Consider them to be both wilson experts. To my mind, professor knock has done more than anything totle us what Woodrow Wilson had to deal with, and kell us the history and moments of Woodrow Wilson, to tell us what he confronted and how he confronted it and the development of his own thinking in the world he lived inch professor tony smith is the other side of the coin. Has done more than anyone to tell us why this matters, because frankly, everybody president since wilson its not been a question whether or not they are wilsonian but how much. Still continue to guide American Foreign pop si today or might say coin to haunt American Foreign policy. What Woodrow Wilson said and what professor something i win help us understand in a more forwardgoing way helps drive america today, which is why im particularly pleased to have the author of this book why wilson matters which is a darn good book, to come here and to explain it to us, and then you can go buyure own copy. So, without further a
But he cannot usually bring people to agree with his dissent. I would not read too much into this. Please join me in thanking the great Melvin Urofsky [applause] and the final event from the bill of rights at the is Sanford Levinson who will examine the framers of the constitution. The final thrilling installment of the bill of rights book fair to celebrate the 224th anniversary of the bill of rights. I am the president of the National Constitution center which is the only institution started by congress to give out information without a political backing. You heard speeches on articles and history and what a great book to conclude on we have before us. You are in for a final constitutional treat. He has taken this book written by madison, hamilton and john jay and encapsulates the argument that each federalist paper is making and channels its relevance for the 21st century. This is a creative book. There are few books that display a creativity of mind that changes the debate and stick
As choosing the option that said we would like a twostate solution so we can go on building our own oil or neighbors build their own. Its actually worse numbers that have appeared in similar polls in other years. Sometimes its been more 50 50 that even 50 50 isnt enough. There has to be a consensus on the palestinian side. It doesnt have to be 100 . There has to be a consensus that they will go for permanent peace. Permanent peace also means policing. If there is a palestinian state than you can allow it to be a base for attacks on neighboring states. Rather than look for blame in some day today in every action on the diplomatic front or on the settlement building front or on the military front that the essential question is who wants peace and he wants fighting . On that question, its pretty clear that the blame is today as it has been since the conflict began on one side. Thank you and with that can i ask members of the audience to join me in thanking joshua muravchik. [applause] he
Our authors who are agreeing to participate in this reflection on the book and where the arab world is now in the wake of this publication and in the wake of all of the developments of the last three plus years. Im going to briefly introduce our speakers. They will speak each for about 10 minutes in the order that i want to reduce them. I may ask them a few more questions and try and get them to fight with one another intellectually. Then we will have plenty of time for you to pose your questions or challenges to them and to all of us. Dan brumberg is one of our oldest in terms of longestserving partners in the journal of democracy. In fact he joined our editorial at an early stage of his career. And its been very influential in shaping our coverage of the Political Developments related to the arab world and associate professor of government and codirector of the program of democracy and government at georgetown university. He also serves as a special adviser with the institute of peac
Didnt. Now when we think about transitions i think we think about the transition. On. I still think its in many respects still an important intellectual theoretical contribution that the paradigm assumed that democratization would emerge not because people are committed to democracy but because people were using democratic rules as a mechanism of conflict resolution the notion of democracy without democrats but there was no basic identity area the extent to which heres the paradox. The authors of the paradigm are correct. You need some sort of political bargain to make a transition but its particularly difficult difficult to have a path in the struggle is not over economic and social issues explicitly but over identity. How do you bargain with identity issues . Its much more difficult than dealing with rates of inflation and so on if you compare the struggle for a pact in brazil would say to egypt. The polls were not trying to figure out their national identity. The question therefore