Lebanon's Elections: From Global "Showdown" to Local Reality

Related Post: Lebanon and Iran Elections - It’s All About (The) US



UPDATE --- IT'S ABOUT (THE) US: For Michael Slackman of The New York Times, it's not a question of Washington shaping the Lebanese outcome: "Political analysts...attribute it in part to President Obama’s campaign of outreach to the Arab and Muslim world." You can slap the Obama model on top of any election to get the right result: "Lebanon’s election could be a harbinger of Friday’s presidential race in Iran, where a hard-line anti-American president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may be losing ground to his main moderate challenger, Mir Hussein Moussavi."

Simon Tisdall, normally a shrewd observer of international affairs, trots out the same simplicities in The Guardian of London: "It's possible that watching Iranians will be encouraged in their turn to go out and vote for reformist, west-friendly candidates in Friday's presidential election. Lebanon may be just the beginning of the 'Obama effect'."

Juan Cole has posted a more thoughtful assessment, even as he opens with the reductionist and sensationalist declaration, "President Obama's hopes for progress on the Arab-Israeli peace process would have been sunk if Hezbollah had won the Lebanese elections.")

My immediate reaction to the results of Lebanon's elections, in which a "March 14" coalition of largely Sunni Muslim and Christian groups including Saad Hariri, the son of the slain former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, maintained a Parliamentary majority (71 of 128 seats) over a "March 8" coalition of largely Shia Muslim and Christian groups including Hezbollah?

Surprise.

Not surprise at the result, even though many observers expected the Hezbollah coalition, which also included the Shia party Amal and the Christian party led by former President Michel Aoun, to take a narrow majority of seats. The balance of the result came in a handful of seat in largely Christian areas, and those groups in March 14 were able to mobilise their supporters more effectively than their counterparts in March 8.

The surprise instead came as I read, in American and British media, the sometimes vapid, often reductionist, possibly counter-productive framing of the outcome: "Pro-Western bloc defeats Hezbollah in crucial poll", "a Western-backed coalition...thwart[ed] a bid by the Islamist Hezbollah party to increase its influence". "a hotly contested election that had been billed as a showdown between Tehran and Washington for influence in the Middle East". Even one of the best "Western" analyses of the result, Robert Fisk's assessment in The Independent, was converted through an editor's headline to "Lebanese voters prevent Hizbollah takeover".

Anyone reading these headlines could be forgiven for concluding that the March 8 group consisted solely of "Islamist" Hezbollah, even though it fielded only 11 candidates (all of whom won) put forth by the coalition. Conversely, the March 14 bloc needed no further identification beyond "US-backed". The New York Times account did not even bother, apart from one phrase buried deep in the article, to explain what "March 14" was. It was enough to depict in the opening paragraphs "a significant and unexpected defeat for Hezbollah and its allies, Iran and Syria" and "Hezbollah itself — a Shiite political, social and military organization that is officially regarded by the United States and Israel as a terrorist group".

The post-election reality is likely to be far more mundane though important, not for US and British interpretations of "Hezbollah v. US (and Israel), but for the Lebanese people. Since the assassination of Rafik Hariri in June 2005 and Syria's withdrawal from the country, Lebanon --- with a fascinating but often frustrating political system trying to hold together Sunnis, Shi'a, and Christians --- has struggled to maintain a working national government. After months of effective suspension, a "National Unity" Cabinet with former General Suleiman as President was finally agreed in 2008. Members of the March 8 bloc held 1/3 of the Cabinet seats and a veto on proposed legislation.

The nominal March 14 majority does not resolve that situation. As Robert Fisk observes, "The electoral system – a crazed mixture of sectarianism, proportional representation and 'list' fixing – means that no one ever really "wins" elections in Lebanon, and yesterday was no different." So today Lebanon returns to the issue of whether that system will be maintained. While not making an explicit commitment, Saad Hariri said all parties must "give a hand to each other and have the will to go back to work". Hezbollah leader Sheikh Nasrallah, conceding defeat, offered conciliation: "We accept the official results in a sporting spirit. I would like to congratulate all those who won, those in the majority and those in the opposition."

The first post-election issue is likely to be whether the March 8 groups will retain their Cabinet veto. Withdrawing it risks a breakdown of "unity" and a return to the pre-2008 suspension of Government; maintaining it limits the scope for legislation and precludes the demand, put forth by Israel and the United States, for the disarming of Hezbollah's militias. And even before that, there is the question of who becomes Prime Minister: according to Al Jazeera, US officials prefer current PM Fouad Siniora to Hariri.

No doubt the veneer of Lebanon's result as a critical step in the Middle East peace process will continue for a few days, as. The Wall Street Journal declared, "The push back of Hezbollah is seen as providing President Barack Obama more diplomatic space to pursue his high-profile Arab-Israeli peace initiative." The reality, however, is that this image of Lebanon --- and beyond that, the Hezbollah v. US-Israel-peace-loving countries narrative --- is more pretext than substance, especially with the post-2005 Syrian pullback. I suspect that the issues that preoccupy most Lebanese are internal rather than external, and the space to deal with those political and economic matters would be welcomed.

So the danger is not that a Lebanon led by Hezbollah, and behind Hezbollah its "masters" in Iran, will emerge to challenge Israel and the US. Instead, the political knife cuts the other way: external rhetoric of the Hezbollah danger, a rhetoric which can always be escalated not to advance the regional peace process but to block it, would simply add to the internal tensions as Lebanon tries to find a stable political leadership in a time of great economic and social change.

So, as the Middle Eastern road show returns to more established venues --- George Mitchell in Israel and possibly Syria this week, a Hamas delegation including Khaled Meshaal going to Cairo, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promising a major foreign policy speech --- here's a proposed follow-up for the headline writers on Lebanon.

Leave It Be.

Obama in Cairo: Press Reactions

We're trying to guage some of the reaction in the Middle East and Iran to Obama's address in Cairo yesterday, and a quick look at the English websites of al-Jazeera and Press TV provides two sharply differing intrepretations of the Israeli reaction. Israel issued a short statement in response to the speech, and while al-Jazeera believes that it points to a 'welcoming' reaction from Israel, Press TV focuses on an apparent Israel 'snub' to Obama over settlements. One short statement, two very different responses. Both pieces are reproduced below.

Press TV is featuring Hezbollah's rejection of the Obama speech:

"We do not sense any real change regardless of the language of the speech because violence in the region is practiced first and foremost by Israel and by the US armies of occupation, and not by the people who resist," AFP quoted Hezbollah lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah as saying on Thursday.

Interestingly, a Hamas official is quoted "as saying that while the speech showed 'tangible change', it contained contradictions."

Al-Jazeera: Israel welcomes Obama speech

The Israeli government has welcomed Barack Obama's speech to the Muslim world, saying it hoped the speech would bring a "new period of reconciliation" in the Middle East.

The government statement made no mention of the issue of settlements, after the US president used his speech in Cairo to reiterate his call for an end to Israeli construction on Palestinian land.

"We share President Obama's hope that the American effort heralds the opening of a new era that will bring an end to the conflict and to general Arab recognition of Israel as the nation of the Jewish people that lives in security and peace in the Middle East," the statement said.

"Israel is committed to peace and will do all it can to expand the circle of peace while considering its national interests, first and foremost being security," it said on Thursday after Obama's address.

'Naivety can be dangerous'

Obama devoted a large portion of his speech to the issue of Israel and the Palestinian, and it comes amid reports of deepening differences between the US and Israel on the expansion of settlements.The US president restated Washington's strong ties with Israel, calling on Muslims to recognise the Holocaust.

But Obama also used the term "Palestine", as he reiterated his call for a Palestinian state.

Danny Seaman, the director of Israel's Government Press Office, said the government backed Obama's message.

"All in all, it's not bad. I don't think there's anything we disagree with here," he said.

"The state of Israel isn't against reconciliation," he added, but warned against any moves that could "be used by the extremists to endanger Israel and endanger the peace process".

But Aliza Herbst, a 56-year-old resident of the West Bank settlement of Ofra, said Obama's "naivety can be dangerous".

"You can have your speechwriters find every good thing a Muslim has ever done. But more modern history is that the Muslim world is at war with the Western world," she told the Associated Press news agency.

Press TV: Israel snubs Obama's settlements demand

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has appealed to the US government to rethink its demand to curb Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Barak made the appeal while meeting with the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the Pentagon on Thursday, Reuters reported.

US President Barack Obama highlighted the issue in a speech to the Muslim world in Egypt on Thursday, saying, “There can be no progress towards peace without a halt to such construction”.

Israel, however, responded that its security interests remained paramount.

"We share President Obama's hope that the American effort heralds the opening of a new era that will bring an end to the conflict and to general Arab recognition of Israel as the nation of the Jewish people that lives in security and peace in the Middle East," an official statement said.

"Israel is committed to peace and will do all it can to expand the circle of peace while considering its national interests, first and foremost being security," the statement claimed.

Based on the US-backed Roadmap peace plan Israel must end settlement constructions in the lands occupied during the 1967 war.

The government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, has snubbed the international and Obama's demand to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state and end the settlement activities in the Palestinian territories.

President Obama's Speech in Cairo: The "Right Path" Runs Through Israeli Settlements

Latest Post: After the Obama Speech - Israel Re-Positions on Settlements, Two-State Solution
Latest Post: After the Obama Speech - Hamas Asks, “Is He Ready to Walk the Way He Talks?”

Near the end of his hour-long speech in Cairo, President Obama declared, "We must choose the right path, not just the easy path." An Enduring America colleague blurted, "How very Obi-Wan Kenobi".

Of course, Obama's address wasn't just Star Wars. It also drew from the Koran on at least five occasions, concluding, "May God's Peace Be Upon You", the Bible ("Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You", "Blessed are the Peacemakers", and the Talmud. It tried to bring Heaven and Earth together from democracy to religious freedom to women's rights to economic development. It rejected the "clash of civilisations" by calling for mutual respect based on an overlap of common principles.

It was, in short, a speech that will draw acclaim from many in the US for its high vision and lofty rhetoric (even though I have no doubt that the Koran references, the self-citation of his name "Barack Hussein Obama", and the President's identification with his audience through his experience from Kenya to Indonesia to Muslims in Chicago will be duly castigated by the Usual Critics). And that general ambition, I think, will ensure the warm applause of the listeners at Cairo University will echo today for many people overseas, including Obama's primary audience in the Middle East.

But what will be heard tomorrow? The "right path" may be laid out with ideals of distant Nirvanas, but Obama has to get there through more immediate, less-exalted territory. And it is in his self-defined three tests that the President's sweeping call to live together will be confronted by people still dying and suffering in different camps.

1. THE HOPEFUL CLIMB: THE IRAN TEST

Obama actually labelled this "rights and responsibilities on nuclear weapons", but that was a clumsy excuse to raise the Tehran issue.

Indeed, it was initially a very misguided sleight-of-speech since it immediately put the case that Iran is close to nuclear weaponry and, more importantly, that it was the only case worthy of notice. (The Twitter boards immediately lit up with, "Nuclear weapons? Israel?")

Obama, however, rescued himself with a shift to an acknowledgement of shared historical blame --- the US acknowledges trying to knock off the Iran Government in 1953 while the Islamic Republic has its own acts of violence since 1979 --- and then the key declaration. Talks will move forward without preconditions. No mention of deadlines, either.

In short --- are you listening, Tel Aviv? --- "engagement" is on.

2) THE DIVERSION: "VIOLENT EXTREMISM" (AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN-IRAQ)

This was Obama's lead item on his seven challenges, and it could have come straight from the George W. Bush playbook (although not delivered so eloquently). The US was "not at war with Islam" but it was "relently confronting extremists who threaten our security". Afghanistan was a war of necessity, as "Al Qa'eda killed nearly 3000 people on that day" of 11 September 2001. Al Qa'eda had continued to kill in many countries, and many of those killed were Muslims.

The President's message? Eight years after 9-11, the US would withdraw its forces from Afghanistan and Pakistan if there were "no violent extremists". Or, turned around, since "violent extremists" are likely to be present in those two countries, the American military --- overtly and covertly, leading operations and pushing for them from Pakistan and Afghanistan allies behind the scenes ---- will be on a long-term mission.

Of course, Obama balanced the military dimension by talking about the economic aid the US is giving to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's the omissions, however, that were striking. No reference to US bombing, missile strikes, or drone attacks; indeed, the President did not even put a number on the troop escalation.

If this speech had been given closer to the affected areas, I think Obama would be facing some very bad press tomorrow. As it was, a more distant audience in Cairo could greet the call for the Long War against Violent Extremism (former known as Terror) with a shrug, apart from applause for the line that Islam does not condone the killing of innocents.

As for other battlefronts in that LWVE, the President's discourse on Iraq was also received patiently but fairly quietly --- this, in comparison with other issues, appears to be yesterday's conflict. There was a much heartier response to the brief but pointed declarations of an end to torture and a closure of Guantanamo Bay.

3) THE TOUCHSTONE: ISRAEL AND PALESTINE

"Here we go," my colleague and I said. Obama, after 25 minutes, had finally said, "We need to discuss...the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world."

It was an almost breath-taking rhetorical dive. The President immediately made clear, "America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable." He buttressed that with an extended emphasis on the Holocaust: "Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful."

Having linked support of Israel with historical memory and the fight against anti-Semitism, Obama could put the other half of the equation just as boldly: "Let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own."

Yes, George W. Bush had also mouthed "Palestinian state", but not with this force. And there was more. While Obama went to great lengths to say, "Violence is a dead end," he offered a political opening. His call was not just on the Palestinian Authority to prove its "capacity to govern". He also held out recognition of Hamas, provided that organisation "put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist".

As one listener wrote, "[It was] refreshing to hear a US President go further than any previous in relation to the [Israeli] occupation." However, that listener also added, "Now we need action."

And it is here that Obama's words and post-speech reality meet. The test case for his policy is now the a defining test:

Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

The President added equally important demands: "Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society....Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress." For now, however, the line is drawn: Tel Aviv concedes on settlement or Obama's Middle Eastern plan falls at the first hurdle.

Indeed, that line is so stark that the President did not even refer to other significant issues. He referring to the general responsibilities of Arab States, but there was no mention of Syria (and thus an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement), no reference to Lebanon, let alone Hezbollah, no place for Saudi Arabia apart from an allusion to "King Abdullah’s Interfaith dialogue".

And so the paradox of Cairo: at the end of Obama's hour, his exaltation of values across faiths comes to Earth in those buildings in East Jerusalem and across the West Bank. It is their spread, rather than the spread of goodwill or religious blessings, that will determine the fate of this President's "right path".

Obama's Strategy in the Middle East: Resetting with Rhetoric One More Time

One useful way of considering tomorrow's grand Middle Eastern speech by President Obama is to recall that it was supposed to be delivered three or four months ago. Soon after the election, Obama's advisors briefed the press that the new President, within weeks of the Inauguration, would be addressing the world from Cairo. His high hopes for a new region, with the vision that long-term enemies could live and progress together, would be followed by talks fostered by US representatives.

Israel's invasion of Gaza ruined that plan, so the Obama White House went to Plan B. Obama's special envoy, George Mitchell, and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made high-profile trips to the region; there were specific missions by diplomats, such as Jeffrey Feltman's and Daniel Shapiro's trip to Damascus. Middle Eastern leaders --- Abdullah of Jordan, Netanyahu of Israel, Abbas of the Palestinian Authority --- came to Washington.

The only hitch is that, after all the travel and photo opportunities, there has been no notable advance. Israel, now led by the Government of Benjamin Netanyahu, has not only balked at any prospect of talks that would lead to a Palestinian state or a headline measure such as a freeze on settlement expansion in Jerusalem and the West Bank. And, with Tel Aviv making no movement, Arab governments have pulled away from the symbolic advance of "recognition", for example, by allowing overflights of their countries by Israeli commercial planes.

So Obama takes the podium in Cairo, after talks in Saudi Arabia today, empty-handed. Speaking to the Israeli Parliament on Monday, Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly slapped down the American demand on settlements --- his Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, is in the US offering the "compromise" of "dismantling unauthorized settlement outposts", which does nothing to address the American concern about legally-authorized construction. Obama, rather weakly, told the BBC that he would look to Arab States to offer some measures for a regional peace process, knowing (I suspect) that there is no prospect of that. Saudi Arabia wants some signal from Tel Aviv that the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, launched by Riyadh, is a starting platform. Damascus, with Israel not even creeping towards a resumption of indirect talks, plays a waiting game.

What, oh what, can this President do? Well, he will do what he has done best so far. He will by-pass the specific difficulties with the clarion call to engagement based on mutual respect and interests. It worked in his Inaugural Speech, it worked in the Al-Arabiya television interview in January, and it worked in his address in Ankara (which is now our #1 story in the last eight months and continues to be in the Top 5 on most days). Obama's rhetoric may be derided by some domestic critics for its refusal to situate Islam as subservient to "American values" and for his "apologies" for past actions in US foreign policy, but it has succeeded with many overseas listeners precisely because it recognises those listeners, rather than demanding adherence first to an American position.

That is why, in recent days, Obama and his advisors have shifted from discussion of particular elements in a "peace process" to the general statement, repeated on two occasions by the President in his interview with National Public Radio on Monday, that it is "early in the process". The President will undoubtedly mention (according to McClatchy Newspapers, "forcefully endorse") a Palestinian state, but he will set out no timetable or specific steps towards that state. He will cite "areas of mutual interest" with Arab and Islamic countries but will be more concrete in his suggestions on defeating "violent extremism" than on negotiations toward political and economic agreements.

One could argue, of course, that is still quite an achievement after 4+ months in office, especially as every US President since Dwight Eisenhower in 1953 has pursued an Arab-Israeli settlement and none --- with the notable exception of Jimmy Carter --- has had a lasting success. And it looks like Obama will wow his observers in the American media (with the exception, of course, of ardently pro-Israeli outlets and of Bush Administration supporters who cling to the fiction that "democracy promotion" was the primary aim of that President's eight years in office). The working consensus is "a brave and possibly historic effort" with "an evenhanded approach", and Obama's rhetorical power is likely to sustain that praise.

(Beyond well-meaning support for the President, there are the more troubling hurrahs of self-serving sycophancy. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, after preening that he told Obama a joke during their 20 minutes of phone time, offers without further awareness or reflection: "The president has no illusions that one speech will make lambs lie down with lions. Rather, he sees it as part of his broader diplomatic approach that says: If you go right into peoples’ living rooms, don’t be afraid to hold up a mirror to everything they are doing, but also engage them in a way that says ‘I know and respect who you are.’ You end up — if nothing else — creating a little more space for U.S. diplomacy. And you never know when that can help.")

The issue, however, is whether Obama's audience in the Middle East and beyond will settle for feel-good but abstract advances. US supporters of the President are exalting his forthright stance on Israeli settlements, but the fact remains that Tel Aviv has been equally forthright so far in rebuffing Obama. If that intransigence continues, Washington's Plan B is vague, limited so far to talk of not guaranteeing an American veto in defence of Israel in the United Nations Security Council (and not even mentioning, as the George H.W. Bush Administration did, withholding of US economic and military aid).

And, of course, the settlements are only Tel Aviv's first line of defence against an attack for a two-state Israel-Palestine resolution. If Washington gets its way, there will then be the issue of the Israeli wall cutting across the West Bank, and then the issue of the status of Jerusalem, and then the Palestinian civilian "right of return" to the lands they lost in 1948, and then the Israeli military's "right of return" to the West Bank if it perceives a security threat, and then the small matter of a place called Gaza.

One might respond that Israel-Palestine is only one issue in the complexities of the region. True, but it is a touchstone issue (rather than, for example, Israel's preferred option of Iran). Symbolically, the failure to get a resolution that accords not respect but a meaningful economic and political status for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza will be held up by others, whether for the benevolent reason that they see it as an essential case of justice and rights or for the less-than-benevolent reason that they want to divert attention from issues in their own communities and countries or the very malevolent reason that they want to justify hostile and often violent action against perceived enemies.

But, for those who want a context beyond Israel and Palestine (or, rather, Israel and the West Bank of the Palestinian Authority), Obama has set himself even bigger problems. There are the questions of how Obama can walk the tight-rope between support for political freedom and US alliances, powerfully demonstrated by the location of the President's speech, with far-from-democratic regimes. A less noted but just as significant difficulty with "local" politics emerged in a question from National Public Radio:

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 responded with a pretty firm "they can just shove off":

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.

The President might as well have said "illegitimate". When the NPR questioner persisted, "Does that change with [Hezbollah's] electoral gains?", Obama refused to grant the political party --- which is likely to be a significant, if not dominant, entity in Lebanon's ruling coalition after this month's elections --- any status:

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.

There was a bit more flexibility --- but only a bit --- with Hamas, as Obama said "the discussions...could potentially proceed" if Hamas accepted the conditions of the US-UK-EU-Russia Quartet.

The danger for the President is that, for all his talk of respect and equality, many will see him continuing rather than renouncing the US priority of getting the "right" governments. Vice President Joe Biden's trip to Beirut in the midst of the electoral campaign did not go unnoticed by Lebanese observers. There are suspicions, after a West Bank firefight that killed two leading commanders of Hamas' military wing, that the US is supporting (and possibly prompting) the Palestinian Authority's crackdown on its rival for power. Maybe, in the context of a grand speech, these are just troubling and tangential details. In the absence of an American strategy that offers concrete measures as well as rhetoric, however, the details can take on significance.

I'm not sure that I want to share Robert Fisk's dark vision of tomorrow's events: "I haven't met an Arab in Egypt – or an Arab in Lebanon, for that matter – who really thinks that Obama's 'outreach' lecture in Cairo on Thursday is going to make much difference." On the other hand, I am just as unsettled by talk from the White House that they are "re-setting" the Middle East.

Because, as any gamer knows, you don't hit the Reset button when you are doing well. And while that might bring a change in fortunes, if you keep hitting Reset (the Inaugural Speech, the Al-Arabiya talk, Ankara, now Cairo), an observer may begin to think that no one ever wins.

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.