point in terms of achieving a solution. the' with the israelis by the palestinians. the fact that he has not rejected hamas and out wright as a terrorist organization, i think indicates that he wants to take the issue in a different direction.

although the conventional wisdom is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, i think the man does seem to be very serious about what he wants to achieve. not because he loves the palestinians or the israelis, but he says that he has america's best interest at heart. he sees a resolution of that contract -- the conflict. host: can president obama really bridge the gap? do the people have to? guest: the israelis and the palestinians, obviously, have a very major role to play since they are basically the main people concerned with this. nothing that is going to happen between the israelis and palestinians is going to happen

outside of the american context. the united states is obviously a very close ally of israel. it has always supported israel very strongly. it has always sought the best interest of israel materially and morally, the united states is supporting the israeli side. president obama is saying that he also wants to support the palestinians, morally and materially. morally is very important. i think that is probably one of the most important things that he mentioned in his speech, the moral support of getting justice for the palestinians. without the united states come in one way or another, morally, physically, historically, politically in every way -- without the united states, i do not think we could expect anything major to happen between the israelis and the

palestinians. their role is very important and the role of the arabs is very important. i think that is something that he stressed in his speech in cairo. host: if you just joined us or are you -- or if you are listening on c-span radio, our guest is abderrahim foukara, the washington bureau chief for al jazeera arabic. our next call is vincent. good morning. caller: good morning. the middle east did not have on the region did not have any oil. if there was no oil in the middle east, do you think that the united states would be so evasive and worrying about what we call human rights in the different countries? my basic comment is, i believe the united states has totally,

absolutely been one-sided in this whole issue. we have not addressed with the united states has done with the shah because it was conducive to the united states. some people in the united states, we say that the muslims are terrorists. is in one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter? when you allow israel to be able to do whatever they choose to do and to allow the palestinians not to have their own sovereignty, if it was reversed the other way, we would be, it is terrible. i feel that the united states should come clean and say that the arabs have basically been a tribal people. they have had battles with the jews since the beginning of time. they will continue to have battles. why don't we be honest and say that the only reason we're there is because of fuel? the united states, if it does

not need any fuel any more, we will see the truth of it. it is a shame. we should mind our business. when we say we really care about human rights, why do we trade with china? why do we go to saudi arabia? it is a shame what we do to the muslims. host: let me jump in on two points. did the president not address that issue of nuclear weapons and also trying to solve -- to develop long-term peace? caller: absolutely not. president obama went there and was speaking to these people like children. who is the united states -- where we -- where did we get the audacity to go to other countries and dictate who can defend themselves, who can do this? we do not have that right.

who put us in charge? regular americans shake their heads and say, who are we? we do not have the right to dictate these answers. if israel has military capabilities, who are we to say other countries do not? it is hypocrisy. if the middle east did not have any valuable oil, do you think we would really care? i would like him to answer that. thank you. guest: the issue of oil is obviously very important. it is very important -- is a very important factor behind the involvement of the united states and other western powers in that part of the world. there is one phrase that the color used. that is tribal.

the arabs have always been at the crossroads of human civilization. this is a major civilization. it has failed in modern times to produce the kind of results that would make of it a self sustaining, flourishing civilization. the president mentioned this in his speech yesterday. this is a very important part of human civilization. with oil or without ol, people have always been interested in that part of the world, the middle east. there is one thing that i agree with the caller on. that is, why think it is a wonderful thing that the president of the united states has decided to actually go to

cairo and deliver his speech to the muslim world from there and to the rest of the world. i think the policy part that he talked about. it is a little weird that 1 billion muslims, as he said in his speech, are sitting watching his speech, almost trying to find salvation in the speech of an american president addressing them from cairo. they could do a lot more than wait for the president of a foreign power to come and deliver a speech to them about what should and what should not be done. he talked about scientific and education and how the united states would help them to achieve that, which is all laudable on the part of the president. i am not blaming the president himself.

i am blaming the failings of the muslim world where you have 1 billion people, the inheritors of a grand civilization, waiting for someone to give them reassurance out of cairo host: this is barking quite a dialogue. another viewer is saying that president obama did not recruit people like hillary just for rhetoric. obama is serious about peace in he has almost four years to get it done. good morning to you. caller: bid morning. i do not have that many things to say. i watched a documentary a couple of years ago. it was done by an american. he was talking about -- i guess the previous caller had never studied anthropology.

these people were civilized. i am really sorry to hear him describe it as tribal. this documentarian interviewed a lot of people. it seemed that the general consensus among arab people is that they are at ground zero and their cultures have been flattened. i was interested in any -- and the remark that your guest made about waiting for someone to come and deliver them. i think we have given too much unconditional support to israel. host: would you agree or disagree? guest: i would to a certain

extent. the western powers do shoulder a large part of the responsibility for what is going on in some parts of the middle east. take the invasion of iraq, 2003. this is something that the president addressed in his speech. he did not apologize for it. he basically said that it was a war of choice. the outside world does have that major part of the responsibility. when he talked about iran -- that was really interesting. he talked a lot about muslim civilization. when he talked about iran, he only talked about iran in the context of conflict. he did not talk about iran in a

civilization of context. iran has a grand past civilization. the manifestations of it, you can still see today in iran anin culture. there's always going to be a debate as to how much the responsibility of the failings of the muslim world that the moslem world itself shoulders and how much the outside world shoulders. in the case of the israeli/palestinian issue, the way i look at it is this way. you had a series of pogroms in eastern europe and then you have the holocaust for in the west tried to find some sort of grand historical compromise with judaism whereby a homeland for the jewish people is established in 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 arab and muslim whorled rigid world. but muslims are over 1 billion people the greatest majority want to lead a peaceful life and do their own thing and look after their families and their children, of the same that people in the west what to do.

or another in pakistan or in afghanistan or in iraq, obviously, that grabs attention. it grabs the attention of the media. it becomes the focal point of coverage. by becoming the focal point of coverage, the entire muslim region is suddenly seen through the prism of extremism and terrorism. the reality of it is -- i do not have any numbers for how many extremists exist in any faith, but the reality of it is any faith, the majority of its adherents are people who just want to lead a peaceful life in a peaceful existence. host: dianne from new hampshire is saying that any consolatory language directed toward the

muslim community would have been greeted with skepticism and derision by the right in this country? guest: it would have been greeted by derision -- greeted with derision by the right in this country. it has been greeted with derision by the right in the muslim world. that is something that was to be expected. if you hear the voices of what some muslims are saying about this speech being completely useless for exacerbating the situation or going in that direction, that exists on both sides. when we were talking about president addressing three different constituencies, i am sure that he was worrying about that particular constituency here in the united states. he is override -- his overriding concern was to do what he feels

is best for america. the previous administration had an opportunity to do what it thought was best for america. now he is saying that it is my turn to play a vision -- a different vision. host: of a quote the financial times" calling this a new beginning for the muslim world. "usa today" says that the u.s. is gaining ground in the battle for muslim hearts and minds. butler, pennsylvania is our next caller. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i find you a tremendous breath of fresh air. your intellect is most impressive. my specific question for you, sir, will take you back. as you find your position in the united states, do you have

difficulty in dealing with subcurrents within the different countries in the middle east? host: what do you mean by some parents? -- subcurrents? caller: we seem to use the phrase arab world and muslim world interchangeably. there seems to be a conflict within the middle east between the different ethnic groups as they break themselves out. my specific question is, how do you deal with that in aljazeera? are you pressured by individuals or governments to favor one side or the other? i will call them almost ethnic battles that seem to take place, more or less continuously in the middle east. guest: the issue of defining who is arab and jew is not is a very

tricky one. overall, i would like to say that era is not a race. it is not an ethnic group. arabic is a way of being. you are absolutely right. if you travel across the arab world, you will find people who define themselves in a plethora of different ways. that has always been the case in the middle east. incidentally, i really think that is part of the cultural diversity and richness. .

has often described itself as a channel that sees the world through arab eyes. it is difficult to establish what those arab eyes are. but there is an error sensibility around big issues, like israel-palestine, like iraq, relations with iran fall in a different category. this is a more clear-cut difference between arabs and persians. that does basically seem to unite people in the arab world from the atlantic to the gulf when it comes to issues between iraq and palestine. this is what we're getting right now. this is al jazeera.

is there one version around the world? is it different here than elsewhere? guest: we are seeing al jazeera international or al jazeera english. there are two strands. there is one in arabic that is broadcast on satellite. you can see that i set like anywhere in the world. there is al jazeera english that is broadcast on cable. it is still trying to put itself on cable on a large scale here in the united states. as of the first of july, they are going to beat on cable -- they are going to be on cable in the washington, d.c., area. these are two different strands. in many ways, they represent slightly different perspectives on the world.

al jazeera arabic as the bulk of its audience in the middle east. it caters to be specifically arab audience in the middle east and elsewhere. al jazeera english has a broader perspective. it is broadcast in english. it addresses so many different audiences in various parts of the world, including the american audience. host: we are talking to abderrahim foukara from al jazeera. jimmy is on the phone. caller: i have a concern about hypocrisy. barack obama goes abroad and talks about democracy. i find it fascinating because you do not have democracy in the united states.

there is an issue in terms of the treatment of african american people in america. i wonder why al jazeera does not deal with the injustices for african-americans in the united states. guest: there is the issue of hypocrisy in the issue of what al jazeera covers in the united states. as far as democracy is concerned, i'm speaking as a non-americans living in the united states. the american political system is an amazing political system treat it is capable of redress corrections. it has checks and balances, freedom of speech, the first amendment. it is obviously not the perfect political system. it does have its failings. we, in the arab world, clearly have a big deficit -- a big democratic deficit. while there is some hypocrisy in

the u.s. president going to preach democracy in the middle east while there are problems here in the united states, that does exist. but to compare the state of democracy in the arab world to the state of democracy in the united states is a major misleading or overreaching effort. initially, the focus of al jazeera in the united states was washington, what happens politically in washington. we gradually started to widen the circle and cover things in other parts of the united states. we cover not just the political stuff. we try to cover social, cultural, religious topics, including the issue of race. we have covered the issue of

race extensively during our extensive coverage of the election up to 2008, obviously. what happened in katrina was one aspect of it. what is creating reverberations about this issue of hypocrisy that the caller was talking about is when people in the middle east selling was going on in iraq after the invasion, the chaos, and the effort by the bush administration to take democracy to iraq peepe. people then saw the issues around katrina. that caused confusion. how can a government with its own problems try to export democracy to other parts of the world and the middle east? i go back to my fundamental argument. that is that you cannot compare

the arab world with the united states in terms of democratic systems. >> this weekend, the midwest's largest literary event. it is saturday, starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern throughout the day. there are panels on the economy, globalization and the american worker, homosexual rights, former illinois gov. rod blagojavich, the mob and counterfeiting, and a look at the graphic adaptation of "working."

later, stanley greenberg is interviewed by sandy madeleine. bill ayers talks about his new book, a good race course against white supremacy -- "racecourse against what supremacy." >> how is c-span funded? >> private donations. >> taxpayers. >> i do not really know. >> from public television. >> donations. >> i do not know where money comes from. >> it comes from donors. >> 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public-service, a private service initiative, no

government mandate, no government money. >> the rand corp. and washington host to this event. this is one hour. >> we have with us to people who ideally situated to speak to these two issues. we're going to start by talking about the domestic political scene on the eve of the presidential election then the vulnerability is of the economy. i will not go through their biographies, which have before you, in the inte