U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who arrived in Israel this morning for a quick visit, told reporters on his way over last night that he does not have great expectations from this visit: "Let's keep in mind that tomorrow is another day, it is not anything special. It fits in with the rest of my schedule; it gave me an opportunity to go into the region, since I am in Jordan and to get a status report from both sides and from my team as to how the discussions have been going over the last two weeks. So it is not as if this was a special day or I that I was expecting something special to happen tomorrow... With respect to what Abu Mazen is doing with Hamas, I'll get an update on that. But there is no reason to expect that it is suddenly all going to come together tomorrow."
As for what Israel is "doing with Hamas", Powell already had this to say to reporters before he arrived here: "The targeting of the high-profile figure last week made it more difficult to go forward with the road map, and I think the Israelis understand." Asked to explain why the U.S. can "use a Predator missile to take out a group of people in Yemen [while the Israelis have] restraints put on their ability to attack targets that they think cause a threat to them," Powell said, "The point that we have made to them is that you have to consider what the consequences of your actions are. Does it help or hurt as you're moving forward trying to achieve a particular outcome or objective? And the Israelis have always made it clear that if they have solid evidence of, as they call it a ticking bomb, or they know something is coming and they can do something about it and keep a bomb from going off, they view that as legitimate self-defense, then that's perfectly understandable. When you expand that circle out into going after targets that are not ticking bombs, then I think you are in a making a different judgment call. You can, perhaps, take somebody out, but have you improved chances to get away from this whole environment of strike and counter-strike?"
Prime Minister Sharon has explained frequently that though he is pursuing the Road Map option, he will not make any concessions when it comes to Israel's security. This past Monday, in a speech to the Knesset, he answered his left-wing critics who objected to the timing of the strike against Abdel Aziz Rantisi of Hamas as follows: "After [the] Aqaba [summit], the terrorist organizations [gave us] three days of quiet - but then perpetrated terrible terrorism. A 17-year-old girl and her friend were hacked to death with axes and knives; four soldiers in Gaza were killed while protecting both Jews and Arabs in Gaza; a soldier was killed in Hevron; and 17 people in the massacre in Jerusalem. Many suicide attacks by Palestinian terrorists were prevented, and terrorists and their dispatchers were arrested. We acted resolutely against Hamas - unfortunately, civilians were also hit; this was not our intention, and this is not our way. [Heavy pressure] then pushed the PA to do what they long were not prepared to do, and that is to take control over certain areas - [because] they saw that we were serious about not accepting terrorism. Our intentions were not to push off peace, but to bring it closer. At this point, we're dealing with only one thing: security. There will be no compromise. Only after that is achieved will we start with our painful concessions."
As for what Israel is "doing with Hamas", Powell already had this to say to reporters before he arrived here: "The targeting of the high-profile figure last week made it more difficult to go forward with the road map, and I think the Israelis understand." Asked to explain why the U.S. can "use a Predator missile to take out a group of people in Yemen [while the Israelis have] restraints put on their ability to attack targets that they think cause a threat to them," Powell said, "The point that we have made to them is that you have to consider what the consequences of your actions are. Does it help or hurt as you're moving forward trying to achieve a particular outcome or objective? And the Israelis have always made it clear that if they have solid evidence of, as they call it a ticking bomb, or they know something is coming and they can do something about it and keep a bomb from going off, they view that as legitimate self-defense, then that's perfectly understandable. When you expand that circle out into going after targets that are not ticking bombs, then I think you are in a making a different judgment call. You can, perhaps, take somebody out, but have you improved chances to get away from this whole environment of strike and counter-strike?"
Prime Minister Sharon has explained frequently that though he is pursuing the Road Map option, he will not make any concessions when it comes to Israel's security. This past Monday, in a speech to the Knesset, he answered his left-wing critics who objected to the timing of the strike against Abdel Aziz Rantisi of Hamas as follows: "After [the] Aqaba [summit], the terrorist organizations [gave us] three days of quiet - but then perpetrated terrible terrorism. A 17-year-old girl and her friend were hacked to death with axes and knives; four soldiers in Gaza were killed while protecting both Jews and Arabs in Gaza; a soldier was killed in Hevron; and 17 people in the massacre in Jerusalem. Many suicide attacks by Palestinian terrorists were prevented, and terrorists and their dispatchers were arrested. We acted resolutely against Hamas - unfortunately, civilians were also hit; this was not our intention, and this is not our way. [Heavy pressure] then pushed the PA to do what they long were not prepared to do, and that is to take control over certain areas - [because] they saw that we were serious about not accepting terrorism. Our intentions were not to push off peace, but to bring it closer. At this point, we're dealing with only one thing: security. There will be no compromise. Only after that is achieved will we start with our painful concessions."