national security strategy. this is one hour. >> you can start any time in 10 seconds. >> hello everyone. publice media and affairs director for the muslim public affairs council. thank you for attending our round table. grateful to our esteemed panelists for agreeing to speak on this very critical and timely topic. to all of our viewers watching on c-span2 and listening on c-span radio. we would like for this panel to be as interactive as possible so we have cards on the table for

our guests and 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 efficacy program and the moderator of today's program, would like to say a few words. mpac is a national public affairs organization that works on pluralism for the american doublet. we do that by working on policies that affect our community. the foreign policy areas we work on our national security and civil liberties, immigration, human security, as well as religious freedom. for purposes here on this panel, we will be discussing the issue how to counterd isis. it has been mpac's 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. furthermore, federal, state, and local government should never condition their engagement with any communities through the lens of national security alone. with that said, would like to pass off the mic and officially begin the panel. >> thank you. we are here today to talk about usedefunct but still widely are the west and islam incompatible and that there is a war between the west islam. we've seen a number all of these announcements with regards to both domestic and international issues. trump recognized the capital of

israel after a slump. i national security announcement to be announced later today, and i shift from countering violent extremism that focuses on all forms of violent extremism to strictly focusing on islamic extremism, just to name a few. , we are also seeing, in my ainion, the implementation of nationalist agenda. this seems like it is a movement whiteress 20-40, when americans will no longer be the majority in america. we need to have serious policy discussions about 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. 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 parts of, and in other texas. these are just some to name a few. against the backdrop of a president who uses the power of his digital footprint to bully communities, including american muslim communities almost daily. today, president trump is going to be announcing his national security strategy. from what we know, his strategy areas.cus on four defendant homeland, american prosperity, advancing american influence, and these through 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 active in concerned american citizenry is a fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. hasgenerations our society

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 there is a lot there. i want to focus on one thing which takes us back to the theme of today's panel and that is that this president continues to perpetuate the myth that islam and the west are incompatible. he traveled all the way to saudi arabia and overlooks talking directly with american muslims here at home. so, how does this lie and the contradictions impact muslim communities? we will be focusing on that question and more with our panelists today. i would like to introduce them. my left, the senior fellow at the brookings institution center for middle east holocene and author of "islamic

exceptionalism" have the struggle of her islam is reshaping the world." have far right we 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 israeli-has palestinian negotiations. would like to start the panel off with a few opening remarks from all of our panelists. as engaged ino be conversation as possible, so we will have time for a question-and-answer 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 administration national security agenda. the first point is the departure from a long-standing u.s.

holocene and that long-standing u.s. policy was articulated actually on page nine of the strategyonal security under the obama administration and its states and i quote, "we reject the lie that america is at war with islam. " the question to the trump administration is doesn't 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? in what way is our country going as it relates to islam or any religion for that matter. the second departure is from another long-standing policy ant was first articulated by investor back in the early 1990's, he was the former ambassador to syria and israel at that time. he said that there is a two-track approach and our national security as it relates to terrorism. first is bringing perpetrators to justice. secondly, it deals with the root causes that create the environment to make terrorism more of a reality. to deal with socio-political issues, corruption, war, weak central governance. authoritarianism. we should look at this new

national security this it does not address those issues, then what we should expect unfortunately is more for the cost more tax dollars and lives altogether without any real sense of security for our country. it is amazing that is as we see groups like isis have a capability for terrorist attacks that because they lose technological ability for creating terror, there -- the american public is not 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.

number two, there is a sense that this administration wants against the warpath extremist groups. let me explain that in more detail. right when she witnessing the rise of white nationalists agenda of u.s. policy. it is a policy not based on ideology, but 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 go below 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 nationalism in israel and what is happening is that the extremist are dictating the direction of our future, not the mainstream. if this administration does not figure out a way to bring mainstream conversation about religion, then i fear that religious nationalism will take a stronger foothold in america, as well as what we are witnessing abroad furious number of, we are under the threat eroding american values as it relates to a number of policy

issues. is airst and foremost quality under the law. this is what we are in danger of entering in our country. intimidatea way to and silence and the rest innocent people. people will be intimidated and silenced through various means. for example, in the united the board costs -- 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 interested if they engage in sanctions. that is a small example of what is happening. then, there are other problems of national security policy that is void of community led initiatives. if we don't have communities involved, we will have more surveillance, more arrests and people feeling less and less secure. needs to be a means of having communities involved. for example, the state of new york has announced a counterterrorism mission. we have a number of law enforcement involved. that leads to another point that

is troubling and that is the administration is killing partnership between law enforcement communities throughout the country. what we have worked on is eroding. there's less public trust. that does not bode well for any .erious or effective policy final point is that if the united states government wants -- o away they are the ones fighting america and now the united states government is asking -- adding more fuel to that idea.

while isis is defeated on the battlefield, it is looking for ,ther 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 the united states victory in the cold war did we show any gratitude? no. instead, our intelligence the lifefor al qaeda -- has led to more chaos.

when the iraqi people in syria people stood up and it led to the defeat of isis, are we saying that he to them -- thank you to them? against simple gestures these forces that definite take on more muslim life than 80 lives altogether. iraqi lives that suffer at the hands of isis than any other. this does not bode well for american international interest and does not bode well for domestic issues. soberingith that very and unfortunate reality that i see here.

comment on the rhetoric and policy that we see coming out of the trump administration and the impact majorityin muslim countries? the muslimu to public affairs council. i want to say it is islam compatible with the west? if you look at various elections in western democracy in the u.s. in europe as well, it has some ways become the primary cleavage. people are debating about what -- 1% to 5% of the population. anmall minority has become

over missing concern. that is why this is not just the role of muslim americans in the west, it comes at the heart of what it means to be a democracy and how we live differently in the societies and i think if you want proof that islam or a should say muslims in the west are compatible because there are different islam's and it is a complex idea. ,f we look at american muslims that by itself is proof of the .ompatibility that you been a sense can be fully american without having to choose, where in europe it has been more complicated where there is a tension this -- between being

french and being muslim and you're asked to choose one over the other. thate a country appreciates religious expressions. you can be christian, jewish, muslim and express the identity and public fear. that is one of the aspects of american identity, but now for the first time, we have administration that wants to challenge the basic idea and say we have to choose the american over being muslim. --muslims would not be able to know how to pray if it was not for sharia.

we have politicians asking american muslims to disavow sharia, so we are moving into dangerous rhetoric that has more in common with europe than it and theerms of racism european context. it is not something indigenous to the muslims living here. that is 1.i really wanted to start with. when it comes to the for policy noted, isis has correctly it is on the back foot and as we , theyuccess fighting isis will feel more need to show it is still a government, so we're going to see more tears attacks unfortunately. we have to do everything we can to limit and canada, but it is

something we will have to live with for the foreseeable future. this idea that terrorism can disappear is not a realistic one. what that means is every time there a terrorist attack, there will be additional threats to american muslims and to our because wevalues look at politicians using it to target american muslims and ism.tion their american every time this happens, american muslims will come under sugar in the and i think it goes beyond that. there is this kind of desire to ask american muslims to condemn terrorism every time it happens.

might behere there disagreement on how to actually do this in a muslim community, but from my standpoint, groups should be at the forefront of speaking out and talking about what islam stands for and how islam and extremism are not the same and are at caused with each other. when it comes to individual muslims, there is an expectation for us to condemn terrorism every time there is an attack. i think that is problematic because it should go without saying that i'm against terrorism just by virtue i'm america is in -- i'm american. no one should have to ask you. they should assume that i opposed whatever as all americans do. more about the idea that

individual muslims feel a responsibility to speak out and that contributes to a sense of collective responsibility. i think that plays into the hands of extremists who want to paint us as a monolithic community that should speak out against terrorism in and in this way. i think also part of the problem, it is never enough. people are always asking us to condemn and we condemn, but there's always an education that we go further and people are never really satisfied. and how weing jose think about the foreign policy element, this was the framework of the speech was countering extremism.

this is something we have to be entirely focused on. is if you striking look at what he talked about, there was very little on what we should actually do to fight extremism beyond just saying it. this is more than just a rhetorical strategy. in other words, you can't fight extremism without fighting extremism. you have to look beyond the narrow phenomenon. narrows, it can be a security minded approach. we talked about root causes and that is one way of looking at it. that is the number one question we have to ask ourselves. terrorism does not just fall from the sky.

particulart of a context. if you look at most of the terrorism, it draws on the civil wars we saw and continue to see in syria, iraq and the list goes on. it is no accident that the two countries were isis gain the iraq.round were syria and we have to have a long-term strategy three the fact there is no vision for helping the economic and political development for these countries. the fact that we as americans no wonder -- no longer mentioned the word democracy or political reform.

these elements get to the broader context in which extremism arises. , thenhave nothing to say it just becomes a rhetorical strategy of saying radical muslims are bad, extremism is bad. we have to fight it. without actually saying anything beyond that. thank you. i would like to turn it over to you. same question. how does this myth impact american muslims and what we are seeing now with the recent announcement of recognizing jewish settlers him -- jerusalem's him as the capital? >> sure. of this -- this land or issued of countering

violent islamism, i actually think back to something that happened 22 years ago. wasirst big wake up call the oklahoma city bombing in 1995 and i was working a few blocks from the white house. we were all evacuated. first wake up call. i was a young man and i was shaken. later,ive or six years 9/11. today, when i think about violent extremism, another thing that has changed, i think about them and their safety. that is really what i think about. tohink as americans, we need

think about the relative threats to our security and safety. as you look at violent extremism in the united states and how it has affected americans domestically, i think there are two big parts to it. there are white nationalists action is him and there is muslim violent extremism. i think we can best address them both by addressing them equally and fairly and i think we as americans are safer when we look at both together and not focus on one or the other. the second thing i wanted to say is when looking at the trump administration, i think there is this amazing story that goes back half a century. in 1958, there was an

african-american handyman who stole two dollars and change and he was condemned to death in alabama for that. sudden, the enemy of the united states seized on that .nd made it major news understanding the importance of that, the president and secretary of state called the governor of alabama and said i don't know what is going on down not meant this does normal standards of justice for the united states and second of all, it is damaging. what we saw over the last few months is a president of the united states embracing a

candidate who is outside of the norms of the united states which instead of fighting against been was ag u.s. values, it propaganda victory. again, very important to understand how we deal domestically effects are standing in the world. -- does having american muslims condemning individuals make us safer or less safe? the assumption should be we should all do that.

the fact of asking actually divide anderate the so that is a real challenge as well. make americans less safe or more safe? >> i would argue that it makes us less safe. >> i think there are some political leaders in countries who have bigger fish to fry. on the other hand, the origins actually go back to an incident that took place in jerusalem. i think there -- i think there is a notion that

there has long been a notion that jerusalem can and should be a shared city for all and unless all feel the stake and feel recognized, it is problematic. one of the things we are seeing on the vice president's upcoming trip to the middle east, it is actually the christian minority refusing to meet with the vice president because of u.s. actions. again, my not embracing the concept that jerusalem can be a shared city is problematic. to unpack. a lot i want to start off with a

couple of questions before i open it up to the audience. you both mention dealing with domestic terrorism as an issue that does impact the global perception of america. both mention countering violent extremism as a federal program. >> can you talk about or critique or compare the differences between under the obama administration and what we are not seeing coming out of the trump administration? >> in a nutshell, the trump administration's anti- cve. they don't believe in community led initiatives. they don't believe in partnership to deal with the problem. there is still a top-down approach for government will dictate the approach and use

-- surveillance, more the obama administration was trying to see if there is a role were communities can take the lead in our position was for any kind of policy, it has to be bottom-up, not top-down. it has to be government led. resilience building and healthy communities. obviously, the trump administration is far away from that. the trump administration feels

it gives communities to much -- i see a feature it now -- i see future where we have heavy-handed mall horsemen and there is no committee trust or public trust. it basically diminishes american influence here inside communities and abroad. in other words, in terms of the foreign-policy front, me move to take the u.s. embassy is

occupied territory. that is why you're getting resistance from christian .inorities and organizations basically, trump had failed in his promises to the saudi nation. how can the u.s. president ruin relationships with saudi arabia has said they will give us anything they want. that is what the trump administration has accomplished. this is a new low for our lack of influence in the region. level.reached an anemic if that is the objective, we are failing on that. now on thethis is

domestic front, i see the partnership dying and that is a serious concern. >> lamy just talk about -- let me just talk about international -- cve. that a leverp ideas,y and a few basically the thinking was that if we wanted to address violent extremism in the middle east, we should do it. we needed to address for key things. four key things.

thed, ungoverned areas in fourth, government repression and we needed to do that through vehicles of inclusive economic growth and good governance. we did our best to try to do that in the prevailing environment that we found ourselves in. i can't say we were fully successful. however, what we have seen is rhetorically, they are certainly not focusing on good government in the middle east. they are not focusing on democracy and not focusing in my opinion the on a broad

thing, and the mark crissy. -- democracy. not just looking at, are the rich getting richer it is, are poor getting richer? as much is the actual economic growth but also the feeling of inclusion. do marginalized communities of the world and say things are going in the right direction? i feel like things are good therefore i am going to go along with how things are going or do they feel more marginalized and more excluded? tohink that is how you get the drivers of violent extremism internationally and unfortunately the trump administration is making us less safe not more safe by not focusing on good governance and not focusing on inclusive economics.

>> i would like you to respond about it, but i also went to throw in another question and that you mentioned in your remarks that maybe it is a the averager that individual american muslim feels the responsibility or the need anytime itterrorism happens. so where does that leave americans then. where does that leave the community when an incident or attack does happen and the perception of average americans who are not muslims are looking to our community to take that leadership role on to say, we have a plan, we are addressing this as a community. i know there is a lot of tension there. where does that leave them are smart crankset is the role of the leaders of the muslim community to play the leadership role and that is where organizations like impact take

the lead and are out there in the media discussing these issues and doing her best to clarify perception. what i am getting at is, i am not part of a muslim organization. i am just an american who had to be a muslim. that is how i see myself in cinemas a muslim who happens to .e american so, for someone to look at me and say well just because he was born muslim, that he has a responsibility that other sayicans do not have to something after terrorist attack, that is an uncomfortable position to be in. however, if individual muslims feel -- and it and went to speak out and organize and help change positions around these issues, more power to them. i just do not think that should be the de facto expectation for every single american muslim. there are muslims that do not

identify very closely with their muslim identity and to us them to make a statement about is a littleorism but all had, right? people we don't expect of other races or religions, conductfrom that group violence, we don't ask every togle member of that group issue statements. when i try to do after terrorist attack is to analyze it. i will actually avoid issuing any condemnations on my twitter account. i hate do that as a matter of policy because i do not want people to expect that going forward from me. that is not my role. >> do any of the others of you want to respond? how does that continue to perpetuate the expectation that communities have to respond. >> i agree when it comes to national security issues, we should allow the specialist.

there are number of groups that security. in national we don't want to securitize the relationship between the american muslim community but we cannot take it out of the mind of the average american. people care about security and of islam has something to do it their fears into their insecurity than there is a responsibility to speak to the american public and agreed that we also have to talk about other norms of violent extremism and we should have equality under the law but the reality is the american public by and large has a fear about muslim. intel we are articulating and, analyzing it, how we're going to move forward is not just a policy issue. it is a social issue. a media issue. a cultural issue. that is where the conversation needs to go. so it is not just one somebody

decides to run over people in manhattan that we often get out and say, ok we condemn this act or where not pointed them in any more because we have been condemning it for the last 20 years and if you have not heard us, it is no use. if we are getting to that kind of conversation that is not helpful as an organization. so we do need to address this, in my opinion, from a cultural and social standpoint and tried to move away from it just as a policy issue because that does reinforce his idea that american muslims are only important in terms of their securitization or people feeling less secure. we want to move away from that and the same goes in terms of storytelling. we want more stories about the muslim doctor and the muslim teacher and the muslim engineer and the muslim policy analyst. an other words, these are americans who happen to be muslim. we need your stories like that out there. -- i haveere we have

criticism for our friends, not just political opponents. our friends in media and in policy or not allowing the muslim voices to be heard or seen. when you turn on the tv and they talk about anything related to muslims, rarely defined muslim in the conversation. it is people talking about muslims, not talking to muslims and i think that is another part of the culture problem that we need to overcome an hour society. christ with time now to open it up for question -- >> we have time now to open it up for questions from the audience. thanks to those are listening live on c-span2 and c-span radio app. if you have questions, please feel free to tweak them. .- tweet them are there any questions from the audience? question: i know you are from

los angeles, which was one of the pilot cities of the obama administration program. said these changes that you talked about, you are expecting more heavy-handed tactics, have you seen already anything on the ground in l.a. or any of the other cities? changes with the new administration when they made these modifications to the program? >> i've seen on the one hand that the partnership and ellie is still very strong -- the partnership in los angeles is still very strong. we have worked on it now promised 25 years, sought the local level it is strong but again, a community group, defendant to a discussion with law-enforcement now on any of these issues whether it is relations with law enforcement or policies, nobody wants to come out and talk about it. they are too afraid and they do not trust this government and by

extension, there is less trust of law enforcement and that is i feel that it is very strong and we worked on building trust him partnership for so long. i cannot imagine how bad it is in areas where there has not been network toward partnership and engagement. i fear that is going to result in more bad things whether you are going to see more entrapment type infiltration of communities. surveillance of communities. to, a morelluded general and ominous problem and that is communities feeling more isolated and alienated from the rest of society. where now we're approaching the european structures where muslim is outside as opposed to the american shock sure where they have always felt there were part of -- where the americans felt

they were always part of the mainstream. now you will see more alienation was present smart problems. putting -- more alienation which will present more problems. people don't feel a sense of belongingness. there will be more discrimination and to rossman. more depression and anxiety. identity crisis. now you are talking about a whole different set of issues to deal with as a community and later on how to deal with from a public policy standpoint. shadi: any other follow-up questions from the audience? there was a critique of the federal programs under

obama i and i guess we're not seeing under the trump administration. can you talk about the shift from the top down approach. approach into more of a public health model and what that took specifically through your partnership in los angeles and how those programs are being seen at the local level and and where cbe is going now that we are not sing leadership from the government. >> well, i think it is dead. it is being his birds. we were actually granted some money for then and then the trump administration rescinded the grant. so many groups like us are not going to pursue these programs, -- weas you rightly said shifted the lens of looking at

this from a criminal justice standpoint to a public health standpoint. and other words, healthy communities, highly infusing services into communities like mental health communities. how do we love mental health experts to address the number of social issues i was referring to earlier? that was the basic objective of our program. to empower communities to handle issues themselves so we don't have government coming in later to take her of it for them. as i said, that program we had, the grant for that was rescinded. so it is basically working now at various local levels in terms totrying to get communities support it. but the community is at such a level that it is still in its infancy and swords of organizational development. we're building mosques, building schools, but we are really not

building the kind of community and it is not getting the support but we are looking for other means to support that and i think in general, we want the community to take ownership of the project like i said, so the government does not come in and tell the community how to do it for them. shadi: we have a question in the audience. hate --eeing a rise in >> we're single rise in hate crimes in our community including against the jewish community. i was wondering how you see this rise of fear and hatred against other minorities? >> ok. so, i guess there is sort of a bigger problem as you are alluding to the goes beyond just

muslims. there is a crisis of identity on the national level. what does it mean to be american? what is the american idea that glues us together? when we lose that, it is not just the muslim minority that suffers but all minorities whether blacks or jews and the list goes on. that is why it is no accident that this administration has been problematic not just for the muslim community but with other communities. and minority groups generally disrespected.ack, that speaks to a bigger problem that all of us have a role to play in addressing. i'm not very optimistic of it. i think earlier i alluded to there is the democratic rift happening in this country as whites shift over time from a majority to a minority, we can , to expect these tensions my sadness, to intensify. i think we have to be prepared

as a country to think about how we intend to minimize this tensions as america changes demographically. thatfore you answer question i want to respond with the president recently said about immigrants that somehow america's getting the worst of the world by allowing immigrants to come in. no, america has benefited from all of the immigrants set of made this country what it is and made it a great country. refugees is syrian a tragedy and a travesty. .or a superpower we are living up to europe to deal with the refugees, and other countries? so, america is actually now isolating itself from european and middle eastern partners. talk about the governments, united states is now isolated. and that then it is going to

undermine our national security interests because we will not be able to build coalitions we need on a number of issues if we're not willing to participate in the issues that other countries care about whether it is climate change, the refugee issues, or national security. so that is the first thing. then in terms of hate crimes in our country come of course there's going to be a spike because when you have the top of the government, the federal government now, being led by somebody that carries a white nationalist agenda and the rhetoric follows suit, then of course our communities are going to be more racialized and there's going to be more racial conflict and african americans will suffer. jewish americans will suffer. lgbtq communities will suffer. muslims will suffer. and white americans. so white nationalism, weight supremacy, is also a threat to white america because there victims have problems like everybody else and we will have society. divided

and of course this does not help in terms of doing what hate crimes. it does not help with the minority communities that have worked so hard to be integrated and ite larger society does not serve american domestic or international interest. few minutest have a left. so if i could ask all of our speakers to respond to this enclosing. going back to today's theme of islam versus the west as part of what seems to be the national security strategy of this administration, where do we go from here? how do we respond and where do we -- what does it take for us to rebuild effective national security policies? >> you want me to start?

so, i was trying to think about something optimistic to say and it is challenging. you know, at the end of the day i do not think trump or the trump administration is the end of the world. america is stronger than that. we will get through this. our consider trump to be legitimately-elected president. even though i am very much opposed him we are democracy. elections have consequences. i think that if we want to change our foreign policy than all of us have to get involved and make sure our local representatives or whoever we elect to the future more closely reflect our values, ideals, and aspirations. that is what is so great about being american to me is the shared american identity. the shared american idea is that it is about ideas and not

ethnicity. not about the notion of whiteness. people can be born american but people can also become american. i draw inspiration from that. my father grew up in a small village in the nile delta and egypt, but he was able to, over time, through education, come to the u.s. and it is a cliche obviously, but in some sense, in a very important sense, lived dreamed it to become american. i was able to watch my parents become american. they don't feel a conflict. this is their country, they have a stake in it, they are going to fight for its become better. that is something we have to remember and draw inspiration from going forward. >> i also want to end on an optimistic that. with every crisis

comes opportunity. it repeats, with every crisis there comes opportunity. so there is opportunity. that is that the mainstream, the majority of religious communities, ethnic communities, all communities, do not share this nationalist agenda we are seeing in the world. whether talking about muslim nationalism, jewish nationalism, or christian nationalism. we just nationalism is about power. if we want to work for religion, that we have to work in the values and ethics that come from our religion -- religions. that is what we can show together but we have to break out of our bubbles. engage each other. i invite the evangelical community to speak and have dialogue with his. there are a few who do but still there are many segments of the evangelical community that have never met with muslim in the united states. so we need that dialogue. we need it now. for american muslims, it is time

to declare our independence from any kind of religious thought from the middle east. we can develop our own american islam in political thought as that is annd opportunity for us. it is needed now more than ever. we can use tradition. we can read what is happening over there. we can read what shetty says about this or that group overseas and sharon the criticism of that but we need to define our own narrative has american muslims. what is the american islamic narrative? that is where we are today. i see that as an opportunity that will alleviate the fears of many of our fellow americans but also more portly, present hope for our future generations and young leaders of american muslims. -- thank youing me

for having me and on the question of fixing our national security again, as i said earlier i believe there are domestic routes to our national security. in so, for me, being an american is about the idea of a player bassoon. out of many, -- is about the pluribus unum. many, one. it is through the journey at of that willemocracy shape our national security. i have already heard from folks across the world, that they kind directionsin those -- they kind of will cap in ofse elections -- they kind woke up in those elections. they are already discounting this president's actions because

of the kind of response to him. so out of many, one, is the best our country.or for domestic harmony and for our national security abroad. you so much to our panel for and he got such an optimistic note. this concludes today's event. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much for coming. >> thank you. >> to i. >> congratulations. >> i told him -- >> what?

announcer: c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tomorrow morning, discussing the tax reform bill with a bloomberg tax reporter and a reuters congressional correspondent. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" tuesday morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. >> house and senate conferees reconcile the differences between the two republican tax plans last week. the house begins floor debate tuesday. a vote is expected on the measure. later today, the senate begins 10 hours of debate on the bill. white house coverage here on c-span and live senate coverage on c-span two. >> tuesday, the house rules committee meets to consider legislation to fund the federal government. live coverage at 3:00 p.m.

eastern on cspan2. you can follow live on c-span.org and on the free c-span radio app. >> sunday on c-span's q&a, heritage foundation distinguished fellow lee edwards chronicles his 60-year involvement in the conservative movement. >> i met joe mccarthy through my father. he was something of a confidant to him. he was a hail fellow well met. he liked to party. he liked a drink or two. as long as she did not talk about communism, you could not ask for more fungi to be with. but he was -- for a more fun guy to be with. he was someone who did not take advice very well so he consequently said and did things that hurt the cause of anti-come it is time. announcer: q&a, sunday night at

8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> next, we look at the middle east and relations with the u.s. under the trump administration. the washington institute for posted theolicy event. speakers consider the influence of iran and the anticorruption efforts within each nation. this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> good morning. welcome to the washington institute. i'm that director. i'm delighted to welcome all of tripo this policy forum report from a trip that i, might