Obama's Impressive Beginnings as an Honest Broker in the Middle East: The Psychology of Perspective-taking Where Perspective is Hard to Find

Watching President Obama's interview on Al-Arabiya this week was striking in multiple respects, not the least of which, of course, was that an American president actually did an interview with an Arab network with a largely Muslim viewing audience -- and did it in the first week of his presidency. But watching him speak with the interviewer -- who the American media actually referred to by name afterwards, something I don't remember hearing before -- and listening to both the content of his communications and the respectful manner in which he spoke to the Muslim world -- made me do a double-take.

It has been so long since a U.S. president exercised in foreign affairs, let alone in the Middle East, that distinctively human faculty that begins in preschool but takes years to develop: the capacity to take the perspective of the other -- to imagine, reflect on, and respond in accordance with inferences about what the other person sees, thinks, and feels. Developmental psychologists call this "theory of mind" -- children's growing awareness that other people have mental states and that the contents of other people's minds are not necessarily the same as their own. Psychologists have used different terms to describe this capacity -- perspective taking, mentalization, psychological mindedness, complexity of representations of people -- but in adults, all of these phenomena are associated with more secure and mature relationships.

Obama knew exactly what he was saying by granting this interview so early in his administration, coming after an Inaugural Address that was so pointedly aimed at saying to the Muslim world, namely that "we will treat you with dignity and respect if you treat us that way." And he knew exactly what it would mean to his listeners when he mentioned, seemingly casually, that he had several Muslim members of his own family. He was telling the Muslim world that they were people to him. And people have conversations with other people when they have differences.

The interview reminded me by contrast of a jarring comment by President Bush in the run-up to the Iraq war. Bush never mastered the skill of imaginatively stepping into another person's mind, which requires setting aside one's own immediate perceptions, ideas, feelings, and values (e.g., that everyone everywhere wants "freedom," and freedom means the same thing to a mullah who would use it to enslave women in his society, whether they share his religious views or not, as it does in the West) to imagine how one's words might be heard by the other. A reporter asked Bush whether the Turks were on board, to which he curtly replied, "The Turks know what we expect of them" -- as if they were his errant teenage children or our unruly U.S. colony. It hadn't occurred to him that he had just immensely complicated the task of any Turkish leader who had any inclination to join his "coalition of the willing," not only because Turkey has a large Muslim population but also because Turkey elects its leaders, and any politician who appears to be taking his orders from Washington is not going to be in power for long. What was so striking was that Bush just didn't seem to understand -- or to care -- how his comments were heard.

This wasn't just swaggering cowboy diplomacy. It was preschool diplomacy, the kind of "I want it, so you give it to me" diplomacy that children practice before they understand that other kids have different feelings than they do or may want to play with the same toy, and that they have to negotiate for what they want when faced with conflicting intentions, desires, or understandings. (My four-year-old still has trouble at times understanding that her friend who doesn't want to "play babies" at the moment she does isn't being bad or obstructionistic, she just has different desires.) The essence of diplomacy, and of all negotiation, is to step out of your own shoes and into the minds of the others around the table, with the goal of achieving your own and hopefully common interests by influencing their minds. If diplomacy fails, there is always brute force. But even nonhuman primates understand dominance hierarchies, and the more direct contact the have with those with those with greater power the better, because they are more likely to recognize it and back off to avoid a losing confrontation.

It's not an accident that a president with a Manichean worldview -- you're either with us or against us, you're either good or evil, you either support our actions or you hate freedom -- would have had such difficulty imagining the mind of another person (or, for that matter, scrutinizing his own mind and reflecting on his own thoughts, feelings, or prior decisions in the way that normally distinguishes adults from young children). If people are either good or evil, there's nothing else to understand about them and certainly no reason to try to get inside their heads. Good people have good intentions and bad people have bad intentions as they rub their evil hands together and cackle. What else is there to know?

The inability to reflect on the mental states of others is probably a mental defect of the 43rd president. But lapses in perspective-taking can afflict any of us when our emotions are strong or our ideologies are rigid and held together by emotional super-glue. A striking example can be seen in American attitudes toward American vs. Israeli responses to terrorist threats or attacks. Last week, on the same day at the same time, the Huffington Post had a banner at the top of the front page, reading, SLIDESHOW: Israeli War Crimes Accusations Mount. Right below it was a banner headline in enormous font, reading, "Commander-in-Chief," followed by a story with the title, First Missile Strikes On Pakistan Since Obama Presidency. The story began, "At least 18 people were killed in a suspected American missile attack in the North Waziristan agency of Pakistan on Friday. It was believed to be the first attack that took place since President Barack Obama took office. Pakistani officials had previously expressed hope that once Obama became president he would stop the attacks. According to local officials, at least three missiles targeted a house in Mir Ali, North Waziristan, killing over ten people, including Arab nationals, and wounding many more."

Oddly, no one seemed to notice the logical inconsistency between the two stories -- either here or in other media outlets, which largely covered the two stories the same way. If Israeli strikes on Hamas militants and leaders that led to the unintended deaths of innocent civilians in response to over a thousand unprovoked and continuing missile attacks on Israeli soil since 2005 constitute war crimes, then surely American air strikes against Taliban or Al Qaeda militants or leaders that led to the unintended deaths of innocent women and children eight years after the last attack on American soil by Al Qaeda constitute war crimes. Hamas, like al Qaeda, is explicit in its goal: the destruction of what it sees as its enemy. Only by suspending our capacity to imagine what we would do if faced with continuous assaults by a neighboring state that endanger our children can we call one act a war crime and the other an act of self-defense. (Would we wait one day or two before launching a nuclear strike if Mexico intentionally sent a single missile into Waco after declaring its intention to destroy the United States? If we decided to restrain ourselves from a nuclear attack, would we heed international calls for a ceasefire after a four-week bombing campaign aimed at destroying Mexico's capacity to attack us, or would we march into Mexico City or at least attack with massive force and countless civilian deaths until the Mexican government surrendered?)

When we see the images or hear the crying of Palestinian children after a raid on militants in Gaza, it is hard not to be moved to say, "Stop, enough!" But the fact that we see those images and hear those sounds every time Israel responds to aggression but never when America does so renders our capacity for perspective-taking unbalanced. Children crying, burned, or searching for their dead mothers are virtually always the visual or auditory backdrops for television and radio stories about Israeli strikes against those who attack Israel, but they are never the backdrop for stories about American attacks, even against those who never attacked us (notably the Iraqis, whose civilian death toll still remains unknown to us, five years after we marched into Baghdad). Indeed, just the opposite. On Sunday on CNN, Barbara Starr reported on the U.S. missile attacks into Pakistan and the emerging details of the civilian deaths they had caused, including at least three children of the militant leader who was apparently their primary target. But instead of seeing images of dead and wailing Pakistani children in the background, viewers watched footage of frightening masked terrorists and the usual training-camp videos, implicitly justifying the attacks, priming a completely different set of associations than the Gaza missile strikes, and essentially deactivating empathic distress mechanisms that are part of our evolutionary heritage. If children died, it was a shame, but they were "collateral damage." The last thing we would want to do would be to see them.

It isn't easy to be an "honest broker" in the Middle East. Israel is our strongest ally and the only democracy in the region, our other allies are largely autocratic rulers of countries whose people despise us or harbor tremendous ambivalence toward us, and Bush's new flagship democracies in the region have had a nasty habit of choosing the leaders of terrorist organizations (Hamas and Hezbollah) as their leaders. How would we have responded if Pakistan had elected bin Laden as their new president? Long ago psychologists studying the social psychology of international conflict identified a tendency of people to hold intensely negative attitudes toward their enemies' leaders but to hold positive attitudes toward their people. During the Cold War, most Americans harbored little ill will toward the Russian people but plenty toward their leaders. This splitting of images into good people/bad leaders can be sustained when the leaders are dictators but not when they are democratically elected.

But if anyone can be perceived as an honest broker in the Middle East, it is President Obama, not only because he is a black leader of a predominantly white country, spent several years as a child growing up in the world's largest Muslim country (Indonesia), and has a Muslim middle name, but because he is already threading the needle remarkably well, and he clearly knows that his unique background offers him unique opportunities. In a statement last week he expressed his compassion and concern for the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza while simultaneously expressing his concern for the security of Israel. You don't get better perspective-taking than that.

Drew Westen, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation."

Comments

[joesamson]

Mr. Westen, with all due respect, Obama has many strengths in this game. Yes, he has had more contact with the Islamic world in his growing up years than all the Prezzes combined, arguably. And he's now mentioned his Muslim family members openly and honestly, unlike in the campaign. And he seems to have a sympathy for the Arabs as well as an interest in Israeli security.

But he has a Congress from hell in this regard, which leans well into Israel's camp. Just ask Bush 41 back on Sept. 12, 1991 when he tried to stop Shamir from putting Russian settlers in the West Bank.

And even Turkey is losing patience with Israel, which can only please Iran, Syria, and other ardent voices in the Arab/Muslim World. That slap at Mr. Peres didn't look like an accident to this viewer. Sorry, I don't see it. America is many things, but an honest broker in the middle east?

That's a myth.

[ApolloSpeaks]

Early in the the Al Arabiya interview Obama said: "The time is right for Israel and Palistinians to realize that both are on the wrong path." Israel on the wrong path? What path is Obama on? the failed path of the so-called honest broker tried by Bill Clinton in the 90s? From the start of its existence 60 years ago Israel's path with the Arab world has been one of reconciliation and peace. How then is that the wrong path? Where then is Obama's honesty? If this were the path of the Palestinians peace would have broken out long ago. If Obama had the guts to be honest, the audacity of truth, the courage to face the reality of Arab racism, cultural imperialism and religious intolerance-the destructive forces that drive jihad against Israel-he would have said: 'The Palestinians have to realize that Israel is on the right path and that they are in the wrong. And until they follow Israel's lead on the path of rectitude and reconciliation there will be no peace and they will continue to live in squalor, degradation and sadness bewailing their miserable fate while hopelessly hoping for Israel's demise."

Obama had the audacity of hope to defy his inexperience and ignorance and run to win the presidency against staggering odds. But he lacks the audacity and character to be an honest and courageous leader fearlessly looking at reality and speaking truth to wrongdoing and evil.

[cb287]

This has got to be Winston again. Funny really that AIPAC came to support Obama, funny that Emmanuel (whose father was a high ranking member of Rabin's Irgun, the same group that bombed the Jewish Community Center in Basra in 1952), funny that his vice president had one of the strongest pro-israel voting records in the U.S. Senate. As for Israel being on the "right path," how can you even defend Israeli action at this point? Cluster bombs in Lebanon, attacking of Palestinian children carrying white flags http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/60853.htmll). Just look at the number of deaths since the second intifada started, over 5 to 1 Palestinian to Israeli deaths, with the vast majority of Palestinian deaths being civilians and most Israeli deaths IDF soldiers operating the Occupied Territories. Let's see what else.... Hamas, not the PLO, is the LEGITIMATE ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF THE PALESTINIANS. Furthermore, Sharon's little experiment in abruptly pulling out of Gaza in 2005 was a direct violation of the Hague Conventions of 1907, which requires that an occupying force restore order before leaving a country. Israel's days of operating with impunity are slowly winding to an end, as their a$$-kicking at the hands of Hezbollah in 2006. When Hezbollah wins the Lebanese Parliament this year in a legitimate election, will you claim that Israel is justified to invade AGAIN?

[Savale]

If Israel's path has been one of reconciliation and peace for 60 years, who was it who ethnically cleansed Palestine of the arabs and christians who were living there and who ended up in the refugee camps that became Gaza?

And why is Israel continuing to allow illegal settlements in the West Bank?

Of course Israel has a right to exist, but why does that have to mean people cannot have their homes back? Reconciliation is needed and that means people having their homes and land back or being compensated. There are plenty of arabs and christians, old but still alive, living in Gaza and the West Bank, who were born and lived in homes within the current Israeli borders before they were forcibly ejected. Those who died without ever returning to their home have children whose rightful inheritiance lies within Israeli borders, on the other side of the greatest wall ever built outside of China.

Speak now, Apollo, if palestinian arabs and christians should have their homes back...

[RobHunt]

Do any of you actually BELIEVE that Obama is going to make a difference in getting the Palestinians to quit trying to destroy Israel?

I know none of you are surprised that Republican Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush have all failed, but haven't you noticed that Presidents Carter and Clinton failed too? That's twelve YEARS of Democrat diplomatic initiative and FORTY YEARS of effort expended by US administrations overall. They can't ALL have been "neocons" and therefore "part of the problem" can they?

Optimism is a good thing, but let's not pretend Obama has any better chance at reasoning with those lunatics than anyone else has. You say they were impressed with the fact that Obama has Muslims in his family? News flash: Muslims kill and maim other Muslims for breakfast, lunch, and dinner all over the world- it's one of their defining characteristics. Good luck "talking" them out of it.

[aemathisphd]

Just an update on the political side of things: Last night's Ma'ariv indicates Livni could still form a government with Labor, Meretz, the Ashkenazi religious parties, and (wait for it): the Arabs. But without the Arabs, it's going to be Bibi.

[azyuwish]

Worth repeating, from Wisdo:

ve lived half my life in Israel and this is total baloney. Sorry. There is plenty of Bigotry and racisim on both sides. It is irrelevant to the conflict. This is a land war, other emotive factors have little influence on the evolving situation. The basis of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the creation of Israel, which was - the appropriation of large amounts of land from native inhabitants to give to europeans. Its that simple. The europeans naturally didn't want to be evicted and the natives naturally didn't want their land taken. One side could be Wiccans and the other Worshippers of Gozer the Destructor- the result would be about the same.

[aemathisphd]

Hi, Azyuwish.

I have a question w/r/t the settler movement, because it seems that, as far as land is concerned, they are the main sticking point. Are not the vast majority of West Bank settlers firm in their belief that the land is not negotiable because of God's covenant with Abraham? Or is that the way that settlers are generally depicted in the U.S. media and not correct?

Thanks in advance.

[BubbaC33]

Most folks understand the reason Israel has to keep the West Bank and the Golan has nothing to do with settlers. It has to do with the demands for a return to the pre-67 borders. So many Arabists have said a return to the pre-67 borders will bring about a lasting peace. The reality is quite different. If the demand was true, why was Israel attacked in 1967? Why was there terrorism prior to 1967? The answer is simple, Arabs do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel. And a return to the pre-67 borders makes Israel much more likely to suffer Arab adventurism.

[Evelyn]

What does it mean to say that Israel is America's "strongest ally"? An ally should be someone who helps you, who you can turn to for support. Clearly America is Israel's strongest ally many times over. But what do we get in return? How does it help us to have a country with a population less than NYC and nuclear weapons as our "ally"?

[azyuwish]

Thank you Evelyn!

What we get in return? it is not a quid pro quo in this instance. It is that Israel is sacrosanct in this country. It is as if israel is the 51st state. The most powerful state btw.

[Kirby]

Study/analyze all the ways Israel and its compatriots in the U. S. have discovered and do employ to control our whole country. Would to God we could throw off this albatross!

[azyuwish]

Having read your commentary, I see that you are one of the most black or white thinkers I've encountered on this thread. Us vs. them. Win/lose.

Do you ever ponder nuances? It's what the world is actually made of.....

[nomoredead]

Let us get on good terms with Iran and Iraq then cut Israel loose. Why share all the problems created by this tiny country.

[aemathisphd]

What makes you think that it is Israel alone who causes the problems? Did Israel cause the Islamic revolution in Iran, giving rise to one of the world's most repressive régimes? Did they support the rise of Saddam Hussein? No, instead they bombed his nuclear reactor in 1981 and the world silently thanked Israel while publicly condemning them.

How can Israel be solely responsible for the ills of the region when every single nation in the region is either a dictatorship, an absolute monarchy, or so poorly run that the people starve despite natural wealth?

[JanP]

Betz55 says name 5 mosques in Tel Aviv:

1. Muhamidiya Mosque (Great Mosque)

Between Yefet Street, Olei Tzion and the sea
Tel Aviv 68130 Israel

2. Sea Mosque (Ja'ama'a-el-Bahr)

On the Shores of Old Jaffa
Tel Aviv 61999 Israel

3. Hasan Bek Mosque

4. Al-Bahr Mosque in Jaffa

Note that Jaffa is effectively part of Tel Aviv: they have grown together.

Can you tell me what happened to the Synagogues in the West bank when it was controleld by Jordan?

Can you tell me why the Jordanian army took Jewish headstones and made them into paving stones and urinals in army bases? (I ahve seen these myself.)

[PlayTOE]

New approach ~ ...
A President who actually understands the problem!

[ApolloSpeaks]

Obama is using the same understanding that Clinton used in the 1990s. It didn't work then and it won't work now as it's based on the fiction of moral equivalance: Palis and Israelis are both in the wrong. It's a simplistic approach that leaves out and ignores the racial, cultural and religious forces that drive the conflict on the Arab side.

[windypaperboy]

"nasty habit" (on the democratic victory of Hamas.) What do you mean? You don't like democracy when the people freely elect the party you don't like?

[Wisdo]

At Davos Shimon peres stated:

"The whole story of a siege is totally unfounded. There was never a shortage of fuel. There was never a shortage of food," he said"

Meanwhile a USAID survey states that "30 percent of Palestinians under the age of 6 suffer from chronic malnutrition, up from 7 percent before the imposition of Israeli restrictions on travel and transport"

How can Obama continue support a LIAR like this man? Obama has said "the security of Israel is Paramount". Why paramount? Shouldnt the security of American be paramount to him? Or world peace?

Meanwhile the Israelis continue to LIE. When first questioned by The UK Times last week an Israeli military spokesman “categorically denied” using white phosphorus in Gaza. Now they are "investigating" themselves to see if reports, photos, video evidence which show them fireing WP at schools hospitals and neighbourhoods "have merit".

Israel is a moral black hole.

[aemathisphd]

Shimon Peres doesn't have any power in Israel. Choose another whipping boy.

[Wisdo]

well countered! All my arguments neutered!. Touche! etc. Oh, except that Shimon Peres is the President of Israel and is thus its representative. He speaks on its behalf and declaims angrily its right to impose collective punishment.

Should I launch into a critical analysis of Ehud Baracks policies and corruptions perhaps?
or Ariel Sharon before him?
or Netanyahu?

Do let me know.

[JanP]

Did you see naked Palestinian children walking around in a daze with distended stomaches like people in parts of Africa where they are starving?

No, you did not.

Did you place any guilt on Hamas for launching 6,000+ rockets at Israeli civilians (including children) after israel left gaza, which was the cuase of israels broder closings and coutner attacks?

No, you did not.

That is just a touch of the disinformation coming out of Gaza that the anti-Israelis relish.

[Wisdo]

Sir,I refer you to:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmintdev/230/230.pdf

Published in 2003-4

"Rates of malnutrition in Gaza and parts of the West Bank are as bad as anything one would find in sub-Saharan Africa"

Consider that conditions since then, and particularly following Israels recent attack on gaza and its inhabitants, have markedly WORSENED.

Disinformation? Im intrigued. If it could be proved to you that these are the facts, would you be disgusted by Israels actions? would you be appalled?

[windypaperboy]

When Noam Chomsky just says Obama's stance on Gaza "Approximately the Bush Position", doesn't it make you think? Do you really think the world has any wish to keep listening at empty words after 60 years of Palestine occupation? No way. The world listens to facts. And the facts deny your mix of "hard found perspective" with US bombs thrown all over the Muslim world to control their oil and assure the 60 year occupation of Palestine.

[windypaperboy]

Why should Al Jazeera be banned from cable news in the US?

[Stirner]

Because it does not feed into the "poor little old Israel" line.

[nomoredead]

Bingo !

[windypaperboy]

America belongs to the Americans. Palestine belongs to the Palestinians. What is not to understand in Palestinians right to return to their 1948 homes and land?

[aemathisphd]

What is to understand is that Israel won't allow it. That isn't right, but it's a fact. Thus any discussion of four million Palestinians flowing into Israel is a purely academic discussion and doesn't go to heart of solving the problem.

The Palestinians will need to compensated for their losses. But their land won't be given back -- at least not the land taken before the 1949 ceasefire. Again: This isn't right but it's how it's going to be. People didn't think that the Israelis would consider re-dividing Jerusalem or giving up sovereignty of the Temple Mount, but those things are back on the table, and they're back on the table in exchange for the refugee issue being off the table.

Negotiations are like that. Compromise means that nobody gets everything they want.

[JanP]

5 Arab countries attacked Israel in 1948. They lost. Why is it wrong for the Arabs to lose?

If the Arabs won and destroyed Israel and the Jewish population, the world would largely not ahve cared.

[JanP]

By your logic, America belongs to native Americans and everyone else should get out.

Ditto for New Zealand and the Maoris, Australia and the Aboriginies.

[windypaperboy]

Dennis Ross is the first chairman of a new JerusaIem based think tank, the Jevvish People Policy Planning Institute, funded and founded by the Jevvish Agency. (Source Wikipedia) How can he be a US special envoy to the Middle East?

[RStolorow]

President Obama's capacity for perspective-taking is reminiscent of philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer's conception of the "hermeneutical attitude," an attitude of understanding that sees truth as arising from the interplay of differing perspectives, each carrying its own load of traditions and preconceptions. Such an attitude is receptive and open to the possibility that an alien perspective can teach us something new that we don't already know, so that the horizons of our understanding can thereby become expanded. Obama's capacity for perspective-taking and his hermeneutical attitude seem related to his marvelous ability to transcend traditional dualities and false dichotomies by adopting a more encompassing viewpoint. Recall, for example, his stunning statement during the presidential campaign that there are no red states or blue states, only Americans.

[RonMar]

Most philosophical RStolorow. Now may you please rewrite your post in English that pragmatic realists rather than only philosophers can understand?

[johnsopinion]

Just one of your good 'ol southern boys here and I
understood it very well, thank you.
Understanding does take a little effort.
Try it.