In Congressional testimony later that month, Powell betrayed a startling lack of moral clarity in his understanding of the nature of terrorism by seemingly excusing the murder of Israeli civilians by Palestinians. “One man’s terrorist,” he declared, “is another man’s freedom fighter.”
Later that year, after his maiden trip to the area was greeted by a suicide bombing, Powell gave vent to the morally equivalent “cycle of violence” argument: “We’ve got to get beyond this period of suicide bombings and retaliatory actions or other defense actions.”
Upon meeting Arafat in December, Powell tried a different tack, warning the terrorist that if he didn’t go after Hamas, the fundamentalists would seek to kill him. Britain’s Daily Telegraph (December 2, 2001) ran the conversation:
“They are going to destroy you.”
“And he said, ‘Yes, I know.’ ”
“I said, ‘you’d better do something.’ ”
“And he said, ‘I know.’ ”
In analyzing Powell’s record on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, one looks hard to find any moral condemnation of terrorism. What emerges is criticism of terrorism as ineffectual rather than illegitimate. Thus Powell warned Israel and the Palestinians to stick with the administration-backed road map peace plan because sustained violence would only take them to “a cliff that both sides will fall off.”
Asked by Al-Jazeera television on June 23, 2003, whether “there is any legitimate resistance” by Palestinians against Israel, Powell again advanced the argument that terrorism had accomplished nothing for its perpetrators – and once more skirted the moral question of murdering innocent civilians:
“What has this kind of resistance achieved for the Palestinian people, whether you describe it as legitimate or illegitimate, whether it is terrorism or resistance; whatever you call it, let me ask the question this way, what has it achieved for the Palestinian people?”
Was Israel justified in killing terrorists who murdered innocent Jews? Here, Powell made the case that terrorism begets more terrorism, a position popular in the type of conference diplomacy rhetoric eschewed by Bolton. On the ABC News program “This Week” (September 7, 2003), Powell condemned Israeli assassinations of Hamas terrorist leaders: “To kill one Hamas leader, but wound 9 children or 10 children in the course of this, who will grow up to become Hamas leaders or Hamas killers later, they have to consider the long-term consequences of this policy.”
Ironically, Powell’s statement contravened President Bush’s address the same day (which might have been vetted by Bolton among others) in which he said, “We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength. They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans.”
While Bolton and other non-sentimental strategists in the administration increasingly focused on sidelining Arafat, Powell pursued his own version of diplomacy. In retrospect, one wonders whether Powell was joking in August 2003, after Arafat had no doubt ordered a terrorist attack on Israeli civilians, when he issued the following appeal: “I call on Chairman Arafat to work with Prime Minister Abbas and to make available to Prime Minister Abbas those security elements that are under his control.”
In September, 2003, following Israel’s announcement that it was severing all contact with the Palestinian Authority (some fifteen months after President Bush’s condemnation of the “morally compromised” PA), Powell still refused to break relations. Falling back on Foggy Bottom’s legalistic approach to diplomacy, Powell insisted, “Yasir Arafat is the elected head of the Palestinian Authority and reflects the leadership that the Palestinians wish to have. So he still has the authority, that mantle of leadership given to him by the Palestinian people, and we will continue to work with him.”