Israel Matzav

Condoleeza Rice, Martin Luther King and Annapolis

Danny in Tokyo has pointed me to an article in Haaretz which is rather difficult to find from their home page (I eventually got the link from Danny and then got to the article on my other computer by searching the author's name on the home page). It explains a lot about why Condoleeza Rice is so obsessed with the 'Palestinians.' And while I believe that Martin Luther King would disagree with her equating the civil rights movement with the 'Palestinian' cause, the fact that she has done so is a result of the failure of Israeli politicians and diplomats to make the case for Israel over the last 35 years dating back to the Yom Kippur War. The issue now is how to deal with the reality.

When Condoleezza Rice talks about the establishment of a Palestinian state next to Israel, she sees in her mind's eye the struggle of African Americans for equal rights, which culminated in the period of her Alabama childhood.

Rice is very aware of political sensitivity, and avoids making such comparisons in public speeches and interviews, where she keeps to the official list of talking points. But in private, she talks about the [Unfortunately, a key passage is missing here. CiJ]

One can guess that the settlements, the checkpoints and the separation fences created by Israel on the West Bank bring back unpleasant memories of Jim Crow racial separation in the South. Her empathy for the suffering of the Palestinians under occupation goes beyond the strict interests of the administration in promoting the status of the United States in the Middle East and has the touch of her personal experience.

...

Now, Rice is comparing Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and his prime minister, Salam Fayad, to Martin Luther King. Abbas is committed to the struggle for Palestinian independence, and like Abbas [probably should be King. CiJ] he is opposed to terror and violence. Just as Tony Blair, the Quartet envoy and former British prime minister, compares the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, so does Rice recall the struggle for civil rights in the United States when she speaks about the Palestinian boy who needs new hope instead of aspiring to commit a suicide attack.

Read it all.

The fundamental problem is that Israel is playing right into the hands of the comparison between Abu Mazen and Fayad on the one hand and King on the other by its continued pretense that there is a difference between Fatah and Hamas and that Fatah does not support terrorism or violence. The key to changing the comparison in Rice's mind would be to demonstrate to Rice that the Fatah leadership supports terrorism, that it is not committed to non-violence except as another weapon in its arsenal (if that), that its opposition to terror is only lip service to Western decision makers - including Rice herself - and that the Fatah-led 'Palestinian Authority' is unwilling to live in peace and coexistence alongside the Jewish state. Though Rice is extremely stubborn, she can be convinced (or enough people around her can be convinced that she can be forced to go along), but to do it the government would have to drop the game that Abu Mazen is a 'good guy.' In other words, to convince Rice to stop obsessing with the 'Palestinians,' the Israeli government itself must make its goal the survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish state and not the creation of a 'Palestinian' state reichlet. Here are some of the arguments that can be made.

1. The continued 'Palestinian' focus on the 'right of return' to 'Israel proper' shows an unwillingness to accept the existence of a Jewish state of any size and a continued desire to undo the creation of the State of Israel by transferring people from throughout the Arab world into whatever is left of Israel after a 'settlement' is reached.

2. The continued demand for all of Jerusalem and the unwillingness to accept any Jewish presence in 'east Jerusalem' - including at the Western Wall itself - shows that the conflict is a religious conflict at its core, and that militant Islam will never accept a compromise that leaves Israel in control of any of the land that has the most religious significance to Jews even if the 'Palestinians' themselves were willing to accept such a compromise.

3. Abu Mazen's continuing obsession with aiding and seeking the release of 'security prisoners' - who are nothing like blacks imprisoned in the US for civil disobedience in the 60's (and Rice must be shown that) - shows that Abu Mazen continues to support terror and terrorists.

4. The continued promotion of violence and hatred by Abu Mazen's media shows that from Abu Mazen's viewpoint, the war is far from over, and violence and terrorism remain a viable option.

5. Abu Mazen's continuing flirtations with Hamas show that he is far from abandoning 'armed struggle.' Denials aside, when there is this much smoke there is generally a fire to be found.

6. Finally, there are Abu Mazen's own words - uttered recently - that call into question his commitment (or at least the duration of his commitment) to non-violence. In other words, if Abu Mazen is committed to non-violence, that commitment is quite new and has to be stacked against many years in which he promoted violence against Israel and Jews. Below are several examples taken from a post I did the day after President Bush's July speech:

On October 3, 2006, Abu Mazen told al-Arabiya and 'Palestinian' television, "It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front to recognize Israel."

...

On January 11, 2007, Abu Mazen was reported by the Jerusalem Post to have said, “We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation ... Our rifles, all our rifles are aimed at The Occupation.” And on February 5, 2007, Abu Mazen said, “We must unite the Hamas and Fatah blood in the struggle against Israel as we did at the beginning of the intifada. We want a political partnership with Hamas.”

...

On January 11, 2007, referring to the so-called ‘right of return’ of 'Palestinian refugees' and their millions of descendants which, if implemented would end Israel as a Jewish state, Abu Mazen said, "The issue of the refugees is non-negotiable.”

...

You also said that those who want to attend your conference have to commit to all previous agreements between the parties. But those agreements require Abu Mazen to disarm all terrorists and fight terrorism. According to a statement that he made on May 26, 2006, Abu Mazen regards terrorists as heroes and in January 2005 he said that disarming them is "a line that may not be crossed."

All of these statements were made in the last two years, most of them within the last six months.

How can it be claimed that Abu Mazen supports a two-state solution, rejects violence, recognizes Israel's right to exist, and commits to all previous agreements between the parties as set out by President Bush in his July 16 speech? How can the 'conference' take place when the 'Palestinian' leadership does not meet the criteria set out by President Bush for attendance?

Secretary Rice needs to be shown that unlike Martin Luther King, for Abu Mazen and Salam Fayad, non-violence is not a commitment, but just another weapon in the arsenal. For Abu Mazen and Salam Fayad, non-violence is not a commitment - it's lip service. Will Israel's political leadership take up the challenge and show Secretary Rice the truth? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.

Update 6:35 PM

Boker Tov Boulder contacted Haaretz writer Aluf Benn about his basis for the article from which I quoted above. His response was

I cannot name my sources, and as I have written, Rice did not speak in public about these matters. But I rely on firm ground.

She also got the crucial missing half sentence in the second paragraph quoted above. The second paragraph should read:

Rice is very aware of political sensitivity, and avoids making such comparisons in public speeches and interviews, where she keeps to the official list of talking points. But in private, she talks about the segregated buses of her childhood.

The highlighted part is what was missing in my original.

Hat Tip: J. Lichty

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:36 PM