Blogs and Stories
Condi's Three Strikes
Saul Loeb, AFP / Getty Images
Among the many problems Hillary Clinton inherits next week is Condoleezza Rice’s short-sighted and failed policy toward Hamas, which has left Israel vulnerable to ceaseless terror.
Secretary Condoleezza Rice leaves a dangerous mess in the Middle East for the incoming Secretary Hillary Clinton of which the war in Gaza is but one part.
Three wars are going on in the Middle East: One in Gaza between Israel and Hamas; another amongst the Palestinians, between Fatah and Hamas; and the third and wider struggle is between the radical Islamists, including Iran, and the Sunni Arab countries in the Gulf, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. Essentially, the radical Islamists have set about to destroy Western and US interests in the Middle East and seek to transform the moderate Arab regimes into radical Islamist states.
Were Hamas to succeed in getting such a vacuous ceasefire it would proclaim victory and continue its murderous ways, to the joy of Iran and the radicals in the region.
These wars all intersect in the conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. Hamas is a deadly enemy of Fatah whose rule they wish to overturn in the West Bank and therefore establish a platform from which to eliminate Israel. It is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and thus a direct enemy of Egypt. It is also a radical terrorist state, funded, armed, and trained by Iran and part of the radical Islamist agenda in the region.
Let’s be clear about Hamas. Their covenant describes their purpose, which is “to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.” Under Hamas, Gaza has become a home for every brand of radical Islamists engaged in a Holy War, sanctifying bloodshed, glorifying murder, and educating children to die as martyrs. Over and over again they insist they will never recognize Israel or honor any of their existing agreements with the infidels.
The US, as represented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has been consistently on the wrong side in all of these concerns. The climax was her part in the resolution in the UN calling for an end to the war in Gaza for which she herself bears some responsibility. Let the record show:
STRIKE ONE: When Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005-6 Secretary Rice overrode strong Israeli objections to turning over the strip of land between Gaza and Egypt known as the Philadelphia corridor. Why? Because Israel knew that without effective control of this land strip it would become, as it did, the passageway for the importation into Gaza of weapons and terrorists. Tons of ammunition did come into Gaza to support Hamas’ radical ambitions while Islamic Jihad terrorists crossed freely between Gaza and Egypt and, from there, to Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq for training.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
What Bibi Told Me
Mortimer B. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report and publisher of the New York Daily News. He is also the co-founder and chairman of Boston Properties Inc. He is a trustee of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Washington Institute for Near East Studies, and the International Institute of Strategic Studies.
Mort speaks much sense here, but he's wrong that it was a mistake to let the Palestinians vote for whom they wanted. Mort must be a Democrat, thinking democracy allows for big shot to decide when votes will be counted or who everybody else is allowed to vote for.
Hamas winning an election was a bad thing. A worse thing would have have been pretending to hold election but not allowing the people most voters wanted to vote for from standing for office.
Perhaps the Palestinians will vote with more maturity next time--you know they are new at it. Maybe, given the option to moderate to hold political power Hamas will be encouraged to do so. None of that could happen without holding a real democratic election.
What Mort? Is democracy only OK for some people?
Please Mr Zukerman! Have you and your fellow neocons really no sense of shame or decency? Israel, with its US funded high tech military pounds women and children and bombs the UN again and again. You make no mention of the suffering endured by 1.5 million humans due to the cruel and stupid economic blocade imposed by Israel and of course there are the illegal settlements! Please be aware how the world now views Israel and how the abused becomes the abuse,
Rice is the most incompetent Secretary of State in decades. Senator Clinton is going to have her hands full, cleaning up the mess; however, Senator Clinton is supremely qualified person to take it on.
I agree with Issywise -- the most difficult part of a Democratic movement is that you must put up with the choices of the majority (I can tell you for the last 8 years I have not been happy!) but if the election was fair then all must be allowed to participate.....
You miss the point, Issywise. An election is not democracy. Without free speech, a free press, civil rights & protections for all citizens and separation of powers, there is very little to prevent an election from being anything better than an armed (or threat-of-violence) exercise in manipulation of the populace and propaganda for outsiders.
Do you know for certain Hamas candidates were the ones most voters wanted to vote for, in a first-time election floating free of any of the under-pinnings of democracy?
Hamas cynically pulled a fast one in Gaza. And they did it by regurgitating democratic rhetoric sufficient to make the Bush Administration feel complacent ... accomplished ... gratified ... self-congratulatory.
The "long view" for Rice may well have been in another direction entirely; perhaps playing piano for the Queen of England.
IIt's a curious democracy that throws its opponents off the top of buildings and goes into hospitals now to drag out suspected Fatah supporters so as to "execute' them on the spot. Cherylmc8508 is right in a democracy you have to put up with the choice of the majority but in a democracy, as we understand it, the majority doesn't set out to murder the opposition; doesnt suppress criticism, etc. Whether a vote in an election produces a democracy is a moot point.
jenny4hill & Johnnorth:
Ouch! That hurt! You shouldn't treat a know-it-all with such abrupt and brutal correction! Mercy?
Hamas' charter purpose is the wipe secularism off every grain of sand ever once ruled by a Muslim authority: destruction of Israel is just a step on the way in their larger goal of wiping out all apostasy and establishing a fundamentalist theocracy in the entire Islamic world (and beyond).
Still, I nonetheless cannot see how holding an election wherein people are not allowed to vote for whom they want to vote can still be seen a democratic activity. Are you saying we should support PRETEND democracy?
If democracy is going to overcome the historic habit of changing government by force of arms, then it has to be given a chance.
It is doubtful that Hamas will allow free elections in Gaza, which they took by armed rebellion against the Palestinian Authority's constitution, but it is still possible for another free election to happen in the West Bank and if Hamas is repudiated, it will be a good thing.
After your previous posts, I'm guessing I'm in over my head, but I kind of think democracy should be given a chance.
I'm not sure what Rice was qualified for when taking the SOS position. I understand she had some knowledge of Russian matters, but I doubt that she knew what she was doing in the Middle East. It is unfortunate that now Israel has had to resort to this type of violence, but when terrorists are constantly at your door, there is no other choice. I am sure Palestinians and Israelis would like to live in peace, but as long as you have barbarians like Hamas in existence, they will always trigger violence for their own power wants. To train Palestinian five year olds to shoot and kill Israelis has no rhyme and reason - Hamas consists of some very bad, psychologically violent people and they should be destroyed and the Palestinian children re-educated before it is too late for them.
"Psychologically violent people?" You mean like Americans? "Should be destroyed" - what kind of thinking is this? The "children re-educated". Wow, scary post.
Such clarity about the evil nature of Hamas. Wish it were reflected among the rent-a-crowd
I respect Mr. Zukerman and he makes some valid points, not surprisingly all from Israel's point of view not from a point of view of what is best for America's interests in the region.
When mentioning the "coup" Hamas staged, he neglects to mention that the U.S. and Israel funded and armed the Fatah strongman, Dahlan, to stage a coup in Gaza and eliminate Hamas. Hamas heard about it and executed their pre-emptive coup. So much for respecting a democracy.
Yes, the rockets provoked Israel; however, that was exactly what Israel wanted. There is ample evidence that the ceasefire that was working could have been extended if that was Israel's desire. Read the recent article by Jimmy Carter for more insight. Israel needed a casus belli to unleash its reign of terror.
He talks about the ceaseless terror possibly making Israel uninhabitable. The siege, which started before the Hamas elections, has made Gaza uninhabitable and pushed the population into the open arms of the radicals. Slaughtering more civilians will not solve the problem.
And finally, we now know who decides what UN resolutions are acceptable for the US to vote for. Certainly not our Secretary of State, that decision should be left to the Prime Minister of Israel. One call from Olmert and the puppet dances to the tune.
Mort is absolutely right. All the blame should rest on Hamas. Israel is just a poor little sliver of a country trying to survive the murderous Arabs. The only solution is the elimination of Hamas, while we are at it let's eliminate them all so that Israel can live in peace and continue to live a moral life.
Since my comments that were mildly critical of Mort's point of view were not accepted I hope my fawning comments will be. Heaven forbid that the macher's views should be challenged.
Those who will not be heard are inclined to shout louder. Had Israel shown greater respect for the needs and hopes of the Palestinians, Hamas would not, tragically, have gained power.
The Mideast is composed of petulent nations whose extreme positions are only tolerated due to their oil production. My entire adult life (21-62) has been reading about their squabbles, wars, etc., and we Americans have put too much money into the projects and wars. It is time for non-American nations to take the diplomatic lead to resolve the issues around Palestine and Israel.If we are out of the equation because other nations step up to the plate, the rhetoric will calm down and their true purposes may be observed. Arafat was a stumbling block for years and walked out on a solution;
he craved continuing hostility and we westerners are all too history ignorant to recognize it.
I don't give a good goddam how they do it, the killing of women and children has got to STOP. Three strikes. Are you nuts. How many Presidents have tried to make peace in the Middle East?It's as easy as 1,2,3.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
And didn't Condi inherit Bill Clinton's failed attempts to make peace in Gaza? I find this headline amusing. The problems in that part of the world are historic, old and never ending. To throw the blame squarely on Condi's shoulders is absoutely absurd.
The founding of Israel itself was a terrorist act against the Palestinians.
How would you feel if someone came onto your land, told you they were taking it over, gave you one small piece of it to live on, then routinely bombs you and kills your leaders?
Yes, but two wrongs don't make a right, and I think it is clear that Hamas is the problem here. It is good that there is democracy for the Palestinians, but they need to oust Hamas and adopt a better form of leadership.
It is a sad situation, and yes, Israel hindered the palestinians' abilities to have a successful and peaceful society...there are a lot of angry young palestinian men with poor education and no jobs, so hating Israel has become their only real purpose, their only real unifying factor.
1000 Palestinians killed, many of them women or children, a school destroyed, UN buildings in Gaza hit with white phodsphorous shells - for how long can Israel pretend that Hamas are the barbaric ones?
I respect Mr. Zukerman and he makes some valid points, not surprisingly all from Israel's point of view not from a point of view of what is best for America's interests in the region.
When mentioning the "coup" Hamas staged, he neglects to mention that the U.S. and Israel funded and armed the Fatah strongman, Dahlan, to stage a coup in Gaza and eliminate Hamas. Hamas heard about it and executed their pre-emptive coup. So much for respecting a democracy.
Yes, the rockets provoked Israel; however, that was exactly what Israel wanted. There is ample evidence that the ceasefire that was working could have been extended if that was Israel's desire. Read the recent article by Jimmy Carter for more insight. Israel needed a casus belli to unleash its reign of terror.
He talks about the ceaseless terror possibly making Israel uninhabitable. The siege, which started before the Hamas elections, has made Gaza uninhabitable and pushed the population into the open arms of the radicals. Slaughtering more civilians will not solve the problem.
And finally, we now know who decides what UN resolutions the US is allowed to vote for. Certainly not our Secretary of State, that decision should be left to the Prime Minister of Israel. One call from Olmert and Condi Rice votes against a resolution she sponsored.
Zuckerman's unqualified defense of Israel is symptomatic of the relationship the United States has with Israel. It's a case of the tail wagging the dog. Israel, and it's right-wing allies in the U.S., virtually control all public views on the subject. You want to talk about a free press and open discussion, when was the last time you saw an open discussion critical of Israel? You haven't! You have a more balanced discussion of Palestine in Israel itself, who actually has to deal with the terrorist attacks.
Everyone talks about Hamas as a terrorist organization, and it certainly is, but let's not forget that they won an election. What does that say about U.S. and Israeli policy in Palestine? Disarmament cannot be a pre-condition to a cease-fire and negotiations, disarmament can only be part of the process. And we cannot simply pretend that Hamas is not a legitmate representative of the Palestininan people, we need to offer real, tangible alternatives to improvements in Palestinian lives, and a degree of indespendence and self-government, for the people. This way, the objectives and goals of Hamas will seem as unproductive for the advancement of Palestinian people, as Israeli tanks are.
As I comment yesterday, Professor Avi Shlaim, of Oxford University, who some claim to be a foremost expert on the history of the ongoing middle east crisis, indicated that as of the beginning of the cease-fire, Israel was supposed to lift the blockade of Hamas as per agreement-they never did. So, the rockets continued-only at thee rate of three rockets per month (average), instead of an average of 167 per month before the cease fire. According to Dr. Shlaim, on November 4, 2008, before the end of the cease-fire, the Israel Defense Forces launched a raid into Gaza, killing some Hamas personnel.
If this is an accurate depiction of what has happened, why does Mr. Zuckerman, and almost every other commentator take the position that Hamas instigated the problem? If Israel continued to blockade Gaza--when the agreed not to--and restricted the movement of food and medicine into the Strip--how can you fault Hamas (their elected representative). Now Israel can control the egress of movement out of Gaza all they want--to protect against terrorists--but not the flow of goods and services into Gaza, by land and sea.
I question if there is any possibility for peace between Israel and the Palistinians EVER.
One side supposedly wants only to live in peace in a country that was given to them over the objections of the previous owners. Israel.
The other side wants only to live in peace with no Israelis living in Israel. They want their land back and would prefer making a graveyard of it than to make any other sort of peace agreement.
I seriously doubt that Ms. Clinton will do much better than anyone else prior to her would or has done. It is impossible to hold water in a sieve. And one cannot broker peace agreements when the meaning of peace has two opposite definitions to these two parties.
Having Zuckerman comment on the Israeli/Palestinian crisis is like having the Israeli government as a blogger.
Israel does indeed have the right to exist without harassment but so the Palestinians. All the settlements must go; the borders of Gaza must be open; only then will the negotiation between equals. Without that one side is holding hostage the other, claiming to be abused while abusing and controlling the other side.
I'm always perplexed by the filter through which we view the middle east. One example, Iran's attempts to have nuclear reactors and perhaps develop a bomb is said to be wrong because that will stimulate an arms race. Meanwhile Israel has had nuclear weapons without negative commentary for years. What's up with that?
This user is no longer registered.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.