FRIDAY

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Article by Dr. Spiegel
• Burkle Center for International Relations
• Dr. Spiegel's bio

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Steven Spiegel is a professor of political science at UCLA, and Director of Middle East Development at UCLA's Burkle Center for International Relations. His numerous books on foreign affairs include his most recent 'World Politics in a New Era.' Professor Spiegel, nice to have you on the program.

Steven Spiegel: Tavis, terrific to be here.

Tavis: Let me start with the news of the day, which is not so terrific, air strikes by the Israelis in Gaza. What do you make of it?

Spiegel: Well, I think that what you have is a very dire situation on both sides. It's pregnant with the possibilities of potential for moving forward, but meanwhile, both new governments are being tested. On the Palestinian side, you have their support for terrorism against Israelis, and you also have their support for Qassam rockets against Israeli towns, particularly Sderot, and the kidnapping of individual Israelis, particularly one soldier who's gotten the most attention on the Israeli side.

Of course, this new government is being tested under Prime Minister Olmert, and the leader of the other major party in the government, Amir Peretz. He's the defense minister, and the two of them do not have a security background, so people are looking to see how they can handle a very difficult situation.

Tavis: When you suggest, as you did a moment ago, that this moment, though, is still present with possibility, how does one juxtapose the notion of possibility for progress, the point you made earlier, with air strikes today?

Spiegel: Well, this is the Middle East, remember, Tavis.

Tavis: Yeah, it is.

Spiegel: Now first of all, everything in the Middle East, when it looks bad, it's never quite as bad as it looks, and when it looks good, it's never as good as it looks. And I think that if we come out of this crisis with the kidnappees alive and returned to Israel so that the government will be strengthened and able to act diplomatically, more flexibly, and more authoritatively.

And on the Palestinian side, there are signs of some agreement between Fatah, which is not used to being in the opposition, though they control the presidency with Mahmoud Abbas, and with (sounds like) Hamas chastened, then we could have the possibility of moving forward in some manner, shape, or form. If we come out badly, we're gonna have more and more troubles.

Tavis: But you suggested a moment ago that when we come out of this crisis, obviously long-standing dispute in this region of the world, as I mentioned earlier, without comparison I think the most volatile region in the world. That said, when you suggest that we may come out of this crisis, what is this crisis? What is the crisis of the moment?

Spiegel: Well, the crisis of the moment is that the new Palestinian government has been supporting terrorism. Not that it has actually engaged in...

Tavis: We're talking Hamas here.

Spiegel: We're talking Hamas.

Tavis: Right.

Spiegel: Not that they've engaged in so much violence, quite the contrary. They have generally pursued a cease fire over the last 18 months. There've been signs of that breaking down. But they have supported it, and they have not reined in other groups that are engaging in violence, and they have not stopped the Qassam rockets against particularly the town of Sderot on the border with Israel.

What is very worrisome about this current crisis is they attacked a tank a couple of days ago that was inside pre-1967 Israel. That's why you have more governments than you would think internationally supporting the Israelis. After all, the Israelis have left Gaza, and it's no longer being occupied. So you can't justify this on the basis of occupation of Gaza.

And so, that's the real trigger. The Israelis have had to react. The government at first was very hesitant. It did not react very forcefully. The situation kept getting worse, and we've gotten into the current mess.

Tavis: Your point notwithstanding that this moment is still, because it is the Middle East, pregnant with possibility, there are some, I suspect, watching right now who feel that it is a foregone conclusion that this thing will never get better, but only worse, and particularly given that Hamas is now running things in the Palestinian territory. When you say Hamas has not done A, B, C, D, and E, is there any hope that this particular group of leaders, if we can call them that, if you wanna call them that, are capable, are interested, in doing that laundry list of things that you've suggested they've not done?

Spiegel: Everything they've done so far, Tavis, suggests that they're not. But the one thing they want is to stay in power. They are the first Islamic Brotherhood government in the Arab world. The Islamic Brotherhood has been around since the 1920s, but it's the first party, and that's what they're aligned with, the general party, they're aligned with. It's the first national party that's gotten into power.

They don't wanna lose that. Their supporters don't wanna lose that. Now, they may not be ready for prime time, and they may lose it. And the way they've been acting, they will lose it. But there is a mitigating factor. I don't wanna be optimistic, but I want to suggest that there are ways out. Now, if they cannot begin to act responsibly, then they're gonna lose power.

Tavis: But to not lose power, there are two Now, if they cannot begin to act responsibly, then they're gonna lose power.

Tavis: But to not lose power, there are two things hitting me as we talk about this. I know this is complicated. To not lose power, number one, means, to your point, that you are interested in compromise. It believes that you're interested in sitting around a table, having some conversation, number one. Number two, if you look at their record, like or loathe them, agree or disagree, there is a principle on which they believe they stand.

There's something that they believe in. And one could argue, it seems to me, you're the expert here, that the principle that they believe in, the thing they're standing on, is antithetical to compromise. If you believe in this, then it's difficult, almost impossible, to ever compromise, certainly for the sake of holding on to power. Does that make sense here?

Spiegel: Yes, of course. And you're absolutely right. Because they are committed to the destruction of the state of Israel. And you can't have a successful operation if you are. We had to rein in Saddam Hussein because he was committed to the destruction of Kuwait. And in an international order, you cannot permit that kind of behavior. But they are also committed to staying in power, and we don't know yet, over the weeks and months ahead, whether they are going to realize that you don't, maybe they don't compromise their principles.

But they're talking about a cease fire over decades. And then we'll leave you alone, you'll leave us alone. Well, the Israelis, in their current mood, which is quite dovish, would buy that. But on the surface, you're absolutely right, and you may be right. If that's so, if that's correct, Hamas is gonna fail, and we'll have some form of Fatah back in the next few months or a year or two.

Tavis: But we do see this, you and I, that is, as a decision that somebody in Hamas has to make about power versus principle.

Spiegel: That's correct, because the Israelis, at the moment, ironically, as I say, are moving in a left direction. They want the end of occupation. They want out of the Palestinians. They're just disillusioned, understandably, with the Palestinians, especially with this vote for Hamas. So the Israelis wanna get out of the territories. They got out of Gaza, and all they did is get hit. That's what this current crisis is about. And if this continues, then the Israelis are gonna take further action, because they do wanna be separated from this issue.

Tavis: When you say that the Israeli government right now is dovish, what do you mean by that?

Spiegel: I mean that it doesn't want to occupy the Palestinians any longer. It's gotten out of Gaza, its predecessor, but many of the same people, and now it wants to withdraw from most of the West Bank.

Tavis: How long will it or can it remain dovish?

Spiegel: Well, unfortunately, the Hamas pressures are forcing it into a more hawkish position. I think, however, that Prime Minister Olmert said, just in the last few hours, once again, he is committed to withdrawing from most of the West Bank. And so, I think it'll be many months before you see a change.

Tavis: Let me switch gears here, other news of the moment. Secretary Rice, Condoleezza Rice, and Afghanistan. How do you view this trip?

Spiegel: Well, the problem is we need more substantive policies and fewer trips. I think it's important for her to uphold American support and to reaffirm that support for the current Afghan government, and for Karzai, who's in Afghanistan and whose support is declining. But we got out of Afghanistan too quickly. We turned our attention to Iraq too quickly, without getting into the pros and cons of Iraq, we did it too fast.

And some of us have been saying now, since 203, that problems were coming in Afghanistan. We couldn't leave it only to NATO, the Canadians, the Germans, etcetera. We had to be there more. We had to pay more attention. It's getting worse.

Tavis: We should or should not be cooperating with Iran, and why? Or why not?

Spiegel: I think we've lost some opportunities with Iran. I think that Iran is on our side, ironically enough, in Afghanistan, 'cause they despise the Taliban. We could have, and we could still move them to some extent vis a vis some degree of accommodation on the Iraqi issue. There are potential for mutual interests, but of course the Iranians have gone in the opposite direction with the nuclear force moves, with the current government.

It's harder now than it was before. I think the Bush administration was correct to offer talks. I wish they'd done it a couple of years ago. But because there's a certain unity inside the Iranian government, now that the reformists have been defeated, there is a certain odd opportunity. It's a shame to give that victory inside Iran to the conservatives, but that's what we're doing.

Tavis: Let me circle back to the topic of our conversation, and offer an exit question here. So, with regard to what's happening in the Middle East as we speak tonight, Israel, Palestine, what does it mean for the U.S., and what ought the Bush administration, the U.S. government, be doing given what's happening there tonight?

Spiegel: Well, I think that the Bush administration has been correct to support the Israeli position, because you cannot support kidnapping, you cannot support terrorism. And so I think that the Israelis have been right on that point, and the Bush administration has been right to support them. I regret that the Bush administration has not been more active in trying to resolve this issue.

I think we'd be further along, in terms of some kind of even day by day accommodation that would allow for the return of the kidnappers and for Israel to step back. I think both sides really want that. But there are no Americans there at the moment, the way there were in the past, to resolve the issue. And I do regret that.

Tavis: Professor Spiegel, nice to have you on. Thank you for your insight on this volatile and fast-moving story. But I'm glad to have you on. We'll I'm sure have you back to continue this conversation, and hopefully, the situation gets better.

Spiegel: Thank you, Tavis.

Tavis: Nice to see you. Up next on this program, surfing star Laird Hamilton. Stay with us.