TONIGHT

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

RELATED LINKS

• The American Task Force on Palestine
• Transcript from online chat with Dr. Asali

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Dr. Ziad Asali is a long-time expert on Middle East issues, and founder of the American Task Force on Palestine. Born in Jerusalem, he went on to medical school at the American University in Beirut. He's also the former president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination committee. He joins us tonight from Washington. Dr. Asali, nice to have you on the program, sir.

Dr. Ziad Asali: Thank you for having me.

Tavis: It occurred to me as I was just reading that introduction that this is not just a conversation about politics, about strategy, and hopefully about humanity, which we'll get to in a moment, but specifically where you are concerned, it's a conversation about a place that you call home. The region of the world where you were born, where you went to medical school in Beirut. Let me start by asking, that said, how it makes one like you feel, looking at what's happening as we speak.

Asali: It's like watching a very bad movie with new actors, all over again, with real suffering at the end of every chapter of it. It's a very, very sad time for all of us who have known Palestine, who have known Beirut, and lived there, and now, seeing the suffering of the humanity at this time is just, just too much.

Tavis: Let me pick up on your latter point about the suffering of humanity. The story of the day, one of the stories, of course, of today, there are many story lines here. What I wanna focus on for the moment, the refugees. We see about a half million people now, all told, in the region, who have been displaced because of the violence. Your thoughts first on what happens to these refugees on both sides of the border.

Asali: Yes. In Lebanon, the people moved out of the south, the south of Lebanon, moved out because of the concentration of the devastation on the south. And these people left their homes and possessions and moved up north to Beirut and beyond. These people are homeless, they have nothing at all, whatsoever. They're dispersed in churches, in mosques, in schools, in parks, and everywhere if they have any relatives.

And they have very little assistance. And that's something that calls for an immediate understanding and compassion and intervention globally. Like the world moved about the tsunami that devastated Indonesia, there has to be a quick move to help these people, very, very quickly, in order first to solve the humanitarian problem, and secondly to prevent the political radicalization of these people to the point that they will not be amenable to peaceful solutions in the near future.

Tavis: When you raise the tsunami as a comparative example, I suspect there's somebody watching right now who says that those persons victimized by the tsunami were put in harm's way through no danger, no fault of their own. How do you respond, then, to that viewer watching - those viewers, perhaps - watching right now, who say that these folk in Lebanon have been put in harm's way because they have tolerated a terrorist group operating inside of their country.

And if they really wanted to live in peace inside of Lebanon, they would press their government to not allow a terrorist organization like Hizbullah to set up camp and run amok inside their borders.

Asali: Yeah, I'm sure this is true of some of the people who have supported any political organizations, but most of the people, of course, go about their life, living their own lives in their own homes and villages and shops, and are not involved in politics. And the sad story is the majority of the people who live like this are now treated like everybody else, forced out of their homes under the bombardment.

The political provocation is very clear, I understand, but Hizbullah is an organized and militant group. It has arms, and it can impose its will on the people. So there is that factor also to be taken into consideration.

Tavis: I don't mean to pick words apart here and dissect too closely, but I noticed that you used the word bombardment. Let me ask you, then, what your sense is of the proportionality, or lack thereof, on the part of the state of Israel?

Asali: Well, the tools that are available for the state of Israel are state of the art, American advanced technology that is capable of inflicting a great deal of damage by air force, by tanks, etcetera, etcetera. The tools that are available to Hizbullah at this point in time that are somewhat effective are missiles. And they have used them. They are short-term missiles so far.

And they have long-term missiles that they have gotten from the neighboring countries; it seems from Syria or Iran. And so the disproportionality is proportionate to the availability of the arms.

Tavis: That said, given what Israel has available to it, is that the only issue that concerns you? Or is the issue - the fact of the matter is that just because Israel has access to greater weaponry, that sounds oxymoronic to me to say, I hate weapons. To say greater weaponry sounds ridiculous, but I've said it. So the fact that Israel has greater access to these weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean they have to use them. Do you think, then, I ask again, they've gone too far with regard to proportionality here?

Asali: Yes. I think Israel has to understand that just the mere fact that it has the ability to wreak havoc on these people does not mean that it should. And it should also calculate the political fallout from such devastation, which would radicalize not just the people who have a tendency to be radicalized, but the normal, innocent people, even in people in Lebanon, whom I have talked to, of course, consistently, who live in the north, who have not been subjected to the direct bombardment that I talked about, have become entirely not sympathetic to Israel.

Although the first flush of the blame was against Hizbullah for the provocation, now there seems to be a great shift because of this vast area of destruction, and the refugee problem, turned against Israel. And that is a political problem that Israel has to be aware about, and the rest of the world has to be aware about.

Tavis: Let me turn our attention now, if I can, to the Bush administration, because maybe you're hearing something different, but I'm trying to get some clarity on what President Bush is really saying, 'cause I'm hearing him talk out of both sides of his mouth here, quite frankly. On the one hand, the President is saying to the world that we will not engage in talks.

Condi Rice may go in a few days from now, but the first prerequisite is that he wants to give Israel the opportunity to destroy Hizbullah's infrastructure. That's what he's saying out of one side of his mouth. Give Israel time to destroy the infrastructure of Hizbullah. Out of the other side of his mouth, he's saying that Israel, though, should use less force in that process. Now, that's what I'm hearing him say. Are you hearing him the same way? Maybe you understand it better.

Asali: Well, you may have explained your own view of what he said. He did not quite say that he wanted to give Israel time to destroy Hizbullah. But by the mere waiting game, the mere giving Israel a green light to go on and deal with Hizbullah without intervention, that gives Israel the latitude, the needed time to actually do as much damage to Hizbullah as possible.

Of course, it's not going to be very easy or even possible to destroy Hizbullah completely. This is not something that can be done by aerial bombardment. These are people who are underground, and they can hide. And they claim, in fact, that they have not suffered casualties amongst their number. Most of the casualties are civilians. So it is an attempt to really postpone further building of these forces, if a political solution is not found.

Tavis: What I'm trying to get at here, and let me just back up for clarification, I was not attributing a direct quote to the President. To your brilliant point, I'm trying to make the point here that we're getting two different signals here. We're gonna hold on talking until they destroy the heck out of Hizbullah, but at the same time, we're going to publicly say we want Israel to use less force. The question I'm trying to get to here for you is whether or not you are hearing, seeing, put another way, hypocrisy out of the Bush White House on this issue.

Asali: I am seeing the Bush White House giving a green light to Israel on the one hand, and being cognizant that there will be consequences afterwards, both for Israel and for the United States. And this better be addressed, and be addressed quickly and soon. The devastation that's taking place in Lebanon now is gonna come back and haunt both Israel and the United States, and even the moderate Arab allies, if nothing is done first to relieve the humanitarian situation as soon as possible, and second, to admit the obvious, which is the political complications that need to be addressed, rather than consider this a security issue, and only a security issue.

Tavis: All right, if I'm an Arab country, if I'm an Arab head of state in that region in the world, if I reject Bush's plan, stated or unstated, if I reject his plan openly, then I look like I'm supporting Hizbullah. If I, on the other hand, accept the President's plan, his way of doing this, then it looks like I openly support the state of Israel, which quite frankly ain't good for me if I'm gonna stay a head of state in this part of the world. So how do Arab countries view what the White House is saying or not saying, as it were?

Asali: Of course, they're divided. There's a very interesting reaction of one Arab country, which was Saudi Arabia, which has always been very reticent to express public views or state specific stands, on this one issue, Saudi Arabia publicly and early blamed Hizbullah for the provocation of kidnapping these soldiers. And of course, at the same time, of course, it criticized Israel for the overreaction.

But there has been a certain shift in some of the Arab moderates who say this provocation should not have been done by Hizbullah in order to give Israel a chance to do exactly what they proceeded to do. So there is - the problem with this issue is that the gray area is much more important than the white or black extreme on each side. There are nuances, and these nuances seem to be lost, while the solution has to be somewhere in the middle, in further elaboration on these nuances.

Tavis: All right, so from your perspective, then, speaking of solution, and I'm not sure I believe in that word for this kind of crisis, necessarily, that said, what is the solution as you see it, for lack of a better word?

Asali: There has to be political communication. There has to be contacts. There has to be negotiations or conversations going on at the same time, with all parties, direct or indirect. At the end of the day, if the Middle East is ever to be stabilized, Israel has to have its own secure borders, but so would the Palestine people. They should have their own state with secure borders.

This is the mother of all problems. If it is perceived as something that can be pursued by reasonable people, without everybody wanting to have all the pie to itself without sharing, so to speak, then we could be on our way to wisdom and a reasonable solution. It takes time; it takes effort; it takes getting over the licks and the wounds and the scars of the present crisis. But there is no way that this problem can be solved militarily by anybody's force. Anybody's force, globally. This has to be solved politically.

Tavis: Do you think that the prime minister of Israel, and those who run that nation, understand and accept that reality?

Asali: Well, if they don't, they should now think twice about their own security issues. They built this wall, part of it, they called it a fence, and some police barrier. Now, for security, now, everybody should understand, what does this wall and this fence mean for security in the age of missiles that cross hundreds of miles, or 50 miles, or whatever miles? So security has to be redefined. Security for Israel is in the satisfaction of its neighbors, that it is going to live in peace, within certain borders, and they will have to accept their obligations to make it live in peace if a Palestinian state is founded. There is no other security, for anyone.

Tavis: Dr. Ziad Asali, president and founder of the American Task Force on Palestine. Glad to have you on the program, I appreciate your sharing your thoughts with us.

Asali: Thank you.

Tavis: Up next on this program, from the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' and soon to be out, 'Miami Vice,' actress Naomie Harris. Stay with us.