Question: How should the U.S. and the World deal with Islamic Fundamentalism?

Transcript: I have a very strong opinion. It all revolves—that’s an overstatement--90% of it revolves around Israel and Palestine. You have to understand that Palestinians also bleed and that they also have a legitimate grievance. Israelis may also, but Palestinians, in a nutshell, are being punished for something they did not to do, which is commit the Holocaust. Until Palestinians are recognized as having a grievance just as much as Israelis do, and until that grievance is addressed and addressed fairly, not with walls and with little bits of settlements scattered across the West Bank, but until it is equitably and fairly finalized, you will not have peace.

Question: How can that be achieved?

Transcript: It will take Israel pulling back to the 1967 borders, halting further settlement building, allowing Palestinian refugees to return. That's what it will take. That proposal has been on the table since 2002 from the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Countries. In exchange for that, every country in both of those organizations will recognize Israel and will open up for diplomatic relations with them. Six years that proposal has been on the table. Israel has refused it.

Question: How does the media in Pakistan cover the conflict?

Transcript: It is certainly sympathetic to Palestine. It is certainly...when Israel helicopters fire rockets into some street and kill six people including a Hamas activist, that is reported that Israel killed six people including one Hamas activist, as opposed to, say, CNN or FOX which will report that Israel killed a Hamas activist and not mention those other people. But, yes, there are front page photos almost everyday of the latest outrage. It is certainly skewed. I agree with that. But you have to look at who is doing, who is committing, frankly, the majority of the violence. Since 1988--I don’t remember the statistics exactly--but something like ten Palestinians have been killed for every Israeli. Raise your hand if you have read that in the US newspaper lately.

Recorded on: 2/20/08

Question: What are some of the misperceptions Americans have about Pakistan and Islam?

Transcript: What comes to mind is the idea that the perception that they are all fundamentalists, they are all fanatics. I don’t know just we have an election yesterday in Pakistan. I don’t know how the religious parties did, but I think they did really really badly. But in even the previous election the percentage of people who voted for the conservative religious parties was, all of them combined taken together, was less than 20%, and I know that the few months ago that a UK newspaper did a poll and found that at that point the support--this is before Benazir got shot--the support for the religious parties was less than 6%. Now if you look at conservative Christian Americans and if you look at the percentage of Americans who would be willing to vote for a religious party, okay, I believe that you would find it more than 6%. I believe more than 6% of the let's say Republican Party's support comes from Mike Huckabees, frankly, who think that the earth is 5000 or 6000 years old. So saying that those people are all fanatics and we are all secular, moderate democrats is rubbish on both sides. Most people in Pakistan want democratic government. They want freedom. They do not hate me or you because we are free. No, they do not. Some people hate me and you because our government has spent billions over the last many, many years ensuring that they are not free and that they do not have a democratic government. That’s the problem. Over and over you see--and this does apply to the Muslim world in general--that the countries with the lowest regard for American policy are the countries with the least amount of freedom because of the policies of the United States and who they support. So the idea that they hate us because we are free is rubbish, and the idea that they are all fundo, bearded fundo freaks is rubbish.

Recorded on: 2/20/08

Question: How did you go from Connecticut to Pakistan?

Transcript: There were several steps along the way. I went to college at Oberlin in Ohio, and after that I went to Boston and then after a couple of years there I went to grad school in Arizona in Tuscon, at the University of Arizona. And I stayed there seven years and I met a woman who was entering the grad program just as I was leaving it and she was from Pakistan. Her name is Uzma Asim Khan, and we ended up getting married and then after staying another year in Arizona after her graduation, we were both eager to go somewhere in and try something different. She had just come into the country to go to university and then grad school, so she wasn’t an immigration thing or something. So we looked around. We applied for jobs overseas. We ended up going to Morocco for three years as English teachers, and that was interesting.

Question: How did the move change your outlook on the U.S.?

Transcript: Well, my worldview of the States has been slowly changing over time, but, yes, there is nothing like leaving the country to help you look back and see the country more clearly and there's nothing with like living with people who are quite skeptical about the intentions of your country to make you think about that. However, I have to say that I am just on a personal level both in Morocco and then in Pakistan, people are incredibly friendly and hospitable and interested and kind. This idea that they are all just raving lunatics like you see on the cover of Newsweek is simply not true. It's a lie. It is a lie designed to make you stay home, and so, yes, many people have various strong opinions about, say, Israel, Palestine. They think that Israel gets billions dollars per year, which it does, and the Palestinians get nothing and, the money is being used for repression and so forth. That is a legitimate political opinion to have. Does this mean that they walk up to me and beat me up on the street? No, it does not, and that I wish that perception could change.

Recorded on: 2/20/08

Transcript:  So, I think that the key on Iran is to get these other big powers to be on the same side as we are. The fact is that China is Iran’s biggest customer. Russia has been supplying arms to Iran. India regards Iran as a strategic partner, and the fact is, we’re not gonna get anywhere in our Iran policy in getting Iran to roll back its nuclear program until we get all these powers on the same page with us, and that means engagement because they are not in favor of any kind of military action, and nor would military action be effective, according to most experts on the subject. But- so if you get these big powers around one table and together put pressure on Iran, that’s when you can come up with a solution.

I don’t think Americans are disinclined to engage. I think politicians are. And I think it’s a way for politicians to look tough. And I think that you don’t wanna be the politician, you know, where Iran did something horrible on their watch and you were trying to, you know, recommend that you wouldn’t even talk to them, you just end up looking weak, I guess. I think it’s a problem of our political system and of our media. I think Americans, the people, are perfectly happy to talk to people that we don’t like.

Yeah, it’s funny, ‘cause that’s what we thought when we came into writing the book. We thought that Americans like Joe Six-Pack, rah-rah, you know, we gotta be Number One- and the fact is that the polling does not bear that out at all. There is a small portion of the American population for whom you can use that- you know, that characterization, but it’s about thirty percent. And the rest of Americans are really multilateral- really want America to work with others, willing to work through the UN, even if it means we don’t get our way every time. I mean, Americans are quite broadminded and quite collaborative. And it’s a small population and politicians who are different from that and do have this kind of more zero-sum mentality- I think that’s fed by the media that likes to characterize issues as a fight and as a battle, and I think they do that because that’s what we respond to, and I think we respond to that because we are kind of programmed genetically to pay attention to stuff that’s bad more than stuff that’s potentially positive.

There is no one global institution where the most powerful players can together sit around a table and try to solve these problems. So the UN Security Council doesn’t have Japan or India, the G8 doesn’t have China or India- there is no one forum, and that’s a big problem.

It’s- you know, it has the capacity to either decide to join with the world order and make it stronger, or to detract from it. It’s a major player because it has the most- it is the source of bomb-grade material for potential nuclear weapons. It’s got close relationships in Iran and all around its region. And it is now powerful economically because of oil prices, and we have an acrimonious relationship with Russia at the moment, but we still need to work with them if we want to make sure that, for example, terrorists don’t get their hands on nuclear material.

We gotta figure that out. And I think, you know, time will tell, but at the moment, I would say both.

Recorded on: 5/14/08