do you respond to that? guest: at least a philosophy of the speech yesterday was extraordinary in so many different ways. one of goes -- one of them goes to the heart of the issue you just raised. you have the president of the united states who travels to the muslim world to deliver a speech. almost as if that part of the muslim world was part of the american constituency. this is something that he talked about during his election period. it was almost as if he was trying to live up to a promise that he had given arabs and muslims to address their concerns in the middle east. it is just a measure of how

interconnected the world has become. it was obvious that he was talking to three different constituencies. although the speech was primarily for muslims, he was clearly talking to israelis as well. you could also see eyes in the back of his head looking at the home base of the united states. when he was delivering that speech. host: he also addressed the issue of human rights. let's share part of that. >> i do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for a certain thing. the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice, a government that is transparent and does not steal from the people, the freedom to live as you choose. these are not just american ideas. they are human rights.

that is why we will support them everywhere. [applause] host: his audience? guest: it was obviously destined primarily to the muslim world, but it was also does tend to the american audience. he was clearly thinking that people back in the united states would be saying -- why is he doing this? why is he doing this on behalf of the united states? he is explaining to people back at home that democracy is in the best interest of the united states. he is also addressing the issue of democracy in that part of the world. obviously, what he said in that particular regard is nothing new. the previous administration, despite all its failings in the region, had talked about democracy a great deal.

condoleezza rice said more less the same thing. the thing for the president is that he goes to the region at a time when there is actually -- there is great interest as far as the democratic debate. there is also a great deal of skepticism about the democracy project in the wake of all the chaos that followed the 2003 invasion of iraq. they want democracy. they are a little bit skeptical about it. the overriding concern was the overriding concern that people had in the arab and muslim world. 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