This is a transcript of a State Department Briefing, on February 17th, which covered the situation in Palestine. It's quite long, I realize, but I've posted the portion that applies to Palestine here, just so anyone who is interested can easily read it. Keep in mind that the briefing started off with this statement, from State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, in response to a question about Condi Rice's plans for her ME trip:
I expect that she is going to be talking about democracy in the Middle East and the United States' unwavering and continuing support for the spread and promotion of democracy in the Middle East, talk about recent Palestinian elections. So we promote democracy by immediately engaging in efforts to financial cripple a newly elected government? (I have bolded two particularly relevant sections of the interchange, which reveal the shortsightedness of our strategy, below.)
QUESTION: In her discussions with these Gulf countries, will the Secretary be asking them not to fill any funding gap that might be left over from the U.S. and other Quartet members, possibly cutting off aid to a Palestinian Authority led by Hamas?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the Secretary will have the same conversation with states in the region as she has had with numerous other countries around the world. And the basis of that conversation is the Quartet statement. It calls upon Hamas to make certain choices: recognize Israel's right to exist, turning away from terror and also abiding by previous commitments of the Palestinian Authority, most notably, to the roadmap and a commitment to a two-state solution arrived at via the negotiating table.
That is in the interest of the Palestinian people. There's a lot of discussion about -- between states about funding and Quartet statements, but what we can't lose sight of the fact is what is at stake here is the future of the Palestinian people. They want a better way of life for themselves. They want a peaceful way of life. They want a more prosperous way of life. And the way they arrive at that is through the process that has been outlined via the roadmap.
Now, Hamas a choice to make. They have a choice whether or not they are going to meet the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a prosperous, more democratic, free way of life in which they live at peace with their neighbors. And part of that is, from our point of view and the point of view of the Quartet, is looking at the behavior and the choices that Hamas makes. Do they make the right choices? We encourage them to make the right choices because if they do make the right choices then there is a pathway to peace, then there is a partner for negotiation. And again, each country is going to make its own decisions concerning particular aid to a new Palestinian Government. We have encouraged and will continue to encourage, both in public and in private, individual countries to consider what kind of assistance they might provide in light of Hamas' decisions.
QUESTION: But does that amount to putting pressure on those governments not to fill that funding gap because if they do then whatever action you take will be fairly useless because if that funding gap is filled then the Palestinian Authority would still be thriving.
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, individual countries are going to make their own decisions. There's no way around that. That's just the way the world works. But we will make the strong case, as we have in public and we'll make in it in private as well, that the international community has to set standards. The international community cannot allow those who are elected in a free and fair election to try to have it both ways: that is, to have one foot in the camp of terror and one foot in politics. That is a fundamental contradiction that needs to be resolved. That's not something that is just the view of the United States; it is the view of many others in the international community. We believe that others in the region should hold those elected to that standard. And it's also incumbent upon the international community to hold those elected via democratic elections to govern in a democratic manner.
So those are the arguments that we're going to make. And quite simply, a group that does not recognize the right of Israel to exist -- a potential partner for peace -- then it doesn't make sense that there could be a pathway for peace. You need two partners in order to do that.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up with one other thing? The New York Times said today that the U.S. has asked the Palestinians to return $50 million which is going to be used for (inaudible) water projects and other projects. Is that correct -- this money that was originally going to be used by various ministries, is that --
MR. MCCORMACK: That is correct. That is correct. There was $50 million disbursed to the Palestinian Authority in 2005. It was provided to the -- well, it was a past government, now that there's a caretaker government, for new infrastructure projects in Gaza. It's part of a broader effort to ensure Palestinian -- or to assist with Palestinian economic revival in the wake of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. And this is all part of our program of reviewing our assistance programs. We talked to the Palestinian Authority about this issue, found out that there was still -- the vast majority of this money is still in the bank. And so in the interest of seeing that this fund -- these funds not potentially make their way into the coffers of a future Palestinian Government that might not recognize the right of Israel to exist, might not meet those Quartet obligations, we've asked for it to be returned. And the Palestinian Authority has agreed to return it.
QUESTION: Have they indicated when it will be returned and do you have plans to use that money, for say, humanitarian projects, or to redirect it to other causes for the Palestinian people? The Secretary has made clear she doesn't want to sort of make the situation worse for the Palestinian people, particularly refugees and others suffering.
MR. MCCORMACK: You're exactly right on that. In terms of the timeline, they've told us that they would return it promptly and I don't think it has been returned as of this time. In terms of what the future potential uses for the money are, well -- we'll try to keep you updated. At this point, I don't have the information for you.
QUESTION: So --
MR. MCCORMACK: You rightly state that the United States does have an interest in seeing how we might provide for those who are the most vulnerable among the Palestinian population. The refugees, for example, that's funding that is -- those are programs that are usually -- assistance programs usually provided through the UN, so we're going to take a look at that. We're going to take a look at food aid programs, things like childhood immunizations. I think, although we haven't made any final decisions on that, those are certainly things that we will look for a way to try to do. Whether or not this -- and there's already money allocated for those kinds of programs.
Whether or not this $50 million makes its way into those kind of programs or other programs that we might find acceptable in terms of our law and our policy, we'll see. I don't have an answer for you on that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. MCCORMACK: Teri.
QUESTION: On Hamas and their trip to Russia, the Russians said today that they will not be making any demands of Hamas during those meetings. I'd like your reaction to that, considering that the Quartet statement lays out three pretty distinct demands of Hamas.
MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen their exact quote, Teri, so I can't respond to it.
QUESTION: Are you --
MR. MCCORMACK: And in terms of the word "demands," I -- you know, I just haven't seen the quote. But let me just tell you what Foreign Minister Lavrov assured the Secretary and that was that, should there be a meeting with Hamas, they were going to reiterate that Hamas must meet the requirements of the international community as outlined in the Quartet. We believe that should a state choose to have contact with Hamas, that that is the message that they should send.
QUESTION: Okay. And another question on the Palestinian Territories, Ehud Elmer said today that they -- that the Israelis plan to seal off workers from Gaza going into Israel, something like 4,000 -- now I'm getting my numbers wrong, but anyway, a large number of people who work in Israel will no longer be allowed to go there. And I don't understand -- they are couching it in terms of the Hamas victory again. But I don't know -- how does the United States feel about that? And if you could explain how that hurts the Hamas Government instead of just the Palestinian workers?
MR. MCCORMACK: No, we don't have a personal view -- don't have a new government yet, but in terms of Israel security, of course, we understand, as we always have, Israel has certain responsibilities in terms of protecting its own people. That is a general statement.
Now, in -- with respect to movement and access, you have to have some assurance that that movement and access is for the intended purposes, for example, going to work or transporting goods for peaceful commerce, for peaceful interaction. If you have a future Palestinian Government that is not committed to the renunciation of terror and violence, does not recognize the right of Israel to exist, then I think that certainly, those are legitimate questions for the Israeli Government to raise, concerning what is this movement and access going to be used for.
Now, of course, Israel certainly has obligations under the roadmap, as well as other agreements. In order to move forward on those kind of -- full implementation of those agreements, you need to have a partner in order to that. Now, there is -- we have encouraged states to work with -- including Israel, to work with this interim government. Now, as for a future Palestinian Government, I think it is understandable that Israel will want to take a look at its security interest when -- with respect to --
QUESTION: You're not planning to drastically upgrade your food aid to these people who would no longer have a way to make a living. Could you really support cutting them off from their jobs?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, the onus is upon Hamas to make certain choices. They are now going to be faced with the hard choices of governing to -- providing for the aspirations of the Palestinian people not only for a better way of life, but for a peaceful, secure life. So, there is an opportunity. There is a pathway. It's clearly outlined. The Palestinian Authority has been on that pathway for some time, or they have at least committed to that pathway for quite some time. If there's going to be a break with that policy, where -- which you might have, if there is a Hamas Government that chooses not to meet the commitments of the international community, certainly, the international community is going to look at what reaction it has to that.
And this circles back to Hamas making fundamental choices. It has those fundamental choices before it. And we hope and the international community hope that they do make those choices, because there is a potential pathway that is out there for them, but it is up to them to make those choices.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Yes. Sean, you said that those who were elected can not have one foot in terror and another in politics, but Fatah, who was defeated in the elections -- in the Palestinian elections had one foot -- one military foot, which is (inaudible) Al-Aqsa and the latest thing they did two weeks ago when they launched rockets pointed at Israeli territories and had the political foot too. Why is it that Hamas -- you're insisting on this, while Fatah had the military win -- went to (inaudible).
MR. MCCORMACK: We called upon the Palestinian Authority to dismantle all terrorist organizations. That included the Palestinian and Islamic Jihad, that included Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, that included Hamas. So it is still incumbent upon a government to meet the legitimate demands of people for a safe, secure environment. You can't have militias operating outside of the central authority of a government. So the Palestinian Authority did and continues to have the responsibility to prevent terrorist attacks and dismantle terrorist networks.
QUESTION: But the leaders from Fatah are the leaders of the Palestinian Authority that you talk to and you still talk to them while they have the military wing.
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, President Abbas has turned away from the use of terror. He was elected -- he committed himself to a peaceful path. He committed himself to a two-state solution via the roadmap. So when we talk to -- we talk to President Abbas, we talk to him on the basis of this is an elected leader, a person who has made a choice. He has made a choice to try to better the future of the Palestinian people through negotiation, through acceptance of the roadmap and through a renunciation of terror and we believe he is committed to that; there are others who are committed to that. There are others Palestinians committed to that. And we look forward to continuing to work with President Abbas through this period.
Joel.
QUESTION: Sean, throughout this morning you were talking essentially about carrot and stick and also a Jekyll and Hyde-type mentality. What's to prevent -- we're beginning to see this where the new leaders of Hamas are invited to Moscow? What's to prevent them to go into a full camp with the Iranians and others, just ignore what we're saying? And you've seen over a period of two years that the Iranians are intransigent. Is that what the Secretary will be discussing in the Gulf?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think in answer to an earlier question, I talked about the fact that funding for terrorist groups, support for terrorist groups by Iran is something that is an obstacle for the Palestinian people realizing a better way of life, realizing an independent Palestinian state. Because the pathway to a Palestinian state is not going -- does not lie along the pathway to violence and terror; it is via the negotiating table that the Palestinian people can realize a Palestinian state, so Iranian behavior does matter.
And certainly if -- we would call upon all members of the international community as well as Iran's neighbors to try to influence Iranian behavior, not to turn away from support for terror. That's why we haven't seen any indication that this regime is going to do that. But we believe that it is important, as we have seen on the nuclear issue that the international community speak out clearly concerning Iran's behavior in this regard.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Some of the Hamas members visited Turkey yesterday. What's your view on that? Are you against such contacts or do you encourage it in order to deliver the message of international community?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, it's the same answer when I was asked about the Russians meeting with members of Hamas. That will ultimately be a choice for individual states to make. Should they choose to do so, we would strongly encourage and, frankly, expect them to only use such a contact to send a strong, clear message to Hamas that they have to meet the requirements of the international community.
QUESTION: Do you think that happened in the Turkey meeting?
MR. MCCORMACK: We have not gotten the readout from the Turks on that contact. We would certainly expect that that's what happened.
Do you have the same subject?
QUESTION: Yes. Same subject.
MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Then we'll come back to you, Jonathan.
QUESTION: You said that the neighbors of Iran or Palestinians should abide by the requirement of the Quartet, but don't you think it would be better to have the Palestinian Authority funded by Egyptians or Saudis instead of Iranians or Syrians?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, individual states are going to make their own decisions about what aid they provide. We ourselves are very clear in our choice; we are not going to fund a terrorist organization. We will certainly look to the legitimate humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people and to see what might be done within the confines of our law, our policy, as well as the Quartet statement to meet those needs. And we would expect that, you know, or we would encourage state of the regions, states around the world to follow that same set of principles.
Jonathan.
QUESTION: It's just a question about your approach, America's approach, to this compared to the rest of the international community. I mean, you say decisions -- Hamas is going to take decisions about whether it's a political entity or a terrorist group. And the rest of the international community appears to be giving Hamas time and space to set its course. And here you are taking a unilateral decision to cut off funding. I just wondered why aren't you prepared to give Hamas a bit of time and space?
MR. MCCORMACK: I guess -- I guess I'd, frankly, differ sharply with your characterization of the United States being isolated. I'd point you back to the piece of paper that is the Quartet statement. It's more than just a piece of paper; it was a commitment by all the members of the Quartet there, represented by the EU, Russia, the UN and the United States. So I'm not sure where this idea --
QUESTION: -- as I said, give Hamas -- you won't (inaudible) Hamas to be given time to set its course. So there are people in the Quartet who believe there should be some time and space given to Hamas.
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what we have said is that they face a choice. Their choices are clearly theirs to make. Of course, we are going to look at what choices they make -- we, meaning the international community -- and there's going to be, certainly, a reaction based on the choices that they make. And the members of the international community very clearly laid out that they would encourage everybody to review what assistance is provided to the Palestinian people and a future Palestinian Government in light of that new government meeting the requirements laid out by the international community.
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=February&x=20060217172404xjsnommis0.3468439&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html