Podcast appearances and mentions of Shibley Telhami

United States President Donald Trump plans to tout trillions of dollars of Arab investments in the US as a major achievement, but other issues are at stake, says University of Maryland professor Shibley Telhami. Israel is threatening to further destroy the Gaza Strip unless progress is made in its ceasefire talks with Hamas. Meanwhile, Israel has refused to allow any food to enter Gaza - home to more than 2 million Palestinians - for more than two months. And despite Israeli objections, Trump may soon be able to reach a deal with Iran on its nuclear program. Subscribe to our channel: http://bit.ly/AJSubscribe Follow us on X : https://twitter.com/AJEnglish Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera Check our website: http://www.aljazeera.com/ Check out our Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/aljazeeraenglish/ Download AJE Mobile App: https://aje.io/AJEMobile #aljazeera #aljazeeraenglish #aljazeeranewslive

This is a recording of an NJN webinar on April 24th, 2025 Drs. Shibley Telhami and Marc Lynch, co-chairs of the Middle East Scholar Barometer, say that they have seen a “chilling effect" on the working atmosphere for Middle East scholars. Many US-based academics and scholars already felt an increasing need to self-censor when addressing the Israeli-Palestinian issue professionally. The Trump administration has put unprecedented pressure on higher education. Now, scholars face an environment in which the intensity and pace of campus protests have subsided, but the overall environment has remained oppressive and uncertain as political pressure from above has increased. Self-censorship remains rampant while actual censorship appears to be increasing. To talk about and make sense of this frightening scenario, Dr. Telhami sat down with our President and CEO Hadar Susskind for a conversation. Shibley Telhami is the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, the Director of the University of Maryland's Critical Issues Poll, and a Distinguished Scholar-Teacher. He is also a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. Before coming to the University of Maryland, he taught at several universities, including the University of California at Berkeley, where he received his doctorate in political science. He has authored and edited numerous books, including one forthcoming book: Peace Derailed: Obama, Trump, Biden, and the Decline of Diplomacy on Israel/Palestine, 2011-2022 (co-authored). His most recent book is a co-edited volume with contributions, The One State Reality: What is Israel/Palestine?, which was published in March 2023 with Cornell University Press. He has advised every U.S. administration from George H.W. Bush to Barack Obama. Washingtonian Magazine listed him as one of the “Most Influential People on Foreign Affairs” in both 2022 and 2023.

Since we're reporting on the ground from Malmo, our regularly scheduled episode will come out at the end of the week to coincide with Eurovision 2024! Until then we'd love to share two previous episodes we think set this year's contest up well. This is our episode about Israel's participation in Eurovision.   Guests: Paul Jordan (Dr. Eurovision), Dave Keating (Brussels Based EU Reporter), and Elias Jahshan (This Arab is Queer) featured in the Deep Dive - 1:37 Zack Beauchamp (Senior Foreign Policy Correspondent, Vox.com) - 27:24 Professor Shibley Telhami (Brookings Institute, Council of Foreign Relations) - 45:47 This week, we're talking about the controversy surrounding Israel's participation in Eurovision. First we talk about the history of countries being sanctioned by Eurovision, and try to get at the fundamental questions of values that underlie the debate over whether Israel should participate. We turn to Eurovision expert Dr. Paul Jordan, EU expert Dave Keating, and editor of "This Arab is Queer," Elias Jahshan for context. Then, we turn to two experts for further context concerning the war in Gaza and where the conflict stands. Zack Beauchamp is a senior Foreign Policy Correspondent at Vox, and Shibley Telhami holds the Anwar Sadat Professorship for Peace and Development at University of Maryland, a senior non-resident fellow at Brookings, and has authored, co-authored and edited several books, including the One State Reality. He has advised every American president from George H.W. Bush to Barack Obama.   Deep Dive Videos:   Bashar Murad, Wild West, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Moqt2hnlEM   Eden Golan, Hurricane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJYn09tuPw4   Books by our Guests:   Zack Beauchamp, The Reactionary Spirit: How America's Most Insidious Political Tradition Swept the World  https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/154170441X?tag=hacboogrosit-20   Shibley Telhami, Nathan Brown, Michael Barnett, Marc Lynch, The One State Reality, https://www.amazon.com/One-State-Reality-Israel-Palestine/dp/1501768409/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=   Elias Jahshan, This Arab is Queer, https://www.amazon.com/This-Arab-Queer-Anthology-Writers/dp/086356478X   Dr. Paul Jordan, The Modern Fairytale https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/33429        

This week on the show, Fareed speaks with Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland, about Netanyahu's plans for Rafah, and Chuck Schumer's calls for elections in Israel. Is the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a mirage? Then, the U.S. House of representatives passed a bill this week that could lead to a bank on TikTok. Fareed hosts a spirited debate with Kori Schake, director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, and former general counsel at the National Security Agency Glenn Gerstell. They discuss the security risks that the Chinese-owned app poses for its 170 million American users, and whether the ban could have first amendment implications. Next, Paul Scharre of the Center for a New American Security provides a chilling update on the future of fully autonomous weapons. Will machines soon make decisions on the battlefield without humans?  Finally, Amy Wilentz, contributing editor at The Nation, joins the show to shed light on the chaos that is unfolding in Haiti, as gangs run rampant in the capital.    GUESTS: Shibley Telhami (@ShibleyTelhami), Kori Schake (@KoriSchake), Glenn Gerstell , Paul Scharre (@paul_scharre), Amy Wilentz (@amywilentz) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Guests:   Paul Jordan (Dr. Eurovision), Dave Keating (Brussels Based EU Reporter), and Elias Jahshan (This Arab is Queer) featured in the Deep Dive - 1:37 Zack Beauchamp (Senior Foreign Policy Correspondent, Vox.com) - 27:24 Professor Shibley Telhami (Brookings Institute, Council of Foreign Relations) - 45:47 This week, we're talking about the controversy surrounding Israel's participation in Eurovision. First we talk about the history of countries being sanctioned by Eurovision, and try to get at the fundamental questions of values that underlie the debate over whether Israel should participate. We turn to Eurovision expert Dr. Paul Jordan, EU expert Dave Keating, and editor of "This Arab is Queer," Elias Jahshan for context. Then, we turn to two experts for further context concerning the war in Gaza and where the conflict stands. Zack Beauchamp is a senior Foreign Policy Correspondent at Vox, and Shibley Telhami holds the Anwar Sadat Professorship for Peace and Development at University of Maryland, a senior non-resident fellow at Brookings, and has authored, co-authored and edited several books, including the One State Reality. He has advised every American president from George H.W. Bush to Barack Obama.   Deep Dive Videos:   Bashar Murad, Wild West, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Moqt2hnlEM   Eden Golan, Hurricane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJYn09tuPw4   Books by our Guests:   Zack Beauchamp, The Reactionary Spirit: How America's Most Insidious Political Tradition Swept the World  https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/154170441X?tag=hacboogrosit-20   Shibley Telhami, Nathan Brown, Michael Barnett, Marc Lynch, The One State Reality, https://www.amazon.com/One-State-Reality-Israel-Palestine/dp/1501768409/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=   Elias Jahshan, This Arab is Queer, https://www.amazon.com/This-Arab-Queer-Anthology-Writers/dp/086356478X   Dr. Paul Jordan, The Modern Fairytale https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/33429        

University of Maryland professor Shibley Telhami says US President Joe Biden is making his decisions on Palestine and Israel “based on personal beliefs, personal preferences, personal emotions,” and “not necessarily driven by a considered assessment of American interests at stake”.Telhami tells host Steve Clemons that Biden's “inability to show empathy” for the Palestinians is shocking, and that the president's recent warnings to Israel were driven in part by his calculations for next year's election.All the talk about plans for “the day after” the war are distractions from the real-time death and destruction in Gaza, Telhami says.

Join us on today's episode of The Pirate Stream - Dialectical Dissidents. Pirate Stream Media is a new platform of dedicated content creators focused on circumventing the tightly controlled, manipulated, and outright censored media space of today (both corporate and independent media) with a commitment to objectivity, integrity, and a stark awareness of the two party illusion. The Pirate Stream, is our flagship podcast. !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2q643"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");   Rumble("play", {"video":"v3y183n","div":"rumble_v3y183n"}); Video Source Links (In Chronological Order): GiveSendGo - Covering The Culmination Of The Fluoride Trial: The Leader in Freedom Fundraising. The 'Blue Shirts' of October 7 - by Michael Ginsburg The 'Blue Shirts' of October 7 Israel Knew Hamas's Attack Plan Over a Year Ago - The New York Times (55) Propaganda and co on X: "Title says "Testimony After Testimony" on a Hamas rape campaign But the article says, "the commission has not taken testimony directly" No victims, no rape kits, no semen, no physical evidence for rape but the lies won't stop. Care to explain @CochavElkayam & @haaretzcom? https://t.co/IjOekZYBG7" / X (52) LastAmericanVagabond on X: "@DrEliDavid You are drowning in your own lies. Yes, we remember when he called this out. The same lie that Haaretz just confirmed is a lie, you know that. Yet you continue to use this lie to justify - cheer on even - this innocent man's death. You are a disgusting. https://t.co/eESHiJsdfO https://t.co/czewROdf7x" / X (52) LastAmericanVagabond on X: "Legacy media and the Israeli government expect you to not examine evidence and simply believe their atrocity propaganda claims of rape during Oct. 7th. Ryan reviews the claims and proves it's disinfo. Part 1: https://t.co/N8FFWzlVYh Part 2: https://t.co/2AvJdm4iDT https://t.co/toY59CjgCZ" / X טבח חמאס גרר הפצת סיפורי זוועות שלא כולם קרו במציאות. האמת קשה מספיק - מדיני ביטחוני - הארץ A growing number of reports indicate Israeli forces responsible for Israeli civilian and military deaths following October 7 attack – Mondoweiss October 7 testimonies reveal Israel's military ‘shelling' Israeli citizens with tanks, missiles - The Grayzone Israeli October 7 posterchild was killed by Israeli tank, eyewitnesses reveal - The Grayzone הערכה במערכת הביטחון: בחמאס לא ידעו מראש על פסטיבל נובה, וזיהו אותו מהאוויר - מדיני ביטחוני - הארץ (71) LastAmericanVagabond on X: "In a meeting of the Israeli finance committee, Noam Dan, who still has family held in Gaza, said: "we know for sure that three people were killed by our fire, three hostages". https://t.co/N8FFWzlo8J #October7 #FalseFlag" / X Why Israel Created Hamas (53) Propaganda and co on X: "These IDF soldiers entered a kibbutz with a tank. “Are there civilians inside?” “I don't know. Just shoot!” Some fired machine gun rounds. Others fired projectiles (shells). https://t.co/dmVzitBgM7" / X (30) Haaretz.com on X: "“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” Netanyahu told his Likud party's Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy" https://t.co/7lTQs9E5Zf" / X Evidence Shows Israel Killed Own Citizens On The 7th & 53 UN Staff, Journalists Deliberately Killed New Tab (71) Max Blumenthal on X: "“Jewish students” fund a false flag hate crime https://t.co/668i7bHgp5" / X New Tab (64) Shibley Telhami on X: "Eighty-two percent of all U.S.-based respondents,

On this week's episode of the podcast, Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland joins Marc Lynch to discuss the Middle East Scholar Barometer. The Middle East Scholar Barometer is a project of University of Maryland's Critical Issues Poll and George Washington University's Project on Middle East Political Science. It aims to probe the assessments of scholars of the Middle East, particularly members of the American Political Science Association specializing on the Middle East and North Africa and members of Middle East Studies Association, on critical issues of the day. Telhami discusses the origins of the Middle East Scholar Barometer, how it's run and what it measures. Music for this season's podcast was created by Malika Zarra. You can find more of her work on Instagram and Linktree.

The Host of the COP 28 Climate Summit in Dubai Exposed as a Cynic Willing to Sacrifice the Planet for Money and Power | Hugging Netanyahu is Hurting Biden | Charles Koch's $5 Billion Political Slush Fund Will Try to Elect Nikki Haley President backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

José Miguel Vivanco, adjunct senior fellow for human rights at CFR and former executive director of the Americas division at Human Rights Watch, leads the conversation on human rights in Latin America. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the Fall 2023 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record. The video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org, if you would like to share them with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have José Miguel Vivanco with us to discuss human rights in Latin America. Mr. Vivanco is an adjunct senior fellow for human rights at CFR and partner at Dentons Global Advisors. He formerly served as the executive director of the Americas Division at Human Rights Watch, where he supervised fact-finding research for numerous reports on gross violations of human rights and advocated strengthening international legal standards and domestic compliance throughout the region. He is the founder of the Center for Justice and International Law, an international civil society organization providing legal and technical assistance with the Inter-American Human Rights System. So, José Miguel, thank you very much for being with us today. I thought you could begin by giving us an overview of what you see as the most important human rights challenges and advances in Latin America today. VIVANCO: Well, thank you very much for this invitation. It is a pleasure to be with you all and to talk for an hour about human rights problems, human rights issues in Latin America. Let me first make a couple of points. First, I think it's very important that, in retrospect, if you look at Latin America in the 1960s, 1970s, and even 1980s, it was a region that was pretty much run by military dictatorships. So if you look at historically, the region is not in such a bad shape. I know that this comment is quite controversial and many experts who follow the region closely might disagree with that statement, but objectively speaking I think we need to recognize that most of the region is run today—with the exception, obviously, of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua—by democracies, weak democracies, the kind of democracies that we have in Latin America are facing very serious challenges and with endemic problems such as corruption, abuse of power, lack of transparency, lack of proper accountability, and so on and so forth. But in general terms, this is a region that has a chance to conduct some self-correction. In other words, electoral democracy is a very, very important value in the region, and the citizens—most of the people are able to either reward or punish the incumbent government at the times of elections. That is not a minor detail. It is extremely important, especially if you take into account that during the last twenty years in Latin America, if I'm not wrong, the vast majority of the governments elected were from the opposition. The statistics, I think, show that in eighteen of the twenty last presidential elections, the winner has been the party of the opposition; which means that even though our democracies in Latin America are dysfunctional, weak, messy, slow, you know, short-term-oriented, obviously, but at least citizens take their rights seriously and they exercise their powers so that is why you see a regular zigzag or, you know, transfer of power from a left-wing government to a right-wing government or vice versa. And that is, again, something that is, obviously, a very, very important tool of self-correction. And that, obviously, includes or has an impact in terms of the human rights record of those countries. You know, I'm not—I'm not addressing yet—I will leave it for the Q&A section—conditions in those three dictatorships in Latin America. Let me just make some few more remarks about one of the biggest challenges that I see in the region. And that is, obviously, the rise of autocracy or autocratic leaders, populist leaders, leaders who are not interested or as a matter of fact are very hostile to the concept of rule of law and the concept of independence of the judiciary. And they usually are very charismatic. They have high level of popular support. And they run and govern the country in a style that is like a permanent campaign, where they normally go against minorities and against the opposition, against the free media, against judges and prosecutors who dare to investigate them or investigate the government. Anyone who challenges them are subject of this type of reaction. And that is, unfortunately, something that we have seen in Mexico recently and until today, and in Brazil, especially during the administration of President Bolsonaro. The good news about, in the case of Brazil, is that, thanks to electoral democracy, it was possible to defeat him and—democratically. And the second very important piece of information is that even though Brazil is not a model of rule of law and separation of power, we have to acknowledge that, thanks to the checks-and-balance exercise by the Supreme Court of Brazil, it was possible to do some permanent, constant damage control against the most outrageous initiatives promoted by the administration of President Bolsonaro. That, I think, is one of the biggest challenges in the region. Let me conclude my—make crystal clear that there are serious human rights problems in Latin America today regarding, for instance, abuse of power, police brutality, prison problems. Prisons are really, in most of the countries in the region, a disaster. And you know, a big number of prisoners are awaiting trial, in detention and unable to really exercise their rights. And unfortunately, populist leaders use the prison system or essentially criminal law, by expanding the practice and enlarging the numbers of crimes that could be subject of pretrial detention, and—you know, regardless of the time that it will take for that case to be prosecuted in full respect for the rule—due process, and so on and so forth. And that—the reason is very simple. There is a real demand in Latin America for policies that will address insecurity, citizen security. If you look at statistics in terms of crime rate, it is going up in most of the country. Obviously, there are big difference between countries like Mexico, for instance, or Colombia, and if you link—if you look at the power of cartels and big mafias, and gangs in other countries, or petty crime impacting the daily life of the citizens. Regardless of that point, one of the biggest demands in Latin America is for better and more public security. And that's why political leaders, usually the solution for that request and demand is to put people in prison with essentially no real due process and increase the number of prisoners without conviction. There are challenges for free speech occasionally, of those leaders who resent scrutiny of their practice. And normally there is a campaign against free media. And there are some attempts in some countries to constantly look for ways to undermine the independence of the judiciary. Keep in mind, for instance, that now in Argentina the whole Supreme Court is under impeachment, and it's essentially an impeachment promoted by the current government because they disagree with the rulings, positions of the Supreme Court. All the justices on the Supreme Court are subject of this political trial conducted by the Argentine Congress. That is a concrete example of the kinds of risks that are present for judges and the judiciary in general, when they exercise their power and they attempt to protect the integrity of the constitution. So let me stop here and we can move on to the most interesting part of this event. FASKIANOS: Well, that was quite interesting. So, thank you, José Miguel. We appreciate it. We going to go to all of you now for your questions. (Gives queuing instructions.) We already have some hands up. We will go first to Karla Soto Valdes. Q: My name is Karla Soto. I'm from Lewis University. My question is, what specific measures could be implemented to address and/or prevent trafficking within the asylum-seeking community during their journey to the U.S.? VIVANCO: Irina, are we going to take several questions, or? FASKIANOS: I think we should do one at a time. VIVANCO: Well, Karla, there are multiple tools to address that specific issue. But this applies to essentially most of the human rights problems all over the world. The menu is pretty ample, but depends on one important factor—whether the government involved cares about its own reputation. That is a very important premise here, because if you we are dealing with a democratic government, once again, it's not—when I refer to a democratic government, I don't have in mind a sort of Jeffersonian model, I'm referring to the kind of democracies that we have in Latin America. But, if the leaders in charge are—you know, they care about their own reputation, they care about domestic debate, very important, because these types of revelations usually have ramifications at the local level. If they pay close attention to those issues, I think it's possible to apply, essentially, the technique of naming and shaming. In other words, collecting information, documenting what exactly is happening, and revealing that information to the public, locally and internationally. That is going to create naturally a reaction, a process, an awareness, and local pressure is—hopefully, it's not just twenty-four hours news, so splash—big splash, but also will trigger some dynamics. If we are dealing with a country that is run by a dictatorship, it is a very, very different question, because normally you're facing a leader, a government, who couldn't care less about its own reputation. They have taken already and assume the cost of doing business in that type of context. Now, sometimes conditions are kind of mixed, where you have democratic country in general—so there is still free media, there is an opposition, there is Congress, there are elections. But the government in charge is so—is run by an autocratic leader. That makes, you know, quite—a little more challenging to just document and reveal that information. And you need to think about some particular agenda, governmental agenda. Some specific interests of the government in different areas. Let me see—let me give you an example. Let's say that the Bolsonaro administration is seriously interested in an incorporation into the OECD in Paris. That is an important piece of information. Whatever you think that is relevant information regarding the record of that government, you could provide information to an entity that is precisely evaluating the record of the government. And the government will be much more willing to address those issues because they have a genuine interest in achieving some specific goal at the international level. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. We're going to go to Nicole Ambar De Santos, who is an undergraduate student at the Washington University in St. Louis: When we consider weak democracy in a more personal sense, like Peru, the controversy of obligation to help these nations arises. How much third party or other nations, such as the United States, intervene? VIVANCO: Tricky question. Peruvian democracy is quite messy. Part of the problem is that the system, the political system, needs some real reform to avoid the proliferation of small political parties and to create the real link or relationship between leaders, especially in Congress, and their constituencies, and so they are much more accountable to their community, the ones who elected them. I don't think the U.S., or any other government, has a direct role to play in that area. My sense is that when we are looking into a dysfunctional democracy that deserve some probably even constitutional reforms, that is essentially a domestic job. That is the work that needs to be done by Peruvians. Without a local consensus about the reforms that need to be implemented in the political system, my sense is that it's going to be very difficult for the U.S. or any other large democracy, to address those kinds of points. It's very different, that type of conversation, from a conversation or an assessment of universal values, such as human rights. When we are looking into cases of police brutality, for instance, the international community has a role to play. But if I were part of the conversation or evaluation by the U.S. government or the European Union with regard to this dysfunctional democracy in Peru, I would approach very carefully by suggesting creating the right type of incentives, more than questions of punishment, or sanctions. It's incentives for them to create the right conditions to address the domestic problem that is—has become quite endemic, in the case of Peru. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Matthew. Matthew, you don't have a last name, so can you identify yourself? Q: Hello. Yes, my name is Matthew. I am a junior student from Arizona State University studying business, but working on a thesis that has to do with human rights and the ethics of supply chain management. My question is, you were talking at the very beginning kind of just about history and how understanding history is important. And what I was hoping to get was, why is understanding history and culture important when working to address human rights issues, history of dictatorship, colonialism? In cultures it's socially acceptable things, like child labor, in some countries, that's not acceptable in Western ideology. So, yeah, just how is history and culture important when working to address human rights for the future? VIVANCO: Matthew, I think you're referring to two different issues. History is central. It's really, really relevant. Because that helps you—if you—if you follow your history, especially periods of time when massive and gross violations were committed in Latin America, it's important to put things in context and value what you have today. And the job is to—not only to preserve democracy, but also to look for ways to strengthen democracy. Because part of the problem is that domestic debate is so polarized today, not just in Latin America, all over the world, that sometimes people—different, you know, segments of society—in their positions, they're so dismissive of the other side, that they don't realize that we need to frame our debate in a constructive way. Let me put it—one specific example. If the government of Argentina, who is a government very receptive and very sensitive to vast and gross violations of human rights committed during the military dictatorship, so in other words, I don't need to lecture that government on that subject. They are actually the people who vote for the current government of Argentina—not the new government, the current government of Argentina—is deeply committed to those kinds of issues. I think that one of the biggest lessons that you should learn from the past is the relevance of protecting the independence of the judiciary. If you don't have an independent judiciary, and the judiciary becomes an entity that is an appendix of the ruling party or is intimidated by politics, and they could be subject of impeachment procedures every time that they rule something, that the powerful—the establishment disagree, I think they're playing with fire, and they're not really paying attention to the lessons that you learn from recent history in Latin America. That would be my first comment regarding that type of issue. And the second one, about you mentioned specifically cultural problems, culture, tensions or conflicts. And you mentioned—your example was child labor. And, and you suggested that that—the combination of child labor is something typical of Western ideology. If I'm not wrong, that was the language that you used. I would—I would push back on that point. And because this is not just a Western or European commitment. This is a universal one. And this is reflected on international treaties, and that are supposed to eradicate that kind of practice. If you give up to the concept of local traditions, you know, cultural, you know, issues that you need to pay attention, sure, as long as they are not to be in conflict with fundamental human rights. Otherwise, in half of the planet you're not going to have women rights, and women will be subject of traditional control. And you wouldn't have rights for minorities, and especially—and not only, but especially—the LGBTQ community. And you wouldn't have rights for racial minorities, or different religious beliefs. So, we have to watch and be very careful about what type of concessions we make to cultural traditions. I am happy to understand that different communities in Latin America might have different traditions, but there is some firm, solid, and unquestionable minimum that are the these universal human rights values that are not the property or monopoly of anyone. You know, these are—and this is not an ethical conversation. This is a legal one, because these values are protected under international law. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to combine or take two questions. The first question is from Lindsay Bert, who is at the department of political science at Muhlenberg College, who asks if you could speak on the efficacy of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in addressing the human rights violations you described. And the second question is from Leonard Onyebuchi Ophoke, a graduate student at Cavendish University in Uganda: Why is it almost impossible to hold the actors that violate human rights accountable? What could be done to make the mechanism more enforceable? VIVANCO: The inter-American system of human rights protection, there is nothing similar to inter-American system of human rights protection in the Global South. You don't have something similar in Asia, or Africa, or the Middle East. In other words, you don't have a mechanism where ultimately a court, a court of law—not just a commission, a court of law—handle individual cases, specific complaints of human rights abuses, and governments participate in public hearings. The parties involved have the obligation to present evidence before the court, and the court finally ruled on the specific matters where its decisions are binding. The number of issues that have been addressed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the last thirty years in Latin America are really incredible. And the impact—this is most important point—the impact at a local level is remarkable. In the area, for instance, of torture, disappearances. I'm referring to the elaboration of concepts and the imposing the obligation of local governments to adjust their legislation and practice, and to address specific problems or issues by providing remedies to victims. That is quite unusual. And the court has remarkable rulings on free speech, on discrimination issues, on indigenous populations, on military jurisdiction. One of the typical recourse of governments in the region when security forces were involved in human rights atrocities was to invoke military jurisdiction. So they say, no worries, we are going to investigate our own crimes. And the court has been actually very, very firm, challenging that notion to the point that I don't think there is a single case in Latin America today—once again, with the exception of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, that I hope that somebody will ask me a question about those three countries—and I don't think there is a single case where today security forces try to—or attempt to shield themselves from investigation invoking military jurisdiction. And the credit is to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. I can elaborate, and give you—provide you with a long list of examples of areas where the court has been actually really, really critical in advancing human rights in the region. Let me give you actually one last example that I think is very—is very illustrative, very revealing. In Chile, something like probably twenty years ago or fifteen years ago, full democracy. Full democracy. No Chile under Pinochet. The Supreme Court of Chile ruled that a mother who was openly lesbian did not qualify for the custody of her children because she was lesbian. And she had a couple. So that was sufficient grounds to rule in favor of the father, because the mother didn't have the moral grounds to educate her own kids, children. And this was decided by the Supreme Court of Chile. Not just a small first instance tribunal. And I will point out that the vast majority of the—I mean, the public in Chile was pretty much divided, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of Chileans thought that the Supreme Court was right, you know? The case went to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. And fortunately, after a few years, the court not only challenged that decision of the Supreme Court, forced Chile to change its legislation, and to change the ruling of the Supreme Court of Chile, which is supposed to be the last judgment in the country. And the impact of that one, not only in Chile, in the rest of the region, because it shapes the common wisdom, the assumptions of many people. It helps for them to think carefully about this kind of issues. And the good news is that that mother was able to have the custody of her kids. And not only that, the impact in Chilean society and in the rest of the region was remarkable. Now, the second question that was asked was about how difficult it is to establish accountability for human rights abuses against the perpetrators of those abuses. I mean, it's a real challenge. It depends on whether or not you have locally an independent judiciary. If you do have an independent judiciary, the process is slow, it's messy, it's complicated. But there is a chance that atrocities could be addressed. And that is— especially human rights atrocities or abuses committed during the military dictatorship. There are countries in the region, like for instance, Chile, Peru, Argentina, Uruguay, where there are people in prison for those type of atrocities. In Brazil, thanks to an amnesty law that was passed in 1978, real investigation and prosecution of those atrocities actually never happened. And an important lesson that you could bear in mind is that Brazilian military are very dismissive of these type of issues, of human rights issues. But not only that, my sense is that Brazilian military officers at very high level are not afraid of stepping into politics, and give their opinion, and challenge the government. In other words, they were actually very, very active, and I'm referring to top officials in the Brazilian Army, during the Bolsonaro administration. There were top leaders who actually publicly argued that if they have to organize a coup again in Brazil, they are ready. That kind of language you don't find in Argentina, in Chile, in other countries where there have been some accountability. For one simple reason, the top military officers running the show are very much aware that if they get involved in politics, that they are part tomorrow of a coup d'état or something like that, at the end of the day they will be responsible. And they might be subject of criminal prosecution for atrocities committed during that period. And so there is a price to pay. So their calculation is much more, shall we say, prudent regarding this issue. But again, once again, how difficult it is? It's very difficult to establish accountability, and much more difficult when you're dealing with dictatorship, where you need to rely on the work done by, for instance, the ICC, the International Criminal Court, which is pretty active in the case of Venezuela. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Fordham. Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Vivanco. My name is Carlos Ortiz de la Pena Gomez Urguiza, and I have a question for you. El Salvador is currently battling crime and gangs with strategies such as mano dura, which have shown a significant decrease in crime at the cost of violating human rights. Do you see a possible effective integration of such policies in high-crime-rate countries, such as Mexico, to stop the growth of narco and crime gang activity? And if so, how? VIVANCO: Well, look, yeah, Carlos, very good question. Bukele in El Salvador is a real, real challenge. It's really, really a complicated case, for several reasons. He's incredibly popular. No question about it. He has managed to—thanks to that popularity—to concentrate power in his own hands. He fully controls Congress. But, much more relevant, he fully controls the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court today is subordinated to the executive branch. And he is constantly going after the civil society, and free media, and the opposition. Now, in violation of the Salvadorean constitution, he's going to run for reelection. And he will be reelected, because he's also very popular. And his policies to go after gangs are cruel, inhuman, and without—not even a facade of respect for due process. Essentially, the policy which is not sustainable and is—I don't think is something that you could export to other countries—is a policy—unless you have full control, unless you have some sort of dictatorship or quasi dictatorship. Which is based, in essence, in the appearance, in the number of tattoos that people, especially in the marginal communities in the periferia in El Salvador, where shanty towns are located. The police has a, you know, green light to arrest anyone who fit that profile. And then good luck, because it's going to be very, very difficult for that person to avoid something like several months in prison. The whole point of having an independent judiciary and due process is that law enforcement agencies have the—obviously, not only the right, the duty to prevent crimes and to punish criminals. Not physically punish them. You know, it's to arrest them, to detain them, and to use proportional force to produce that attention. But they need to follow certain rules. They cannot just go around and arrest anyone who they have some sort of gut feelings that they are involved in crimes, because then you don't—you're not—the whole system is not able to distinguish and to make a distinction between potential criminals and innocent people. But it is complicated, the case of Bukele, because, for instance, I was referring initially to the technique of naming and shaming as a technique, as a methodology to expose governments with deplorable human rights record. But in the case of Bukele, he couldn't care less about. In other words, actually, I think he used the poor perception that exists, already that is established outside El Salvador as a result of his persecution of gangs in El Salvador—he used that kind of criticism as a way to improve his support domestically. In other words, when the New York Times published a whole report about massive abuses committed by Bukele's criminal system, in the prison system in El Salvador, what Bukele does is to take that one, that criticism, as actually ammunition to project himself as a tough guy who is actually, you know, doing the right thing for El Salvador. It's a question of time. It's a question of time. All of this is very sad for El Salvador, one of the few democracies in Central America with some future, I think, because I think they managed after the war to create institutions that are—that were much more credible than in the neighboring countries, like Guatemala, Honduras, and I'm not going to even mention Nicaragua. But under the control of this strongman, everything is possible today in El Salvador. He will be able to govern El Salvador this way as long as he's popular. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has relaxed its attention and pressure on that government, based on the question of migration. So they are hostage by the cooperation of Bukele government to try or attempt to control illegal immigration into the U.S. So that point trumps or, I mean, supersedes everything else. And that is actually very unfortunate. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next two questions, written questions. One is on the subject that you wanted, from Brittney Thomas, who is an undergraduate at Arizona State University: How come the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are socialist or communist while other Latin America countries are predominantly democracies? And then from Roger— VIVANCO: I'm sorry, I couldn't understand the question. Obviously, it's about Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, but? FASKIANOS: Why are they socialist or communist while other Latin American countries are predominantly democracies? VIVANCO: Oh, I see. OK. FASKIANOS: Yeah. And then the next question is from Roger Rose, who is an associate professor of political science at University of Minnesota, Morris: Given the recent decline in the norms of U.S. democracy in the last seven years, does the U.S. have any credibility and influence in the region in promoting democracy? And, again, if you could comment specifically on nations with the least democratic systems—Venezuela, Nicaragua—how could the U.S. play a more constructive role than it is currently? VIVANCO: The U.S. is always a very important player, very, very important. I mean, it's the largest economy in the world and the influence of the U.S. government in Latin America is huge. However, obviously, I have to acknowledge that our domestic problems here and serious challenges to the fundamentals of the rule of law, and just the notion that we respect the system according to which one who wins the election is—you know, has the legitimacy and the mandate to form a new government. If that notion is in question, and there are millions of American citizens who are willing to challenge that premise, obviously undermines the capacity of the U.S. to exercise leadership on this—in this context. And the autocrats and the autocracies in the region—I'm not referring to the dictatorships, but I'm referring to the Andrés Manuel López Obrador, once again, from Mexico, or Bolsonaro in Brazil—they take those kinds of developments in the U.S. as green lights to do whatever they want at local level. So that is a serious—obviously, it's a serious problem. And what is going on here has ramifications not only in the region, but also in the rest of the world. Now, Cuba is a historical problem. It's going to be too long to address the question in terms of why Cuba is a dictatorship and the rest of the region. Part of the problem with Cuba is that you have a government that violates the most fundamental rights and persecutes everyone who challenges the official line. And most of the Cubans today are willing to leave the country and to go into exile. But the problem is that we don't have the right tool, the right instrument in place, to exercise pressure on Cuba. And the right instrument today is the embargo. And that embargo, that policy is a total failure. The Cuban government is the same, exactly the same dictatorship. There has been no progress. And there's going to be no progress, in my view, as long as the U.S. government insist on a policy of isolation. You should be aware that every year 99 percentage of the states in the world condemned the isolation against Cuba, with the exception and the opposition of the U.S. government, Israel, and in the past was the Marshall Islands. Now, I don't think even the Marshall Islands joined the U.S. government defending that policy. So the policy is incredibly unpopular. And the debate at international level is about the U.S. government policy on Cuba and not about the deplorable human rights record of Cuba. That's why I was actually very supportive of the change of policy attempted during the Obama administration. Unfortunately, the isolation policy depends on Congress. And since the times of Clinton, this is a matter of who is the one in control of Congress. And the policy of isolation, it once again makes Cuba a victim of Washington. And Cuba, by the way, is not isolated from the rest of the world. So the U.S. is incredibly, I would say, powerless with regard to the lack of democracy and human rights in Cuba. And at the time, offers a fantastic justification for the Cuban government to present itself as a victim. I think that is the—this is one of the most serious mistakes of the U.S. foreign policy in Latin America that I hope that one day will be—will be addressed effectively. The case of Nicaragua and Venezuela is different, in the sense that we are looking into countries that—Venezuela in particular—have democracy for—a very questionable democracy, very weak, subject of tremendous corruption, and so on and so forth. But they have a system of political parties, free media, and so on, for many, many years. And they end up electing a populist leader whose marching orders and, you know, actually first majors was to establish some effective control of the judiciary. And the Supreme Court became an appendage of the government many, many, many years ago, which means that they managed during the Chavez administration to run the country with some sort of facade of democracy. Today, under Maduro it's no a longer a façade, it's a clear dictatorship responsible for atrocities. Fortunately, it is under investigation by the ICC. And the case of Nicaragua is an extreme case, similar to Venezuela. And it's—it's a dictator who has managed to put in prison everyone who is not in full alliance with the government, including religious leaders, and academics, and opposition leaders, civil society, et cetera. The case of Nicaragua is more complicated because Nicaragua is subject of sanctions by the U.S. government, and the European Union, and Canada, and some governments in the region. But still, we don't see much progress there. FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to go next to Nassar Nassar, who has a raised hand. You can unmute yourself and state your affiliation. Q: Yes. Hello. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. Q: Hi. My name is Nassar Nassar. I'm from Lewis University. So my question is, which are the most significant actors in the global governance of human trafficking? And how effective are they in tackling that? VIVANCO: Well, this is a matter that is usually—the main actors—so this is organized crime. This is organized crime. This is a question regarding—this is a—it's a huge business, and extremely profitable. And if you want to address these kinds of issues, you need regional cooperation, which is very challenging. Keep in mind that at a local level, in many of the most democratic countries in the region, you have tremendous tensions among the local police and different police. For instance, the local FBI—equivalent to an FBI, is usually in tension with other branches of law enforcement. And if you expect to have cooperation from the rest of the countries in the region, it's extremely challenging. So these type of issues require effective cooperation, adjustment on legislation. Require more better intelligence. The reason why you have this type—proliferation of this type of business is because, obviously, corruption and lack of accountability. So this is—my point is that it is a reflection of how weak is our law enforcement system, and how unprofessional, and subject many times of corruption. FASKIANOS: Just to follow up on that, a written question from Patricia Drown, who's at Regent University. How are the cartels and mafia being armed, and by whom? VIVANCO: Well, in the case of, for instance, Mexico, weapons comes from the U.S. Sometimes even legally. You know, the Second Amendment plays a role here. It's so easy to have access to weapons, all kind of weapons, in the U.S. So that helps. And a lack of actually an effective control mechanism to stop that type of traffic. The amount of money that cartels moved in countries like Mexico, but Colombia as well, and this mafia scene in Central America is significant. So they do have capacity to corrupt local enforcement officials that belongs to the police, the army, even the judiciary. And as long as you don't address the root cause of the problem, which is the lack of presence of the state—in other words, there are vast—as you know, there are regions of Colombia that are not under the control of the government, the territories in Colombia. And there are regions of Mexico that, unfortunately, are increasingly under more effective control of cartels than law enforcement and legitimate officials. So that unfortunately, is the—in my view, one of the reasons why it is relatively easy to witness this type of proliferation of illegal business. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. I think we are out of time. We have so many written questions and raised hands. Maybe I'll just try to sneak in one more from Andrea Cuervo Prados. You have your hand raised. I think you also wrote a question. So if you can be brief and tell us who you are. Q: OK. Hello. I'm adjunct faculty at Dickinson State University. And, Mr. Vivanco, I have a question related to Colombia. What do you think about the state of the human rights in Colombia under the new leftist president, Gustavo Petro, compared to the previous president, Ivan Duque? VIVANCO: Andrea, I think it's pretty much the same. When we witness actually an improvement of human rights conditions in Colombia, it was during the negotiations with the FARC. I'm referring to the administration of President Juan Manuel Santos. And with the signature of the peace agreement, when they signed the peace agreement, the numbers shows a serious decline in the cases of, for instance, internally displaced people, torture cases, executions, abductions, and many other of those typical abuses that are committed in Colombia in rural areas where this organized crime and irregular armed groups are historically present. But then the policies implemented during the Duque administration were actually not very effective. There was a sort of relaxation during that period, and not effective implementation of those commitments negotiated with the FARC. That had an implication in terms of abuses. And today I don't see a major shift. My sense is that the local communities are subject of similar abuses, including human rights activists as well as social leaders, in areas where there is a very weak presence of the state. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much. José Miguel Vivanco. We really appreciate your being with us today. And I apologize. Great questions. I'm sorry, we couldn't get to all of the written ones or raised hands. It's clear we will have to do this—focus in on this again and have you back. You can follow José Miguel on X at @VivancoJM. And the next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, November 29, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Shibley Telhami, who's a professor at the University of Maryland, will lead a conversation on public opinion on Israel and Palestine. And in the meantime, I encourage you to learn about CFR paid internships for students and fellowships for professors at CFR.org/careers. You can follow us at @CFR_Academic. And visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Again, José Miguel, thank you very much for today, and to all of you for joining us. VIVANCO: Thanks a lot. FASKIANOS: Take care. (END)

José Miguel Vivanco, adjunct senior fellow for human rights at CFR and former executive director of the Americas division at Human Rights Watch, leads the conversation on human rights in Latin America. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the Fall 2023 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record. The video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org, if you would like to share them with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have José Miguel Vivanco with us to discuss human rights in Latin America. Mr. Vivanco is an adjunct senior fellow for human rights at CFR and partner at Dentons Global Advisors. He formerly served as the executive director of the Americas Division at Human Rights Watch, where he supervised fact-finding research for numerous reports on gross violations of human rights and advocated strengthening international legal standards and domestic compliance throughout the region. He is the founder of the Center for Justice and International Law, an international civil society organization providing legal and technical assistance with the Inter-American Human Rights System. So, José Miguel, thank you very much for being with us today. I thought you could begin by giving us an overview of what you see as the most important human rights challenges and advances in Latin America today. VIVANCO: Well, thank you very much for this invitation. It is a pleasure to be with you all and to talk for an hour about human rights problems, human rights issues in Latin America. Let me first make a couple of points. First, I think it's very important that, in retrospect, if you look at Latin America in the 1960s, 1970s, and even 1980s, it was a region that was pretty much run by military dictatorships. So if you look at historically, the region is not in such a bad shape. I know that this comment is quite controversial and many experts who follow the region closely might disagree with that statement, but objectively speaking I think we need to recognize that most of the region is run today—with the exception, obviously, of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua—by democracies, weak democracies, the kind of democracies that we have in Latin America are facing very serious challenges and with endemic problems such as corruption, abuse of power, lack of transparency, lack of proper accountability, and so on and so forth. But in general terms, this is a region that has a chance to conduct some self-correction. In other words, electoral democracy is a very, very important value in the region, and the citizens—most of the people are able to either reward or punish the incumbent government at the times of elections. That is not a minor detail. It is extremely important, especially if you take into account that during the last twenty years in Latin America, if I'm not wrong, the vast majority of the governments elected were from the opposition. The statistics, I think, show that in eighteen of the twenty last presidential elections, the winner has been the party of the opposition; which means that even though our democracies in Latin America are dysfunctional, weak, messy, slow, you know, short-term-oriented, obviously, but at least citizens take their rights seriously and they exercise their powers so that is why you see a regular zigzag or, you know, transfer of power from a left-wing government to a right-wing government or vice versa. And that is, again, something that is, obviously, a very, very important tool of self-correction. And that, obviously, includes or has an impact in terms of the human rights record of those countries. You know, I'm not—I'm not addressing yet—I will leave it for the Q&A section—conditions in those three dictatorships in Latin America. Let me just make some few more remarks about one of the biggest challenges that I see in the region. And that is, obviously, the rise of autocracy or autocratic leaders, populist leaders, leaders who are not interested or as a matter of fact are very hostile to the concept of rule of law and the concept of independence of the judiciary. And they usually are very charismatic. They have high level of popular support. And they run and govern the country in a style that is like a permanent campaign, where they normally go against minorities and against the opposition, against the free media, against judges and prosecutors who dare to investigate them or investigate the government. Anyone who challenges them are subject of this type of reaction. And that is, unfortunately, something that we have seen in Mexico recently and until today, and in Brazil, especially during the administration of President Bolsonaro. The good news about, in the case of Brazil, is that, thanks to electoral democracy, it was possible to defeat him and—democratically. And the second very important piece of information is that even though Brazil is not a model of rule of law and separation of power, we have to acknowledge that, thanks to the checks-and-balance exercise by the Supreme Court of Brazil, it was possible to do some permanent, constant damage control against the most outrageous initiatives promoted by the administration of President Bolsonaro. That, I think, is one of the biggest challenges in the region. Let me conclude my—make crystal clear that there are serious human rights problems in Latin America today regarding, for instance, abuse of power, police brutality, prison problems. Prisons are really, in most of the countries in the region, a disaster. And you know, a big number of prisoners are awaiting trial, in detention and unable to really exercise their rights. And unfortunately, populist leaders use the prison system or essentially criminal law, by expanding the practice and enlarging the numbers of crimes that could be subject of pretrial detention, and—you know, regardless of the time that it will take for that case to be prosecuted in full respect for the rule—due process, and so on and so forth. And that—the reason is very simple. There is a real demand in Latin America for policies that will address insecurity, citizen security. If you look at statistics in terms of crime rate, it is going up in most of the country. Obviously, there are big difference between countries like Mexico, for instance, or Colombia, and if you link—if you look at the power of cartels and big mafias, and gangs in other countries, or petty crime impacting the daily life of the citizens. Regardless of that point, one of the biggest demands in Latin America is for better and more public security. And that's why political leaders, usually the solution for that request and demand is to put people in prison with essentially no real due process and increase the number of prisoners without conviction. There are challenges for free speech occasionally, of those leaders who resent scrutiny of their practice. And normally there is a campaign against free media. And there are some attempts in some countries to constantly look for ways to undermine the independence of the judiciary. Keep in mind, for instance, that now in Argentina the whole Supreme Court is under impeachment, and it's essentially an impeachment promoted by the current government because they disagree with the rulings, positions of the Supreme Court. All the justices on the Supreme Court are subject of this political trial conducted by the Argentine Congress. That is a concrete example of the kinds of risks that are present for judges and the judiciary in general, when they exercise their power and they attempt to protect the integrity of the constitution. So let me stop here and we can move on to the most interesting part of this event. FASKIANOS: Well, that was quite interesting. So, thank you, José Miguel. We appreciate it. We going to go to all of you now for your questions. (Gives queuing instructions.) We already have some hands up. We will go first to Karla Soto Valdes. Q: My name is Karla Soto. I'm from Lewis University. My question is, what specific measures could be implemented to address and/or prevent trafficking within the asylum-seeking community during their journey to the U.S.? VIVANCO: Irina, are we going to take several questions, or? FASKIANOS: I think we should do one at a time. VIVANCO: Well, Karla, there are multiple tools to address that specific issue. But this applies to essentially most of the human rights problems all over the world. The menu is pretty ample, but depends on one important factor—whether the government involved cares about its own reputation. That is a very important premise here, because if you we are dealing with a democratic government, once again, it's not—when I refer to a democratic government, I don't have in mind a sort of Jeffersonian model, I'm referring to the kind of democracies that we have in Latin America. But, if the leaders in charge are—you know, they care about their own reputation, they care about domestic debate, very important, because these types of revelations usually have ramifications at the local level. If they pay close attention to those issues, I think it's possible to apply, essentially, the technique of naming and shaming. In other words, collecting information, documenting what exactly is happening, and revealing that information to the public, locally and internationally. That is going to create naturally a reaction, a process, an awareness, and local pressure is—hopefully, it's not just twenty-four hours news, so splash—big splash, but also will trigger some dynamics. If we are dealing with a country that is run by a dictatorship, it is a very, very different question, because normally you're facing a leader, a government, who couldn't care less about its own reputation. They have taken already and assume the cost of doing business in that type of context. Now, sometimes conditions are kind of mixed, where you have democratic country in general—so there is still free media, there is an opposition, there is Congress, there are elections. But the government in charge is so—is run by an autocratic leader. That makes, you know, quite—a little more challenging to just document and reveal that information. And you need to think about some particular agenda, governmental agenda. Some specific interests of the government in different areas. Let me see—let me give you an example. Let's say that the Bolsonaro administration is seriously interested in an incorporation into the OECD in Paris. That is an important piece of information. Whatever you think that is relevant information regarding the record of that government, you could provide information to an entity that is precisely evaluating the record of the government. And the government will be much more willing to address those issues because they have a genuine interest in achieving some specific goal at the international level. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. We're going to go to Nicole Ambar De Santos, who is an undergraduate student at the Washington University in St. Louis: When we consider weak democracy in a more personal sense, like Peru, the controversy of obligation to help these nations arises. How much third party or other nations, such as the United States, intervene? VIVANCO: Tricky question. Peruvian democracy is quite messy. Part of the problem is that the system, the political system, needs some real reform to avoid the proliferation of small political parties and to create the real link or relationship between leaders, especially in Congress, and their constituencies, and so they are much more accountable to their community, the ones who elected them. I don't think the U.S., or any other government, has a direct role to play in that area. My sense is that when we are looking into a dysfunctional democracy that deserve some probably even constitutional reforms, that is essentially a domestic job. That is the work that needs to be done by Peruvians. Without a local consensus about the reforms that need to be implemented in the political system, my sense is that it's going to be very difficult for the U.S. or any other large democracy, to address those kinds of points. It's very different, that type of conversation, from a conversation or an assessment of universal values, such as human rights. When we are looking into cases of police brutality, for instance, the international community has a role to play. But if I were part of the conversation or evaluation by the U.S. government or the European Union with regard to this dysfunctional democracy in Peru, I would approach very carefully by suggesting creating the right type of incentives, more than questions of punishment, or sanctions. It's incentives for them to create the right conditions to address the domestic problem that is—has become quite endemic, in the case of Peru. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Matthew. Matthew, you don't have a last name, so can you identify yourself? Q: Hello. Yes, my name is Matthew. I am a junior student from Arizona State University studying business, but working on a thesis that has to do with human rights and the ethics of supply chain management. My question is, you were talking at the very beginning kind of just about history and how understanding history is important. And what I was hoping to get was, why is understanding history and culture important when working to address human rights issues, history of dictatorship, colonialism? In cultures it's socially acceptable things, like child labor, in some countries, that's not acceptable in Western ideology. So, yeah, just how is history and culture important when working to address human rights for the future? VIVANCO: Matthew, I think you're referring to two different issues. History is central. It's really, really relevant. Because that helps you—if you—if you follow your history, especially periods of time when massive and gross violations were committed in Latin America, it's important to put things in context and value what you have today. And the job is to—not only to preserve democracy, but also to look for ways to strengthen democracy. Because part of the problem is that domestic debate is so polarized today, not just in Latin America, all over the world, that sometimes people—different, you know, segments of society—in their positions, they're so dismissive of the other side, that they don't realize that we need to frame our debate in a constructive way. Let me put it—one specific example. If the government of Argentina, who is a government very receptive and very sensitive to vast and gross violations of human rights committed during the military dictatorship, so in other words, I don't need to lecture that government on that subject. They are actually the people who vote for the current government of Argentina—not the new government, the current government of Argentina—is deeply committed to those kinds of issues. I think that one of the biggest lessons that you should learn from the past is the relevance of protecting the independence of the judiciary. If you don't have an independent judiciary, and the judiciary becomes an entity that is an appendix of the ruling party or is intimidated by politics, and they could be subject of impeachment procedures every time that they rule something, that the powerful—the establishment disagree, I think they're playing with fire, and they're not really paying attention to the lessons that you learn from recent history in Latin America. That would be my first comment regarding that type of issue. And the second one, about you mentioned specifically cultural problems, culture, tensions or conflicts. And you mentioned—your example was child labor. And, and you suggested that that—the combination of child labor is something typical of Western ideology. If I'm not wrong, that was the language that you used. I would—I would push back on that point. And because this is not just a Western or European commitment. This is a universal one. And this is reflected on international treaties, and that are supposed to eradicate that kind of practice. If you give up to the concept of local traditions, you know, cultural, you know, issues that you need to pay attention, sure, as long as they are not to be in conflict with fundamental human rights. Otherwise, in half of the planet you're not going to have women rights, and women will be subject of traditional control. And you wouldn't have rights for minorities, and especially—and not only, but especially—the LGBTQ community. And you wouldn't have rights for racial minorities, or different religious beliefs. So, we have to watch and be very careful about what type of concessions we make to cultural traditions. I am happy to understand that different communities in Latin America might have different traditions, but there is some firm, solid, and unquestionable minimum that are the these universal human rights values that are not the property or monopoly of anyone. You know, these are—and this is not an ethical conversation. This is a legal one, because these values are protected under international law. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to combine or take two questions. The first question is from Lindsay Bert, who is at the department of political science at Muhlenberg College, who asks if you could speak on the efficacy of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in addressing the human rights violations you described. And the second question is from Leonard Onyebuchi Ophoke, a graduate student at Cavendish University in Uganda: Why is it almost impossible to hold the actors that violate human rights accountable? What could be done to make the mechanism more enforceable? VIVANCO: The inter-American system of human rights protection, there is nothing similar to inter-American system of human rights protection in the Global South. You don't have something similar in Asia, or Africa, or the Middle East. In other words, you don't have a mechanism where ultimately a court, a court of law—not just a commission, a court of law—handle individual cases, specific complaints of human rights abuses, and governments participate in public hearings. The parties involved have the obligation to present evidence before the court, and the court finally ruled on the specific matters where its decisions are binding. The number of issues that have been addressed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the last thirty years in Latin America are really incredible. And the impact—this is most important point—the impact at a local level is remarkable. In the area, for instance, of torture, disappearances. I'm referring to the elaboration of concepts and the imposing the obligation of local governments to adjust their legislation and practice, and to address specific problems or issues by providing remedies to victims. That is quite unusual. And the court has remarkable rulings on free speech, on discrimination issues, on indigenous populations, on military jurisdiction. One of the typical recourse of governments in the region when security forces were involved in human rights atrocities was to invoke military jurisdiction. So they say, no worries, we are going to investigate our own crimes. And the court has been actually very, very firm, challenging that notion to the point that I don't think there is a single case in Latin America today—once again, with the exception of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, that I hope that somebody will ask me a question about those three countries—and I don't think there is a single case where today security forces try to—or attempt to shield themselves from investigation invoking military jurisdiction. And the credit is to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. I can elaborate, and give you—provide you with a long list of examples of areas where the court has been actually really, really critical in advancing human rights in the region. Let me give you actually one last example that I think is very—is very illustrative, very revealing. In Chile, something like probably twenty years ago or fifteen years ago, full democracy. Full democracy. No Chile under Pinochet. The Supreme Court of Chile ruled that a mother who was openly lesbian did not qualify for the custody of her children because she was lesbian. And she had a couple. So that was sufficient grounds to rule in favor of the father, because the mother didn't have the moral grounds to educate her own kids, children. And this was decided by the Supreme Court of Chile. Not just a small first instance tribunal. And I will point out that the vast majority of the—I mean, the public in Chile was pretty much divided, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of Chileans thought that the Supreme Court was right, you know? The case went to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. And fortunately, after a few years, the court not only challenged that decision of the Supreme Court, forced Chile to change its legislation, and to change the ruling of the Supreme Court of Chile, which is supposed to be the last judgment in the country. And the impact of that one, not only in Chile, in the rest of the region, because it shapes the common wisdom, the assumptions of many people. It helps for them to think carefully about this kind of issues. And the good news is that that mother was able to have the custody of her kids. And not only that, the impact in Chilean society and in the rest of the region was remarkable. Now, the second question that was asked was about how difficult it is to establish accountability for human rights abuses against the perpetrators of those abuses. I mean, it's a real challenge. It depends on whether or not you have locally an independent judiciary. If you do have an independent judiciary, the process is slow, it's messy, it's complicated. But there is a chance that atrocities could be addressed. And that is— especially human rights atrocities or abuses committed during the military dictatorship. There are countries in the region, like for instance, Chile, Peru, Argentina, Uruguay, where there are people in prison for those type of atrocities. In Brazil, thanks to an amnesty law that was passed in 1978, real investigation and prosecution of those atrocities actually never happened. And an important lesson that you could bear in mind is that Brazilian military are very dismissive of these type of issues, of human rights issues. But not only that, my sense is that Brazilian military officers at very high level are not afraid of stepping into politics, and give their opinion, and challenge the government. In other words, they were actually very, very active, and I'm referring to top officials in the Brazilian Army, during the Bolsonaro administration. There were top leaders who actually publicly argued that if they have to organize a coup again in Brazil, they are ready. That kind of language you don't find in Argentina, in Chile, in other countries where there have been some accountability. For one simple reason, the top military officers running the show are very much aware that if they get involved in politics, that they are part tomorrow of a coup d'état or something like that, at the end of the day they will be responsible. And they might be subject of criminal prosecution for atrocities committed during that period. And so there is a price to pay. So their calculation is much more, shall we say, prudent regarding this issue. But again, once again, how difficult it is? It's very difficult to establish accountability, and much more difficult when you're dealing with dictatorship, where you need to rely on the work done by, for instance, the ICC, the International Criminal Court, which is pretty active in the case of Venezuela. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Fordham. Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Vivanco. My name is Carlos Ortiz de la Pena Gomez Urguiza, and I have a question for you. El Salvador is currently battling crime and gangs with strategies such as mano dura, which have shown a significant decrease in crime at the cost of violating human rights. Do you see a possible effective integration of such policies in high-crime-rate countries, such as Mexico, to stop the growth of narco and crime gang activity? And if so, how? VIVANCO: Well, look, yeah, Carlos, very good question. Bukele in El Salvador is a real, real challenge. It's really, really a complicated case, for several reasons. He's incredibly popular. No question about it. He has managed to—thanks to that popularity—to concentrate power in his own hands. He fully controls Congress. But, much more relevant, he fully controls the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court today is subordinated to the executive branch. And he is constantly going after the civil society, and free media, and the opposition. Now, in violation of the Salvadorean constitution, he's going to run for reelection. And he will be reelected, because he's also very popular. And his policies to go after gangs are cruel, inhuman, and without—not even a facade of respect for due process. Essentially, the policy which is not sustainable and is—I don't think is something that you could export to other countries—is a policy—unless you have full control, unless you have some sort of dictatorship or quasi dictatorship. Which is based, in essence, in the appearance, in the number of tattoos that people, especially in the marginal communities in the periferia in El Salvador, where shanty towns are located. The police has a, you know, green light to arrest anyone who fit that profile. And then good luck, because it's going to be very, very difficult for that person to avoid something like several months in prison. The whole point of having an independent judiciary and due process is that law enforcement agencies have the—obviously, not only the right, the duty to prevent crimes and to punish criminals. Not physically punish them. You know, it's to arrest them, to detain them, and to use proportional force to produce that attention. But they need to follow certain rules. They cannot just go around and arrest anyone who they have some sort of gut feelings that they are involved in crimes, because then you don't—you're not—the whole system is not able to distinguish and to make a distinction between potential criminals and innocent people. But it is complicated, the case of Bukele, because, for instance, I was referring initially to the technique of naming and shaming as a technique, as a methodology to expose governments with deplorable human rights record. But in the case of Bukele, he couldn't care less about. In other words, actually, I think he used the poor perception that exists, already that is established outside El Salvador as a result of his persecution of gangs in El Salvador—he used that kind of criticism as a way to improve his support domestically. In other words, when the New York Times published a whole report about massive abuses committed by Bukele's criminal system, in the prison system in El Salvador, what Bukele does is to take that one, that criticism, as actually ammunition to project himself as a tough guy who is actually, you know, doing the right thing for El Salvador. It's a question of time. It's a question of time. All of this is very sad for El Salvador, one of the few democracies in Central America with some future, I think, because I think they managed after the war to create institutions that are—that were much more credible than in the neighboring countries, like Guatemala, Honduras, and I'm not going to even mention Nicaragua. But under the control of this strongman, everything is possible today in El Salvador. He will be able to govern El Salvador this way as long as he's popular. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has relaxed its attention and pressure on that government, based on the question of migration. So they are hostage by the cooperation of Bukele government to try or attempt to control illegal immigration into the U.S. So that point trumps or, I mean, supersedes everything else. And that is actually very unfortunate. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next two questions, written questions. One is on the subject that you wanted, from Brittney Thomas, who is an undergraduate at Arizona State University: How come the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are socialist or communist while other Latin America countries are predominantly democracies? And then from Roger— VIVANCO: I'm sorry, I couldn't understand the question. Obviously, it's about Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, but? FASKIANOS: Why are they socialist or communist while other Latin American countries are predominantly democracies? VIVANCO: Oh, I see. OK. FASKIANOS: Yeah. And then the next question is from Roger Rose, who is an associate professor of political science at University of Minnesota, Morris: Given the recent decline in the norms of U.S. democracy in the last seven years, does the U.S. have any credibility and influence in the region in promoting democracy? And, again, if you could comment specifically on nations with the least democratic systems—Venezuela, Nicaragua—how could the U.S. play a more constructive role than it is currently? VIVANCO: The U.S. is always a very important player, very, very important. I mean, it's the largest economy in the world and the influence of the U.S. government in Latin America is huge. However, obviously, I have to acknowledge that our domestic problems here and serious challenges to the fundamentals of the rule of law, and just the notion that we respect the system according to which one who wins the election is—you know, has the legitimacy and the mandate to form a new government. If that notion is in question, and there are millions of American citizens who are willing to challenge that premise, obviously undermines the capacity of the U.S. to exercise leadership on this—in this context. And the autocrats and the autocracies in the region—I'm not referring to the dictatorships, but I'm referring to the Andrés Manuel López Obrador, once again, from Mexico, or Bolsonaro in Brazil—they take those kinds of developments in the U.S. as green lights to do whatever they want at local level. So that is a serious—obviously, it's a serious problem. And what is going on here has ramifications not only in the region, but also in the rest of the world. Now, Cuba is a historical problem. It's going to be too long to address the question in terms of why Cuba is a dictatorship and the rest of the region. Part of the problem with Cuba is that you have a government that violates the most fundamental rights and persecutes everyone who challenges the official line. And most of the Cubans today are willing to leave the country and to go into exile. But the problem is that we don't have the right tool, the right instrument in place, to exercise pressure on Cuba. And the right instrument today is the embargo. And that embargo, that policy is a total failure. The Cuban government is the same, exactly the same dictatorship. There has been no progress. And there's going to be no progress, in my view, as long as the U.S. government insist on a policy of isolation. You should be aware that every year 99 percentage of the states in the world condemned the isolation against Cuba, with the exception and the opposition of the U.S. government, Israel, and in the past was the Marshall Islands. Now, I don't think even the Marshall Islands joined the U.S. government defending that policy. So the policy is incredibly unpopular. And the debate at international level is about the U.S. government policy on Cuba and not about the deplorable human rights record of Cuba. That's why I was actually very supportive of the change of policy attempted during the Obama administration. Unfortunately, the isolation policy depends on Congress. And since the times of Clinton, this is a matter of who is the one in control of Congress. And the policy of isolation, it once again makes Cuba a victim of Washington. And Cuba, by the way, is not isolated from the rest of the world. So the U.S. is incredibly, I would say, powerless with regard to the lack of democracy and human rights in Cuba. And at the time, offers a fantastic justification for the Cuban government to present itself as a victim. I think that is the—this is one of the most serious mistakes of the U.S. foreign policy in Latin America that I hope that one day will be—will be addressed effectively. The case of Nicaragua and Venezuela is different, in the sense that we are looking into countries that—Venezuela in particular—have democracy for—a very questionable democracy, very weak, subject of tremendous corruption, and so on and so forth. But they have a system of political parties, free media, and so on, for many, many years. And they end up electing a populist leader whose marching orders and, you know, actually first majors was to establish some effective control of the judiciary. And the Supreme Court became an appendage of the government many, many, many years ago, which means that they managed during the Chavez administration to run the country with some sort of facade of democracy. Today, under Maduro it's no a longer a façade, it's a clear dictatorship responsible for atrocities. Fortunately, it is under investigation by the ICC. And the case of Nicaragua is an extreme case, similar to Venezuela. And it's—it's a dictator who has managed to put in prison everyone who is not in full alliance with the government, including religious leaders, and academics, and opposition leaders, civil society, et cetera. The case of Nicaragua is more complicated because Nicaragua is subject of sanctions by the U.S. government, and the European Union, and Canada, and some governments in the region. But still, we don't see much progress there. FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to go next to Nassar Nassar, who has a raised hand. You can unmute yourself and state your affiliation. Q: Yes. Hello. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. Q: Hi. My name is Nassar Nassar. I'm from Lewis University. So my question is, which are the most significant actors in the global governance of human trafficking? And how effective are they in tackling that? VIVANCO: Well, this is a matter that is usually—the main actors—so this is organized crime. This is organized crime. This is a question regarding—this is a—it's a huge business, and extremely profitable. And if you want to address these kinds of issues, you need regional cooperation, which is very challenging. Keep in mind that at a local level, in many of the most democratic countries in the region, you have tremendous tensions among the local police and different police. For instance, the local FBI—equivalent to an FBI, is usually in tension with other branches of law enforcement. And if you expect to have cooperation from the rest of the countries in the region, it's extremely challenging. So these type of issues require effective cooperation, adjustment on legislation. Require more better intelligence. The reason why you have this type—proliferation of this type of business is because, obviously, corruption and lack of accountability. So this is—my point is that it is a reflection of how weak is our law enforcement system, and how unprofessional, and subject many times of corruption. FASKIANOS: Just to follow up on that, a written question from Patricia Drown, who's at Regent University. How are the cartels and mafia being armed, and by whom? VIVANCO: Well, in the case of, for instance, Mexico, weapons comes from the U.S. Sometimes even legally. You know, the Second Amendment plays a role here. It's so easy to have access to weapons, all kind of weapons, in the U.S. So that helps. And a lack of actually an effective control mechanism to stop that type of traffic. The amount of money that cartels moved in countries like Mexico, but Colombia as well, and this mafia scene in Central America is significant. So they do have capacity to corrupt local enforcement officials that belongs to the police, the army, even the judiciary. And as long as you don't address the root cause of the problem, which is the lack of presence of the state—in other words, there are vast—as you know, there are regions of Colombia that are not under the control of the government, the territories in Colombia. And there are regions of Mexico that, unfortunately, are increasingly under more effective control of cartels than law enforcement and legitimate officials. So that unfortunately, is the—in my view, one of the reasons why it is relatively easy to witness this type of proliferation of illegal business. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. I think we are out of time. We have so many written questions and raised hands. Maybe I'll just try to sneak in one more from Andrea Cuervo Prados. You have your hand raised. I think you also wrote a question. So if you can be brief and tell us who you are. Q: OK. Hello. I'm adjunct faculty at Dickinson State University. And, Mr. Vivanco, I have a question related to Colombia. What do you think about the state of the human rights in Colombia under the new leftist president, Gustavo Petro, compared to the previous president, Ivan Duque? VIVANCO: Andrea, I think it's pretty much the same. When we witness actually an improvement of human rights conditions in Colombia, it was during the negotiations with the FARC. I'm referring to the administration of President Juan Manuel Santos. And with the signature of the peace agreement, when they signed the peace agreement, the numbers shows a serious decline in the cases of, for instance, internally displaced people, torture cases, executions, abductions, and many other of those typical abuses that are committed in Colombia in rural areas where this organized crime and irregular armed groups are historically present. But then the policies implemented during the Duque administration were actually not very effective. There was a sort of relaxation during that period, and not effective implementation of those commitments negotiated with the FARC. That had an implication in terms of abuses. And today I don't see a major shift. My sense is that the local communities are subject of similar abuses, including human rights activists as well as social leaders, in areas where there is a very weak presence of the state. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much. José Miguel Vivanco. We really appreciate your being with us today. And I apologize. Great questions. I'm sorry, we couldn't get to all of the written ones or raised hands. It's clear we will have to do this—focus in on this again and have you back. You can follow José Miguel on X at @VivancoJM. And the next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, November 29, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Shibley Telhami, who's a professor at the University of Maryland, will lead a conversation on public opinion on Israel and Palestine. And in the meantime, I encourage you to learn about CFR paid internships for students and fellowships for professors at CFR.org/careers. You can follow us at @CFR_Academic. And visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Again, José Miguel, thank you very much for today, and to all of you for joining us. VIVANCO: Thanks a lot. FASKIANOS: Take care. (END)

Shibley Telhami, a noted Mideast expert, will speak about recent developments in the region. Telhami is a nonresident senior fellow with the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, and the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland. He has also served as a senior advisor to the U.S. Department of State, advisor to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, advisor to Congressman Lee Hamilton, and member of the Iraq Study Group.

Today, we continue our series of conversations about the conflict between Israel and Hamas. The latest crescendo of violence in the decades-long conflict began when Hamas terrorists attacked Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023. Tom speaks with Dr. Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland. He's also a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Later in the program, we hear from Palestinian-American scholar Dr. Sa'ed Atshan, the Chair of the Peace and Conflict Studies Department at Swarthmore College.Email us at midday@wypr.org, tweet us: @MiddayWYPR, or call us at 410-662-8780.

Israel is at war, caught in the worst surprise attack in half a century. Hamas' shock terrorist attacks cut deep into Israeli territory. That psychological trauma compounds the shock for millions of Israelis that their world-class intelligence and security forces completely missed this. That's why comparisons with the 9/11 attacks on the US are the right analogy – Israel's weakness was, in part, a failure of imagination.   Hamas has launched a suicidal war, and Palestinians will pay dearly for it. But why did Hamas move now? In part because of their deteriorating position: blockaded by Israel and Egypt, the economy in Gaza was terrible and getting worse. Meanwhile, the geopolitics were leaving the Palestinians behind. Israel is in its strongest geopolitical position in decades and was on the verge of signing a historic peace deal with Saudi Arabia. The severity of Israel's expected response – a ground invasion that will result in thousands of Palestinian deaths – makes that politically untenable for the Saudis now.   Avi Mayer, editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post, joins Ian Bremmer on the GZERO World podcast from Israel to talk about how his life, not to mention those of his fellow Israelis, has been forever changed in the past few days. He also provides a pained but unflinching take on how Israel should respond and what that response might mean for the Palestinians caught in the crosshairs.   Ian also speaks with Middle East scholar Shibley Telhami, based in the Washington DC area,  about the broader geopolitical context of this latest conflict. Why did Hamas choose this moment to launch its attack and how did a burgeoning diplomatic deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia play into that decision? Also, what will happen to the 2.3 million Gazans with nowhere to go?    

Israel is at war, caught in the worst surprise attack in half a century. Hamas' shock terrorist attacks cut deep into Israeli territory. That psychological trauma compounds the shock for millions of Israelis that their world-class intelligence and security forces completely missed this. That's why comparisons with the 9/11 attacks on the US are the right analogy – Israel's weakness was, in part, a failure of imagination.   Hamas has launched a suicidal war, and Palestinians will pay dearly for it. But why did Hamas move now? In part because of their deteriorating position: blockaded by Israel and Egypt, the economy in Gaza was terrible and getting worse. Meanwhile, the geopolitics were leaving the Palestinians behind. Israel is in its strongest geopolitical position in decades and was on the verge of signing a historic peace deal with Saudi Arabia. The severity of Israel's expected response – a ground invasion that will result in thousands of Palestinian deaths – makes that politically untenable for the Saudis now.   Avi Mayer, editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post, joins Ian Bremmer on the GZERO World podcast from Israel to talk about how his life, not to mention those of his fellow Israelis, has been forever changed in the past few days. He also provides a pained but unflinching take on how Israel should respond and what that response might mean for the Palestinians caught in the crosshairs.   Ian also speaks with Middle East scholar Shibley Telhami, based in the Washington DC area,  about the broader geopolitical context of this latest conflict. Why did Hamas choose this moment to launch its attack and how did a burgeoning diplomatic deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia play into that decision? Also, what will happen to the 2.3 million Gazans with nowhere to go?     Subscribe to the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.

Van Lathan and Rachel Lindsay are joined by staff writer for The Atlantic Yair Rosenberg to discuss reporting on the Israel-Hamas war (8:52) before professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland Shibley Telhami joins to lend his expertise on the conflict (42:08). Then writer-producer Daniella Greenbaum Davis joins to discuss her response to the pro-Hamas tweet from BLM Chicago (1:02:18) and the relationship between the American Jewish and Black communities (1:15:44). Last and pretty least, a quick take on Jada Pinkett Smith's separation from Will Smith (1:42:38). Hosts: Van Lathan and Rachel Lindsay Guests: Yair Rosenberg, Shibley Telhami, and Daniella Greenbaum Davis Producers: Donnie Beacham Jr. and Ashleigh Smith Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Part 2 of our interview with Middle East scholar Shibley Telhami, about how Israel's war on Palestinians after the Hamas attack could impact U.S. efforts to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia, and more.

Headlines for October 10, 2023; Refaat Alareer in Gaza: Israel’s “Barbaric” Bombardment Is Part of Ethnic Cleansing Campaign; Israeli Conscientious Objector Haggai Matar: Hamas Attack Reflects Israeli Violence in Palestine; Mohammed El-Kurd: How Much Palestinian Blood Will It Take to End Israel’s Occupation & Apartheid?; Univ. of MD Prof. Shibley Telhami to President Biden: Value Palestinian Life as Well as Israeli Life

Conflicts have broken out between Israel and Gaza several times over the years. But this past weekend saw Hamas launch a surprise attack unlike any other before.Hamas killed over a thousand people, took others hostage, and even assumed control of several Israeli communities. Israel's military was caught completely unaware. Now the Israeli military has laid siege to Gaza. Retaliatory Israeli air strikes have killed at least 800 Palestinians and displaced around 200 thousand people. They've cut off fuel, electricity and food supplies into the area. How did we get to this point?NPR's Mary Louise Kelly speaks with Tal Schneider, political and diplomatic correspondent for the Times of Israel, and Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat professor of peace and development at the University of Maryland. Additional reporting in this episode by Daniel Estrin and Aya Batrawy.Email us at considerthis@npr.org

Part 2 of our interview with Middle East scholar Shibley Telhami, about how Israel's war on Palestinians after the Hamas attack could impact U.S. efforts to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia, and more.

Headlines for October 10, 2023; Refaat Alareer in Gaza: Israel’s “Barbaric” Bombardment Is Part of Ethnic Cleansing Campaign; Israeli Conscientious Objector Haggai Matar: Hamas Attack Reflects Israeli Violence in Palestine; Mohammed El-Kurd: How Much Palestinian Blood Will It Take to End Israel’s Occupation & Apartheid?; Univ. of MD Prof. Shibley Telhami to President Biden: Value Palestinian Life as Well as Israeli Life

Hamas' surprise attack on Israel this weekend is drawing comparisons to 9/11 and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In an online discussion, Brookings experts Natan Sachs, Shibley Telhami, Suzanne Maloney, and Molly Reynolds weighed in on Israel's response to the attacks, Iran's involvement, the regional repercussions, and how domestic politics will bear on the U.S. response, moderated by Michael O'Hanlon. Show notes and transcript: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/war-in-israel-and-gaza/  Follow The Current and all Brookings podcasts on Apple or Google podcasts, or on Spotify. Send feedback email to podcasts@brookings.edu. The Current is part of the Brookings Podcast Network.

On Today's Show: Refaat Alareer in Gaza: Israel's “Barbaric” Bombardment Is Part of Ethnic Cleansing Campaign Israeli Conscientious Objector Haggai Matar: Hamas Attack Reflects Israeli Violence in Palestine Mohammed El-Kurd: How Much Palestinian Blood Will It Take to End Israel's Occupation & Apartheid? Univ. of MD Prof. Shibley Telhami to President Biden: Value Palestinian Life as Well as Israeli Life Democracy Now! is a daily national independent award-winning news program, hosted by journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez. The post Democracy Now 6am – October 10, 2023 appeared first on KPFA.

For more analysis on the war in Israel and the regional ramifications of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the Middle East, John Yang speaks with Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center for Middle East Policy and the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

For more analysis on the war in Israel and the regional ramifications of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the Middle East, John Yang speaks with Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center for Middle East Policy and the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

The Meltdown of DeSantis's Big Announcement on Elon Musk's Troubled $44 Billion Platform | A Chief Justice Out of Touch With Reality and a Call For Justice Thomas to Resign | Time to Deal With the One State Reality of Israel backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

The debate on a just future to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine has often pivoted around the question of a two-state or one-state solution. In a recent article for Foreign Affairs, four longtime proponents of the two-state solution make the case for why such an approach is no longer viable. Despite whatever high-minded ideals may have once motivated the search for a two-state solution, such dreams have become glaringly disconnected from the day-to-day reality of Palestinians living under occupation. Co-authors Nathan J. Brown and Shibley Telhami join The Marc Steiner Show to discuss why they are moving away from the two-state approach, and what principles would need to undergird a just and politically feasible solution to the occupation of Palestine.Nathan J. Brown is Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Shibley Telhami is the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.Help us continue producing The Marc Steiner Show by following us and becoming a monthly sustainer:Donate: https://therealnews.com/donate-pod-mssSign up for our newsletter: https://therealnews.com/nl-pod-stGet The Marc Steiner Show updates: https://therealnews.com/up-pod-stLike us on Facebook: https://facebook.com/therealnewsFollow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/therealnews

The debate on a just future to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine has often pivoted around the question of a two-state or one-state solution. In a recent article for Foreign Affairs, four longtime proponents of the two-state solution make the case for why such an approach is no longer viable. Despite whatever high-minded ideals may have once motivated the search for a two-state solution, such dreams have become glaringly disconnected from the day-to-day reality of Palestinians living under occupation. Co-authors Nathan J. Brown and Shibley Telhami join The Marc Steiner Show to discuss why they are moving away from the two-state approach, and what principles would need to undergird a just and politically feasible solution to the occupation of Palestine.Nathan J. Brown is Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Shibley Telhami is the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.Production/Post-Production: David HebdenHelp us continue producing The Marc Steiner Show by following us and becoming a monthly sustainer:Donate: https://therealnews.com/donate-pod-mssSign up for our newsletter: https://therealnews.com/nl-pod-stGet The Marc Steiner Show updates: https://therealnews.com/up-pod-stLike us on Facebook: https://facebook.com/therealnewsFollow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/therealnews

Is it time for the international community to stop talking about a ‘two-state solution' for Israel and the Palestinians, and begin instead to grapple with a ‘one-state reality'? That's the argument four leading political scientists recently made in a thought-provoking, and provocative, article that was published in Foreign Affairs. Two of the authors, Profs. Shibley Telhami and Marc Lynch, joined the Haaretz Weekly podcast to explain why they are calling on decision makers in Washington and elsewhere to ‘drop the façade' and recognize an ‘uncomfortable reality', and what could be the policy consequences of such a step. In their conversation with host Amir Tibon, they also discuss the prospect of violence and instability in the region, the impact of Netanyahu's new government, and the political crisis in the Palestinian national movement. Read more on the one-state reality and the two-state solution, on Haaretz.com: Israeli-Palestinian poll shows support for two-state solution at all-time low So You Don't Like the Two-state Solution? Meet the One-state Model CIA chief sees ‘unhappy resemblance' between current tensions and leadup to second IntifadaSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For months, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been promising a set of legal reforms favored by partners in his far-right coalition government that many fear would spell the end of liberal democracy in the state of Israel. But this week, these efforts hit a roadblock in the form of an unprecedented degree of popular resistance—one that ultimately led Netanyahu to put his reform proposals on hold, at least for the moment.On Wednesday, Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Natan Sachs convened a panel of experts to discuss these fast-moving developments, including his Brookings colleagues Amos Harel, a leading Israeli military and defense expert, and Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat Professor of Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, and leading Israeli journalist and legal expert Ilana Dayan. To give you some additional background, Lawfare Senior Editor and Brookings Fellow Scott R. Anderson sat down with Natan separately to lay out recent developments and their significance. That conversation will come first, and the panel discussion will follow.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In an About Face the House Progressive Caucus Withdraws a Letter Urging Biden to Negotiate With Putin Over Ukraine | Last Night's Debate For the Critical US Senate Seat in Pennsylvania | MBS Strung Biden Along Promising to Lower the Price of Oil Only to Stiff Him After the Fist-Bump backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

President Biden this week is making his first trip to the Middle East as president with stops in Israel, the West Bank and Saudi Arabia. But It will take delicate diplomacy for an administration that's promised to make human rights central to its foreign policy as it tries to lower gas prices and advance cooperation. Shibley Telhami, of the Brookings Institution, joins Nick Schifrin to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

President Biden this week is making his first trip to the Middle East as president with stops in Israel, the West Bank and Saudi Arabia. But It will take delicate diplomacy for an administration that's promised to make human rights central to its foreign policy as it tries to lower gas prices and advance cooperation. Shibley Telhami, of the Brookings Institution, joins Nick Schifrin to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Michael Provence of University of California San Diego joins Marc Lynch on this week's podcast to discuss his new book, The Last Ottoman Generation and the Making of the Modern Middle East. In the book, Provence examines the collapse of the Ottoman empire through popular political movements and the experience of colonial rule. (Starts at 0:39). Gamze Cavdar of Colorado State University discusses her article, "Why Women Support Conservative Parties: The Case of Turkey" published in Political Science Quarterly. (Starts at 32:13). Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland discusses our joint project on the Middle East Scholar Barometer. (Starts at 46:33). Music for this season's podcast was created by Bashir Saade (playing Ney) and Farah Kaddour (on Buzuq). You can find more of Bashir's work on his YouTube Channel.

This week's episode features the recording of the three part webinar series organized by the UCLA Luskin Center for History and Policy in partnership with the USC Casden Institute for the Study of the Jewish Role in American Life and the UCLA Y&S Nazarian Center for Israel Studies. This innovative series brings together scholars, thinkers, and policy-makers of different visions to reflect on the current impasse in Israel-Palestine and share proposals for the future.This program features:Omar Rahman, Visiting Fellow, Brookings Doha CenterDr. Dahlia Sheindlin, Leading Israeli political analystProf. Yuli Tamir, President, Beit Berl CollegeProf. Shibley Telhami, Sadat Professor of Peace, MarylandPart 2 of this series will take place on Sunday, December 5th at 11am PT. RSVP here: www.tinyurl.com/deadlockpart2

American public attitudes toward Israel and Palestine have dramatically shifted in the past few years. In this webinar, Dr. Telhami analyzed the recent developments and the overarching trends on this matter. Shibley Telhami is a leading expert on US public opinion on Israel-Palestine. Dr. Telhami is the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development and the Director of the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll. He is also a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He has advised in one form or another every administration from George H.W. Bush to Barack Obama.  For a transcript of this podcast click here: https://peacenow.org/entry.php?id=38695#.YTEvYY5Kj85 To view the webinar on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isIPVa8EJfM&ab_channel=AmericansforPeaceNow Write to us: onir@peacenow.org Support PeaceCast: https://peacenow.org/donate  

After 8 Years as a POW in North Vietnam, Going Back Inside California's Prisons to Help Vets Rebuild Their Lives | A Dramatic Drop in Support For Israel Among Young Evangelicals | The Secret Jewish Commandos of World War II backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

Dr. Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, Director of the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, explains what to expect, and not expect, from US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s trip to the region this week; why another eruption of political violence is likely, unless Israeli occupation policies are addressed; what’s next for US-Egypt relations; the limits of the Abraham Accords in helping facilitate an Israeli-Palestinian peace process; shifting opinions among Democrats on the US-Israel relationship; how support for Palestinians may be linked in part to social justice movements, such as Black Lives Matter; and how the US-Israel relationship keeps the US engaged in the region.

John Yang discusses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with Shibley Telhami a professor at the University of Maryland who's been an advisor to the State Department and the U.S. mission to the United Nations, and Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who helped shape U.S. policy in the Middle East at the State Department for more than three decades. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

John Yang discusses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with Shibley Telhami a professor at the University of Maryland who's been an advisor to the State Department and the U.S. mission to the United Nations, and Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who helped shape U.S. policy in the Middle East at the State Department for more than three decades. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Both Hamas and the Israeli government have dramatically escalated tensions that began as spontaneous grassroots protests over the eviction of Palestinian families in East Jerusalem to military violence with a high cost to civilians in both Israel and Gaza. Shibley Telhami weighs in on the confrontations spreading throughout Israel and the Palestinian territories, and whether the Biden administration will be able to effectively call for calm in the region. Show notes and transcript: https://brook.gs/2Qbg6eg  Follow Brookings podcasts on Apple or Google podcasts, or on Spotify. Send feedback email to BCP@Brookings.edu, and follow us and tweet us at @policypodcasts on Twitter. The Current is part of the Brookings Podcast Network.

A number of major trends—including changes in climate, demographics, geopolitics, and technology—will shape the Middle East over the next two decades. In this special episode of the Brookings Cafeteria Podcast, a team of scholars examines the possible trendlines and what they presage for Israel and its neighbors in the region. Natan Sachs, a Brookings fellow and director of the Center for Middle East Policy, leads a discussion on these issues with Samantha Gross, Kevin Huggard, Shibley Telhami, and Tamara Cofman Wittes. Learn more in the new report, “Israel in the Middle East: The next two decades,” at brookings.edu. Subscribe to Brookings podcasts on iTunes, send feedback email to BCP@Brookings.edu, and follow us and tweet us at @policypodcasts on Twitter. The Brookings Cafeteria is part of the Brookings Podcast Network.

Trump has the Opposition Inside Iran Rallying Around the Flag; The Possibility of a Retaliatory Cyberattack from Iran; A Proportional Response from Iran Coming Later Rather than Sooner? backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

Today on Midday, an update on what’s going on in Israeli politics, and the status of the stalled Middle East peace process..For analysis and context, Tom is joined today by four guests with decades of experience with the protracted pursuit of an Israeli-Palestinian accord, and a deep appreciation for the complexity of this seemingly intractable conflict. We begin with Natan Sachs, the Director and a Fellow of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He joins us on the line from the Brookings radio studio in Washington, DC. Then, we turn to Martin Indyk, the former US Ambassador to Israel in the Clinton Administration, and a special U.S. Envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations from 2013-2014, for the Obama Administration. He’s now a distinguished fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He joins us from his home in New York City.Dr. Shibley Telhami joins us as well. He’s the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland. He has also served as a senior advisor to the U.S. State Department, an advisor to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, and he’s a non-resident scholar at the Brookings Institution. He joins us from the Brookings' radio studio.And in the final segment, we're joined in the studio by Dr. Jerome Segal, a former research scholar at the Center for International Security Studies at the University of Maryland, and an activist for Middle East peace since the 1980s. Segal is the president of The Jewish Peace Lobby, a non-profit group he founded in Silver Spring, Maryland in 1989.

On this episode of SEPADPod Simon speaks with Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. He is the author of myriad books and articles about the Middle East, perhaps most notably The World Through Arab Eyes: Arab Public Opinion and the Reshaping of the Middle East (Basic Books, 2013). On this episode Simon and Shibley speak about studying the Middle East, the significance of Kenneth Waltz on Shibley's career, the role of identity politics, Arab public opinion, and escalating tensions across the Gulf.

In an era of decentralized terrorism, digital threats, and an unpredictable political climate, national security tactics are being put to the test. This is especially true concerning Israel, Palestine, and the United States, where shifts are happening as fast as policy can be developed. How are these actors staying up-to-date with regional and domestic challenges ranging from nuclear dangers, to demographic and societal changes, and political factionalism? And what impact has America's recent foreign policy shift had in the region? Join the Council, Chuck Freilich, and Shibley Telhami for an exploration of Israel's national security focus, the current situation in Palestine, US relations, and the impact of Russia's growing influence in the region. 

Shibley Telhami is the master of survey research in the Middle East. His book The World Through Arab Eyes walks through the complexities of characterizing the Arab world through survey data. His research tracks and explains changes over time on the most sensitive public issues, from the Arab Spring, America, Israel, al Jazeera, and democracy. This season of the Tel Aviv Review is made possible by The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, which promotes humanistic, democratic, and liberal values in the social discourse in Israel.

On July 19th, we hosted Shibley Telhami for a briefing call on US-Palestinian relations. Dr. Telhami is the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.  You can find a recording of the entire hour we spent with Dr. Telhami on our web site here.  This version, edited down to about 30 minutes, includes two main themes One is Shibley’s insightful analysis of the widening gap in values between American progressives – and not only progressives – and the ruling elite in Israel. Shibley brought this up in relation to the Nation-State Law that the Knesset passed the night before we spoke. The second theme was an analysis of the Trump administration’s actions and thinking – if there is real thinking – regarding the Israel-Palestine question, peace efforts etc. As always, I welcome your feedback. Thanks to those of you who have written to me. My email address is onir@peacenow.org

Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat chair for peace and development at the University of Maryland and nonresident senior fellow at Brookings, discusses with Sarah Yerkes the increasing polarization of American views toward Israel and Palestine and the future of U.S. policy in the broader Middle East. With thanks to audio producer Gaston Reboredo, Vanessa Sauter, Basseem Maleki, Fred Dews, and Richard Fawal. Full show notes are available here:  https://www.brookings.edu/podcast-episode/us-politics-and-the-middle-east/ Questions? Comments? Contact us at intersections@brookings.edu, or follow and tweet us at @policypodcasts on Twitter. Intersections is part of the Brookings Podcast Network.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hosted a review of its first Arab Experts Survey. The results of the survey, conducted in English and Arabic, represent the views of more than one hundred accomplished political thinkers representing almost every Arab country and answer broad questions around terrorism and extremism, civil war and foreign intervention, sectarianism, corruption, and governance. The survey is part of Carnegie’s Arab World Horizons project, an effort to examine the social, political, and economic forces shaping the Arab world. Marwan Muasher, Perry Cammack, and Shibley Telhami discussed the findings of the survey, and Joyce Karam moderated.

Krampus lays out her Christmas plans — and if you mess them up, you will pay. A fascinating discussion with Shibley Telhami about evangelicals, politics, end times views and more. Star Wars, James Bond, and other manly American stuff that Billy doesn't like. Bloody toast. I'm honestly asking — I'm not trying to be a jerk. Merry Christmas, peeps. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thechurchboys/message

In advance of his March 13th World Affairs Council of Greater Hampton Roads lecture, we're joined today by Dr. Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland and non-resident senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Join us as we consider the current state of the United States' ties to the Middle East and the regional impact of Egypt's ongoing identity crisis.

Once a quiet region mostly governed by authoritarian leaders, the Arab world since 2010 has seen profound changes, and has become a top talking point for pundits, political leaders and at dinner tables the world over. The changes brought about by the Arab Spring have forced many to reevaluate their understanding of the region and its people. For some the uprisings seemed sudden, but to Professor Shibley Telhami the Arab peoples' present-day grievances, priorities and desires have been fomenting for decades.  Based on 20 years of public polling data from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon and the UAE, Professor Telhami argues the uprisings were not just in reaction to corrupt leaders and decades of perceived humiliations at the hands of the West, but fueled by a desire for respect by the outside world and for political systems similar to the West. Professor Telhami will discuss differences in Arab polling, notions of Arab identity, how no government in the Arab world is immune from revolt and how Arab public opinion will reshape the Arab world.Speaker Shibley Telhami is the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, College Park.For more information about this event, visit: http://www.worldaffairs.org/events/2013/the-world-an-arab.html

The George Washington University’s Marc Lynch, director of the Project on Middle East Political Science, speaks with Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, College Park, and non-resident senior fellow at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of The Stakes: America and the Middle East which was selected by Foreign Affairs as one of the top five books on the Middle East in 2003. His other publications include Identity and Foreign Policy in the Middle East, ed. with Michael Barnett (2002), The Sadat Lectures: Words and Images on Peace, 1997-2008, ed. (2010), and The Peace Puzzle: America’s Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989-2011, co-authored with Dan Kurtzer, et al. (2012). He has been a principal investigator in the annual Arab Public Opinion Survey, conducted since 2002 in six Arab countries. Lynch and Telhami discuss the survey and Telhami’s new release The World Through Arab Eyes: Arab Public Opinion and the Reshaping of the Middle East. - See more at: http://pomeps.org/2013/06/pomeps-conversations-20-with-shibleytelhami-6-7-13/#sthash.TVzgFSgZ.dpuf

June 7, 2013. The George Washington University’s Marc Lynch, director of the Project on Middle East Political Science, speaks with Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, College Park, and non-resident senior fellow at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of The Stakes: America and the Middle East which was selected by Foreign Affairs as one of the top five books on the Middle East in 2003. His other publications include Identity and Foreign Policy in the Middle East, ed. with Michael Barnett (2002), The Sadat Lectures: Words and Images on Peace, 1997-2008, ed. (2010), and The Peace Puzzle: America’s Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989-2011, co-authored with Dan Kurtzer, et al. (2012). He has been a principal investigator in the annual Arab Public Opinion Survey, conducted since 2002 in six Arab countries. Lynch and Telhami discuss the survey and Telhami’s new release The World Through Arab Eyes: Arab Public Opinion and the Reshaping of the Middle East. - See more at: http://pomeps.org/2013/06/pomeps-conversations-20-with-shibleytelhami-6-7-13/#sthash.TVzgFSgZ.dpuf

I Japan, liksom i många andra delar av världen lever drömmen om det romantiska kyrkbröllopet. Och trots att en mycket liten del av Japans befolkning är kristen, har bröllop inspirerade av kristna traditioner blivit det populäraste sättet att gifta sig i Japan på senare år. Men hur reagerar kristna i Japan på att deras religion utnyttjas som en exotisk bröllopskrydda? Reportage av frilansjournalisten Katarina Björcke. Människor i Egypten, Jordanien och Libanon ser sig i första hand som muslimer, i andra hand som araber och först i i tredje hand egyptier, jordanier och libaneser. Det framgår av en stor attitydundersökning ledd av professor Shibley Telhami vid University of Maryland. Undersökningen visar också att president Obama till en början hade stor trovärdighet i arabvärlden, men att den har minskat drastiskt på grund av uteblivet initiativ i Israel-Palestinafrågan. Professor Telhami säger till Människor och tro att gapet mellan väst och arabvärlden fortfarande är mycket stort. Utrikeskrönikan av Christer Fridén kommer från Jerusalem. I helgen startar Vårgårda möte, arrangerat av Svenska Missionskyrkan. Mötet kommer besökas av samtliga partiledare för riskdagspartierna, trots att frikyrkobesökarna är en ganska liten del av väljarkåren. Statsvetaren Magnus Hagevi berättar om vilka mönster som finns bland svenska väljare med religiös identitet.   En gång var de pojkar och tillhörde en sträng frikyrklig församling. 45 år senare möts de igen. Paul har stannat kvar i den snäva, dömande miljön, medan Asger stöttes bort på grund av sin homosexualitet och sitt uppror.Det är bakgrunden till mötet mellan de båda som förs i Inger Edelfeldts senaste roman " Samtal med Djävulen" där samtalen framför allt handlar om mötet mellan olika livshållningar och hur olika vi kan närma oss begrepp som kärlek och ondska. Hör Inger Edelfeldt i ett kvartsamtal om skuld och förlåtelse. Producent: Åsa F Vestergren Programledare: Tithi Hahn  

Dr. Shibley Telhami focuses on the high regional expectations for a new American role in Iraq, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and relations with Iran, and on the shifting economic and global priorities that are likely to alter the next President’s agenda.