Clinton’s Provocative Conditions for Hamas
Published in Alquds Alarabi
(U.K.) on 23 April 2009
by Alquds Editorial (link to original)
(U.K.) on 23 April 2009
by Alquds Editorial (link to original)
Translated from
by Namir Shabibi.
Edited by Christie Chu.
Hillary Clinton has gradually started to reveal her government’s policies on a number of issues, particularly the Arab-Israeli struggle. She announced yesterday that her government will not deal with any Palestinian government which includes the Islamic resistance movement Hamas, unless it accepts certain fundamental international conditions, including: renouncing violence, recognizing Israel and adhering to previous agreements made by the Palestinian Authority.
Clinton’s debilitating demands reflect the current administration’s wish to impose Israeli conditions on a Palestinian government, including the complete exclusion of Hamas from government participation. This will destroy Palestinian dialogue and encourage the current Israeli government to invade the Gaza Strip yet again, in hope of achieving what the previous government did not: destroying Hamas and all other Palestinian resistance cells in Gaza.
While stipulating these conditions, Mrs. Clinton did not mention what returns the Palestinian government would enjoy if Hamas decided to respond positively to these conditions, nor has she said anything about steps the U.S. government would take should its Israeli counterpart reject international demands for a two-state solution, an end to the Israeli settlement expansion and the immediate implementation of the Road Map peace plan.
The Palestinian Authority, under Mahmoud Abbas’ leadership, has satisfied all of America’s conditions by completely rejecting and outlawing violence, formally recognizing Israel and adhering to all signed agreements. Despite this, the West Bank remains occupied and torn into pieces by settlements and twisting roads, paralyzing its economy and citizens with hundreds of security checkpoints.
We had hoped that Hillary Clinton, an expert on the Arab-Israeli struggle, would direct her criticism toward the Israelis, not toward the victims of its occupation and aggression. The new Israeli government is comprised of fierce racists and extremists; most of its ministers have not accepted the two-state solution, support settlement expansion, have demanded the expulsion of Arabs from the Jewish state and are determined to obtain Palestinian recognition of the state’s Jewish character before engaging in any dialogue with it.
Why are the Israelis allowed to form a government made up of racists and extremists? (Let Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman serve as an example.) While at the same time, Palestinians don’t even enjoy the right to form a government that includes a democratically-elected party (Hamas), which stuck to the ceasefire agreement and expressed its readiness to sign a long-term ceasefire deal with the Jewish state.
The violence that Hamas and other Palestinian factions commit is legal resistance to an oppressive occupation that refuses to recognize the authority of international law, ignores U.N. Security Council resolutions and commits atrocities such as ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity, which are well documented by international human rights organizations.
It would have been proper for Clinton first of all to compel Israel, a civilized and democratic country according to the Americans, to adhere to and implement previous agreements without delay, before demanding the very same thing from Hamas. For Hamas has never once declared itself the representative of Western civilization in the region as Israel has done and is finding approval and applause in Europe and the United States.
Hamas should not accept any of the provocative conditions laid down by Clinton since the U.S. administration, with these double standards, is not an impartial mediator. Only when this administration proves its neutrality, integrity, credibility and willingness to deal with all sides equally can it then be trusted and its demands negotiated.
The Palestinian Authority experienced the greatest deception in modern history when, by adhering to the set conditions, it trusted American administrations, only to arrive at this miserable situation. Never before has a Palestinian state been established on one-fifth of its historical land, as the Oslo Agreement stipulated, nor has Palestinian Authority ever enjoyed self-rule. All it has gained is a jurisdiction more pathetic than the links between its villages.
Clinton’s debilitating demands reflect the current administration’s wish to impose Israeli conditions on a Palestinian government, including the complete exclusion of Hamas from government participation. This will destroy Palestinian dialogue and encourage the current Israeli government to invade the Gaza Strip yet again, in hope of achieving what the previous government did not: destroying Hamas and all other Palestinian resistance cells in Gaza.
While stipulating these conditions, Mrs. Clinton did not mention what returns the Palestinian government would enjoy if Hamas decided to respond positively to these conditions, nor has she said anything about steps the U.S. government would take should its Israeli counterpart reject international demands for a two-state solution, an end to the Israeli settlement expansion and the immediate implementation of the Road Map peace plan.
The Palestinian Authority, under Mahmoud Abbas’ leadership, has satisfied all of America’s conditions by completely rejecting and outlawing violence, formally recognizing Israel and adhering to all signed agreements. Despite this, the West Bank remains occupied and torn into pieces by settlements and twisting roads, paralyzing its economy and citizens with hundreds of security checkpoints.
We had hoped that Hillary Clinton, an expert on the Arab-Israeli struggle, would direct her criticism toward the Israelis, not toward the victims of its occupation and aggression. The new Israeli government is comprised of fierce racists and extremists; most of its ministers have not accepted the two-state solution, support settlement expansion, have demanded the expulsion of Arabs from the Jewish state and are determined to obtain Palestinian recognition of the state’s Jewish character before engaging in any dialogue with it.
Why are the Israelis allowed to form a government made up of racists and extremists? (Let Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman serve as an example.) While at the same time, Palestinians don’t even enjoy the right to form a government that includes a democratically-elected party (Hamas), which stuck to the ceasefire agreement and expressed its readiness to sign a long-term ceasefire deal with the Jewish state.
The violence that Hamas and other Palestinian factions commit is legal resistance to an oppressive occupation that refuses to recognize the authority of international law, ignores U.N. Security Council resolutions and commits atrocities such as ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity, which are well documented by international human rights organizations.
It would have been proper for Clinton first of all to compel Israel, a civilized and democratic country according to the Americans, to adhere to and implement previous agreements without delay, before demanding the very same thing from Hamas. For Hamas has never once declared itself the representative of Western civilization in the region as Israel has done and is finding approval and applause in Europe and the United States.
Hamas should not accept any of the provocative conditions laid down by Clinton since the U.S. administration, with these double standards, is not an impartial mediator. Only when this administration proves its neutrality, integrity, credibility and willingness to deal with all sides equally can it then be trusted and its demands negotiated.
The Palestinian Authority experienced the greatest deception in modern history when, by adhering to the set conditions, it trusted American administrations, only to arrive at this miserable situation. Never before has a Palestinian state been established on one-fifth of its historical land, as the Oslo Agreement stipulated, nor has Palestinian Authority ever enjoyed self-rule. All it has gained is a jurisdiction more pathetic than the links between its villages.
Next article![]( "Army of Charm")
