First she says that Hamas should be allowed to run in the elections, now she says it is a terrorist organization that must be disbanded. Keep this up, Condi, and you’re going to earn the Jimmy Carter Waffle Award.
QUESTION: I’d like to thank you for coming, first off. I’ve just been curious — seems to me that there’s been some sort of disconnect with a lot of the rhetoric that you’ve been presenting here today and with a lot of our actions in the Middle East. One example is that it seems that we’ve started to take a lot of a softer line with Hamas in Palestine, which is an organization that I think really doesn’t fare with the ideals that you’ve been promoting here. I was wondering if you could try and explain that disconnect we’ve been seeing.
SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. It’s a very good question. We’ve been very clear that Hamas is a terrorist group and it has to be disbanded, both for peace and security and in the Middle East and for the proper functioning of the Palestinian Authority. After all, it is a roadmap obligation of the Palestinian Authority to disband militias and armed resistance groups. There are periods of time of transition in which one has to give some space to the participants, in this case the Palestinians, to begin to come to a new national compact. But I cannot imagine, in the final analysis, a new national compact that leaves an armed resistance group within the political space. You cannot simultaneously keep an option on politics and an option on violence. There simply isn’t a case that I can think of internationally where that’s been permitted to happen.
For instance, in the Good Friday Agreement it was understood that when Sinn Fein came into politics and eventually the IRA would disarm and perhaps, hopefully, that process is now underway. We did not permit the Afghan warlords to keep their weapons and participate as candidates in politics. They had to make a choice. And so it is absolutely the case that you cannot have armed groups ultimately participating in politics with no expectation that they’re going to disarm. But we are very clearheaded about Hamas.
Hamas stands for one-state solution, not a two-state solution. Hamas, therefore, stands for the destruction of Israel. Hamas is an organization that asks Palestinian mothers and fathers to give their children up to make themselves suicide bombers. And it is a real detriment and block to further peace in the Middle East, so we’re not at all confused by this. We do, I think, need to give the Palestinians some space to try and reconcile their national politics, but they’re going to eventually have to disarm these groups. They can’t have it both ways.
But the PA has made it very clear that they’re not willing to disarm Hamas or any terrorist group. So how do you expect this to occur? Wishful thinking?
This sets up the situation where the US can pretend to be backing the PA but actually working to destroy it. That is why they point to the IRA and Sinn Fein examples. Whatever organization actually (eventually) might arise can pretend to be the PA that is finally living up to its obligations.
The deeper and more worrisome instance of magical thinking is Condi’s ignoring the fact that the PLO also aims for a one-state solution. The PLO is every bit as anti-Zionist as is HAMAS; it just dresses up its anti-Zionism in ’60s-speak (racism, colonialism, fascism, imperialism) rather than in Islam-speak. The PLO always insists on a “just” peace, and it doesn’t take much digging to discover what this term signifies (see Art. 23 at the above link).
Sincere Israeli peaceniks believe that the Jews need to understand the Arabs’ narrative of the conflict and vice versa. I happen to agree with this. But I cannot ignore the fact that the Arabs have been culturally conditioned to be deaf to the Jewish narrative, and I have yet to see a survey of their textbooks, their media, or their political and religious oratory that so much as hints at an effort to open their ears.
I also cannot ignore how much of the Arab narrative is fabricated. This is a separate point, but one that would immensely complicate any sincere effort to open the Arabs’ ears to the Jewish narrative. Can one seriously expect Arab political, spiritual and cultural elites to risk exposing the fact that they have been feeding poisonous lies to their people for decade after decade?
Condi Rice cannot be tristed at this point.
The perfect Secretary of State.
There are two possible explanations for this inconsistency. Either they’re morons, or it’s all part of a plan too brilliant for us to understand fully.
I’ve seen the Bush and Sharon administrations rope too many dopes to assume they are morons. They may be making a huge mistake, or pulling off the mother of all battle plans, but only time will tell. I suggest we all have patience, and maybe just a little faith.
Very good points Ben.
I’m more inclined to see muddling through than Tatterdemalion is. Deep laid plans gang aft agley.
Here is the political science professor talking:
“But I cannot imagine, in the final analysis, a new national compact that leaves an armed resistance group within the political space. You cannot simultaneously keep an option on politics and an option on violence.”
She’s right, in the sense that there will have to be a single government in the PA that has a monopoly on violence, if there is to be peace. In Israel this matter was settled at the time of the Altalena Incident and the disbandment of the Palmach. It has yet to be settled among the Palestinian Arabs. It is quite conceivable that Hamas might come out on top in any Pali Civil War, especially if they get greater backing from outsiders like The Wahhabist Entity or Iran than the PLO factions of the PA do. As Ben pointed out, this is not really much of an improvement from the point of view of having a PA actually willing to give up on the destruction of Israel as a goal.
On the other hand, all the various factions might just agree, after some bloody bickering, to continue their war on Israel side-by-side.