“If you are going to have a two state solution, ..”, Rice

By Ted Belman

Secretary Rice was recently interviewed by al Arabiya. A number of comments are noteworthy.

She commented on the $86 million for training security forces of Abbas which Congress held up. From the point of view of democracy, how can the US support a faction, albeit headed by the Chairman, to oppose the elected government headed by Hamas, even if the Chairman has legal control of the security forces.

Referring to the principles of the Quartet, she said

    Well, I think it’s extremely important that these principles, which are not principles just for the sake of principles, but when you think about it, if you are going to have a two-state solution you have to recognize the right of the other party to exist. If you are going to have negotiations for peace, you have to renounce violence. If you are going to be trusted with agreements, you have to honor past agreements. And so that’s why the Quartet principles are there.

She went on to say that she supported any initiative (Mecca Accords) which stops the fighting between factions.

Now what about the “horizon” that she and Livni talk about?

    We have a roadmap and everyone needs to fulfill the conditions of the roadmap. But at the end of the roadmap, there is a destination called the Palestinian state, and I think it makes sense to begin to talk about how you get to that destination, what the Palestinian state will look like, what has to be achieved in order to get to a Palestinian state.

    It’s important for me to recognize that Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas have also established a bilateral channel in which they have made progress, and I hope that I can bring some energy, perhaps some ideas to get the parties talking about these issues. But the one thing that I don’t want to do is to make this an American initiative, and so I hope that eventually the conversation will be joined by particularly the regional states because the Arab states have an important role to play in bringing about a Palestinian state.

Thus it appears that the US has gotten Saudi Arabia to lead the process and the Mecca Accords are the first step.

    Well, all these issues (Jerusalem, the refugees, the border, the settlements), of course, are contained in the roadmap and at some point in time they’re all issues that have to be addressed if there’s going to be a Palestinian state. We also have to be able to address capacity of the Palestinian state to govern. We have to be able to address what the international community can do to support the development of a Palestinian state. We have to talk about what kind of security arrangements can assure both Israelis and Palestinians that they can indeed live together in peace.

    [..] we know all of the things that have to be discussed and ultimately agreed if we’re going to have the establishment of a Palestinian state.

That is the third time she conditioned her remarks with “if a Palestinian state is to be created” or something to that effect. Is she delivering a message? Perhaps I am reading too much into that.

    But I just would like people to know that even during the time when the Hamas government was in power we made available health and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people in larger amounts because we wanted very much to make sure that whatever was going on, that the Palestinian people didn’t suffer. And so we’ve been giving assistance though nongovernmental organizations to the Palestinians in very large amounts.

In effect the US is shielding the people from the effects of electing Hamas. She is saying even if you choose to make war we will ensure you won’t suffer from your choice. How absurd. This simply prolongs the conflict. The people must be held accountable.

    And we don’t want to see malnutrition of Palestinian children or disease among Palestinian children, and so we’ve continued our humanitarian assistance.

Think about it, not a word about the PA policy of indoctrinating these children to hate Jews and the US. That’s not worthy of a comment but God forbid they should be suffer malutrition. We won’t even talk about comparing their plight to the plight of the children in Darfur who desperately need such concern.

    But it is also important to recognize that you have to renounce violence. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that you’re going to be part of a democracy and be part of a peace process but keep an option on violence.

As I have noted before, the Quartet should not be seeking the renounciation of violence but the end of it. But as we know, that is to much to ask.

Now the next quote takes the cake.

    But in terms of President Abbas, he is someone who has respected the international agreements that the Palestinians have signed. In his role as the head of the PLO, in his role as the President of the Authority, he’s made very clear that these are principles that he accepts. He’s made very clear and is known for his belief in nonviolence.

Really? What about his recent speech in which he said “Our rifles, all our rifles are aimed at The Occupation,”. These are the rifles that the US is delivering.

February 16, 2007 | 4 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

4 Comments / 4 Comments

  1. Given the diplomatic language I think this represents am American bowing to the will of the Palestinian people. You want a terrorist state? We don’t want anything to do with you (at least directly).

    The big hint as you point out are all those ifs. The question is being put directly to the Palestinians: State or state of war. Chose one.

    This is a big change in American policy i.e. As long as you talk peace we don’t care what you do – as long as it doesn’t make too many headlines. Those days are over.

  2. A few days ago I reported Saudi Arabia stabs US in the back and referred to the Mecca Accords. I am happy to see that US has put the kibosh on the deal, because it doesn’t recognize Israel and Congress has put the kibosh on the $86 million promised to Abbas.


  3. They won’t be satisfied with a state. They want it all and they want a world jihad.

    I took an Arabic class at UM 20 some years ago. The professor was a Muslim Palestinian from Haifa, an engineering student teaching an evening class. I wasn’t as opinionated about the Israeli Palestinian conflict back then, was barely out of high school and just thought it was a sad situation. But thanks to the prof, I got a real insight into the problem.

    Here is how he explained the Palestinian point of view to the class which consisted of some girls married or engaged to Arabs, an American who wanted to learn about Islam and read the Koran in Arabic and me, 1/4 Syrian. He said that the difference between the Palestinians and the Jews could be found in the Old Testament story of King Solomon and the two women and the baby. They were fighting over the baby and the King said cut the baby up and each take one-half. One woman said okay, and the other one said no, don’t cut the baby up, let her have the baby. You all know the ending. Then he explained that the Palestinians are like the second woman, and because they love the land too much to divide it, because they want all of the land intact, it shows they deserve the land and they would be rewarded in the end.

Comments are closed.