Issues

Updates on the Issues

U.S.-Arab Relations: Language and the art of Diplomacy

Posted on Wednesday January 28, 2009

A U.S. president grants an interview to an Arabic media channel?

President Obama sat down with Hisham Melhem for his first official interview as President of the United States—granted to Al Arabiya. As Marc Lynch writes on his blog for the Financial Times, “It’s impossible to exaggerate the symbolic importance of Barack Obama choosing an Arabic satellite television station for his first formal interview as President—and of taking that opportunity to talk frankly about a new relationship with the Muslim world based on mutual respect and emphasizing listening rather than dictating. His interview promises a genuinely fresh start in the way the United States interacts with the Arab world and a new dedication to public diplomacy.”

The New York Times was among the U.S. news agencies who reported on the President’s historic interview:

In discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr. Obama told Al Arabiya that “the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away.” He said that he told Mr. Mitchell to “start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating.”

“Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what’s best for them. They’re going to have to make some decisions,” Mr. Obama said. “But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that, instead, it’s time to return to the negotiating table.”

Diplomacy is once again a part of the United States’ foreign policy toolbox. A large difficulty facing diplomacy, however, is that the very words used in negotiations are fraught with meaning. This has long been a topic on which scholars have speculated, but is a very practical problem for mediators. The Israelis and Palestinians bring very different ways of characterizing the same events to the negotiating table—a difficulty before the negotiations actually begin. This is why the idea of listening before the negotiations start is so critical.

INTERESTING: Read Time magazine’s article, “How al-Arabiya Got the Obama Interview”: “Melhem, long a vocal critic of U.S. Middle East policy, says that he was touched by Obama’s conciliatory tone and references to his Muslim roots. ‘You can feel the authenticity about him,’ he says. ‘The interview was his way of saying, ‘There is a new wind coming from Washington.’ Barack Obama definitely sees the world differently from a man named George W. Bush.’”

(Arab American Comedian Dean Obeidallah has some advice for the President on future interviews with Arab media)

But what is the language of peace?

The difficulties of impartiality are not limited to the language of diplomacy. The BBC has become embroiled in a bitter dispute regarding an ad that humanitarian aid organizations want to run to collect funds to help Gazans. The BBC and SkyNews have declined to air the PSA, citing concerns that to do so might compromise their journalist impartiality.

Ethan Bronner wrote about this problem in this past Sunday’s New York Times. As Mr. Bronner points out, the partition surrounding Gaza is a ‘wall’ to the Palestinians, a ‘fence’ to the Israelis – the connotations each word carries are wildly different. How, then, to discuss deeper issues when the terms ‘terrorism’ and ‘resistance’, ‘closure’ and ‘blockade’, are used to describe the same phenomena?

Bonner’s article eloquently expresses the dilemma that reporters, scholars, and statesmen on every side of the argument face when they speak of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

After Israel’s three-week air, sea and land assault in Gaza, aimed at halting Hamas rocket fire, it is worth pausing to note how difficult it has been to narrate this war in a fashion others view as neutral, and to contemplate what that means for any attempt by the new Obama administration to try to end it.

It turns out that both narration and mediation require common ground. But trying to tell the story so that both sides can hear it in the same way feels more and more to me like a Greek tragedy in which I play the despised chorus. It feels like I am only fanning the flames, adding to the misunderstandings and mutual antagonism with every word I write because the fervent inner voice of each side is so loud that it drowns everything else out.

George Mitchell, the former Senate majority leader who is Mr. Obama’s new special envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, seemed to take a novel approach when he issued his 2001 report, with which both Israelis and Palestinians found fault:

Obviously we recognize that there are differences of opinion and we didn’t expect that either side would simply accept all of the recommendations. That is, of course, what has happened. Both of them agree with the recommendations that coincide with their previous positions, and tend not to agree with those recommendations with which they previously disagreed. That’s understandable. The question now is not whether it’s received unanimously with support on both sides. It’s whether they are willing to get together to take the steps necessary to end the violence, rebuild confidence and resume negotiations.

One state, two state, no state, or…?

Rumblings from the Arab world recently indicated that a solution for peace would not remain on the table for ever, and a lengthy article recently on 60 Minutes questions whether peace is at all possible if a two state solution is not an option Israel wishes to see realized:

Demographers predict that within ten years Arabs will outnumber Jews in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Without a separate Palestinian state the Israelis would have three options, none of them good. They could try ethnic cleansing, drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank, or they could give the Palestinians the vote. That would be the democratic option but it would mean the end of the Jewish state. Or they could try apartheid – have the minority Israelis rule the majority Palestinians, but apartheid regimes don’t have a very long life.

Watch Bob Simon’s 60 Minutes segment, “Is Peace Out of Reach?” on the CBS website here.

A final word from… the Arab American Institute to you.

AAI has been meeting with representatives on the Hill, scheduling briefings and conference calls to provide Hill staffers with information regarding Gaza, and working with our partners to advocate for peace in the Middle East.

Your emails and letters, the news reports you forward to us, the initiatives you are supporting: thank you for letting us know what is on your mind during this crisis.

You have forwarded the link to our letter to President Obama, asking him to send humanitarian aid, in the form of Navy hospital ships and army hospitals, of carrier ships that can bring 400,000 gallons of fresh water to Gaza. You have signed the letter and sent it on, yourselves. Nearly 1,500 people have sent the letter to our President since Friday night. Your support, your persistence, and your compassion are an inspiration.

If you have not had a chance to sign the letter, please visit our simple form and send your copy today. And please forward the link to your friends and family, and ask them to send the letter, too.

Click here now to send a letter to your President, or copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://capwiz.com/arab/issues/alert/?alertid=12498506&PROCESS=Take+Action