Huffinton Post: Questioning the questioner
By Ted Belman
Diane Tucker recently brought her Huffington Post article, Rockets And Retaliation: Who Will Broker The Peace In Gaza? to my attention. Although Huffington Post is not a friend of Israel, I agreed to link to it. She agreed to consider interviewing me next week.
Her article is essentially an interview of Aaron David Miller, who has played a central role in U.S. efforts to broker an Arab-Israeli peace as an advisor to presidents, secretaries of state, and national security advisors.
Keep in mind that she posted her article on Dec 30 and may have interviewed Miller a day or so before that. What a difference a day can make.
-
Aaron David Miller: The Bush Administration has always given Israel enormous latitude to protect its security. That’s no surprise.The subtext here is “keep going, but try not to kill a lot of people.”
Tucker: Military analyst Michael O’Hanlon said Israel is demonstrating its resolve, but may succeed only in making Hamas seek more vengeance. Do you agree with his appraisal?
Miller: There’s no question there’s going to be blow-back. Israel’s operation is going to create anger and resentment on the street. It could lead to the resumption of suicide terror on the West Bank. And it’s going to make pursuit of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement more difficult. But I think Israel reached the point where they had to demonstrate to their friends and enemies alike — in the wake of their unsuccessful performance in August 2006 against Hezbollah in Lebanon — that they are competent and serious about protecting their citizens.
Both the question and the answer bother me. It is not a matter of “demonstrating resolve” to protect her citizens but protecting her citizens. To suggest that she should have refrained from doing so because of “blowback” or harm to the peace process, misses the point. Israel had to stop the attacks.
-
Tucker: If Israel wants the Palestinians to do a better job of policing terrorists, why do they keep destroying police stations in Gaza?
I’ve been asking myself that same question. I think Israel’s goal is to undermine the authority of Hamas and kill as many operatives as possible. Obviously there’s a co-mingling of military, civilian, and police functions in Gaza, and that complicates matters.
Tucker conflates Israel’s Judea and Samaria policy with its Gaza policy. Wrong. Its a false linkage. Israel has no expectations of the police in Gaza.
-
Tucker: What do you make of the timing?
I believe the Israelis decided to act sooner rather than later because they knew precisely how the Bush Administration would react. Also, I don’t think Israel wanted to put Barack Obama in the position of having this be his first foreign policy crisis.
The timing was not dictated by Israel but by Hamas who forced Israel to act.
- Tucker: Previous operations like this all failed to stop Hamas rocket attacks. So why is Israel repeating the same tactics? Is it political posturing before their elections in February?
I don’t think election politics were uppermost in anybody’s mind. However, I do believe the outcome of this operation will speak directly to who will be up and who will be down in Israeli politics when the dust settles.
There have been no “previous operations like this”. Tucker obviously thinks Israeli actions are wrong. What pray tell is her advice to Israel? Miller is right though that this war will greatly affect Israeli politics. It couldn’t be otherwise.
-
Tucker: Did Israel honor the terms of the last cease fire? I mean, did they ever really stop the sea blockade, or completely lift the land blockade?
From the standpoint of both Israel and Hamas, the cease fire had served its purpose and was no longer functional. I’m sure Hamas thought that by breaking the cease fire they could focus the world’s attention on their economic crisis. I’m sure the Israelis thought the notion of a cease fire had become fiction. In the past, some real breakthoughs were proceeded by violence like this. But I don’t see that happening this time.
Tucker is confused here. The “ceasefire” is properly called a “lull” which is something less. It never included an Israeli commitment to lift the blockade. The Rafah Agreement which preceded it required the EU to monitor the Rafah crossing but Hamas threw them out. I think she believes that the failure of Israel to lift the blockade is the source of the conflict.
Tucker’s question suggests that Hamas just wants freedom from Israel rather than the destruction of Israel. If she would have her way, Israel should respect the right of Hamas to arm for war and to invite Iran in to help. Miller is right as far as it goes. Hamas escalated, forcing Israel to act, because the lull had served its purpose in enabling them to arm and prepare for war. The raison d’etre of Hamas is to fight Israel and not to live in peace with her.
-
Tucker: Does Israel’s all-consuming focus on security make them less secure in the long run?
It is a paradox: their focus on security makes them insecure. The Israelis have a legitimate problem, though, because they’re a tiny country living in a difficult neighborhood. They need to find a balance. We can’t do it for them, because we don’t live on the knife’s edge. We don’t know what it’s like. The United States doesn’t have predatory neighbors to the north and south. And we have fish — literally fish — as our neighbors to the east and west.
I presume Tucker thinks Israel should focus on peace rather than security. She makes the assumption that if Israel would just capitulate to Arab demands she would have peace and security. She ignores the outrageousness of Arab demands or their desire to destroy Israel. Once again Miller is more realistic.
-
Tucker: You’ve said that Americans have many illusions about peace-making.
Americans don’t see the world the way it is. We see the world the way we want it to be. We are pragmatic and optimistic and naive and idealistic. These are some of our better qualities. But they also get us into trouble.
Tucker: You’ve also said that success — not democracy — has become the world’s most compelling ideology. The U.S. hasn’t been very successful in the Middle East lately. Does this hurt our ability as negotiators?
Failure creates weakness and the impression of incompetence. Right now the U.S. is not admired, feared, or respected as much as it should be given the Middle East’s importance to our national security interests. Turning the situation around will not be easy because the new Middle East is a lot nastier than the old one. The Obama Administration is going to inherit a crisis that will require vision, leadership, fairness, and toughness. It’s no fun to be a mediator. You end up pushing people farther than they want to go.
The same goes for Israel
- Tucker: Could the Egyptians play a key role?
Yes, they could. The United States has no contact with Hamas, so if the objective of this enterprise is another cease fire or some kind of accommodation, somebody has to broker it. Our relationship with Egypt has been better than it is now. One piece of unsolicited advice I would give the Administration is to shore up that connection. We need the Egyptians now more than ever.
Tucker: Israel and Hamas both have said they will fight to the bitter end. Does anyone ever win one of these things?
The best outcome is when both sides win. That’s not a cliche, it’s a recognition that agreements — like good business propositions and good friendships — are based on each side getting what it needs from the other.
The last answer ticks me off. Why should Hamas get what they want. They should be defeated.
Diane Tucker is an award-winning writer/producer/director whose work has appeared on Discovery Channel, History Channel, nationalgeographic.com, WXYZ-TV, countless International Auto Show movie screens, and a couple of sandwich boards. She was a frequent contributor to Huffington Post’s “OffTheBus” 2008 election coverage.
This is the issue none speak publicly about: I happen to live here and it is a concern to us.
From The Times
January 2, 2009
Gaza rockets put Israel’s nuclear plant in battle zone
Growing concern over Hamas’s new arsenal
Israel on high alert after Hamas call for ‘day of wrath’
There were growing fears in Israel last night that Hamas missiles could threaten its top-secret nuclear facility at Dimona.
Rocket attacks from Gaza have forced Israelis to flee in ever greater numbers and military chiefs have been shaken by the size and sophistication of the militant group’s arsenal.
In Beersheba, until a few days ago a sleepy desert town in southern Israel, there is little sign of the 186,000 inhabitants. Schools are closed and the streets of shuttered shops echo with the howl of sirens warning of incoming rockets.
Israeli planes, meanwhile, began a new stage yesterday in their offensive on Gaza, killing Nizar Rayyan, a senior Hamas official. The one-tonne bomb in Jabaliya is also understood to have killed two of his four wives and four of his twelve children. More than 400 Palestinians have been killed in the six days of Israeli attacks.
Despite a diplomatic mission by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli Foreign Minister, to Paris, the Israeli army continued to muster thousands of troops and scores of tanks along Gaza’s border for a possible ground offensive. Israel’s airstrikes are designed to blunt Hamas’s capacity to fire its new Grad missiles deep into its territory. The weapons are smuggled in through tunnels and by sea, replacing homemade Qassam rockets.
Israeli officials say that Hamas has also acquired dozens of Iranian-made Fajr-3 missiles with an even longer range. Many fear that as the group acquires ever more sophisticated weaponry it is only a matter of time before the nuclear installation at Dimona, 20 miles east of Beersheba, falls within its sights. Dimona houses Israel’s only nuclear reactor and is believed to be where nuclear warheads are stored.
“Maybe Hamas will get a big present from Iran or Hezbollah, a few good long-range missiles and they’ll use it,” said Limor Brina, 40, a jeweller who is learning the lessons of life under rocket threat: she sleeps with her clothes on and heads to a shelter whenever the siren sounds.
Israel’s worst nightmare is that soon all its cities will be within range either of the Hezbollah Katyushas arrayed on the Lebanese border to the north or the increasingly sophisticated missiles stockpiled by Hamas to the south. Both groups have links to Israel’s archenemy Iran.
Israel has said that its aim is to smash Hamas’s rocket-firing capability but also to topple the hardline Islamist regime that seized power in the Gaza Strip in 2007 after bloody street battles with its secular rivals Fatah. Until that goal is achieved, many in Beersheba are packing their bags and heading for Tel Aviv or Eilat.
“Maybe 30 or 40 per cent of people have left the city,” said Ron Shukron, 26, running one of the few grocery shops still open. As he spoke a siren echoed through the empty streets. With only 15 seconds to take cover, he stepped under a reinforced support beam in the ceiling. Seconds later came the dull thud of a rocket exploding on the edge of town.
Comment by yamit82 — January 2, 2009 @ 8:12 am
This interview is filled with the kinds of misconceptions that I hear constantly from the instant ME experts that propagate like mushrooms every time a crisis pops up in the ME.
The interviewers are filled with prejudice and preconceived ideas based on a false equality that they believe exists between terror groups and a well-established, multi-cultural (yes, multi-cultural), democratic, peace-loving and law-abiding country, Israel.
The idea that after 60 years of rejecting any and all accommodation with Israel that the “Palestinian” people have any rights whatsoever is anathema to all international law and moral law.
Arab countries and the refugees, who they left behind to fight Israel instead of finding it in their hearts and politics to care for their own, have morphed into the best armed terror groups in the world. If the West wants to stop terrorism, this is ground zero, not in the largely cosmetic war on terror that makes Americans and Europeans feel good and safe without naming the enemy and identifying the culprits.
The attack on Israel accusing it of disproportionate response several hours into the operation is proof that the bias is against Israel, against the war on terrorism and it shows unprecedented hypocrisy given the carnage caused by Muslim armies in Africa and the starvation and death by poverty in much of the Third World.
Any connection between the real suffering of starving people being systematically killed to implant Islam in Africa and the Palestinian cries of “Holocaust” against them is laughable. Hamas is not suffering; they impose suffering on Israelis (and bring their own people down in the process).
The question asked in the interview at one point: Could the Egyptians play a key role?
I would also answer, yes, they could - by taking in the people of Gaza and re-introducing them to a non-Islamic education, giving them jobs and making their lives better provided they stop their jihad.
Comment by Gary — January 2, 2009 @ 8:41 am
The post-modern West believes there are always two sides to a dispute and both of them have equal merit. That’s flapdoodle nonsense and in the Middle East, the dispute is not about statehood or land. Its about Israel’s right to exist. Iran’s President says Israel should be annihilated. Hamas says more or less the same thing. Confronted with such an outrageous demand, how does Israel compromise? There’s no genuine controversy here and the entire peace process is built on an illusion, namely that there are two sides who both want peace. The reality of course is very different.
Comment by NormanF — January 2, 2009 @ 10:11 am
Mr. Belman has confused asking questions with giving an opinion. I think this is sloppy on his part. This interview is not an op/ed piece by me.
Comment by diane tucker — January 2, 2009 @ 10:58 am
Not only, as Ted notes, does Tucker not have her facts straight, but her questions reflect the West’s trivialization of Israel’s dire situation. The homeland absorbs something in the order of 6,000 projectiles of increasing range and lethality over the last few years launched against civilian communities by a group whose raison d’etre is the liquidation of the country and the murder of all its inhabitants and we get questions like:
“What do you make of the timing?”, and
“Is it political posturing before their elections in February?”, and
“Does Israel’s all-consuming focus on security make them less secure in the long run?”
Tucker’s obtuseness in this third question beggars belief. It is as if she is alluding to a neurosis Israelis have with their security.
To Miller’s credit, he at least contextualizes the matter by noting that we in the United States have no idea what it’s like to be surrounded by dangerous predators and to live always on the knife’s edge.
As I have suggested, the GOI should house all foreign media in Sderot during their stay in Israel. They will soon get a taste of what it’s like to live under constant threat of death raining down from above.
Comment by Charles Martel — January 2, 2009 @ 11:05 am
The questions posed reveal both ignorance and prejudice against Israel - and this is the case with most anchors and journalists who ignore history and common sense, and ignore the fact that like Nazism, the Islamism of Hamas/Hezbollah has no place in this world unless you want the world to be like them (only submission will satisfy their non-negotiable demands).
How could anyone march in support of Hamas unless they sympathize with their violent cult and share their beliefs? If they did not share their beliefs then they must hate Jews so much that it does not matter with whom they support provided the terrorists wipe out the Jewish state.
Comment by Gary — January 2, 2009 @ 11:15 am
Cut the crap, Diane. An interviewer’s questions frequently reveal their mindset and this is transparent to those who read critically.
An “award-winning writer/producer/director whose work has appeared on Discovery Channel, History Channel, nationalgeographic.com” has clearly mastered the art of asking rhetorical and loaded questions so please do not insult the intelligence of Israpundit readers by posing as a dispassionate investigator.
Comment by Charles Martel — January 2, 2009 @ 11:24 am
.
The questions were leading, contained presupposed facts that were untrue, and designed to illicit answers within the context of questions, that are clearly motivated by pro Arab and anti Israel position. That’s fine if the interviewer states her political preference before the interview but here she poses as objective which it is plain to see she is not.
Comment by yamit82 — January 2, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
Diane, if I have mistaken your bias, please correct the record by providing me with an opinion piece. I shall be glad to post it.
Similarly I would love to have the opportunity to put myself out there by providing my opinion piece if you could get Huffington Post to publish it.
Neither of us will have immunity from challenge.
Comment by Ted Belman — January 2, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
Martel: your posts 5-7. The U.S. has two main purposes in the mideast-1. Assist in safeguarding Israel’s security. 2. Successfully waging a war on international Islamic, Jihadi terrorism. The war in Gaza places both goals in sharp conflict. The emphasis here is on the word international terrorism as opposed to the regional variety .
The U.S. would be delighted in seeing Israel attain the maximum success in its struggle with Hamas. But if the net effect would be a bloodbath,involving many Palestinian non- combatants, the obvious victor would be the jihadis. Such an event could only fuel more anti-Americanism in the Muslim world and add more recruits to their nefarious cause.You might not agree with this projection, but what is important is how America perceives its position in this conflict. Ultimately America has the clout with Israel to force a cease fire.
Comment by h peskin — January 2, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
peskin: If you think, as stated on another thread, that I belong in Mars, then you belong in Ur-anus. There is no difference between international terrorism and terrorism on Israel’s borders.
It is a common game of haters to make a distinction between good terrorism (that which targets Israel) and bad terrorism (that which targets non-Jewish targets in the rest of the world).
Islamic terrorism is international and though local cells are concentrating on different targets, the totality of their jihad is international.
To suggest otherwise is a lie and suggests a dichotomy between good terrorist and bad terrorist that does not exist.
Comment by Gary — January 2, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
Peskin, do you live in a vacuum? Your remark of,” a bloodbath” seems very inappropriate. You seem to be so concerned about other’s opinions that you cannot see the forest through the trees. If it was your child being murdered by anyone, would you not in the least have great disdain and vengeful hate? Bottom line is, who gives a flying fuck what the world believes when my children are being slaughtered!
Comment by tov — January 2, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
Diane Tucker is a morally bankrupt fool.
Comment by Laura — January 2, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
Tov:
It is not what I write that is important-it is America’s concerns that are paramount. When thousands demonstate in Afghanistan, Iraq and in other parts of the Muslim world, the U.S.is understandibly worried and accordingly is working , behind the scenes, for a cease fire. And Israel knows the potential dangers of a protracted war. The kind that America has been involved in during the last 7 years.A land invasion in Gaza is not a walk in the park and most observers with the least bit of understanding realize that a durable cease fire is what Israel is seeking despite all the rhetoric.
If you think that Israel is oblivious of what America is thinking of, you ought to get a passport back to earth.
Comment by h peskin — January 2, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Peskin:
Finally, a rational, dispassionate comment of what is ocurring on the ground rather than stating what should occur. Those of the herd mentality caught up in a frenzy of unthinking patriotism should read the above and get your brain in gear.It is a step that is long overdue.
Comment by celia — January 2, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
Peskin:
It is not what I write that is important-it is America’s concerns that are paramount. When thousands demonstate in Afghanistan, Iraq and in other parts of the Muslim world, the U.S.is understandibly worried and accordingly is working , behind the scenes, for a cease fire. And Israel knows the potential dangers of a protracted war. The kind that America has been involved in during the last 7 years.A land invasion in Gaza is not a walk in the park and most observers with the least bit of understanding realize that a durable cease fire is what Israel is seeking despite all the rhetoric.
If you think that Israel is oblivious of what America is thinking of, you ought to get a passport back to earth.
First part of your stupidity debunked!
Statement of Secretary Paul O’Neill on the Blocking of Hamas Financiers’ Assets
When the President declared war on terrorist financing in September, we made al Qaida our primary focus of attention, and have since blocked $61 million worldwide in assets of the Taliban and al Qaida. In October, we broadened our pursuit of terrorist assets to include all Foreign Terrorist Organizations, including Hamas. We stated very clearly our intent to pursue the bankers who finance these terrorists. Today, we are advancing on those financiers of terror.
The Hamas terrorist organization has taken the lives of scores of individuals, including American citizens. They have proudly claimed credit for their acts of evil, including the horrific attacks this past Sunday. They raise money in the United States and around the world. Clearly, Hamas is a terrorist organization of global reach.
Today we are shutting down three Hamas-controlled organizations that finance terror. The Holy Land Foundation masquerades as a charity, while its primary purpose is to fund Hamas. This is not a case of one bad actor stealing from the petty cash drawer and giving those stolen monies to terrorists. This organization exists to raise money in the United States to promote terror.
Last year, Holy Land raised $13 million. Government agents today shut down 4 offices of the Holy Land Foundation in the United States. Innocent donors who thought they were helping someone in need deserve protection from these scam artists who prey on their benevolence.
Similarly, the al Aqsa bank and the Beit al Mal bank aren’t just banks that unknowingly administer accounts for terrorists. They are direct arms of Hamas, established and used to do Hamas business.
We will continue to name the financiers of terrorism to ensure that Hamas and other terrorist organizations have no ability to finance their acts of evil. We will work with every civilized nation around the globe to ensure there is no safe haven for terrorist money. Just as in a ground war, we will win by taking one hill at a time, advancing tirelessly every day, until terrorists and their money have nowhere to hide.
2nd part of your stupidty debunked:
Olmert wants 1701 for Gaza
Israeli government actively explores ceasefire options. The PM wants international monitors in Gaza even though they proved completely useless in Lebanon. Israeli drifts to Gen.Jones scenario of NATO/UN forces in the Palestinian-populated areas. International monitors, sort of the people who fled Rafah Crossing after Hamas takeover, cannot prevent arms smuggling but would develop rapport with Hamas on whom they depend for daily activities.
Just like in Lebanon, Israel demands of Hamas ceasing arms smuggling - which sounds good with Israeli voters but is impossible to implement.
A ceasefire solves nothing as Israel isn’t ready to open all the crossings into Gaza, and Palestinian guerrillas won’t cease at least sporadic attacks otherwise. Bush Administration supports a short-term solution of ceasefire and the crossings open for humanitarian cargo only.
As in Lebanon, IDF seems geared for a last-minute ground invasion just before the ceasefire kicks in. Such a scenario puts a natural time limit on the operation, and allows Israel to end it without humiliating withdrawal amid indecisive results. To avoid the Lebanon-type losses in infantry operation, the invasion is supposed to be fast and massive to make guerrilla hit-and-run attacks impractical.
By now, everyone forgot the initial tough statements by Olmert-Livni-Barak that the Gaza operation will last until Hamas is ousted and safety for Israelis assured.
Celia stop kissing Peskins ass and come up with your own stupid ideas.
Seems like the metaphor THAT A WOLF CAN’T SMELL HIS OWN SCENT IN THE FOREST IS A TRUISM AND YOU ARE PROOF POSITIVE.
Comment by yamit82 — January 3, 2009 @ 8:53 am