Students and Smoothies on Huntington Avenue

BOSTON -- I am often asked why I maintain the slightly naïve expectation that the United States will one day pursue policies in the Middle East that are fair to all in our region, and also comply with international law and core American values. My answer is, in part: Professor Denise Horn’s Globalization and International Affairs class INTL 1101 at Northeastern University in Boston.

Every autumn I spend a few weeks at Northeastern University giving a few lectures in classes, exchanging thoughts with students and faculty, and monitoring the ever-evolving range and quality of fruit smoothies on Huntington Avenue in central Boston. On all three counts, I am always enriched in mind, spirit and body. I inevitably come away from the experience energized by the common sense, basic decency, and fairness of ordinary Americans -- because this class offers insights into the hearts and minds of ordinary Americans who speak about the Middle East in an open, honest context, free from frenzied ideological manipulation.

Every year the professor asks her students to submit questions for our class discussion. The range of questions about the United States and the Middle East is a striking affirmation of four elements that make this such a satisfying experience for me: the inquisitiveness of youth; their sense of responsibility about how their government acts around the world; their quest to probe and understand the underlying reasons for the tensions that define many aspects of American-Middle Eastern relations; and, their desire to explore how their country can act most responsibly and constructively in the world.

I know that the several hundred students in this class are not fully representative of all US citizens. But they get pretty close, judging by the many ethnicities, races, religions and ideological sentiments they represent. The substance and style of the questions are striking and refreshing. They are striking because they almost always hit the central issues of any matter under discussion, without being diverted by ideological nonsense: What are the essential elements of an Arab-Israeli compromise agreement? Do tensions in Arab societies reflect local problems or stresses from globalization? Does American foreign policy aggravate or reduce autocratic governance in the Middle East? Is Obama’s approach promoting or retarding Arab-Israeli peace? Does he deserve his Nobel Peace Prize? What can average citizens do to promote peace and stability in the region? Should the United States and the international community push for upholding international law and prosecuting leaders in the Middle East who are accused of war crimes?

The tone of the questions is refreshing because they are, well, questions -- rather than the ideological fire hose blasts that often emanate from Americans who speak about the Middle East. The students reflect the best of American intellectual and political traditions as I know them: They appreciate that a problem or conflict exists, they ask many questions to try and grasp the facts and nuances of the matter, and they use the knowledge gathered to explore possible resolutions, with their country and government playing a positive role that aims to resolve the conflicts and reduce tensions. We do not always end with agreement or consensus, but we discuss the issues in a way that allows all views to be heard, and seeks to grasp and address the legitimate concerns of all parties.

This dynamic is repeated every day in a thousand classrooms around the United States, I am sure. It is an important reminder that the sentiments and values of ordinary Americans are strong, sensitive and fair-minded -- that’s the good news. The downside is that these sentiments also seem largely divorced from foreign policy decision-making in Washington. The point is, democracies function best when they faithfully reflect the sentiments and values of their citizens. This is often the case with American foreign policy (as in the current American slow withdrawal from Iraq) but Arab-Israeli policy is usually an exception that largely ignores the common decency and sense of fairness of the American people as policy-setting norms.

Rather, US policy in this realm is largely distorted by pro-Israeli, Christian fundamentalist, and other extremist forces that broadly assume that Israel is good and its needs get priority, while Arabs are suspect and they have to prove themselves and acquiesce to Israeli rightwing demands before being seriously engaged diplomatically. Public opinion polling by the respected Zogby firm and others in the United States repeatedly shows that -- unlike Washington’s skewed track record -- the American public wants the government to take an even-handed approach that affirms the simultaneous rights of Arabs and Israelis.

It is refreshing to confirm this now and then by engaging a cross-section of ordinary Americans who remind us why so many people around the world still admire the United States and look forward to the day when, like my jaunts along Huntington Avenue in Boston, its foreign policy also is fortified by the core strengths and decencies of its citizens.