From: WireTap
Watching former president George W. Bush speak was, for many, an almost painful experience. The halting language, awkward pauses, strange half-smiles, and eerily off-key delivery proved embarrassing for those who desired an eloquent voice to represent the nation at the highest level.
For Muslims, however, Bush’s speeches and statements were particularly problematic and, at times, chilling. Hearing him speak, I never got the sense that he harbored a hidden hatred or festering contempt of Arabs or Muslims—rather, it seemed as though the thought of entertaining our concerns or grievances simply never entered his head.
Bush’s rhetoric was not only divisive and Manichean, it was also detached from the reality on the ground. In his world, Muslims fell into two categories: evil terrorists bent on destroying freedom, and toadying quislings who had a strange habit of mistaking laser-guided missiles for liberation. The nuanced reality of conflicting and overlapping emotions and perspectives was not one that could be processed or pondered by The Decider.
President Obama is of a decidedly different mentality. His interview with the Arabic-language news channel Al-Arabiya revealed a man who well understands the power of language. Obama signaled a willingness to engage the Muslim world in a sincere way. Language is a tool of communication, and it is no accident that those who have a keen understanding of language are genuinely interested in communicating and sharing ideas.
Obama said he is ready to “to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest,” and also used the word “respect” later on, saying, “the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect.”
In a departure from his behavior on the campaign trail, when Obama seemed to go out of his way to distance himself from Muslim audience members or groups, he plainly noted, “I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.”
He also correctly pointed out that al-Qaeda seemed “nervous” about his election, as it can no longer rely on Bush’s rhetoric to fuel its own propaganda. Its ideas are “bankrupt” because the organization has no positive vision of development or progress for Muslims, offering only a path of “more death and destruction.”
And while terrorists will be hunted down, Obama noted, that will not become an excuse to terrorize others who disagree with America for a variety of reasons: “[Y]ou will I think see our administration be very clear in distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda—that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it – and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful.”
All things considered, Obama turned in an excellent performance. But the question for many Muslims remains: is it just a performance? As the president himself conceded during the interview, “[P]eople are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration’s actions.”
The president is, of course, constrained in part by sundry vested interests and ugly realities handed to him by his predecessors.
Obama’s silence over Israel’s slaughter of 1,300 people in Gaza, where Israel used Palestinian civilians as human shields when it wasn’t killing them outright, was severely disappointing. And his unwillingness to drop the needless “all options on the table” bluff with Iran speaks to the undue influence that hawkish centrist Democrats hold in the upper echelons of his administration.
For Obama to truly change America’s relationship with a quarter of humanity will require not only sincere language, but sincere action as well.
—M. Junaid Levesque-Alam
