In the early hours of Saturday morning on October 7, Israel was invaded by Hamas terrorists by land, air, and sea, which The Free Press has been covering all week in detail. With over 1,300 Israeli civilians dead, hundreds taken hostage into Gaza, and many more in critical condition, this catastrophic and barbaric attack has been labeled “Israel’s 9/11.”
This is something former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice knows something about.
After all, Secretary Rice led our nation as national security advisor on September 11. As one of the most powerful people in the world at a turning point in American history, Secretary Rice knows firsthand about leadership amid unthinkable crises. She also knows firsthand about the intractable conflicts Israel has faced for decades, having served in both her national leadership roles through five Gaza wars and crises.
Today, Secretary Rice discusses why this war is different than anything she has seen before in the region, whether the prospect for a two-state solution is over, what Iran’s role was in aiding Hamas, what Israel seeking normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia had to do with it, why America cannot afford to retreat from the world, and why Israel—and the world—will never be the same.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Thank you Bari for this insightful interview and all the hard work you do to get honest journalism out there.
I haven't followed Ms. Rice's (I noticed you called her "Secretary", but I'm not sure that's proper protocol) career, but I've read some of her articles and listened to some of her speeches over the years. She has always seemed like a serious and decent person; a steady hand.
Still, there was what to not like here.
I agree with Ms. Weiss that the time it took for Stanford to make a half-baked condemnation indicates a moral problem. Ms. Rice says she's satisfied with it and justifies the delay because it's "complicated". Were I less respectful I would "call BS".
There was also the typical insistence on separating Hamas from the Gazans -- as if Hamas invaded them from somewhere over the horizon. Yes, the Gazans have learned to regret electing them, but polls have always shown that they overwhelmingly approve of their attacks on Israeli civilians. That isn't important because it means all Gazans are fair game for military reprisals -- they're not. Civilians are still civilians and Israel knows that better than anyone, of necessity. But it does mean that a) extirpating Hamas and leaving the Gazans to restructure themselves will probably not end well and b) responding after Hamas's defeat with Israeli concessions to somehow goose the peace process just incentivizes barbarity.
Then there were the usual accusations of Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians and the usual ideas about Israeli concession, of land and who knows what else, to lure the Palestinians to the negotiating table. Shany Mor of the Israel Democracy Institute has a great piece on why that's an insane negotiating strategy, one which nobody would dream of using in any other context. And regarding the horrors of The Occupation, the fact that that concept was brought to you by the same people who are now justifying the murder of babies should maybe give you pause and think about looking into what actually goes on.