Once again, our Secretary of State says the right things a day after she says the wrong things. I cannot tell what she means anymore without an interpreter.
QUESTION: Have you spoken to Prime Minister Sharon since his comments suggesting that if Hamas were to contest the Palestinian parliamentary elections that Israel would somehow intervene or — I’m not exactly sure, you know, what they’d be planning to do. But given that we classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, wouldn’t he be justified in doing that? I mean, should we expect Israel to recognize a Palestinian government that includes members of a terrorist organization or has representation of such a group?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, we are talking to the Israelis. I think there is a difference between the question of whether or not you interfere in somebody else’s elections, you know, in some way by not letting them take place or whatever — that’s one question. But look, on the question of whether or not you can have a situation in which a group maintains both an option for politics and an option for violence, I think that’s a real question for the international community. The Israelis shouldn’t be the only ones asking that question.
In multiple cases, take Afghanistan, for instance, one of the requirements of people running for office was that they had to disarm the militias. They had to either (inaudible) their weapons or — they couldn’t simultaneously be an armed militia and a political entity. If you look at the Northern Ireland situation, while Sinn Fein did (inaudible) while there was still an IRA, it was clearly a part of the Good Friday Agreement that the military wing of the Irish movement would disarm. There is a requirement under Resolution 1559 for the Lebanon to eventually disarm the militias.
Because people understand that there is not a circumstance that I can think of in which you have a functioning democracy in which part of that government or part of that political — of the political entity maintains an option for violence. Any functioning democracy has to have one authority and one gun, as Mahmoud Abbas has put it.
So I think we will want to work with the international community to address this question. I think it is an extremely important question because I don’t, frankly, think Hamas can have it both ways.
Now, I think it would be a good start for the Palestinians, by the way, if they would disarm the militias of Fatah. That would be a good start. They have a roadmap obligation to disarm terrorist organizations and militias. But as a starting point, because I understand that there are complications with Hamas and there are questions about how capable they would be of actually insisting on disarmament of Hamas. They really do need to start getting, as Abbas has called it, one authority and one gun.
But I would separate the question of how the Israelis approach the question of their elections, the Palestinian elections, where I think you will want to elect — the elections be carried out, from what I think is a legitimate question for the international community to ask about those who wish to keep a political option and a violence option.
She changes her opinion so fast I’m getting whiplash trying to keep up with her.
So what Rice is saying is, Israel should allow the Palestinians to run their elections any way they want and elect whoever they think fit – but Israel doesn’t have to agree to deal with the resulting government if it contains Hamas.
Perfectly reasonable, except you and I and everyone else knows that half the world would say “they’re democratically elected, you have to recognize them” and accuse Israel of obstructionism and meddling in Palestinian internal affairs; US support of the Israeli position would be half-hearted and no-one else would back Israel at all. So once again, it would be Israel standing in the way of peace and progress.
It seems that everybody has forgotten what happened in the past.
In the 80s the Reagan’s Administration saved Arafat from Israel in Beirut and set him up in Tunis along with his gang of Abbas, Qureia et al.
Then During Bush 1’s term of office the State Department went along with the Arab League’s demands and crowned Arafat king of the Palestinians.
Nobody remember when the Madrid talks were thrust on Israel Baker’s message to Shamir, who was resisting Baker’s pressure to talk to Arafat, to call when he got serious?
By setting up where Israel had no alternative we now can look back with 20/20 hindsight and see what it wrought.
That Rice has not learned from her mentor, Derijian and his boss’ mistakes, must be indicative of a lot of insincere behaviour cause she is not stupid.
Rice is a protege of Brent Scowcroft and James Baker. That says it all for me.
The problem is that she seems to feel that she has to go along with the Arabists in the State Department because she has the illusion that they are honest and are trying to support the United States.
Sabba, they may be honest and might be trying to support the US. Please don’t assume dishonesty and treachery when blind stupidity and ignorance can suit.