Audio and Transcript: Obama Interview with National Public Radio (1 June)

Related Post: Video of Obama Interview with BBC (1 June)

In addition to speaking with the British Broadcasting Corporation on Monday, President Obama gave a 15-minute interview to US National Public Radio on the Middle East. The questioning was blunt, opening with, "Do you have to change or alter in some way the US support for a strong Israel?", but Obama held his line by both restating the US commitment to its special relationship with a secure Israel and the need for the honesty of a "good friend" in telling Tel Aviv that "the current trajectory in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but for US interests".

Possibly more interesting --- and more troubling --- was Obama's refusal to countenance any recognition of Hamas or Hezbollah as legitimate political entities at this point.

Listen to the interview....

SPEAKERS: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
STEVE INSKEEP, NPR ANCHOR
MICHELE NORRIS, NPR CORRESPONDENT

[*] INSKEEP: Mr. President, welcome to the program.

OBAMA: Thank you so much.

NORRIS: We’re so glad you could join us, or we could join you in this case. If you want to improve relations with the Muslim world, do you have to change, or alter, in some way the strong U.S. support for Israel?

OBAMA: No, I don’t think that we have to change strong U.S. support for Israel. I think that we do have to retain a constant belief in the possibilities of negotiations that will lead to peace, and that that’s going to require -- from my view -- a two-state solution. That’s going to require that each side, Israelis and Palestinians, meet their obligations.

I’ve said very clearly to the Israelis, both privately and publicly, that a freeze on settlements, including natural growth, is part of those obligations. I’ve said to the Palestinians that their continued progress on security and ending the incitement that, I think, understandably makes Israelis so concerned -- that, that has to be -- those obligations have to be met.

So the key is to just believe that, that process can move forward, and that all sides are going to have to give. And it’s not going to be an easy path, but one that I think we can achieve.

INSKEEP: Mr. President, you mentioned a freeze on settlements. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is quoted, today, saying to cabinet members in Israel, that he will not follow your demand for a freeze on settlements in the West Bank; that it’s not going to happen. What does it suggest that Israel is not taking your advice?

OBAMA: Well, I think it’s still early in the process. You know, they’ve formed a government -- what -- a month ago. I think that we’re going to have a series of conversations. Obviously, the first priority of an Israeli prime minister is to think in terms of Israel’s security. I believe that strategically the status quo is unsustainable when it comes to Israeli security; that over time, in the absence of peace with the Palestinians, Israel will continue to be threatened militarily and will have enormous problems along its borders.

And so, you know, it is not only in the Palestinians’ interest to have a state, I believe that it’s in the Israelis’, as well, and in the United States’ interest, as well.

INSKEEP: But if the United States says for years that Israel should stop the settlements, and for years, Israel simply does not, and the United States continues supporting Israel in roughly the same way, what does that do with American credibility in the Muslim world, which you’re trying to address?

OBAMA: Well, I think what is certainly true is that the United States has to follow through on what it says. Now, as I said before, I haven’t said anything yet because it’s early in the process. But it is important for us to be clear about what we believe will lead to peace, and that there’s not equivocation and there’s not a sense that we expect only, you know, compromise on one side. It’s going to have to be two sided. And I don’t think anybody would deny that in theory. When it comes to the concrete, then the politics of it get difficult, both with the Israeli and the Palestinian communities. But, look, if this was easy, it would’ve already been done.

NORRIS: Many people in the region are concerned when they look at the U.S. relationship with Israel. They feel that Israel has favored status in all cases. And what do you say to people in the Muslim world who feel that the U.S. has repeatedly over time blindly supported Israel?

OBAMA: Well, what I’d say is: There’s no doubt that the United States has a special relationship with Israel. There are a lot of Israelis who used to be Americans. There is, you know, a huge cross cultural ties between the two countries.

OBAMA: I think that as a vibrant democracy that shares many of our values, obviously, we’re deeply sympathetic to Israel. And I think -- I would also say that given past statements surrounding Israel -- the notion that they should be driven into the sea; that they should be annihilated; that they should be obliterated. The, you know, armed aggression that’s been directed towards them in the past -- you can understand why, not only Israelis would feel concerned, but the United States would feel it was important to back the stalwart ally.

Now, having said all that, what is also true is that part of being a good friend is being honest. And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction -- the current trajectory -- in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests. And that’s part of a new dialogue that I’d like to see encouraged in the region.

INSKEEP: Does it undermine your efforts, reaching out to the Muslim world, which you’ll do with a speech in Cairo, that you’ll be speaking in a country with an undemocratic government that is an ally of the United States?

OBAMA: Well, keep in mind, I already spoke in Turkey. They have a democracy that, I’m sure, some Turks would say has flaws to it, just as there are some Americans who would suggest there are flaws to American democracy.

INSKEEP: Are you about to say Egypt is just a country with some flaws?

OBAMA: No, no. What I’m about -- don’t put words in my mouth, Steve, especially not in the White House.

INSKEEP: Just wondering where you were heading with that.

OBAMA: You can wait until the postscript. There is a wide range of governments throughout the Muslim world and the non-Muslim world. And the main thing for me to do is to project what our values are; what our ideals are; what we care most deeply about. And that is democracy: rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion.

Now, in every country I deal with, whether it’s China, Russia, ultimately Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia -- allies as well as non-allies -- there are going to be some differences. And what I want to do is just maintain consistency in affirming what those values, that I believe in, are, understanding that, you know, we’re not going to get countries to embrace various of -- our values simply by lecturing or through military means.

We can’t force these approaches. What we can do is stand up for human rights. We can stand up for democracy. But I think it’s a mistake for us to somehow suggest that we’re not going to deal with countries around the world in the absence of their meeting all our criteria for democracy.

INSKEEP: Michele Norris?

NORRIS: You’ve mentioned the -- many times, the importance of reaching out to Iran with an open hand; trying to engage that country. Are you also willing to try to engage with Hezbollah or Hamas?

OBAMA: Well...

NORRIS: Entities that have now had significant gains in recent elections.

OBAMA: Let’s just underscore a point here. Iran is a huge, significant nation-state that has -- you know, has, I think, across the international community been recognized as such. Hezbollah and Hamas are not. And I don’t think that we have to approach those entities in the same way.

(CROSSTALK)

NORRIS: If I may ask, though, does that change with their electoral gains?

OBAMA: Well, look, if -- at some point -- Lebanon is a member of the United Nations. If at some point they are elected as a head of state, or a head of state is elected in Lebanon, that is a member of that organization, then that would raise these issues. That hasn’t happened yet.

With respect to Hamas, I do think that if they recognize the quartet principles that have been laid out -- and these are fairly modest conditions here -- that you recognize the state of Israel without prejudging what various grievances or claims are appropriate; that you abide by previous agreements; that you renounce violence as a means of achieving your goals. Then, I think, the discussions with Hamas could potentially proceed.

And so, the problem has been that there has been a preference, oftentimes, on the part of the organizations to use violence and not take responsibility for governance as a means of winning propaganda wars, or advancing their organizational aims. At some point, though, they may make a transition. There are examples of -- in the past, of organizations that have successfully transitioned from violent organizations to ones that recognize that they can achieve their aims more effectively through political means, and I hope that occurs.

INSKEEP: Mr. President, because you mentioned Iran, I want to ask a question about that, and about your efforts to engage with the Muslim world in a different way. I’d like to know which development you think would be more harmful to America’s prestige in the Muslim world. Which is worse -- An Iranian government that has nuclear weapons, or an Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities?

OBAMA: Well, I’m not going to engage in these hypotheticals, Steve. But I can tell you that my view is that Iran possessing a nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing to the region, not just with respect to Israel’s response, but the response of other Arab states in the region, or Muslim states on the region that might be concerned about Iran having an undue advantage.

More broadly, I’ve got a concern about nuclear proliferation generally. It’s something that I talked about in my speech in Prague. I think one of the things that we need to do is to describe to the Iranians a pathway for them achieving security, respect and prosperity that doesn’t involve them possessing a nuclear weapon. But we have to be able to make that same argument to other countries that might aspire to nuclear weapons. And we have to apply some of those same principles to ourselves so that -- for example, I’ll be traveling next month to Moscow to initiate START (ph) talks; trying to reduce our nuclear stockpiles as part of a broader effort in the international community to contain nuclear weapons.

INSKEEP: And would you urge other nations to restrain themselves until you can complete that process...

OBAMA: Well, that’s going to be the challenge. That’s why we’re so busy around here all the time.

INSKEEP: Let me ask about one other challenge, if I might.

Forgive me, Michele, go ahead.

NORRIS: No, it’s OK.

INSKEEP: Is your effort to engage the Muslim world likely to be complicated, or even undermined, by the fact that you’re escalating a war in a Muslim country, Afghanistan, with the inevitable civilian casualties and other bad news that will come out of that?

OBAMA: Well, there’s no doubt that any time you have civilian casualties, that always complicates things, whether it’s a Muslim or a non-Muslim country. I think part of what I’ll be addressing in my speech is a reminder that the reason we’re in Afghanistan is very simple, and that is: Three thousand Americans were killed. And you had a devastating attack on the American homeland. The organization that planned those attacks intends to carry out further attacks. And we cannot stand by and allow that to happen.

But I am somebody who is very anxious to have the Afghan government and the Pakistani government have the capacity to ensure that those safe havens don’t exist. And so, you know, it’s -- I think it will be an important reminder that we have no territorial ambitions in Afghanistan. We don’t have an interest in exploiting the resources of Afghanistan. What we want is simply that people aren’t hanging out in Afghanistan who are plotting to bomb the United States.

OBAMA: And I think that is a fairly modest goal that, you know, other Muslim countries should be able to understand.

NORRIS: Mr. President, you have talked about creating a new path forward on Guantanamo and the relationship that the U.S. has with countries in the Muslim world on several fronts. But at the same time, the former vice president has been out talking about the policies in the former administration.

He’s forceful. He’s unapologetic and he doesn’t seem willing to scale back his rhetoric. How much does that undermine, or complicate your effort to extend a hand; to explain the Obama doctrine and draw a line of demarcation between that administration and yours?

OBAMA: Well, he also happens to be wrong -- right? And last time, immediately after his speech, I think there was a fact check on his speech that didn’t get a very good grade.

Does it make it more complicated? No, because these are complicated issues and there is a legitimate debate to be had about national security. And I don’t doubt the sincerity of the former vice president or the previous administration in wanting to protect the American people, and these are very difficult decisions.

You know, if you’ve got a -- as I said in my speech -- if you’ve got an organization that is out to kill Americans and is not bound by any rules, then that puts an enormous strain on, not only our intelligence operations, our national security operations, but also our legal system.

The one thing that I am absolutely persuaded by, though, is that if we are true to our ideals and our values, if these decisions aren’t made unilaterally by our executive branch, but rather in consultation and in open fashion and in democratic debate, that the Muslim world, and the world generally, will see that we have upheld our values; been true to our ideals. And that, ultimately, will make us safer.

NORRIS: It’s a -- unusual for the debate to be playing out in a public form though. Have you picked up the phone? Have you talked to him? Have you had a conversation?

OBAMA: Well, I don’t think it’s that unusual. As I remember, there were some speeches given by Vice President Gore that differed with President Bush’s policies. And I think that’s healthy. That’s part of the debate. And I don’t, in any way, begrudge, I think, anybody in debating, sometimes ferociously, these issues that are of premier importance to the United States.

And I am constantly listening and gauging whether or not there is new information out there I should take in to account. I will tell you that, based on my reviews, I am very confident about the policies that we have taken being the right ones for the American people.

Video: Fox News to Israel --- How about Bombing Iran?

OK, so no one should expect journalistic objectivity when Fox News interviews the Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel, Danny Ayalon, but there is a special intensity about this clip from Sunday. It's Fox, rather than Ayalon, setting the agenda with the opening "question" about Israel's "routine" military exercises, "There's nothing routine when Iran continues its nuclear plans, defies the United Nations Security Council, and repeatedly Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vows to wipe Israel off the map."

Of course, Ayalon is happy --- in line with Tel Aviv's strategy --- to put Iran rather than, say, Palestine first. However, the Deputy Foreign Minister (who, like Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, is a member of the "right-wing" Israel-Beitenu Party) comes across as the dove in this conversation. He holds out for economic sanctions against Iran's "existential threat" as Fox's anchorman presses for a military response.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXoh18f1F_E[/youtube]

Struggling in Gaza: The New York Times Account

Struggling in Gaza: The Eyewitness's Account

"The aim is to keep Gaza at subsistence and offer a contrast with the West Bank, which in theory benefits from foreign aid and economic and political development. Hamas supporters will then realize their mistake. The plan has not gone well, however."

Misery Hangs Over Gaza Despite Pledges of Help

ETHAN BRONNER
The New York Times
29 May 2009

Dozens of families still live in tents amid collapsed buildings and rusting pipes. With construction materials barred, a few are building mud-brick homes. Everything but food and medicine has to be smuggled through desert tunnels from Egypt. Among the items that people seek is an addictive pain reliever used to fight depression.

Four months after Israel waged a war here to stop Hamas rocket fire and two years after Hamas took full control of this coastal strip, Gaza is like an island adrift. Squeezed from without by an Israeli and Egyptian boycott and from within by their Islamist rulers, the 1.5 million people here are cut off from any productivity or hope.

“Right after the war, everybody came — journalists, foreign governments and charities promising to help,” said Hashem Dardona, 47, who is unemployed. “Now, nobody comes.”

But with the Obama administration pressing Israel to allow in reconstruction materials, and with attention increasingly focused on internal Palestinian divisions, Gaza will soon be back at the center of Middle East peace negotiations. The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, met with President Obama on Thursday in Washington.

For many Israelis, Gaza is a symbol of all that is wrong with Palestinian sovereignty, which they view increasingly as an opportunity for anti-Israeli forces, notably Iran, to get within rocket range.

That leaves Gaza suspended in a state of misery that defies easy categorization. It is, of course, crowded and poor, but it is better off than nearly all of Africa as well as parts of Asia. There is no acute malnutrition, and infant mortality rates compare with those in Egypt and Jordan, according to Mahmoud Daher of the World Health Organization here.

This is because although Israel and Egypt have shut the borders for the past three years in an effort to squeeze Hamas, Israel rations aid daily, allowing in about 100 trucks of food and medicine. Military officers in Tel Aviv count the calories to avoid a disaster. And the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees runs schools and medical clinics that are clean and efficient.

But there are many levels of deprivation short of catastrophe, and Gaza inhabits most of them. It has almost nothing of a functioning economy apart from basic commerce and farming. Education has declined terribly; medical care is declining.

There are tens of thousands of educated and ambitious people here, teachers, engineers, translators, business managers, who have nothing to do but grow frustrated. They cannot practice their professions and they cannot leave. They collect welfare and smoke in cafes. A United Nations survey shows a spike in domestic violence.

Some people say they have started to take a small capsule known as Tramal, the commercial name for an opiate-like painkiller that increases sexual desire and a sense of control. Hamas has recently warned of imprisonment for those who traffic in and take the drug.
Yet the pills arrive, along with clothing, furniture and cigarettes, through the hundreds of tunnels punched into the desert at the southern border town of Rafah by rough-edged entrepreneurs who pay the Hamas authorities a tax on the goods.

Similar tunnels also serve as conduits for arms. Israel periodically bombs those in hopes of weakening Hamas, which says it will never recognize Israel and will reserve the right to use violence against it until it leaves all the land it won in the 1967 war. After that, there would be a 10-year truce while the next steps were contemplated, although the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel in any borders.

Israel began the siege after Hamas won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006. It was tightened after Hamas pushed the Palestinian Authority out of Gaza in June 2007. Iranian backing for Hamas has added to Israel’s conviction that the siege is the right path.
The aim is to keep Gaza at subsistence and offer a contrast with the West Bank, which in theory benefits from foreign aid and economic and political development. Hamas supporters will then realize their mistake. The plan has not gone well, however, partly because the West Bank under Israeli occupation remains no one’s idea of paradise and partly because Hamas seems more in control here every year, with cleaner streets and lower crime, although its popularity is hard to gauge.

“Hamas is learning from its mistakes and getting stronger and stronger,” said Sharhabeel al-Zaeem, a prominent lawyer here. He and others have been urging international officials to get construction materials and other goods into Gaza through the closed crossings.
They argue that the current system serves only Hamas, since it taxes the illicit tunnel goods and limited currency exchanges and is not blamed by the people for the outside siege. If glass and cement were allowed in through the crossings with Israel, they say, Hamas would not get the credit and the Palestinian Authority could collect the taxes.

“The people of Gaza are depressed, and depressed people turn to myth and fantasy, meaning religion and drugs,” said Jawdat Khoudary, a building contractor. “This kind of a prison feeds extremism. Let people see out to see a different version of reality.”
Israeli officials remain skeptical of opening the borders. Many believe that their war served as deterrence and note the drastic reduction in rocket fire as evidence. They fear that steel or cement will be siphoned off by Hamas for arms. But they are feeling pressure from the Americans and United Nations, and they are discussing a pilot project.

Meanwhile, Gaza feels more and more like a Hamas state and less linked to the West Bank. Men are increasingly bearded, women are more covered. Hamas is the main employer. Schools and courts, once run by the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, are all Hamas. The government is collecting information on companies and nonprofit groups and seeking control over them.

Many here are especially worried about the young. At a program aimed at helping those traumatized by the January war, teenagers are offered colored markers to draw anything they like, says Farah Abu Qasem, 20, a student of English translation who volunteers at the program.

“They seem only to choose black and to draw things like tanks,” she said. “And when we ask them to draw something that represents the future, they leave the paper blank.”

Struggling in Gaza: The Eyewitness's Account

Struggling in Gaza: The New York Times Account

I read the following first-hand account from Philip Weiss, who runs the Mondoweiss website, just before reading the account by New York Times reporter Ethan Bronner --- published separately on Enduring America --- of his latest visit to Gaza. While both pieces consider the humanitarian situation, Bronner's article is cloaked with political context and caveats such as "for many Israelis, Gaza is a symbol of all that is wrong with Palestinian sovereignty, which they view increasingly as an opportunity for anti-Israeli forces, notably Iran, to get within rocket range" and "[Gaza] is, of course, crowded and poor, but it is better off than nearly all of Africa as well as parts of Asia. There is no acute malnutrition, and infant mortality rates compare with those in Egypt and Jordan". Weiss's observations and personal reflections have none of this framing:

I asked her why she said Gaza is worse than the prison she worked in back in Pennsylvania

My group is leaving Gaza over the next couple of days. A few of us don’t want to leave. We feel connected to the place, and the people have been universally welcoming. They all say the same thing. They want to be part of the world, their cause has been cast away by the world.

A number of us feel guilty that we half-believed the propaganda about Gaza. I did myself. I thought it was a fearful place and I was taking my life in my hands. One friend is angry at herself for worrying about her safety constantly before she left. Now it feels egotistical next to these people's safety. John Ging of the U.N. said that if the people were really indoctrinating their children with hatred in the schools, then how come we have been safe everywhere we go?

We had a meeting of the group tonight to go over tomorrow's schedule, and someone asked for people to reflect and Susan Johnson spoke about how wrenching it was to meet so many intelligent people whose largest desire is to live a normal life.

“I’ve done work in prison,” she said. “This is worse than being in prison. How people can be so cruel to other people-- I don’t understand, I just don’t understand it. I can understand how people in the United States don’t know it’s as bad as it is. That's because of the press, and we’re probably at this point the best hope these people have for getting the word out. I look on that as a really big responsibility. I don’t want to let them down. I’m not ready to leave.”

Later I asked Susan why Gaza is worse than the prison she'd worked in, Graterford, in Pennsylvania. She said that the prisoners get along with the guards generally; they all understand the system and the routine and the rules. Here, she said, the guards are miles away. They drop leaflets or white phosphorus. She went on, When a bird's in a cage, it doesn't try to fly out; it knows it's in a cage and accepts the fact. But these people are in a cage and they can't fully believe it. They're like birds with their wings cropped who are walking around on the ground and keep flapping on to a branch trying to fly.

Susan and I were both disturbed by the meeting we'd had in the afternoon with a bunch of students who can't leave to go to schools that have given them scholarships overseas. They're incredibly appealing kids; I'm going to be putting up some videos of them in days to come and telling their stories. Seven of them came to our hotel just to talk to us. None of them was angry at us; they've suffered a lot though, and now and then the stark frustration and fear played on their faces. Hazem Abukaresh told me how important it is to get his Ph.D. in computer science before he's 30. He's 24, and has been stopped at the border four times now--just trying to get out, to Europe, China, Malaysia, and Jordan, where schools were expecting him. Susan said:

"Those kids just want to meet people, that's all. They want to go places. And they can't go anywhere. They graduate from college and then they can't go anywhere."

Susan asked me for my reflections. I told her I felt bad about my own prejudice against these people ahead of time, and for being so concerned with my own Jewishness, the Jewish future, and the Jewish image in the world. Here that concern feels stupidly selfish. The people of Gaza are persecuted. Full stop.

For me to agonize about my Jewishness when I know about the degree of persecution is actually indulgent and a dodge. Yes this place touches on Jewishness and the important issue of how to reimagine Jewishness, to recover it from this horror, but as my roommate Sammer, an Arab-American, points out, the work ahead of us is political now, trying to move American minds, American policies. A big part of that is in the Jewish community, of course; and I can't wait to get home and begin to tell people what I saw here, the cruelties perpetrated in the name of the Jewish people; and let Hazem tell his story for himself.

That's down the road. I have a couple of days left. I'm going to spend that time listening to Gazans...