Sorry for taking some time to link this, I was looking for video of decent quality. I've told you guys before that I'm not the one to be leading any sort of discussion on the Israeli/Palestinian beef, so let me just speak as an ordinary citizen and voter. This interview makes me really, really glad Obama won. I won't know the ends and outs of all of his policy decisions, but what I see here is a man who will think and rethink about those decisions, who is nuanced, and capable of walking and chewing gum
One other point before we roll tape. I think the most important thing that comes across here is Obama's willingness to listen and be respectful of folk. People aren't robots programmed by a few policy points. A little respect goes a long, long way. It opens people up to points that they may not have been willing to be open to before. It clears the way for true dialouge.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The simplest answer is: Whenever your dad is fucking rich, please travel to other countries--at least for vacation or business. That alone, will make your dumb mind open to see that people in other countries don't eat through their nose. It is same true for black folks who stupidly asked me if when I was in Africa, I do sleep on top of a tree. Our last POTUS fell into this category with the hood brothas who never travel outside their self-controlled zone.
The most heartening thing for me in this interview was how careful Obama was to assert that we (once again) are able to distinguish between those who disagree with us and those who want to kill us.
Obama: Teaching the nation to walk and chew gum since 1/20/09!
"Sigh"
I hate to be the pessimist here, but regardless of he or Ms. Rice does, those people will will be fighting till the end of time. All of Obama's " lets be nice and talk this out" approach is completely wasted on that situation-and I speak as someone who has thought and read about the situation for a long time.
"and I speak as someone who has thought and read about the situation for a long time."
Who are 'those people' stonetools, and why 'the end of time?'
If you're talking about Israel/Palestine, that's less than a hundred years old, and they were united for a long time in wanting the British Empire out.
Hardly the end of time. Read a bit more perhaps.
stonetools:
Those people?
If by "those people" you mean Palestinians and Jews, what makes them different than any other people? What makes them special that they would be unable to make peace where other people can?
George Mitchell, Obama's new envoy to the Middle East, was instrumental in reaching a peace agreement in Northern Ireland. He had this to say:
Note that the conflict in Ireland has actually been going on longer than the one in Palestine.
For someone who has "spent a lot of time thinking about these issues" maybe you should bring a little more nuance to your analysis. Furthermore, you ought to know that Ms. Rice is no longer Secretary of State.
*Sigh*
Stonetools...i understand, and in part share your pessimism. BUT, Obama wasn't just talking about I/P. He was adressing the middle-east, and in what i regard as a shout-out to the iranian people to step the eff up and elect someone willing and able to actually lead them. Bush did this in some part in the beginning, but botched it hard during and after the elections in 2005.
"the persian civilisation is a great civilisation" is not a shout-out to the post-muslim heritage of the mullas, but the pre-muslim heritage, that many iranians feel have been stolen from them. It's a direct attemt at talking over ahmedinejad and adressing the people of iran. A subtle nudge that, in the near future, if the iranian people stand up, the US would stand up with them. Again, this i a theory of mine. Bush's two biggest misstake in his attempt at "liberating" the middle east was that he didn't understand soft power, and two, he didn't understand which country to engage. I may have jumped the gun on this one, but i think if you only look at it as the I/P-conflict it looks kind of lost.
Thanks for posting this video. I had read the transcript but hadn't actually seen the video.
What I found fascinating was Obama's discussion of language. At one point, he said something like, Ultimately, I will not be judged on my words but on my actions.
However, he then repeated (several times) how crucial it is to use the right kind of language, to use a respectful tone.
What I find so brilliant about this is his recognition that action is the END result and that words are absolutely crucial to make the right kind of action happen. It's how he ran his campaigns; he used amazing words to get people listening and then built on that community of listeners to create change. For so long, the U.S. has either been all talk or all action; we haven't understood that these two approaches aren't two approaches at all but actually integral parts of the same strategy.
I hope to god this idea of respectful words leading to positive action works with policy, too. I hope we all have the patience to build this community of listeners - because there's no other way that we're going to see peace in the Middle East, equality at home, or the fulfillment of any other "dream" that has always seemed so impossible in the past. I once saw Desmond Tutu speak, just before the war in Iraq began, and he said that politicians and experts pretend that peace is some idealistic goal when, in reality, it's the most pragmatic strategy we could take. I hear that with Obama, as well - that words aren't just empty ideals but pragmatic tools to help build something real and lasting.
I also found it interesting that he brought up the children of Palestine and Israel. Sounded very much like something he would say on domestic policy, too. I wonder if this will work. There's great potential in tapping into universalism - that we all have a common desire to see our children live better lives - but there's also great danger. LBJ tried this during the Vietnam War; he offered the North Vietnamese the same "Great Society" programs we had here in the U.S., and when they wouldn't accept what they saw as a "bribe" to give up their autonomy, LBJ was disillusioned.
Of course, Obama's experience makes him so very different from LBJ. LBJ was part of the white liberal establishment that couldn't understand why blacks wouldn't want to integrate into white culture. I think Obama must, through his own experiences, understand the difference between assimilation and pluralism. At least, I hope so.
"If by "those people" you mean Palestinians and Jews, what makes them different than any other people? What makes them special that they would be unable to make peace where other people can?"
An especially poisonous religious ideology that teaches them that God is one their side, both of them, and that God has promised them the land, both of them, and that when they get shoved off of it, it is a crime that involves the whole world and they have the right to drag the whole world into their shabby, cheap, bitch-ass little drama, both of them, and then when they are wronged they are entitled to retaliate at whatever level they deem "just", both of them?
Daniel Larison has, as usual, a very interesting take on this interview.
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/01/26/missing-what-is-in-plain-view/
This interview also makes me very glad that Obama won but perhaps the cynics are right. This won't work, but i'm hopeful.
Jim,
"drag the whole world into"?
You're aware that the 'whole world' was the reason Israel (and the idea of the two-state system) came about in the first place, no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Partition_Plan
No, probably not.
The nuance, thoughtfulness and willingness to listen were seen as detrimental during the primary debates but they were what caused me to start paying serious attention to his candidacy.
Ditto my experience. When I traveled, I was always conscious of the fact that I was The American, esp. in Asia. I found that simple things like, trying to properly pronounce someone's name or speaking in the local tongue or having a little curiosity, went a long, long way. It showed people that I respected and valued them and their culture.
Obama demonstrates humility with power. That's a powerful combination. Like the difference between confidence and cockiness.
That interview blew me away. I agree with Christina L., that Obama understands the symbolic importance of the right words, but he also understands that words alone are not enough. I was struck, too, that he talked about Palestinian children. Very, very few US politicians talk about Palestinians as if they had families, and children, and dreams, i.e. as if they were human beings like other human beings. I think that will stick with a lot of people. Just his willingness to listen, to engage the journalist (who, unlike most American TV "journalists," knew his sh*t), was such a relief.
I just felt relief that finally, finally, we have a thinker in the White House.
I completely disagree with stonetools that Obama's PR is completely wasted on people. Rhetoric matters. You'd think people would realize this now more than ever, post Bush's "Axis of Evil" rhetoric.
Language shapes attitudes and beliefs. It's not just about swaying an 18 year old Muslim kid in Afghanistan to pick up a book instead of a gun, it's also about telling the masses---in Europe, Asia, Africa, etc---that we share the same value system and we're capable of showing some measure of humility and mutual respect. Without that foundation, we lose credibility and clout at the negotiating table, which inhibits our ability to implement good policy. We also lose goodwill, which is bad for us, everywhere.
P.S. A selfish, narrow view: I look forward to being able to travel to places like Spain(!) without feeling like somebody is going to spit on me after I reveal my citzenship.
Something that's getting completely lost in the discussion of this interview is that Bush actually gave several interviews to this same TV station during his presidency. Obama gave a much better interview, naturally, and it's significant because it's part of how he's kicking off his presidency, but some people are getting the impression that it's a historic interview in a way that it's actually not.
Bush was a complete disaster for our relationship with the Muslim world, of course, but he did make an effort to do the right thing once in a while. I thought one of the best moments of his Presidency was his speech right after 9/11 when he called Islam a religion of peace and told people that our dispute was with the terrorists, not with Muslims in general. He may not have ultimately lived up to those words but it was still a pretty important and statesmanlike thing to say at a time when we all had reason to fear widespread reprisals against blameless Muslims and incidents of that sort. Unfortunately for all of us, that was a high point for Bush in the sense that it was all downhill from there.
I have a fair amount of pessimism, mostly because a lot of these governments in the Middle East lack stability and as oil continues to stagnate, a country like Iran is going to continue to need an outside enemy. The US and the Jews will fill that need as they have in the past.
Also, a lot of hardliners in the region hate us for a long list of reasons that have nothing to do with who is in office. The expansion of the war in Afghanistan may also prove problematic
"You're aware that the 'whole world' was the reason Israel (and the idea of the two-state system) came about in the first place, no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Partition_Plan"
Which does nothing to explain the origin of the conflict, or the low-rent, sleazy nature of the conflict and the unendng dick-dance of the "Peace Process". Weak. Try again.
Claiming that the UN was "the whole world" at a time when it was basically nothing more than a club of European has-been colonial powers and WWII victors is very, very weak.
And in any case, what the UN or anyone else has done or not done hardly exculpates the two parties for their behavior, although given the psychodymanics of the religious tradition the desire for exculpation can be overwheming and transparent tactics to shift the blame onto the UN and "the whole world" are to be expected.
You're right, Steve, if everything that happened between the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and now had not happened, there would be nothing especially noteworthy about this interview at all. But given the enormity of what Bush *did* do following that first speech, I don't really see why it's so important that you point this out. This interview is a big deal I think, even though it's only a first step. And I don't think any other president in the running would have had the ability or the inclination to do it in the way he did.
I am no leader on the Israeli/Palestinian beef either. But here is a clip from yesterdays interview with Kathy Kelly (Executive Director of Voices for Creative Non-violence) on Democracy Now. I am no leader on a discussion of her either but, it is an interesting interview. It doesn't address the Obama interview directly just Gaza and Obama. She just got back from Gaza. The link takes you to the beginning of her segment with Amy Goodman (Host). Around 43:06, Kelly reminds us that Obama is now the "chief arms exporter in the world and in charge of the most massive killing machine in the world..." and basically it is our responsibility to keep him in check. And she does all this in the calmest most respectful manner. It's a good listen. 20 minutes in total.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/27/peace_activist_kathy_kelly_returns_from
No Jim,
You clearly don't have any clue about the history of the situation; to repeat 'weak' endlessly doesn't really prove your point.
From it's inception to conception to now, modern Israel has been an international issue. To say that Britain and America or any other country have not had a huge effect on it is as ridiculous as claiming France has nothing to do with Lebanon.
To not realize that, and to say that I am trying to 'shift the blame' is either ignorant or intentionally misleading.
Actions on either side are inexcusable, but the idea that they can sort it out without any outside assistance and if they can't they are somehow barbarians because of their religions is a joke.
Generally good and interesting stuff, but the interviewer and Obama both assert that America was not born as a colonial power.
Am I missing something? How could anyone not acknowledge that the U.S. was, at least in part, a project of conquest of indigenous people (genocide, boarding schools, broken treaties, stolen land).
@James, Iilya, Tessa, at al:
Ah, its good to see the optimism of the young people! Keep up that youthful hopefulness. In the real world, however, we will meet again in four, eight , or fifteen years and there will be STILL be the Middle East crisis, IMO.
I think that the Northern Ireland crisis ( "The Troubles") was far less intractable than the the ME crisis-just more people, fewer resources, deeper grievances, more religious justification for the differing positions. You should know that there are continuing difficulties in Northern Ireland to this day.
on Iran, I think that Obama's sweet reasonableness approach may work, but frankly, looking at it from Iran's POV, I can't see any good reason why Iran should not have the A bomb, so I expect them to continue to press that.
I frankly think that Iraq now has a good chance of making it as a democratic state ( thank you, Mr. Bush) but that could go pear shaped at any time too. Ditto Lebanon...
IOW the ME is just fugged up, and most of those folks aren't even trying to be nice and reasonable. But we will see how Obama's rhetoric works. Hell, it can't make it any worse.
"In the real world, however, we will meet again in four, eight , or fifteen years and there will be STILL be the Middle East crisis, IMO."
Stonetools, Obama's rhetoric is not an attempt---nor is he or anybody else naive to think they can attempt---to resolve all crisis in the Middle East. You're missing the point entirely of Obama's reach-out.
When I watch Obama talking to adversaries I see him employing the same techniques I used as a case manager with homeless teens.
When someone's beating their chest, freaking out and yelling he just goes right up to them talking in a conversational, calm, respectful tone, almost changing the subject, certainly changing the dynamic, and completely disarms them by enlisting their help in their own problems. He talks as if he assumes you're a reasonable, intelligent person with a legitimate point of view. He's not engaged with your temper, he listens past that and talks to the reasonable person within.
Obama is a Jedi Master at this because he has nothing to hide, and is not trying to fool you. He has a clear conscience and trusts you will see that by his actions. He trusts and so you begin to trust.
I want to pinch myself that this man is our president.
@andsothenshebithim
In its early history the US wasn't really interested in colonialism, that is, in political/economic subjugation of other countries from afar. It quickly became very interested in what essentially was genocide or ethnic cleansing of various regions, but the impulse towards colonialism itself didn't really take off until Manifest Destiny was completed and the country turned its eye to Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico, Haiti, and the Philippines.
Just saying. Our history of old European-style colonialism only goes back about a hundred years.
But given the enormity of what Bush *did* do following that first speech, I don't really see why it's so important that you point this out.
It was just an example of Bush showing that he knows how to do the right thing when he tries, which wasn't nearly often enough. I'd note that Bush was giving interviews to al-Arabiya TV as late as 2007, so I'm not talking about an initiative he abandoned early in his presidency. He just didn't seem to get that actions ultimately speak louder than words.
I was actually turned off by this interview.
I mean, he did try to sound conciliatory, but when I square that with his speech at AIPAC, where he took an extremely harsh tone towards Palestinians, it comes across as someone who is not authentic, at least when it comes to this issue.
This reminds me a bit of the post back after the Lowrey bruhaha at the inauguration. "Credit for what you're supposed to do..."
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/
Listen I am thrilled that he won and I have enormous respect for him. I watched the interview,(and granted I am no scholar, so feel free to school me) and can agree that he had great and reasonable ideas and things to say. Reasonable not revolutionary. Although reasonable may sound revolutionary after the past 8 years. We are so used to mediocre.
So Like Nima and Kathy Kelly... I am cautiously optimistic.
"From it's inception to conception to now, modern Israel has been an international issue. To say that Britain and America or any other country have not had a huge effect on it is as ridiculous as claiming France has nothing to do with Lebanon."
Strawmanning isn't going to win this one for you. Britain and the US were hardly the impetus behind the establishment of Israel, and had less with to do with the notion that either the Arabs or the Jews have a God-given right to that land. Outside countries have had an enormous influence in the problem, which is 1) a function of colonialism, still not dead in the 40's 2) due to the inability of both groups to keep outsiders out and 2) due to their willingness to appeal to outsiders for help. Blaming the kaffirs and the goyim won't work this time.
"if they can't they are somehow barbarians because of their religions is a joke."
The barbarism of their religion is on display in a wide range of ways on a daily basis across the world. I guess 9-11 wasn't enough for you.
And by the way, calling someone uninformed just because he doesn't agree with your perceptions or analysis of a situation is puerile, especially in an anonymous setting where you have no idea who you are speaking to and what he may or may not know. It's pathetic, really.
Jim, you started with the name calling. And your argument is still clueless, despite you taking several hours to respond.
And to then accuse me of being puerile, and anonymous (Jim who, sorry?), is priceless.
'their religion'? 9-11 was now committed exclusively by Palestinians was it?
TNC doesn't like flame wars, so I'll leave it at this, but you're worse than a clown, you're a fraud.
Ultimately Obama will be judged by his actions. Let there be no decieving though the US has promoted a path of rejectionism for the last 30 years as it concerns a two state solution within the well known contours that the UN and the rest of the world proposed. Obama avoided this during his state department speech...hinting that he is on this same path of rejectionsism. Obama said that Israel was defending itself from rockets..as if force is ultimately unquestionable when there is room for dialogue. This I think is in alighn with an impartiality that has been the case for a long time. What if his "daughters were sleeping" on the palestenian side rather than the israeli side he was quick to mention...I mean seriously who will believe that load of crap. Mr. Obama could be the answer but so far we can only judge him by his words. He supports Israel's punishment of the people of Gaza. What are we to make of this....
Nima, pretty much hit it on the head. Obama sounded damn near like Ariel Sharon at AIPAC. I almost hate to say anything critical about Obama because people seem to be genuinely in love with him, but he says alot of the right things, that are devoid of any concrete plan of action. The conflict in the middle east isn't going to be solved with respectful language. This isn't about people's feelings being hurt by mean words, its about land, human rights, international law, and sovereignty. He's been pretty clear about where he stands in any conflict that Israel is involved in so I find myself far less impressed with his very respectful interview.
Like Jack LL said, we don't need to be falling over ourselves rushing to throw roses on a guy for being respectful to a section of the world. Bush has given us all battered wife syndrome. We're on our first date and ready to give up the draws because our hasn't given us a shiner yet.
In this era of lowered expectations I'm afraid that for most people Obama just has to be better than Bush to be 'good'.
A man who refuses to hear a shout will strain to hear a whisper.
LBJ tried this during the Vietnam War; he offered the North Vietnamese the same "Great Society" programs we had here in the U.S., and when they wouldn't accept what they saw as a "bribe" to give up their autonomy, LBJ was disillusioned.
I just feel the need to point out that there was significantly more history behind this than that, and that-- as Obama will find going forward, I'm afraid-- past history can influence whether or not you are trusted or considered a partner you can negotiate in good faith with.
@Kai, Nima, hassan, et al.,
You guys are absolutely right to be cautious. We do need to see where this goes, and how much influence any American President, even one as popular as BO is, actually has on the I/P situation.
Having said that, I think it's clear that with out strong leadership by the US and others (EU, Egypt, Syria, Russia, Iran) this situation will _not_ be resolved. We have to invest our energy and hopes somewhere, and BO seems like a good person so far.
A wise person (don't remember who) said re: the Troubles in Northern Ireland, "the Catholics and the Protestants will stop fighting when they love their children more than they hate each other." Take that with a grain of salt; but the thought of the Palestinian and Israeli kids who are brought up with hatred in their hearts makes my stomach hurt.
hearts & minds:
The CIA's station chief at its sensitive post in Algeria is under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for allegedly raping at least two Muslim women who claim he laced their drinks with a knock-out drug, U.S. law enforcement sources tell ABC News.
...
The discovery of more than a dozen videotapes showing the CIA officer engaged in sex acts with other women has led the Justice Department to broaden its investigation to include at least one other Arab country, Egypt, where the CIA officer had been posted earlier in his career, according to law enforcement officials.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=6750266&page=1