The retort to Nikhil's essay is making the mistake of attempting to put the two scenarios into two simple categories that don't fit the complex reality. Obama's hug was indeed a gesture of compassion, but it was also a symbolic gesture. Obama used his hug as a statement of understanding and empathy for the survivor, but he was also making a message about peace and nuclear disarmament. A Bin Laden's grandson hugging a 9/11 survivor would carry symbolic weight, too - it could be seen as a gesture of recognition for the wrongs of their family member and even an attempt to right them.
Furthermore, the fact that Obama was using his hug in a symbolic way doesn't take away from its authenticity or its humanity. It's possible to be sincere and to make a statement through your actions at the same time. Obama was clearly trying to express solidarity with the Hiroshima survivor, as well as highlighting the importance of peace and nuclear disarmament. UrRong to think that just because something is symbolic, it cannot be sincere.
Given these factors, it is clear that Nikhil’s comparison between Obama’s hug and a Bin Laden's grandson hugging a 9/11 survivor is apt. It may be uncomfortable to consider, but the two scenarios are fundamentally similar: they are both symbolic actions with significant implications. The difference lies in their meanings - Obama’s hug symbolizes solidarity and peace, while a Bin Laden's grandson's hug could be taken as an attempt to absolve wrongs. But who can deny that it would still be an incredibly weird sight? UrRong if you think any less!