February 14, 2006
Hamas Policy....
Steven Erlanger:
The United States and Israel are discussing ways to destabilize the Palestinian government so that newly elected Hamas officials will fail and elections will be called again, according to Israeli officials and Western diplomats.
The intention is to starve the Palestinian Authority of money and international connections to the point where, some months from now, its president, Mahmoud Abbas, is compelled to call a new election. The hope is that Palestinians will be so unhappy with life under Hamas that they will return to office a reformed and chastened Fatah movement
.
The officials also argue that a close look at the election results shows that Hamas won a smaller mandate than previously understood.
The officials and diplomats, who said this approach was being discussed at the highest levels of the State Department and the Israeli government, spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.
They say Hamas will be given a choice: recognize Israel's right to exist, forswear violence and accept previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements — as called for by the United Nations and the West — or face isolation and collapse.
And today, Scott McClellan:
Q One on Hamas, and one on oil royalties. Is there a formal or informal plan to starve Hamas financially?
MR. McCLELLAN: I saw the news reports earlier today about some sort of plan that was talking about forcing Hamas from power so that there could be new elections. There is no plot, there is no plan. I talked about this a little bit earlier with some of you. Israel has said that there is no plan. We have always been very clear and consistent in our views when it comes to Hamas. The conversations that we have with Israel are the same kind of conversations we have with European governments, Arab governments and others.
Hamas is the one who has a choice to make. If Hamas wants relations with the international community, then it must renounce terror, recognize Israel, and disarm -- as the Quartet has called for. The Quartet spelled out what needs to be done and it's a choice that Hamas now has to make. We want a partner for peace. But you cannot be a partner for peace if you advocate the destruction of Israel and if you engage in terrorism. So there is a choice facing Hamas right now and we'll see what they do.
Last but certainly not least, and also today, State Dept press spokesman Sean McCormack:
QUESTION: Can I bring you over to the Hamas issue? This morning the White House and the State Department said there's no plot or plan being discussed by the U.S. with Israel to destabilize the Palestinian government led by Hamas.
But you are looking at economic assistance and it may be squeezed or stopped if they don't -- you know, renounce violence and all of the above. Wouldn't an economic squeeze tend to destabilize and bring down a Hamas-led government? I know we don't -- the U.S. doesn't pay the employees, but the Europeans do and they would be very hard-pressed to keep going without economic assistance.
Have I -- am I missing something here?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you rightly point out, Barry, and you rightly characterize, certainly, the reaction of the U.S. Government and certainly, based on the press reports I have seen, the Israeli Government. Bottom line is that there is no U.S.-Israeli plan, project, plot, conspiracy to destabilize or undermine a future Palestinian government. There is an existing caretaker government with which we continue to work. We continue to work with President Abbas.
There are no conversations with the Israelis that we aren't having with other members of the international community, the Quartet, for example. Note the basis of those conversations is the recent Quartet statement out of London that lays down three conditions for any new Palestinian government to meet. And what it says basically -- you have access to it -- is that if a new Palestinian government does not meet the requirements outlined by the Quartet, the Quartet member states, and the Quartet would urge other states to follow suit, would review their assistance to the Palestinian Authority in light of the policies and actions of a future Palestinian government.
If the future Palestinian government does not meet the conditions and requirements that are outlined in that Quartet statement, certainly, we are going to have to take a hard look at what sort of assistance -- what our assistance programs would be. We do not fund terrorist organizations. We would have to act within not only our laws, but our policies and I believe that other members of the Quartet share that view. It's outlined in the Quartet statement.
Certainly, I think it's understandable that if you have a new Palestinian government that is -- that chooses to break with more than a decade's worth of policy of recognizing the State of Israel, seeking and negotiating a solution with the state of Israel, and turning away from the use of violence and terror as a matter of policy, then of course the international community is going to take a look at what its obligations are to a future Palestinian government.
I think it's -- I think that that's perfectly reasonable and understandable. So, what the international community has said in a strong, clear voice, beginning with the Quartet statement issued recently in London, is that it is incumbent upon Hamas to make some hard choices. While the government formation process has not formally begun and we don't know what the platform of a future Palestinian government might be, what the composition of that future Palestinian government might be, it is likely to be a Hamas government.
And that government will be faced with the hard choices of governing. It will be faced with the hard choices of meeting the aspirations of the Palestinian people not only for good governance and non-corrupt governance, but also with the aspirations for peace. The Palestinian people, in voting for President Abbas a little more than a year ago, voted for peace. They voted for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinian people. So it will be incumbent upon any future Palestinian government to meet the aspirations of the Palestinian people not only for a good governance, non-corrupt governance, but also for peace and security.
QUESTION: The hard look that the U.S. and others would take at financial assistance if Hamas doesn't do the three things asked of it could result in suspension of assistance and couldn't -- wouldn't that have the effect of destabilizing the Palestinian government?
MR. MCCORMACK: Barry, you're leaping to conclusions here. First of all, there is a review of U.S. assistance programs at this point. There are three basic categories. There's direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority which has happened on an ad hoc basis three times over the past two years. There's indirect assistance which is provided through the Agency for International Development. There's an annual budget for that that's usually provided via NGOs. And then there's also direct assistance to the UN for humanitarian assistance. All U.S. assistance programs are under review. The EU is conducting a similar review of its assistance programs.
So at this point I can't tell you the outcome of that review. One thing that Secretary Rice has said is that we will look at humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians on a case-by-case basis. We understand there are humanitarian needs. But at this point, I'm not going to either prejudge the outcome of our assistance review and I'm not going to prejudge what the platform or composition of a future Palestinian government might be and I'm not going to prejudge what decisions they may or may not take. It is up to them to make a certain set of decisions. The international community couldn't have been clearer as to what will be required of them and we'll see if they are able to meet the requirements of the international community.
QUESTION: So are you saying that the policies that they make, will that -- that will be dependent, that will depend how much aid they get, what kind of programs do you get and that could lead ultimately to the destabilization of their government. But you're saying that's an unintended consequence, you're just forcing them to --
MR. MCCORMACK: No. I'm saying that you're hypothesizing and I'm not going to engage in hypothesizing along with you. What I'm telling you is that there is currently a review of our aid programs and that it -- the requirements for a new Palestinian government in order to realize a relationship with the existing Palestinian government that would be similar are very clear. If they fail to meet those requirements then, of course, the United States and the rest of the international community is going to look at what their assistance programs might be --
QUESTION: Which could also lead to their downfall, though? So you're saying there are policies that'll dictate --
MR. MCCORMACK: What I'm saying, Elise, is that any new Palestinian government is going to face some -- the hard choices of governing and the hard choices of meeting the aspirations of the Palestinian people. The international community could not have been clearer in what it said about what a new Palestinian government needs to do. If a new Palestinian government does not meet the requirements, as laid out by the international community, then I think there certainly will be a reaction from the international community concerning assistance to that new government.
Yeah.
QUESTION: When do you expect the review to be completed, because Hamas is likely to come into power fairly soon? And secondly, in her discussions last week with Foreign Minister Livni, did you look at -- did the Secretary at all look at strategy of how to isolate Hamas? What was the substance of those discussions?
MR. MCCORMACK: The substance of the discussions was what we have -- the same substance that we have had with Russia, with the EU, with Secretary General Annan as well as other states and that is seeking to make very clear to Hamas what's required of it. That's the substance of the conversations.
QUESTION: Well, did you come up with the best ways of doing that, the best strategy to do that?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think the best strategy is the one that we are pursuing and that is sending a clear unified message from the international community about what will be required of a new Palestinian government. The first --
QUESTION: The other one was when will the review be finished of --
MR. MCCORMACK: I expect over the next week or two. The -- as I understand the timetable, there will be the new Palestinian legislative council will be seated, I think, the 16th or 18th.
QUESTION: This weekend?
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, this weekend. And they will be sworn in. At that point, President Abbas will make some remarks. We will see if Hamas puts forward a prime minister candidate and what the platform for a new government might be. I think that President Abbas might have something to say about the platform upon which a government might be formed. So that's the beginning of the government formation process. I think that there's an amount of time, maybe five weeks, up to five weeks in which they have to form that government -- this is -- as we understand the law.
So this is going to play out over the course of the coming days and weeks.
QUESTION: But you're not saying one's conditional on the other?
MR. MCCORMACK: What, the --
QUESTION: And the aid review will proceed and --
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the aid review is going to --
QUESTION: -- everything will come out in a week or two --
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: Whatever they say in their platform.
MR. MCCORMACK: Right, right. Exactly.
QUESTION: So I'm sorry, just to go back to the review. When you've finished doing the review, will the review make recommendations as to what can be channeled to humanitarian groups or what will you end up with at the end of the review?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think what we'll have a good understanding of is the totality of our assistance programs and how -- if a government fails to comply with the requirements laid out in the Quartet statement, how those assistance programs might be affected in terms of the law and in terms of our policy. And I would expect that we will also compare notes with the EU during this process once we get to a point where we have a good picture of what our aid programs look like and what our legal and policy requirements will be.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, I missed it. But the review is the U.S. review?
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, there's a U.S. review. I'm saying that --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. MCCORMACK: I'm saying, yeah, there are parallel tracks going on.
QUESTION: Yeah. Oh, of course.
MR. MCCORMACK: Separate. But at a certain point -- I don't know exactly when, Barry -- we'll compare notes about what they found and what we found. [emphasis added throughout]
Heh. Attempts at translation later, and intrepid commenters are welcome to attempt to divine current U.S. policy re: Hamas too!
P.S. I am planning a thorough analysis of where things stand vis-a-vis the entire Hamas earthquake soon, by the way....
Posted by Gregory at February 14, 2006 05:26 AM
| TrackBack
(0)
Destabalizing Hamas simply because they are Hamas is a bad, bad plan. Making aid contingent on continuing on the peace plan is not. The diplomats seems to be talking about option 2. The reporter may be interpreting or deliberately misinterpreting option 2 as option 1.
The goal really should be strongly encouraging Hamas to enage in the peace process, or making it clear that their failure to engage in the peace process is causing all the consequences. If the US`and EU make it clear that the USA would prefer one party rule in the Palestinian Authority, we become morally responsible for all the corruption and rampant disingenuousness that has charactarized Fatah rule. And, we give the Arab paranoids something else to be paranoid about.
The US and EU need to be clear -- aid is based on the Palestinian Authority adhering to certain principles, not electing the right people.
Translation : If Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce terrorist methods, and return to the negotiating table, they should not be surprised if US assistance stops. But, Hamas will bear the responsibility for the drying up of foreign aid, NOT/NOT the US or the intl community. It is their choice to make and they must live with the consequences of their actions.
Trying to blame the US for Hamas' choices is like trying to blame a robbery victim --"Well, if you hadn't had that diamond necklace, I wouldn't have stolen it."
If the lack of sufficient funds/foreign aid does destabilize a Hamas govt, once again, Hamas bears responsibilityand consequences for refusing to play by the rules of intl civilized behavior.
Delilah
NYT spinning to get a headline not justified by the facts.
It's certainly an amusing dance, but I'm not sure why it's necessary. Clearly the message the Quartet is trying to send to Hamas is that they either recognize Israel and join the peace process, or lose at least some of the foreign aid historically provided to the PA.
The reporters and the original NY Times story manufacture some outrage over this, but why is it outrageous? The PA does not have a positive entitlement to US government funds. If those funds are given contingent on the PA's participation in the peace process, and the PA decides to withdraw from that process, why would it be controversial to withdraw the funds?
I also don't understand why the State Department spokesperson can't seem to distinguish halting aid from "destabilization". One would think the later involves public stigmatization, funding opposition parties, and the like. All policies that we're plainly not undertaking with respect to the PA.
Like so many products of contemporary journalism, I have to conclude that this is basically inscrutable to anyone living outside the Beltway. Maybe our host can do a better job of explaining it.
Isn't this the same NYTimes that has made such a fetish over the Scooter Libby case? Yet here if the US tries to comply with black letter law we are "destabilising" the poor widdie terrorists [with those rascally Jeeeewwwws behind the whole thing]. It's a tragedy to see the paper of record turned into a propaganda rag.
I'm sure Iran would love to kick in a few bucks...saving its Arab brothers-in-the-faith.
Like they do in Southern Iraq and Southern Lebanon.
What peace process?
Did somebody see a peace process go by?
Bush could do a routine about it. "Under the desk? No, not there. Behind the sofa? No, not there either. Hey, maybe it's buried in the desert somewhere! Or maybe it got smuggled to syria!"
Sheesh.
Hi there! Your site is cool!
Hello! Very interesting and professional site.
Hi there! Your site is cool!
Follow your dreams, you can reach your goals.
yes.this is my site http://www.debiandominicana.org/celexa/does_celexa_make_you_gain_weight.html Thanks.
yes.this is my site http://www.debiandominicana.org/paxil/hypersomnia_paxil.html Thanks.
yes.this is my site http://www.debiandominicana.org/paxil/information_on_the_drug_paxil.html Thanks.
yes.this is my site http://www.debiandominicana.org/celexa/discount_celexa.html Thanks.
yes.this is my site http://www.debiandominicana.org/zyban/non_prescription_zyban.html Thanks.