Dr. James Zogby

In the News

Dr. Zogby Addresses Members of the Foreign Press

Posted on Friday November 7, 2008

On Wednesday, November 5, Dr. Zogby addressed members of the foreign media and shared some initial thoughts about this election, and what the future may hold, both for the new administration and for the world at large.

Full Transcript:

MODERATOR: Welcome to the Foreign Press Center. Can I first remind you and ask you to either turn off or put on vibrate your cell phones? And our speaker will direct some comments to you, and then we’ll do Q&A. And can I ask you when you’re wanting to make a question that you wait for the microphone and identify yourself and your media organization?

We’re pleased today to have Dr. James Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute. He’s here to talk today about some of the implications of yesterday’s elections, and I turn it over to Dr. Zogby.

DR. ZOGBY: Thank you. Well, I’m going to talk about the implications and then some. There’s a few other items I’d like to raise as well. First, I think that there’s no way to overstate the significance of this victory and what it represents for America and for the world. It is, after all, a turning point in our country’s history, both in terms of how we will come to see ourselves as a nation, but also how the rest of the world will come to see us.

John McCain last night said that it was a great day, a great moment, he said, for African Americans. And I really think that understates the significance of this. It’s a great day, really, for all Americans. And what struck me in this election as it began to unfold early on was the degree to which the rest of the world understood that in a very significant way. We did some polling back about a year ago in the Arab world, and as early as that we were seeing extraordinarily high interest in the campaign. And interest not just because of the concern with the Bush Administration and policy in the region, but also because of the unique person of Barack Obama and what he brought to this presidential contest.

I think that from the responses I’ve gotten just in the last 12 hours since this election ended, it’s very clear that people feel a tremendous amount of hope and a sense of America turning a page. I’ll talk about that in a minute in terms of expectations and the danger even that some of these very high expectations may present to a new president, but nevertheless they’re there. And some of the ill will that has been felt toward our country over the last several years, people wanted to feel differently and now find a reason to feel differently about America. In the polling that we’ve done, you know, the numbers go down to single digits in many countries, and most especially in countries that have been most closely allied to the United States, public opinions there is – are below (inaudible).

The question of why and how it happened occurs and I think needs to be understood. Clearly, there was a frustration with the Bush Administration and a loss of confidence in the Bush Administration. Here at home especially, beginning, I think, most significantly with Katrina, but then going on from there, a sense that the institution that – of government and the institutions that people relied on could no longer perform and deliver. The adventurism of some of our foreign engagement produced, I think, nothing but an accented loss of confidence. And then the – clearly, the inability to deal with the economy, which has been deteriorating now for several months but then culminating in this most recent meltdown, created, I think, a situation ripe for change.

The second, as I noted, was I think in addition to the failures of the Bush Administration and the fact that he clearly had the lowest favorable numbers that we’ve seen in a very long time in a sitting president, is the person and the message of Barack Obama. This was a unique person to enter the historical stage, not just of his racial – mixed racial background, not just the fact that he spoke well, but what he spoke about and the way that he resonated with young people in particular across the country. I’m not one who sees this as the initial success of Barack Obama as having anything to do with race. It really in many ways did not. The issue, remember, back in the beginning was: Is he black enough? It was the victory that he won in Iowa that really catapulted him in a very different way into the national light, wining support of African Americans who understood that he actually could win.

But more important was the way he connected, as I began to see and many of us began to see, going back to when he first entered the Senate and had a star quality from the very beginning. I had not seen anything like this since the mid-1980s with Jesse Jackson when I saw him leave a hotel on his way to speak at the 20th anniversary of the march on Washington, and by the time he got from the hotel to three blocks to Pennsylvania Avenue, he was surrounded by 300 people.

I saw the very same thing with Barack Obama, almost from the beginning of his Senate career, and that momentum grew and grew and grew, to the point where he was unable to do the kind of retail politics that most campaigners do in Iowa. He, from the beginning, was having to speak to 2,000, 3,000, and then later 10,000, then later 20-, 40- and 60,000 people crowds. It was something rather extraordinary. People understood what he represented, his message resonated, and his person did as well.

Thirdly, I think the issues all broke his way. It began with Iraq, and it was this challenge to the Bush Administration on Iraq that was what first catapulted him into the politics of the Democratic Party. They had looked for someone who had been right on Iraq going back to Howard Dean in 2004. He built on that with young people and with young people disenchanted with the war, but then also understood that beyond the issue was this loss of confidence question, this need for something, someone authentic, someone who could create hope and a sense that change would occur in his presidency.

There was a sense, I think, among many young people and among many in the leadership in the Democratic Party that we’d had too many politics as usual candidates, candidates who would not be able to deliver on the issues that they talked about because there wasn’t a sense that they were truly committed to making the change that they talked about. Barak Obama was different than that.

And then finally, I think the most important factor of all was the incredible campaign that he organized. I had a chance to see it firsthand. In all the years I’ve been doing politics, I can’t remember a campaign that organized as many people in such a disciplined and efficient manner. Canvassing was done – in some cases, I remember dealing with machine politicians in local cities where you saw canvassing done, and get-out-the-vote operations worked. I never saw it done as widespread on a national level with the same kind of exposure so that every block was understood, voters were identified, and they were gone back to three times at least to make sure. Even 2 o'clock the last day they were out. I’ve seen that done in an episodic manner – some cities working, other cities not working. This seemed to work across the country in a very, very efficient way. He had the money to do it, he had the staff to do it; 3.2 million donors, millions of volunteers; and a candidate who was able to inspire those volunteers to turn out in the first place.

What for me is very important is the role that Arab Americans played in all of this. I’ve been doing this work now for almost 30 years, and not since the Jackson campaign of ’84 and ’88 did I see Arab Americans as inspired, turn out in such numbers, commit themselves to work with such intensity, as I did in this campaign. And in particular, among Arab American young people, those who did not remember the Jackson campaign and therefore had not experienced anything quite like this in their lives, there wasn’t a city that I’d go to where I didn’t find Arab American staffers, Arab American volunteers, Arab Americans on campuses, young people who identified with this campaign early on and made it their own. They participated in everything from fundraising and get-out-the-vote work, adopted neighborhoods their own, and ran with it.

I also think that in a structured way, in addition to the volunteers, there was an involvement here we hadn’t seen the likes of: Arab American staff were hired in most every state and given positions of rather significant responsibility. There was Arab American literature printed, an Arab American website. There were briefings by top campaign officials for Arab American leadership across the country.

In a climate where especially in this campaign where we saw so many instances of negative campaigning, or as Nadine (ph) who works in my office, one of our press people said, mudslinging with Arabs being the mud, it was, I think, impressive that the Obama campaign rose above that and did, in fact, make this effort to reach out, have an Arab American website page on their web, an official page, even before any of the other ethnic groups. So that some of the talk that Barack Obama was ducking Arab Americans simply doesn't bear up under investigation when you see the kind of effort that was made, in fact, to reach out. They had their own unique design for buttons that the campaign had put together, and literature, as I said, was produced, et cetera.

That’s the one side of it. Let’s talk a little about what happens now. I can talk a lot more about Arab American work in a bipartisan way and the work that was done here, but I think that, you know, what I want to close with is a discussion of what Barack Obama does now.

There is no question that the world he inherits is a difficult and troubling place. The hole that has been dug by this administration is very deep. And one thing I have warned as I’ve spoken to audiences in the Arab world, and they’ve looked to this – an Obama presidency as creating change, what it really does is create the possibility for change. There is change. Simply in the election of this man, there is change in our culture in America. My grandchildren waking up at the house this morning and turning on the television and seeing Barack Obama President and Michelle Obama First Lady, they will never know the world I knew 40 years ago when I was marching in civil rights marches in this country. They will not know that world. They will know a different world. That is change right off the bat.

But the rest of the world stays the same. We do not have the opportunity to, when January 20th comes and Barack Obama gets the mantle of leadership, he doesn't inherit a world that is now sort of back to where it was when George Bush took office. Basically what happens is George Bush hands him the shovel, and the shovel is a shovel into a very, very deep hole. The question is will he dig it deeper or will he find his way out. And from everything I’ve seen in the literature that he’s put forward from the positions that he’s taken and from the answers he’s giving to questions and from discussions that we’ve had, I’m convinced that this is a guy who truly wants to find the way out. In Iraq, to find a responsible way out, not a rapid and precipitous withdrawal and not one that is destabilizing to the country or its most vulnerable people whom he has identified as the minority communities, in particular, some of the Christian communities that have been horrifically, horrifically victimized by this war. And so he does not want to create a situation that creates further hardship for any of them.

I also think that his – his stated interest in moving to the Afghan and Pakistan front is important, but comes with some risks. Because the question remains whether or not those wars are winnable and to what degree a commitment, if designed as open-ended or if designed as achieving victory, is even possible.

On the Arab-Israeli front as well, this is a problem that has always been vexing and has always been seen by some to be intractable, although I think it was not intractable. But I’m not sure eight years later, after neglect and reckless behavior on the part of this Administration, that it is possible to solve that conflict any time soon.

The question, therefore, is – he has committed himself to making an effort from the beginning to engage. But the question is going to be how to engage and even with whom to engage. Israel has gone into a period of instability. It’s actually been in that situation now for many years – kind of – I don’t mean to insult anybody here, but – because Italy’s not in that situation anymore, but I used to call it the Italianization of Israeli politics; remembering years ago when you couldn’t keep a government in Italy for more than a couple of months. You can form a government in Israel, but the question is the government never has – seems to have a mandate to make tough decisions.

Following that, on the Palestinian side, you have a situation where the divisions that once existed are now institutionalized divisions with two armed and warring camps, each occupying separate regions of the country, with no indication that anytime soon they’re going to come together. And even if they do come together, it appears to be a zero-sum game. If they do come together, then Israel seems to be foresworn to not talking to them at all. So the difficulties here are enormous and will require both thoughtfulness on the part of a president – determination on the part of a president, but also some patience and a sense of let’s not make expectations so high so that, you know, we understand that these situations have unraveled to such a degree during the Bush years that they’re more difficult to put together.

He’s committed, as we’ve seen, to working with the international community to not behaving unilaterally, to not behaving preempt – in a preemptive way. And I think all of those are good signs. And therefore, I believe that one of the consequences of an Obama presidency will be a return to a more realistic – a realism-based foreign policy that is more capable of protecting our interests, working with our allies, improving our position in the world, but with the caveat that no instant quick fixes to any of more troubling problems that we are – we are facing.

And he will get a honeymoon. He already -- I think the United States is going to get a honeymoon over the next three months, God willing that nothing disastrous happens in that period. I think he will, once sworn in, be given some breathing space, and has demonstrated during this campaign an ability to manage attitudes and to shape attitudes and to give himself the breathing space to perform. And I think that’s very important. As important as it has been on the U.S. stage, it will be important for him on the world stage as well.

But it’s going to be – it’s a tough world out there that he inherits. The number one issue he’s going to have address is the economy. But I was digging out an article I wrote back when Bill Clinton became president in 1993 and I – taking at the time a – making a twist on the famous James Carville expression, I said: It’s the world, stupid. Because the notion that you do the economy first, then the world waits, does not happen. You inherit a world now where Afghanistan has unraveled, Pakistan is now threatened, al-Qaida is emboldened, Iran is emboldened, Hezbollah and Hamas have been emboldened, Israeli settlers in the West Bank and extremists there have been emboldened, and Iraq is in danger of imploding, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. All of that defines the world that Barack Obama inherits. It cannot wait until we fix the economy first. I’m rather convinced he understands that. And so his tasks are mighty, but I think what he has shown in this campaign is that his abilities are great as well.

And I’ll stop there and take any questions you have. Yes.

QUESTION: Omar Razek. My name is Omar Razek from BBC Arabic Service. Mr. Zogby, you mentioned that Barack Obama’s next coming administration may take a more realistic foreign policy. Does it mean that it can withdraw from the region that – the conflict in the region, especially the Middle East or it can work in a more realistic way to make a settlement which can also serve as the U.S. interests in many regions like the Arab world and the Muslim world.

DR. ZOGBY: I can’t – I’m not a spokesperson for the Barack Obama presidency. I’m not a spokesperson for the campaign. I’ve worked with them, and I think I understand a little bit about their thinking. And I don’t think withdrawal is the option. This is not an isolationist President, and it’s not an isolationist administration in the making. It is – when they talk about withdrawal from Iraq, and a responsible withdrawal, they talk about it for a reason and that is to be able to redeploy into other areas where our forces and strength are needed. So it’s not about disengagement, it’s about conserving energies to engage in other areas and doing so in a manner that does not leave Iraq or abandon Iraq to its own fate. And that’s why he talks about a responsible withdrawal, and that’s why he has talked about formulas like those talked about in the Iraq Study Group that regionalize and internationalize the search for stability in Iraq and in its broader region. So, no, this is not a pulling back as much as it is a better application of American energy and resources in the world.

Yes.

QUESTION: One more point.

DR. ZOGBY: Which is --

QUESTION: Will it serve any kind of Middle Eastern settlement in the soon or near future?

DR. ZOGBY: The question about a settlement to the – conflicts in the Middle East go beyond what the ability of any particular president can do right now, and I think we have to be understanding of that. That’s why I’m saying expectations are an issue that concern me just a bit. You know, it is true, we have a way of – since the Roosevelt era of singing as Democrats, Happy Days are Here Again, when the president is elected, one that promises to bring us the prosperity and the peace that we desire at home. I would not start breaking out the Happy Days are Here Again song in the Middle East right now. The problems have become too great. Eight years of neglect or recklessness. And a – and the simple fact that during the eight years of Clinton, many of those problems weren’t addressed. I mean, dual containment didn’t solve problems. It simply tried to freeze them in place.

When we had opportunities to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict after the signing ceremony, I think we -- in 1993, I think we abandoned it. We abandoned it by saying, okay, you guys solve it, which is not quite what was needed because the Oslo Accords – I looked at it at the time as something not unlike a couple that had been fighting for 35 years going to a marriage counselor and saying we agree we need help, and here’s what we’ve been able to come up with. And what the marriage counselor said to them was, “Gee, that’s great. I’m going to leave you guys in a room and try to work it out now.” They were not able to work it out.

And so I think that bad advice created a badly handled process, and ultimately ’93 to 2000 there was the hope of peace, not the realization of peace, and with it growing frustration. George Bush inherited that, further froze it in place. And what has happened is that the danger of extremism on both sides went from being a danger to an actual reality. The disease in both – or the pathologies on both the Israeli and the Palestinian side have not only intensified, gotten worse, but they’ve even metastasized, spinning off new groups. It’s a very difficult and dangerous situation between Israelis and Palestinians, and I don’t think a single president and a single moment in time is going to be able to solve it. There’s a lot of work to be done.

But what has to happen, and I think what has just happened, is that new leadership in America makes it possible for us to be more frank with the parties involved and say this isn’t working, Israel is not more secure, Palestinians aren’t getting their needs met. How do we begin to unravel this and solve it? And I think that, you know, it’s going to be, like I said, a really tough and long slog here.

But hopefully, America will also have earned enough credibility in our behavior in the broader region and enough trust in a new president that we’ll be able to say to each side as well what they have to do. I mean, the Arabs can take a much more aggressive role in helping the Palestinians reorder their house. And I think Israel and its allies need to work together as well to clean up that house as well. I mean, the fact here is that we’ve got a situation that isn’t working, is getting worse, and it’s not going to get solved overnight. It’s going to require a lot of work. But America has not done that work, nor has our President earned the trust enabling him to do that work. And that’s, I think, where we are right now.

Yes.

QUESTION: George Jones from the Press Association in London. Could I just ask you about Iran? I think it was when President Reagan came into office after Jimmy Carter, the Iranians released the hostages. Do you think now that with Barack Obama there will be some softening or desire by the Iranians to try and resolve the nuclear issue, because at some point, surely either Israel or America is going to do something about that?

DR. ZOGBY: Well, I not only don’t speak for the Obama campaign, but don’t speak for the Iranians either. But what I can tell you is that from my understanding of where this situation has gotten frozen is in the fact that behind all of this gamesmanship that’s going on is both an Iranian desire to have a nuclear program but, as stated, not necessarily a weapons program, but also their desire to have more respect and direct recognition from the United States. Would it be possible that we unfreeze the situation, break down this logjam that has impeded our ability to get movement from the Iranians by entering into a direct exchange with them? It very well may be the case. And that, I think, is what is being counted on here, not that we will negotiate with them for regional hegemony, not ensuring their role as the dominant power in the region, or that we’ll negotiate their ability to have nuclear weapons. None of that’s going to happen. I don’t think that Barack Obama is going to change, in many ways, the goals that currently exist in American policy.

The question is how do you get the Iranians to do some of the right things that need to be done in order to create greater stability in the region and to get some of the respect that they want. And that’s going to require a changing of their behavior. I think – and there are many others who know Iran better than I do – we’ve polled in Iran, but I don’t know it as well as many of the experts who travel back and forth as frequently as many of them do – that what the Iranians want is direct recognition and a conversation with the United States and a sense of security that would come from that direct engagement. That may very well be the missing piece in this, and Barack Obama seems to have the courage to want to do it, and I think that’s all power to him. That could be the thing that turns this around.

Yes.

QUESTION: A question for you. My name is Mona Salem. I’m from the French news agency AFP [Agence France Presse]. Well, in the Middle East – I’m coming – I’m living in the Middle East. In the Middle East, there are a lot of expectations, as you said. They may be wrong. It may be risky for the new president. But the fact is that there is a lot of expectations. One of these expectations is that the new administration, the new president, will push for more reforms, political reforms, in the Arab world. Well, that’s what people think. We can say that any change come from inside – from – I mean from the country itself, from these countries, from the Arab world itself.

But people are wondering if the new president, new with this hope of change, will do an effort to push for a political reform in the Arab world. You know for sure that many people were so upset how could the Bush Administration leave someone like Ayman Nour or Saad Eddin Ibrahim in prison in Egypt, for example. So as you are – you worked with them, how do you feel about this?

My second question is what about – also as you worked with the Obama camp, what do you think about his statements, let’s say his statements about Jerusalem and the whole Israeli issue? I mean, he said that Jerusalem will be indivisible, and then he said it will be – it is negotiable. I mean, how do you – how do you –

DR. ZOGBY: Well, let me take the first one. I think that it is very clear to me that a – there is a growing sense in American foreign policy circles that reform is an important aspect of our foreign policy, seeking reform and greater respect for human rights going back – you know, going back a full century; that these were goals.

The question is how do we pursue those goals. I think this Administration, the current Administration, has done quite badly at that. They advocated those goals, but then they created conditions in the region that did not make those goals anything close to being realizable. In fact, when you roll a region and turn it against you, and then call for reform and open elections, the people who got elected are the people who hate you the most. That’s almost a logical outcome of the process that we’ve put in place. And you make your friends feel greater at risk because of the concern they have that their friendship with you has only made them more vulnerable and exposed in the face of their enemies domestically. And I think that that has been a bit of a problem.

I think America has some rebuilding to do of its own image. I mean, after our behavior and performance in the last several years, people are going to want to see us change direction, and I think we will change direction on our own respect for human rights, on our own performance with regard to rule of law, with regard to our own behavior as we operate with other countries in the world, whether we use unilateralism and preemptive strikes, et cetera. If we continue to behave in that way, then we cannot be the advocates for reform that we would like to be.

I think Barack Obama will change direction. I don’t think it will happen overnight that we begin to put the reform agenda on the table. I think that, to me, it’s almost like peeling an onion, and the first place you’ve got to start is going to be with winding down Iraq and dealing with that in a more responsible way, and then dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and then dealing with other issues of that sort. The problem within Lebanon, for example, is one that we have to address.

And then when you create a more favorable regional climate, then I think you begin to talk about some of those issues as well. And that would be what I would suggest. I have not seen their position on those issues in terms of how you sequence it or how you do it. But is it an American interest to see reform and respect for human rights in the region? Of course it is, and it’s one that I think, you know, will continue on into the next administration as well.

Your second question had to do with the statements about Jerusalem. Those actually were not his statements on Jerusalem. He made a statement at a speech at APEC where he talked about an undivided Jerusalem, caught himself quite quickly, and I think very smartly, when he issued a correction, when to the Jerusalem Post with the correction, didn’t – you know, go to another source, went to the Jerusalem Post and said that wasn’t the language I was – I’d used before. The language I’ve used before is I do not see the city being divided by barriers and barbed wire, et cetera. He was making, I think, a very smart point, and that is that even if you talk to Palestinians, Palestinians don’t want to see Jerusalem as a divided city. The question is the language that was used in that speech was language that has become sort of code words for something very different, and it’s become code words for language that it will not be part of a political solution with the Palestinians. He did not mean to say that, and he meant – and he corrected himself or clarified his remarks, rather, rather quickly and made it clear not that it is negotiable but that it has always been a part of what a final solution between Israelis and Palestinians is. But he doesn't see it in the end as being – as the way to solve that issue, sort of physically dividing it, putting a barrier in the middle and barbed wire, and having this side be one side and this side be the other side. And like I said, as far back as Faisal Husseini when he begin talking about this as part of a final solution, it was always clear that Palestinians did not want to see Jerusalem as a physically divided entity.

Yes.

QUESTION: Christoph Marschall from the German daily Der Tagespiegel. I have two questions. The first is do you have any guess why we had no involvement of al-Qaida in these elections? I was not –

DR. ZOGBY: Of?

QUESTION: Of al-Qaida or terrorists.

DR. ZOGBY: Oh.

QUESTION: There was no tape, videotapes. There was no attack. This was feared. Do you have any guess why?

And the second question is what is the priority – I mean, we are here with foreign journalists. Of course, if everybody could, he would ask you which country is he first to visit, what he is doing about our visa problems, what is he – and so on and so on. So you are talking a little bit more with him, so what are his priorities? Until now, you mentioned Iraq, Iran, the Middle East conflict and Afghanistan. And what about the rest of the world? Is it – are these the priorities –

DR. ZOGBY: Look, these are not issues I’ve talked to him about, but they’re issues that I’ve talked with others in the foreign policy team on. I was involved in the – what we called the ethnic outreach council.

And clearly, the issue of Russia has become of concern, and he has made that clear that it is a concern. And I think that while he got some criticism from some on the right for what they called a wavering position, I think he, in fact, was correct the very first few days of the conflict to urge caution and calm on all sides, but then only after it became clear that the problem was one that was not going to be resolved easily did he begin to make stronger statements about what was Russia was doing and the dangers that it was posing to the region. He did not go to the lengths of John McCain and, you know, I think rather cavalierly start talking about the G-7 instead of the G-8, as it if were a fait accompli, et cetera.

But I think his clear interest in protecting NATO, expanding NATO, protecting the countries and the path to democracy for the countries of Eastern and Central Europe, and dealing with Russian adventurism in a way that makes it clear that it is not an acceptable approach, I think those are all things that he’s been pretty clear about.

I think, though, that because we have 150,000 American troops, and because we have an arena where we’ve already lost more than 4,000 American lives, and because we have al-Qaida that is in Pakistan and Afghanistan and is threatening both, and threatening us as well, that there’s no question that those will remain for the American people priorities in terms of issues that have to be addressed.

With regard to why al-Qaida didn’t do whatever it does, I haven’t talked to them recently, so – (laughter) – so I just – I don’t know. No, I think there was a lot of anticipation that there would be some kind of an October surprise, and I just don’t know. How to understand why they attacked when they did, why they haven’t attacked since, why they have issued – why they issue statements when they do, why they don’t when they do, why they’ve targeted some of the countries that they’ve targeted, I just – I do not – there are some who see a greater intelligence behind the plan of al-Qaida. I’m not sure I do. It appears to me to be more a situation of extremists looking for opportunity more than it is a grand design with, you know, a carefully laid out scenario for world domination.

I heard some commentator talking last night about their quest for world domination. I’m not quite sure that this is the case. And Larry Wright -- Lawrence Wright who wrote the book, “The Looming Tower,” is somebody I got to know a bit, and he describes them a bit more like the gang that couldn’t shoot straight than – they – it’s hard to say “lucked out.” You know, 9/11 wasn’t lucking out. It was a hideous act of murder of thousands of innocent people. But it was not something – evidence of the degree to which there was some sophistication in that particular plan is true, that does not seem to me to be borne out in the broader activities of that organization. And I think that they are, in some ways, beneficiaries of a lot of hype, some of their own doing, and a lot of support for that hype by international media looking for an intelligence behind the screen. I’m not quite sure it’s as much that as we give them credit for.

Yes. Oh, sorry, yes, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Filipa Sebova [Prima TV] and I’m from the Czech Republic Prague. The biggest issue linked with the United States in Czech Republic is the radar. It is Poland and Czech Republic who’s involved in the radar. And now we’re not sure, but it is going to built or not. And also, is the issue why Russian send many of spies in our country, and we are sort of like a battlefield between America and Russia at the moment. Do you think the foreign policy of next president would change it?

DR. ZOGBY: You know, I don’t know. One could say, flippantly, it takes two to tango, and the Czech Republic was in this dance as well. And I still have questions as to why they agreed to the radar. I’m not quite sure I understood the whole situation. I know that your country’s taking over the EU presidency, and your president doesn’t seem to support the EU, and so I’m a little confused about that as well. This is not an area of my expertise.

But I do not know. I do not know what the benefits to your country of the radar are. And just as – I guess, to be honest and confess my ignorance about something else, the missiles in Poland, the missile defense in Poland. When they say that it’s to protect against Iranian missiles, I’m not quite sure I get that one either. And so I’m a little baffled about some of what this Administration’s actions have been about and whether or not they have been unnecessarily provocative. I just don’t know, and I can’t answer that for you. Sorry.

Yes, you. I’m sorry, I did recognize you before, and then you. Yeah.

QUESTION: I’m Jackie Khoury from Ashams Radio station and Ha’aretz, Israel, daily newspaper. You know, the pro-Israeli lobby or (inaudible) lobby in United States, we think that is the powerful lobbyer in the United States and all the presidents need this lobby for – to be elected. Do you think that Mr. Obama because he succeeded very well in this election and, you know, the young voters vote for him, he feel more free to – and this, when he wanted to be more involved in the Arab-Israeli, you know, process. And do you think that Mr. Obama can be more involved in the Palestinian Authority to push to them to make election also – you know, what Mr. Bush do with Abu Mazen and he loses there, you know. But do you think that he can do anything more to be – solve the problem – Palestinian problem?

DR. ZOGBY: Let me be clear, there is a very powerful role that Israel plays in American domestic politics. And it is at this point ingrained into our political process and into our political system, and that’s not going to change. It is not the function of a single group, nor is it the function of any conspiratorial entity. It is the result of many years of work by many different organizations, some of them on the Jewish side and some of them on the Christian side who – and some of them on the secular, political, ideological side, who have combined to produce a set of formulae about how we approach issues that has largely been supportive of Israel on multiple fronts, not just in terms of negotiations with the Palestinians. That’s not going to change as a principle.

But I think what is changing is in terms of the – on the level of political constituencies in the country, you talk about young people emerging as a new factor, and that’s true. And there also is a change within the Jewish community that’s very important to understand. There’s not just one way of being for Israel, and new groups are emerging that I think are quite significant to pay attention to. They have a presence on the Hill, they have a presence on the grassroots of the Jewish community, on campuses, and they reflect, to some degree, what the broader opinion of American Jews, which actually when we poll Arab Americans and American Jews, they’re within the margin of error of each other. Both want the same things. And not unlike in Israel, they want a more open debate on these issues, they want a political solution with the Palestinians, they want an end to settlements that are provocative, as well as wanting an end to terrorism, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, this is something I think that needs to be better understood.

What I find interesting is that a lot of those young people in the Jewish community found their home in the Obama campaign. And some of the leadership in the Obama campaign also come from that wing of the Jewish community, which is why it didn’t surprise me when I heard Barack Obama say to a meeting of Jewish leaders there’s more than one way to be pro-Israel. And – but being pro-Israel, that’s set. You are not going to get an American president – and despite the wishes of some in some parts of the Arab world for a president who will become anti-Israel, that’s never going to happen. Nor should it happen, given the relationship that our country has with the state of Israel. That’s not going to change.

What is going to change – not is going to change, what could change is how one carries out being pro-Israel. And I think people have to ask themselves a question. And as I’ve done, as I’ve gone to Jewish audiences all over the country in the last several years, the question is: Has George Bush actually been pro-Israel? Is Israel safer? Is it more secure? Is Israel closer to the stability and peace that it wants? Is it closer to recognition and normalization of its relations with the Arab countries, given the path that it’s on and the path that George Bush has pursued? And the answer is no to all of those.

And so the question, therefore, is: Is an American president going to be pro-Israel? Yes. But being pro-Israel ought to be helping Israel make peace with Arabs, helping Israel become more secure in the region, helping Israel normalize its relationship with the rest of the Arab world, which means ultimately, and rather initially, normalizing its relation with Palestinians, with Syrians, and with Lebanese. That can come. It will take new American leadership to help make it happen. It will also take significant work inside Israel to make it happen. And as I said, there’s something on the Palestinian side.

The question is will Barack Obama do it? I think he is probably more inclined to do it than anyone else that I’ve seen come into the White House in a long time. He is more understanding of the issues than anyone I’ve ever seen. The question is does he get the chance to do it in terms of dealing with all the other significant priorities that he has. I know he wants to make a priority of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but a lot of things have to break right for him to do this. There’s an election in Israel. What’s going to happen? If you have Netanyahu elected or a government in Israel that is decidedly against peace, it’s going to be a tough row to hoe, and we have to understand that.

Will the Palestinians continue to have in their internal relationship a kind of a deterioration of -- you know, of the Palestinian body polity. I don’t know. And if that continues to happen, that’s also more difficult.

So I think a lot of people have to step up to the plate to make the changes here that we want to see. But my sense would be if the situation were ripe, if those who want a peaceful solution win in Israel, if the Arab world is able to help the Palestinians move toward reconciliation and move toward an agreement that puts them on the path to peace, if you had a Barack Obama sworn in as president in January, and by early spring the table were set with parties ready to make a deal and the Arab world ready, you would have a president more receptive to getting engaged in that than I think the situation as it currently is right now.

Yeah. Oh, I’m sorry. Here and then here, and then I guess that’s it.

QUESTION: Steve Kaufman with America.gov. I want to ask a more domestic question. This election, you mentioned Arab Americans working with the Obama campaign, but I wanted to specifically focus on the New Hampshire Senate race, where we had Jeanne Shaheen and John Sununu, and whether this was kind of a first of its kind race between two Lebanese Americans or Arab Americans on that level. If so, was this something that the community took note of? Did it have a symbolism thing? I just wonder if you could relay your thoughts and maybe some things that you may have heard within the community. Thank you.

DR. ZOGBY: Wrong on both counts. It actually was a Palestinian American running against an Irish American, but that’s another story.

No, let me tell you, Jeanne Shaheen is somebody I know very well, and I know her husband Billy even better. He is Lebanese American. She is not. And he has been a part of work we’ve done, and I’ve taken them on trips to the Middle East and – a trip, rather, to the Middle East, but it was – you know, they’re really good people.

John Sununu is somebody I know better and do not know of any single senator who has made more of a difference on issues involving the Middle East than this man. I’m a Democrat and don’t agree with him on a whole lot of issues, but I can recall instances where when the Senate was just completely wrong on some issues, John Sununu, quietly and in a very studied way, went about reworking legislation, building trust with his colleagues.

Despite the fact that he was only in for one term, he did an extraordinary job of earning trust among people as the guy who knew this stuff and was turned to make a difference. At the time of the Lebanon war in 2006, the Senate passed a bill right off the bat that was just horrible. He and Lincoln Chaffee worked very, very hard; piece by piece by piece, they took that legislation apart, they retooled it, they made it into something that the Senate could be proud of and that America could be in a position to make a real contribution. The reintroduced it in the closing days of that particular – that year’s session, and they got it passed. And I will never forget the kind of work they did and the consultation that was involved, the people that they brought in. This doesn't happen with a first-termer unless he’s actually, you know, put his nose to the grindstone, done the work. and earned the trust of his colleagues that they would actually trust him with issues of that delicacy. This is a good man, and I am very sorry that he will no longer be in the Senate. It is a – it’s a loss, I think, for our work for Middle East. But you know, here was a problem where not two Lebanese Americans were running against each other, but two friends were running against each other, two people I know and like very much. And yeah, it was a problem for a lot of people.

But I think that I wish they hadn’t been in the same contest with each other. But the Senate is going to be a poorer place without John Sununu there. I think that there’s no question. I like Jeanne. I think she’s a very, very good person and a very smart person, but I’m going to miss John. This is not – this was not the contest I wanted to see happen. Let me put it that way.

Yes, last one.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. I am from Armenian Television. I suppose this question is – should be addressed to office of Mr. Obama or to himself probably, but –

DR. ZOGBY: Then I’ll let you go and – (laughter). Okay, sorry.

QUESTION: Probably you can offer your vision as an expert and also your origin from east. So one of changes that Mr. Obama was offering during the campaign was change concerning recognition of Armenian genocide by United States. For a long period, recognition was being blocked, especially by (inaudible). So in his – during his campaign, he wrote several letters to Armenian American community in United States, pledging that after taking the office he’ll be the president that will support the resolution in Congress. But the point is that many other presidents before, during campaign were also offering such kind of pledge that they will agree to resolution, and after taking – by the way, current president as well – but after taking White House they were like breaking this pledge.

What do you think? Is it possible that change will touch this area as well, and despite Turkish contrary actions, which are supposed he may be the president who will acknowledge the genocide? Thank you.

DR. ZOGBY: You know, I’ve seen the statements, and I think they’re smart and they’re very thoughtful on his part. One thing I know, I do know about Barack Obama, having followed his work on many issues, is that he actually seeks to address questions in ways that do not divide people but bring them together. And so I cannot speak directly to how he will approach this issue, but my instinct would be that he will find a way to address this concern in a way that makes the Armenian community feel secure, recognized and respected in terms of the historical injustice that was done to them, but does so in a manner that does not create a rift between the United States and Turkey, and between the Turkish and Armenian communities. I’m proud of the fact that in our Ethnic Council in the Democratic Party we have both, and you know, I walk into the meetings sometime and I – you know, in the middle of the ‘90s and I’d look at a table and I’d see our Croatian representative and our Serbian representative and our Albanian representative sitting at the same table working things out. That’s the American experience that we’ve learned. That’s what we need to be exporting, and not to be in a position of pitting people against each other.

I don’t know how he will address this, but my instinct would be that this is a guy who wants to bring people together. And I will leave it at that, and I thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Dr. Zogby. Thank you all for coming today.