Violating the terms?

Interestingly, on the Today Programme, Justin was rather pleasant to Emily Thornberry, despite some fairly rigorous probing. (It can be done.)

Addressing Boris Johnson’s bid to persuade Donald Trump not to abandon the Iran deal, the Shadow Foreign Secretary said she was sad to see Boris on Fox News instead of ‘face to face’ with the POTUS, like Macron with the dandruff.

“Might that have had anything to do with your party being contemptuous of Trump?” asked Justin amenably.

“No”, said the Shadow Foreign Secretary. She was more concerned with the Iranian nuclear programme, which she pronounced “NucULAR”, and giggled at her inability to articulate ‘I A E A’.

“What’s the alternatuv?” she asked. (Has Dead Ringers got an Emily Thornberry?) “I mean the worry is is that if we don’t continue…… […] I’m not here to defend Iran but I’m here to defend the deal.” 

These trivial observations may not add up to much, but the question is is the Shadow F.S. up to the job? The only purpose of mentioning such trifling things is to highlight the difference between this amiable chat with Justin and Mishal Husain’s flagship, post-eight o’clock interview with Israel’s Ambassador, Mark Regev.

Mishal Husain has two personas; a charming, syrupy, empathetic one and the contemptuous one reserved for Israelis.

Husain’s use of the Paxman technique, most notably in that interview with Gil Hoffman, commonly known as the “How many Israelis?” interview, where she corners her victim by repeating the question “how many Israelis have died?” to force from him an admission that none had. No Israelis had been killed by Hamas’s “home-made contraptions”, ergo no retaliation was justified. 

The technique is designed to ridicule the victim and to make their argument look weak. Paxman famously employed it to humiliate Michael Howard, and the interview became legendary simply because of the number of times the question was put, and the inevitable binary answer avoided. 

Of course, it was disingenuous and unfair, as the engineered question could never be fully answered with a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

After hastily and selectively (not verbatim) transcribing the following, I listened to Matthew Amroliwala put a similar line of questioning to another interviewee, so I can only assume it wasn’t Mishal Husain’s own idea to focus on the matter of Iran’s violation or non-violation of the terms of the deal.  It must be official BBC strategy to approach it that way. (Impartiality? What impartiality?) However, Husain’s inability to listen to Mark Regev’s answers and adapt her questioning accordingly is all her own work.

Husain

“Would you like to see this deal collapse?”[…] “Has Iran violated its terms?”

(She wants Regev to admit that Iran hasn’t violated the terms and cannot justify pulling out of the deal)

Regev

“the deal is “good for Iran” therefore it has no interest violating it, furthermore Iran lied to the IAEA from the start." (By originally denying they were pursuing a military nuclear programme.)

Husain

“But that assumption is what led to the deal being reached,” says Husain, dismissing Iran’s lying as irrelevant. 

Husain persists.

“I’m going to ask you again, has Iran violated the terms of the deal?”

Regev

“The deal itself had an element that called upon Iran to come clean regarding its prior nuclear activity. The deal is based on Iran coming clean, which it did not.”

Husain

“In terms of what they have done since 2013, have they violated the deal? she asked, again.”In the terms of the deal, in terms of their activities”

Regev

"Well first of all, not coming clean was a violation, but it’s in their interest to stick within the narrow confines of the deal because it allows them in a few short years to create unlimited amounts of uranium…”

Husain

"I think its clear from what you’re saying that your issue is about Iran’s truthfulness about its past activities and some may raise the question about Israel’s openness about its nuclear activities, given that you’re widely regarded to have a nuclear programme which you have never been open about, but international nuclear inspectors have said, again and again, eleven times in total, that the commitments in Iran, that it has signed up to, have all been fulfilled. Now, do you have evidence that that is not the case?" 

(Has Husain ignored everything Regev has been saying? It looks so. She insists that as long as Iran hasn’t violated the terms of the deal there’s no justification for pulling out.)

Regev

“The inspections at the moment are very limited. You have to notify the Iranians ahead of time and no inspector can go to any site that is declared by the Iranian regime as a military site. Now if you were the Ayatollah, and you were the Iranian government, and if you wanted to conceal your programme, where would you put it? […] You have just confirmed what I said, that you have to notify the Iranians in advance and get permission, secondly, any military site is off limits to the inspectors…"

Husain

"And do you have suspicions that things are going on right now that shouldn’t be and if so have you put these to the international nuclear agency?"

Regev

“We believe we have conclusive proof that the Iranian nuclear ambition is not benign and that they continue to want their nuclear weapons."

Husain

“You say it’s a very limited inspection regime. The IAEA say they have 2,000 tamper-proof seals in place on nuclear material and equipment, that there are hundreds of thousands of images captured daily by their surveillance cameras in Iran, that is about half the total number of images that they collect in the world. In what way is that a limited inspection?"

Regev

"They are only there at agreed sites. The Iranians have never come clean before, never voluntarily said where they’ve got equipment. [..] Iran is a huge country and every military site - that Iran declares is a military site, is off limits."

Husain

"You suspect, do you, that things are happening right now at those sites that shouldn’t be. is that what you’re saying?"

Regev

"None of us know, and we haven’t even mentioned the ballistic missile programme, which is going on as we speak. The Iranians have a very, very aggressive ballistic missile process. Over the last few years, they’ve already doubled the range of their rockets. They want a nuclear weapon and we have to stop them from getting it."

Husain

"And the ballistic missiles are outside the terms of the deal."

Regev

"Correct. that’s a problem."

Husain

"Alright. if this deal collapses, what is the alternative? Benjamin Netanyahu said we don’t want confrontation. If there needs to be one  it’s better now than later, does that mean a military confrontation."

Regev

"I think there are alternatives. I’d like to see a deal that actually does what this deal says it does. That does stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon., and the way to do that is to deal with the ballistic missile programme, to deal seriously with the issue of inspections and to deal seriously with he issue of the ‘sunset clause’ that automatically in the next few years the restriction on uranium enrichment will be lifted."

Husian

"But let’s just think about the most sensible ways to get to what you call those other alternatives. You want a more stringent deal. Now is the most effective way to get to that, to tear up what you have at present and to supposedly start to negotiate again on that basis, or to try and strengthen what is already there?"

Regev

"For us whether there’s a deal or not it’s a minor consideration. The only important point is do we have a mechanism that prevents Iran from achieving a capability to build nuclear weapons. the current deal does not do that."

Husain

"In your view."

Regev

"Not just in our view."

Husain

"Wh.. w… well, y…but okay, again, if you were to start from scratch, what makes you, what makes you think that tearing this up would lead to a more u…u..a more stringent mechanism of some kind?"

Regev

"There’s no point in keeping a deal just for the sake of keeping a deal. There was a deal with North Korea in 1994 that was heralded as a great breakthrough for nuclear non-proliferation and we know that North Koreans developed nuclear weapons so a deal for the sake of a deal gets no-one anything. It’s crucial that if we are going to talk about a deal we deal with the serious issues, Once

again, the sunset clause, the ballistic missiles, and the inspections."

Husain

"And have you put the serious issues that you believe are in place, if you do believe that there are  er activities in violation of the deal happening now, have you put those to the IAEA?"

Regev

"We have close relations with the IAEA, we have with Americans with the EU3 my PM is going to raise these issues with the Russians. Obviously, we’re making our case and we believe that evidence that we can bring to the table shows a consistent pattern of Iranian duplicity. They have lied and continue to lie to the international community about the true nature of their nuclear programme. And let’s be clear this is not Israel speaking alone, the Arab states endorse, support our position. we are as one with the Arab countries on seeing the dangerous nature of the Iranian nuclear programme."

Husain

"Well, we’ll hear from President Trump on this topic later on today. Let’s talk about Gaza and what’s been happening along its border with Israel. Since protests began on the 30th March Israeli soldiers have killed forty Palestinians including five children on the Gaza side of the border fence, more than 3,000 Palestinians have been hospitalised with injuries from live ammunition. Why are your soldiers using live ammunition to shoot people on the other side of the fence?"

Regev

"We don’t want to see anyone get hurt, We don’t want to see any violence. Unfortunately, the Hamas regime in Gaza has orchestrated continuous attempts to storm the border fence to damage the face to penetrate into Israel and to hurt out people."

Husain

"Yes, five people have been killed crossing the fence, I’m talking about those who were shot with live ammunition by Israeli soldiers inside Gaza. Why are you using live ammunition to shoot those who were inside Gaza?"

Regev

"We are only using live ammunition as a last resort after we’ve used other non-lethal mechanisms. We can’y allow people to storm the fence, break the fence and come into Israel to try to kill our people."

Husain

"Why do you need a last resort for those who haven’t crossed the fence?"

Regev

"You used the word protests before. Demonstrations. We have no problem with demonstrations.If people in Gaza want to demonstrate against PM Netanyahu or the Israeli government they are free to do so. Of course, they are not free to demonstrate against Hamas. That would never be allowed. But if you storm the fence with wire-cutters, with petrol bombs, with explosives when the goal is to damage the fence so you can infiltrate into Israel and hurt our people we will act to protect our civilian population."

Husain

"I am asking you about this who’ve been shot with live ammunition on the Gaza side of the fence, the Israeli rights group Adalah which is part of the legal challenge against the use of live ammunition says the great majority of those shot were at a distance from the fence, that there has bee a systematic use of live fire with no justification."

Regev

"If I’m not mistaken some 80% of those fatally shot in the violent confrontations were signed up members of Hamas and Islamic jihad, they were activists, not innocent civilians."

Husain

"Finally, after allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn has said in recent weeks, in fac,t he told Jewish news in march that he intends to visit Israel and to meet Benjamin Netanyahu at some point, will the PM meet him?"

Regev

"I can’t pre judge. I’m not even sure a visit has been finalise at this stage."

Husain

"But if it happened, that Jeremy Corbyn hopes it happens at some point, with PM Netanyahu meet him?"


Regev

"I am very happy to meet with Jeremy Corbyn and discuss a possible programme for him to visit Israel. Anything else at this stage would be premature."

Husain

"Mark Regev, Israeli Ambassador to the UK thank you very much, listening to that is Jeremy Bowen our Middle East editor, there’s no doubt Jeremy, that the Israelis feel extremely angry about what has been agreed in terms of this deal do you think they have evidence of violations happening now?"

Bowen’s pedestrian wisdoms ensue. (Why didn’t they bring in an expert to evaluate Emily Thornberry’s observations?)

I don’t know how interviews are allocated between the presenters of the day, but it often seems to fall upon Mishal Husain to do the Israel-related ones.

On second listening I didn’t feel that the disdainful tone of voice she used for Regev was as obvious as it seemed on first hearing, this morning, but that was before President Trump made his speech explaining why he has decided to do what he’s decided to do. That was then and this is now.

I see the BBC has substituted Sarah Montague’s image for Martha Kearney’s on the website. (It looks a bit big) Also, I find it pretty exasperating that they’ve dumped the ‘running order’ so one has to trawl through the whole thing to locate the bits you’re interested in. Just think, when I first started blogging, they even supplied us with hyperlinks to individual sections of the programme. It’s almost as if they’ve done it deliberately to frustrate bloggers who criticise the BBC.