The White House is reportedly “almost inexplicably upbeat” about the mid-terms. Why?
Is it because Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just compared the Palestinians to America’s founding fathers? And then compared the Palestian war centered on attacking innocent men, women and children to the US civil rights movement?
Rice compared the vision of Palestinian statehood to that of American independence and the civil rights battles in one of the strongest endorsements from the Bush administration to the idea of an independent Palestinian state.
“I should never have grown up in segregated Birmingham, Alabama to become the secretary of state of the United States of America,” Rice said, adding that eventually, once these visions do come true, “we wonder why did anyone ever doubt that it was possible.”
Rice emphasized US support to the Palestinian people, by increasing the American foreign aid to the Palestinians to $468 million, and by putting in place an international mechanism which will allow transfer of financial assistance to the Palestinians without going through the Hamas government.
She said that now, after several months of having Hamas in power, the Palestinian people are holding Hamas accountable for the situation in the territories.
Riiiiight. Yassir Arafat = Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, eh? Bomb belts = “I have a dream.”
The Palestinian people are “holding Hamas accountable.” I guess that’s why even the supposedly moderate PA won’t demand that Palestinian terror groups have to recognize Israel’s right to exist. It’s all about holding those child-killing suicide bombing Patrick Henrys accountable. Maybe the White House is so upbeat because it’s just upped the aid it pays to these peace-loving folks who show how much they deserve a better life, as the SecState insists that they do, by voting against actually having a better life every single time they’re given the chance. More money to a people that danced in joy on 9-11 and cheered for Hezbollah last summer. That’ll sure fire up the small government, national security-minded base here at home.
Or maybe Bush and Rove are so upbeat because, on the one hand, China and South Korea have no intention of enforcing sanctions against North Korea, and on the other hand, the US itself is preparing to bust sanctions against Iran.
Or maybe, in the final analysis, the White House is so upbeat because it is self-deluded into thinking that it doesn’t need support from any of its base in order to win.
Update: Fox is reporting that China has decided that it actually will enforce the sanctions against North Korea. But it’s not unreasonable to be skeptical–China has played games with sanctions on North Korea before, and probably will find a way to continue to do so.
Update: I’ve been accused of either taking Condi out of context or of going along with the press doing the same. Here’s her speech–judge for yourselves. She delivered it before a Palestinian-American business group. And I think it’s an awful speech. At its core is voicing of support for “moderate” elements in Palestinian society, and in that vein upping financial support for the Palestinians but in a way that goes around the PA’s Hamas-run government. It’s a mistake to keep on giving millions of dollars to people who vote for the likes of Hamas as their representatives in government. How will they learn the lesson that their votes matter if we don’t make those votes matter? By propping them up economically, even in an end-run around Hamas as we’re doing, we’re signalling to the Palestinians that they can vote in whatever monsters they want and we may say that we don’t like it–but we’ll keep paying them anyway. Our words are meaningless in the face of the flow of the almighty dollar. Imho, this is an idiotic move and one that’s counterproductive to the administration’s stated strategic goal of bringing democracy to the Middle East in order to reform it. And it’s a policy that Rice supports and endorses.
How will we foster any kind of reform of the kind we want if we’re paying off people who openly support terrorists running their government?
As for the lines about her own background and segregation in the US, why put them in a speech about the “plight” of the Palestinians if it’s not relevant (in her mind) to that plight?
Update: Chris R. reminds me how we got here–Israel objected to Hamas running in the PA elections, but the Bush administration intervened to give Hamas the go-ahead.
I’m not saying in this post that Rice seems happy that Hamas won the election or that she’s satisfied with the way things are in the PA. She’s obviously neither. In speeches since Hamas won that election, the entire administration has been trying to put lipstick on that Palestinian pig. But that doesn’t make it any less a pig. And paying the Palestinians in aid money, even circumventing Hamas, seems very counterproductive to me. For starters, any money that flows in the PA has the potential to flow to terrorist groups–the whole PA government is corrupt and even its “moderate” elements support terrorism against Israel. And beyond that, as I said above we’re telling the Palestinians that we care more about the act of elections than who they actually elect. If they elect genuinely peaceful candidates, we’re fine with that. And when they elect terrorists, we’ll say we’re not fine with that but we’ll go on paying aid money anyway. It just doesn’t seem very wise not to calibrate our response to their actions.