Articles

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

EXCLUSIVE: Condoleeza Rice Honors a Hizbullah / Fatah Propogandist

For International Woman's Day, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice convened eight women to be honored for the 2008 Secretary of State’s Awards for International Women of Courage ceremony. Of those eight women, oddly enough six were Muslim, as if Muslim women had cornered the market, making the "International" ceremony a rather parochial pat on the back for Muslims. (In 2007 it was 7 out of 10.)

Of these six Muslim women, one has a rather interesting biography. Nibal Thawabteh. Undersecretary Dobriansky stated that she founded a newspaper, he oddly enough failed to mention its name. The newspaper's name is Al-Hal and it is produced at Bir Zeit University's media center where Nibal Thawabteh is also a lecturer.

Al-Hal is actually printed and distributed by Al Ayyam, which is the main mouthpiece of Fatah. Bir Zeit University itself is known as a hotbed for radical terrorism and its media institute benefits from infusions of international funding even as it turns out terrorist propagandists. But if you're thinking that Condoleeza Rice could not have known all this and might have missed it, Nibal Thawabteh's own resume available on multiple sites makes her terrorist affiliations incredibly clear.

While much of it has been designed to seem innocuous and appealing to the eyes of Western academics with buzzwords about education and illiteracy, there is this;

Script Writer and Director for Al Manar Satellite. Produced 9 Documentaries about Palestinian related issues 2003


Al Manar is of course Hizbullah satellite television and it doesn't take much effort to imagine the sort of "Palestinian related issues" they would want as documentaries. Then there's a stint as a writer and director for Ramattan Studios.

Script writer and director for many films as "The Palestinian Stones " Ramattan Studios. 2003


Ramattan Studios last came to our attention when it was used as the go-between to release a tape of the two Fox News hostages.

Nibal Thawabteh is also on the Board of Directors of PYALARA. PYALARA is an organ of the PA's youth organizations and promotes terrorism. She's had a background in MIFTAH, a hyperactive propaganda outlet.

The best though comes under the heading of Training Experience which I'll just screenshot as it's rather straightforward. So straightforward even the dimmest State Department flack would have had no trouble understanding it. Just look at the last line.



In short Nibal Thawabteh has some rather ugly ties. She's produced propaganda for Hizbullah, works for the Fatah press and has extensive connections to the Fatah political infrastructure. She's even done political work for Hamas at one point it would seem. That's a resume that should disqualify her from an invitation to the Benjamin Franklin Room while the Secretary of State holds a ceremony that awards her as one of the eight most courageous women in the world. We've gone from Mother Theresa to a terrorist press agent and days after Israel is recovering from a terrorist attack against a school, this award is doubly despicable.

Oh and one final inevitable note. Nibal Thawabteh is a consultant for the Carter Center.

48 comments:

Keli Ata said...

Amazing that Rice chose Muslim women almost to the exclusion of women of any other religion, isn't it? How very "international" this International Women of Courage event is--NOT.

Her ties to Fatah, Hamas, and Hizbullah (which remain on the US Registry of foreign terrorist organzations) should have immediately disqualified her.

There's no way this terrorist PR agent didn't know exactly what Hamas and Fatah are about. If she's on the payroll she knows.

Will the U.S. ever stop twisting the knife into Israel's back?

Yobeeone said...

It's no surprise. Communista Magotted-Rice is an anti-semite. I wouldn't be surprised if she isn't a closet muzlim like Prince Big-Ears.

LemonLimeMoon said...

Condo has stated publically that she identifies with the palestinians.
She has 'transformed' diplomacy for the US to where our diplomats are no longer expected to seek US interests but they really are seeking other nations interests first. This is really quite awful.
Note this quote:
"Rice stated that 9/11 was rooted in “oppression and despair” and so, the US must advance democratic reform and support basic rights throughout the greater Middle East"

Hardly someone you want as secretary of state. She indentifies with the terrorists more than with her nation.
She is not an out and out anti semite, but she identifies with the wrong side in an aggressive manner.

Keli Ata said...

Condi is just like that little dinosaur in Jarassic Park. The one that looks all sweet and cooing and then suddenly shows its crest and spews poison.

I wouldn't be surprised if she's a closet Muslim either. Anyone coddling Muslims as much as she is must be.

Sultan Knish said...

yes condi in the end has done more for the terrorists than for america and she seems driven to work for the terrorists

Eric-Odessit said...

I used to think Condi was better than Powell. I was wrong: she is 1000 times worse. She is worse than James Baker too.
Eric.

Udiyah said...

I'll never forgive myself for voting for Bush and I'll never forgive myself for arguing for Con-the People-Rice when she was being raked over the coals by Barbara Boxer.

Boy, did I think she was great - a former swimmer and a concert painist. So cultured. Others have had her same personality traits - so cultured. Circunstances had a down-turn for Jews then too..

Is it me or does it seem her face has changed? Her eyes seem dead - she looks evil as hell.

I read on Drudge that McCain likes the idea of having Rice for a running mate. If he pulls that - I won't vote at all.

Sultan Knish said...

well bush was the better alternative to kerry or gore

if you can imagine what richard holbrooke, the architect of serbia's destruction would be doing in rice's place... it doesn't even bear thinking about

just as the idea of brezinski in her place under obama does not bear thinking about... you might as well bring back Titus and the Roman legions, it's the same thing

back when people were complaining about Powell, I always said that we were lucky to have him because he was a weak figure with little presidential access,

Rice by contrast is both arrogant and ignorant and has the most access to the president these days

Anonymous said...

This is unbelievable! You couldn't write this any better. Truth is stranger than fiction. How about a mother? Intl Women of Courage? What's courageous about lying and killing innocent children?
This is disgusting! Condi is dangerous-ignorant and arrogant as stated.

ytba said...

They may be all on the same heading, but it's the wrong way.

But then, what do we expect when our leaders' compasses are just tinkertoys.

When abandon a G-dly moral code, you loose the GPS for your soul. Things may go o.k. for a while, but sooner or later you end up on the rocks.

But there is good news. The 4th and final Golus is coming to an end, may it come peacefully, and SOON!

ytba said...

BTW, have you seen this?

It is right in line with your conclusive proof that Condoleezza Rice truly is functionally delusional.

(After thinking about your article for a minute, I could just see what they would do in WWII - they would invite Tokyo Rose to the White House to recognize her efforts at promoting peace. Then she might even sign on with Al Gore to help him with his road show, or even share the peace prize with him.)

ytba said...

"...bush was the better alternative to kerry or gore" S.K.

As I so often have said in the past, the good news is that Bush is the best we have. Unfortunately, that's also the bad news.

ytba said...

@udiyah

"I read on Drudge that McCain likes the idea of having Rice for a running mate. If he pulls that - I won't vote at all."

No. We can't let the Dems take over. Though it's hard to see a Rice/McCain ticket being any better. Of course, there would still be Republicans in charge, and when Rice has a nervous breakdown and McCain gets Alzheimer's, there might be some hope of getting a sane person into the office. Anything can happen in this crazy time, and the way things are going, it just might!

I mean, just think ahead, and ask yousef what a O'Bomber presidency might end up looking like...

Pretty scarry, huh?

Sultan Knish said...

yes I had blogged on it at israpundit, the state department has always been terrorism's base in the US government and has a lot of sympathizers there and condoleeza rice has excelled at communicating their agenda to bush in a way he finds understandable and acceptable

Keli Ata said...

All of this really makes one question the veracity of any politician that claims to be "pro-Israel."

I don't think Rice is ignorant, at least not in the sense of being uniformed and ignorant of who and what Hamas, Fatah and Hizbullah are about. Nor do I think she has childlike idealism of turning terrorists around for good.

No. Everything she is doing is very calculated and informed. She made a choice. It's all becoming very much like the years leading up to the Holocaust. People are making choices and aligning with either good or evil.

The only difference this time around is that the world has full knowledge of where anti-Semitism brought the world last time.

Last time there were a small handful of righteous gentiles versus the millions of "we never knew" lying gentiles and turned their backs. I'd put Rice is the later category.

That knowledge and truth makes choices like Rice's all the more reprehensible and unforgivable.

steve klein said...

Sultan, you wrote: "In short Nibal Thawabteh has some rather ugly ties. She ... works for the Fatah press and has extensive connections to the Fatah political infrastructure."

Mr. Bush is seeking to establish a Fatah (terror) state in Israel. It is Fatah (terrorists) that Bush and Olmert are arming and training. It is Fatah terrorists with whom we are pursuing peace negotiations. Is this a mixed up, contradictory, even duplicitous U.S. president?

steve klein said...

well bush was the better alternative to kerry or gore>>>>


I am not so sure. We can debate this point ad infinitum and never know for certain. Though Bill Clinton successfully pushed the murderous Olso accords, unlike Bush, he was did not divide our land and give part of it to the jihadists as Bush has overseen. I believe, in the long run -- for spiritual reasons and for other reasons -- dividing the Holy Land and giving it over to jihadist enemies is far more deadly than any "peace" treaty that give the Palestinians autonomy or self-government, as bad as that is.

As I have said many time, Republicans and the respect they generate as defense and security hawks, can be far more persuasive and therefore damaging to Israel.

We will never know if a President Gore or a President Kerry would have been as successful as Bush.

Bush is a very present danger. I fear McCain will likewise be a very present danger to Israel for the very same reason. The GOP has great power and the full support of the Republican party establishment, conservative talk radio, conservative web masters, etc.

Who in the conservative movement has condemned Bush for his Chamberlain-like appeasement of our enemies? Who?

LemonLimeMoon said...

Steve I dont think Bush is setting up Fatah or any other terrorist organization on purpose.
The problem is they are very naive. Americans feel if they are nice to people they will be nice back.That is exclusive American thinking and its the best way to be really. But its not realistic as most in the world are not nice in return no matter what you do.
I think Bush feels if he helps set up a "Palestine" they will leave Israel alone.
Bush is not out to 'get' Israel.
Condoleezza is identifying with them because she felt she was an oppressed black in America. So oppressed she became secretary of state. But, no accounting for feelings. Still she is not purposefully trying to destroy Israel. She is , however , in a position of power she cannot handle.

Sultan Knish said...

Steve,

have you actually been paying attention for the last 16 years?

Oslo divided Israel. Bush is finishing a job that Clinton began. Under Clinton, Israel was about to withdraw from most of the land including Yerushalayim.

The only reason it didn't go through was because Arafat refused to take it.

It's one thing to criticize Bush, it's another thing to idiotically whitewash Clinton.

And Republicans are actually far less persuasive than Democrats because Democrats have control over most Jewish organizations.

Witness the backlash against Bush Sr who was far less successful at selling a deal with the PLO than Clinton was.

steve klein said...

Sultan, I don't whitewash Clinton. I wrote, "murderous" Oslo accords and they were indeed murderous and still are. For whatever reason God Almighty prevented Bill Clinton from establishing a Palestinian state (Clinton did not utter the word "Palestinian state;" his wife did) though it was not for lack of Clinton trying with all his might. Bush made the establishment of a Palestinian (terror) state the "official goal of U.S. policy."

George W. Bush has the distinction of bringing the term "Palestinian state" into common, accepted American foreign policy parlance. Bush is a Republican. It is a disgrace to this once great 'Party of Lincoln' -- a man who had the courge to take a difficult moral stand -- that this particular man; this grandson of Prescott Bush -- holds this distinction. I am not saying Clinton would not have done this as well. The timing apparently was not right.

The point is Sultan, I am a thirty seven year Republican because I believe in conservative principles. Conservatives have a love of history, something apparently Bush is utterly lacking. Conservatives do not believe in Utopian or Wilsonian schemes and the kind of "quick fixes" Bush is pursuing in the Middle East.

Conservative learn the hard, painful lessons of history.

Liberal Democrats are the antithesis of this by and large. I deplored, though I expected a leftist like Clinton to do all these things that Bush is, as you say, furthering.

I do not expect this from conservatives. Haven't I made this point clear, ad nauseum?

steve klein said...

I'm sorry lemonlimemoon. I think George W. Bush knows exactly what he is doing.

Besides, there is this principle in Jewish law (which I happen to believe applies universally) that doing a great evil or sin unintentionally is no justification.

A man is still guilty. A big Bush supporter and Republican party activist used to chide me. He said President Bush has much more and better information about Israel and the region than I could possibly possess. Bush has some of the greatest minds on earth advising him, etc.

I'm sorry, I don't buy this rationale that Bush is ignorant; that he does not know he is holding hands with murderous jihadists and aiding them in their murderous jihad against the Jews.

As God is my witness, this man is evil. He is an evil man. What else can I say.

I look forward to the day Bush stands in judgment and tries to explain to God's servant, "It was a mistake! I did not know!"

King Solomon, or whoever wrote this could not have put it better:

"Do not let your speech cause you to sin and do not say in the presence of the messenger of God that it was a mistake. Why should God be angry on account of your voice and destroy the work of your hands?"

Sultan Knish said...

yes you've made the point ad nauseum that you feel personally betrayed as a conservative, that is however irrelevant to the issue

if you didn't expect this from republicans, you weren't paying attention. this idea has been kicking around republicans too for quite some time, even back under reagan

Clinton made it his agenda to set up a Palestinian state. Just as he tried to set up a Kosovo state. Bush is simply finishing the job that Clinton did.

and yes Clinton repeatedly referred to a Palestinian state, e.g.

"For their part, the Israeli people also must understand that they're creating a few problems, too; that the settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will one day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise."

Here they are. First, I think there can be no genuine resolution to the conflict without a sovereign, viable, Palestinian state that accommodates Israeli's security requirements and the demographic realities. That suggests Palestinian sovereignty over Gaza, the vast majority of the West Bank, the incorporation into Israel of settlement blocks, with the goal of maximizing the number of settlers in Israel while minimizing the land annex for Palestine to be viable must be a geographically contiguous state.

Second, a solution will have to be found for the Palestinian refugees who have suffered a great deal -- particularly some of them. A solution that allows them to return to a Palestinian state that will provide all Palestinians with a place they can safely and proudly call home. All Palestinian refugees who wish to live in this homeland should have the right to do so. All others who want to find new homes, whether in their current locations or in third countries, should be able to do so, consistent with those countries' sovereign decisions. And that includes Israel.


Like I said Bush has not come up with anything new. He's simply playing Clinton's game.

Sultan Knish said...

I don't know why I bother, but like every legal system, Jewish law distinguishes between international and unintentional crimes

steve klein said...

Sorry, I do not know what you mean, "Jewish law distinguishes between international and unintentional crimes." What is an international crime?

One more thing, if you wish to provide evidence, I will have to see it defined or deliniated in the written Torah (law of Moses). Though I believe there is great wisdom in Oral law, I do not hold it in the same regard as I do the written Torah.

I am interested in reading this when you have a chance to point to the text. If it is in Talmud, then cite the verse in Talmad. I have the Soncino translation; the entire set.

LemonLimeMoon said...

Steve, Bush is not an "evil" man he is a naive guy who thinks he is making peace. He is doing it all wrong but he is not Stalin and he is not Hitler. Don't get your underwear in a twist here.
To a basically secular world Israel is just another nation.
To a lot of people making peace at any cost is how they do things for others.
When it comes up close and personal..such as if the US was being pressed to give Texas to Mexico it would be a whole other story.
From a distance though, most people have no concern about Israel or Yugoslavia etc.

Sultan Knish said...

Exodus 21 12-13

steve klein said...

Just got this from AFSI:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=t0XOtQvpZMw&feature=related

LemonLimeMoon said...

"For Dr. Rice the struggle of the Palestinians is analogous to that of the Afro-Americans for civil rights and she identifies with the Palestinians. She recalled what it meant to travel in segregated buses as a little girl in Alabama. She also compared the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, to Reverend Martin Luther King, because, in her mind, both were committed to peace." from The Bulletin (Philadelphia, October 17, 2007

Sultan Knish said...

I would rather recommend

http://www.jerusalemconference.com/galleries/video.aspx

2nd row, video on the right... for those who understand hebrew

steve klein said...

I can see where Exodus 21 12-13 pertains to unintentional crimes. But you wrote international crimes. Or did you mean to write "intentional" crimes?

Sultan Knish said...

"Besides, there is this principle in Jewish law (which I happen to believe applies universally) that doing a great evil or sin unintentionally is no justification."

Exodus 21 12-13

steve klein said...

I am not sure what this verse is supposed to mean in light of what I wrote. If someone kills a man unintentionally, he can flee to a city of refuge and live there until the death of the high priest. I think that is how it goes. If the man is found outside the city of refuge before the death of the priest, a blood avenger (I believe this is a blood relative) can put the man slayer to death and not be guilty of murder.

What I was referring to is this:

"Now if a person sins and does any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, though he was unaware, still he is guilty and shall bear his punishment.

"He is then to bring to the priest a ram without defect from the flock, according to your valuation, for a guilt offering..... "It is a guilt offering; he was certainly guilty before the Lord." Vayikra (Leviticus) chapter 5

He did it unintentionally. Still, he is guilty and shall bear his punishment. I have done bad things unintentionally (I think we all have) still I was guilty and I can remember paying a price for it; ultimately I paid for it.

So, I believe will Bush and America for Bush's sin against Israel and the land of Israel; regardless, if he is doing it with malice and with intent (I have no reason to believe he is not) or if he is doing it inadvertantly and without intent, this nation I believe will suffer for it.

steve klein said...

A little off topic.

Am I the only one? Has anyone noticed how Rush Limbaugh has "come around?" He's come around to the pragmatic political position.

I'm not sure where Ann Coulter stands today. Earlier, Coulter said she would vote for Clinton before she would vote for McCain. Limbaugh seemed to indicate the same or that he might not vote in November. That was earlier. He let this one caller -- Republican party activist -- state she will not vote come November if McCain is the nominee. Limbaugh showered her with "I am hearing from Republicans all over the country who feel just like you!" But Limbaugh also had his share of angry callers and e-mail.

Now Limbaugh says "I want to win!" At first I thought he meant he wanted conservative principles (which he and Hannity swear they will never compromise) to win. Now it seems clear he wants "our side" -- read: John McCain -- to win in November.

Seems to me, Limbaugh bowed to some (perhaps) heavy handed pressure. No?

steve klein said...

"I would rather recommend..."

Just curious. Little doubt, you've read Ellen Horowitz and other columnists who are very suspicious of the vast majority of pro-Israel Christians; believing their support is not pure nor unconditional; most have ulterior motives, etc.

Is this your view?

Keli Ata said...

In other words, ignorance of the law is no excuse?

I would agree that.

Sultan Knish said...

Sacrifices and whether the sacrifice at all can be brought in the first place differs depending on whether he performed the act intentionally or unintentionally.

Killing someone unintentionally does not earn you a death penalty. Killing someone intentionally does.

Motive and awareness are an issue in Jewish law as they are everywhere else.

Sultan Knish said...

most sane conservative commentators have come around to understanding that 8 years of obama is too great a risk

they may not like mccain but he's the lesser of two evils

I recommended Ronen's video because it's actually relevant to what's going on in israel instead of an outsider throwing together a hodgepodge of conspiracies based on their own scripture

ytba said...

"condoleeza rice has excelled at communicating their agenda to bush in a way he finds understandable and acceptable" S.K.

Yes. In terms of the classics we might say that while Ms. Pelosi is Bush's "Scylla" (Silla) [the Dems have consumed many of Bush's original crew], Ms. Rice is his "Charybdis"(Car-Rib-Dis)."

In any case, Bush's story might eventually be seen to be a classic tragedy, that of a decent person who meant well but didn't realize his degredation 'till it was too late, unless he comes to his senses really soon.

The Democrats, of course, could also be compared to the Harpies who "snatch" from him any real accomplishments.

[Sorry for mixing the imagery a bit, but in the modern age we do have unlimited poetic license.]

ytba said...

"Besides, there is this principle in Jewish law (which I happen to believe applies universally) that doing a great evil or sin unintentionally is no justification."

True, there's no justification. But the consequences are worlds apart, as are the punishments.

E.g., if someone is about to commit murder, he can't be convicted by a Beit Din unless at least two valid witnesses saw him AND WARNED HIM that he was violating the Torah. And even then, if a sufficient time lapses after that warning, and he commits the murder without another warning, we can't convict because he might have forgotten. And those are just a few of the hurdles we have to go through to convict.

So, for the perp, there is a huge difference. But, since we can't know what is in another's heart, we can't judge him for his intentions. Hashem, however, can, and will - as he deserves.

That said, I personally don't see any way he could not know what he was doing, given all the info available. The Paleos are evil savages, and giving them a state (and I have been saying this ad nauseum for the last 7 years) is more irresponsible than giving a homicidal maniac a loaded gun.

I do agree that what he's doing will bring him shame, and the USA great harm. But based on what I know of the man, I think he really is trying to do what he thinks is right. He's probably just caught up in the maelstrom of insanity pervading modern governments everywhere. He is, as best I can tell, a classic tragic figure.

Sultan Knish said...

the real gap is not awareness so much as understanding

and the understanding gap is a very real issue in modern day life when you're dealing with a massive propaganda machine whose ideas have become the social consensus

a president in the end knows what he's told and bush has been committed to the idea of distinguishing between moderates and extremists and the administration is tuning out any issue that questions that

steve klein said...

"a president in the end knows what he's told and bush has been committed to the idea of distinguishing between moderates and extremists and the administration is tuning out any issue that questions that..."

You know what? I think you are right. Still I do not excuse him. In his September 20, 2001 address to the nation and to a joint session of Congress, he seemed to have no problem laying things out in black and white, good vs. evil. "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists."

Ever since then, he has done virtually everything in his power to prove he is with the jihadist "terrorists."

And other thing I will not forgive him for. He is attempting to make this distinction between the jihadists murdering the Jews in Israel and the jihadists that murdered and seek to murder Americans.

Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, Chechan jihadists, Hezbollah, Iranian Republican Gaurd, Islamic Brotherhood, al Qaeda, etc., are all part and parcel of the global jihad. Some jihadists operate on a more localized basis like Hamas and Fatah; others on a more regional and global scale like Al Qaeda and the Iranians. I've read enough to know these groups meet in Iran, in Pakistan and other places and they are all brothers (even Sunni and Shiite jihadists) in the struggle to destroy non-Islamic states throughout the globe.

To believe otherwise as Bush and Rice believe is evil. This man possesses too much information for me to forgive him. What is Bush going to say to you or me? "You possess information I've not been given by my advisors." (?)

Sorry. I don't buy it.

Sultan Knish said...

i don't forgive him for it either but a president who expresses an ideal and then compromises it is nothing new either

as I've said many times, there are no pro israel presidents... a pro-israel president is just the one who pressures israel the least

ytba said...

"the real gap is not awareness so much as understanding"

...or, in engineering terms,....
...(understanding/awareness)<<1 ?)

That makes sense.

Still, I think 7 years is time enough to come to understand what he should have become aware of in that time. A leader shouldn't make such critical policy off the cuff. He should immerse himself in it, and when it doesn't work, he should ask himself "Why?"

If we say he's been misinformed, the lack of success of policies based on his advisors disinformation should have long ago raised a whole lot of red flags for him.

I can't fault him for not being more Jewish than Olmert, but I can fault him for treating America's enemies as potential friends. As Mark Steyn so correctly observed, "We don't have the same excuse that Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax had 70 years ago, because our appeasement is done knowing full well the consequences of what happened the last time round,..."

And these enemies are orders of magnitude worse than the Nazis, who did it for political ideology, not religious.

ytba said...

The Kuwaiti News Service, Al Watan", puts Condoleezza Rice (not to mention Olmert) to shame???!!!

Oink, Gevalt!!!

Yobeeone said...

I have to disagree with ya Lemon. Bush doesn't believe a pee-el-uh-oh state will make them quit picking on Israel. He wants the Jews out. He doesn't want a Jewish Israel. It was his game plan long before he was fully in politics.

Of course, if I hadn't read newspapers myself, I wouldn't believe it either, but unfortunately, I did and he is.

steve: it's a good thing they're suspicious. The reason x-tians are pro-Israel and want us to rebuild the Temple, etc. is because they believe it will bring their "messiah" and we Jews will be destroyed for rejecting their "messiah."

In their belief, only 144,000 Jews will accept their "messiah" and the rest of us are doomed to hell for eternity for refusing. So. Don't trust them.

Anonymous said...

Carter stablished an Islamic regim in Iran, Condi stablished an Islamic regim in Gaza(Hamas)and is working to develop and Islamic regim in Iraq. so far it was the leftists who were stablishing Islamic governments in the middle East but now Carter and Condi are working together to sell Israel to Islamists and stablish an Arab-Islamic regim in Israel. They have much help from Europe and many Islamic countries too. the result?

steve klein said...

Condoleezza Rice, quote of the week:

"We have all had the experience of perhaps saying things that we wish we hadn't said..."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1205261316915&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas while testifying before the US Congress on Wednesday.

"I am confident that President Abbas is somebody who is committed to the negotiated solution of this issue, and recognizes that only a negotiated solution is going to result in a Palestinian state," Rice said in response to a question on comments Abbas made in a recent interview, quoting him in part as saying, "I am opposed to armed struggle because we cannot succeed in it, but maybe in the future things will be different."

Many interpreted those comments as supporting armed struggle.

"We have all had the experience of perhaps saying things that we wish we hadn't said, and I can just tell you that this is somebody who for many, many years now has rejected violence as a means to statehood," Rice said, noting that Abbas had later said the comments were taken out of context. "I can't account for his comments. I think they were extremely unfortunate. We made that very clear to him."

Always On Watch said...

I just linked to this.

Post a Comment