CNN International’s Hala Gorani couldn’t fathom why a Palestinian terrorist organization wasn’t invited to the upcoming Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland. Following-up to an answer made by State Department spokesman Michael Pelletier during an interview, Gorani exclaimed, "How can you have a Middle East peace summit that doesn’t include Hamas? Forget whether or not you don’t like them as a group, or call them terrorists. How can you not?"
Gorani asked the question 18 minutes into the 12 pm "Your World Today" program on Monday, which is simulcast on CNN. Gorani began the interview on a bit of a skeptical, even hostile note, and she acted as if she should be the one directing the negotiations. After her initial question and the answer from Pelletier, Gorani shot back with the following point. "You have two very weak leaders. The Palestinian isn't even representative of his entire population. Ehud Olmert is the least popular Israeli prime minister, practically, in history. George Bush won't be in office in 13 months' time. Why would anything come out of this?"
Video clip (1:24): Real (2.28 MB) and Windows (2.58 MB), plus MP3 audio (652 kB).
As Pelletier answered by stating how Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) is the "authorized and legitimate" negotiator for the Palestinians, Gorani interrupted him mid-sentence. "But he has no credibility with his own people! Hamas won democratic elections in Gaza." Pelletier replied that Hamas "ruled itself out" of the upcoming talks by its "violent takeover of institutions in Gaza" and its expulsion of Fatah from the territory. This is when Gorani asked her question about the lack of inclusion of Hamas.
After Pelletier replied to her question, Gorani continued to express her disbelief and added the Iran question to the equation. "I just still don’t understand, I mean, maybe you can help me understand this. How is it possible to discuss peace between two partners, when a good chunk of that partner on the Palestinian side is not represented, when Iran is not being talked to either, and they’re being accused of financing Hamas. How is it possible? You’re only talking to people you already agree with!" Pelletier promptly disagreed with her point, that things "would be settled" if the two main parties agreed.
Even with all the apparent hostile questions, Gorani complimented Pelletier at the end of the segment. "You know the Arab world. You speak Arabic yourself. You’ve been around, [and] you know how much skepticism there is." Given Gorani’s own Syrian background, she could have been speaking for herself, given the "skeptical" tone she carried through the entire interview.
The full transcript of the Hala Gorani’s interview of Michael Pelletier on Monday’s "Your World Today:"
HALA GORANI: Welcome back to 'Your World Today,' right here on CNN International, and we're going to talk more about that Annapolis peace summit. Iran is not attending the conference. Its ally, Syria, though, is. So is the regional powerhouse Saudi Arabia. Can new players breathe new life into peace efforts?
Joining us to talk about that is Michael Pelletier of the U.S. State Department. Thanks for being with us, Mr. Pelletier. Why will this summit be any different from all the other efforts at establishing peace between Israelis and Palestinians?
MICHAEL PELLETIER, MIDEAST SPOKESMAN, U.S. STATE DEPT.: Well, I think you have a couple of elements which are good reason for some optimism. First of all, you have in place a Palestinian government under President Abu Mazen, and an Israeli government under Prime Minister Olmert, that are really very publicly and truly committed to a peaceful solution the problem, to a two-state solution to the problem.
GORANI: Right.
PELLETIER: And furthermore, that that -- the commitment to the idea of a two-state solution is reaching out further. You also have very wide, as you mentioned just now, very wide Arab participation, international participation in the conference tomorrow in Annapolis. I think all of those things lead to some hope. I think also, when you look at some of the efforts by former prime minister Tony Blair, for example, for the quartet, at working on reform and establishing institutions necessary for a good, viable Palestinian state, all of those things are important. And...
GORANI: But, Michael Pelletier, all of those things have been in place for a while. You have two very weak leaders. The Palestinian isn't even representative of his entire population, Ehud Olmert is the least popular Israeli prime minister, practically, in history. George Bush won't be in office in 13 months' time. Why would anything come out of this?
PELLETIER: Well, I think -- I think, first of all, in terms of Abu Mazen, if you look at it, his role as the authorized and legitimate negotiator of a peace settlement with the Israelis, as the negotiator for all of the Palestinian people...
(CROSSTALK)
GORANI: But he has no credibility with his own people. Hamas won democratic elections in Gaza.
PELLETIER: And Hamas, unfortunately, since their violent takeover of the institutions in Gaza, and expulsion of Fatah and others from Gaza, I think has shown that it, unfortunately, refuses to meet the international sort of principles on which peace will be based -- recognizing Israel, denouncing and renouncing violence, respecting former agreements. Unfortunately, Hamas is sort of ruling itself out.
GORANI: But let me ask...
PELLETIER: The Palestinian people want peace, as your previous piece mentioned. I mean, overwhelmingly, the people want peace.
GORANI: Okay. That's not under discussion. Palestinians want peace. They're suffering. Israelis want peace. They feel threatened. That's not under discussion. But how can you have a Middle East peace summit that doesn't include Hamas? Forget whether or not you don't like them as a group or call them terrorists. How can you not?
PELLETIER: Well, I think what you have, and that's -- that's more important, is what you have, is, as I said, the two governments, Israeli and Palestinian, focused on peace and committed to it. You have the regional players, including those members of the Arab follow-up committee to the Arab peace initiative, who are going to be there, who are supporting and encouraging and really backing up the Palestinians as they make these efforts. You have the international community, the U.N. group, the G-8, the United States, and others. All of us are there to support the Palestinians and the Israelis as they move forward. Nobody knows -- Everybody knows that these are tough decisions, these are tough subjects. I think, therefore, it's really important for all of us to be in there backing them, so that success is possible.
GORANI: I just -- I just still don't understand, I mean, maybe you can help me understand this. How is it possible to discuss peace between two partners, when a good chunk of that partner on the Palestinian side is not represented, when Iran is not being talked to either, and they're being accused of financing Hamas. How is it possible? You're only talking to people you already agree with.
PELLETIER: No. On the contrary, I think if the Israelis and the Palestinians already agreed on everything, then we would be settled. I think there are a lot of issues out there. I think that it's important not to downplay or belittle the fact that President Abu Mazen is the democratically-elected representative, legitimate head of the Palestinians, particularly of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which has the right to negotiate for the Palestinian people. Ehud Olmert is the prime minister of Israel and has that power as the Israeli prime minister.
GORANI: Sure, but Ismail Haniyeh was a democratically-elected prime minister of the Palestinians.
PELLETIER: And unfortunately, we have seen that the Hamas organization has refused to meet those international principles, has -- there's been violence, there's been some real problems with the situation in Gaza. And the United States, the international community, is very concerned about the plight of those Palestinians who are in Gaza, stuck under that situation. But I think that makes it all the more important that those of us who believe in peace, who have a positive vision of the region, who can imagine two states living side-by-side and really succeeding, it's therefore, all that more important that we work towards that and we support efforts in that direction. The Palestinian people deserve it and the Israeli people deserve it.
GORANI: You know the Arab world. You speak Arabic yourself. You've been around, you know how much skepticism there is. In any case, we will continue to follow this story, of course. Michael Pelletier of the State Department. Thanks so much for being on 'Your World Today.'
PELLETIER: Thank you.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
While we're at it . . .
November 26, 2007 - 16:45 ET by Gat New YorkLet's also send an invite to Hezbollah and Al Qaeda as well.
Answering your own Question
November 26, 2007 - 16:52 ET by Airforce_5_OYou answered your own question; they are terrorist. I believe Arafat was invited to one once and it didn’t stop terrorist attacks against Israel.
The Clinton News Network is the worst news on cable. Period.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
...oh look, we're
November 26, 2007 - 17:11 ET by TruthMonger...oh look, we're partnering with Islam on peace efforts - what a totoally rad idea...!
Gee, I hope the Palestinians Muslims don't read Newsbusters (due to our penchant for calling them "accursed pagan terrorists" and what not...:) !
Could derail the whole dang thing...
but yes Hamas has indeed ruled themselves out - this is how civic partnering works people - terrorists not included...
But why am I not surprised by CNN's extreme disappointment on the exclusion of their idiological friends...? Bummer dudes...
No need for Hamas to
November 26, 2007 - 18:18 ET by motherbeltNo need for Hamas to negotiate. They have made their terms plain: Israel throws itself into the sea and they'll stop attacking.
Any questions?
Violent Groups
November 26, 2007 - 17:25 ET by Lame CherryHistory shows that violent groups never act civilized until they are violently made sedate.
Why would Hamas give up terror when it has gained them so much? They are not like the Russian who actually cared what the west thought in being invited to cocktail parties. Muslim terrorists only want to be adored by fearing masses.
A very good historical example is the groups of savage plains Indians and those genocidal tribes of the northeast. There was not one of them which behaved in these groups of rapists, torturers, cannibals and murderers until armed violent force burnt down their villages and shot enough of their warriors.
Note* see Francis Parkman, Theodore Roosevelt and Col. Richard Irving Dodge for the factual accounts of North American history as it was even more brutal than these modern piker terrorist Muslims.
While I adore Ronald Reagan, his policy is what taught these Hamas Islamocommunists that America does not deal with attacks well. Clinton only proved that to bin Laden when Les Aspin got our boys slaughtered in Somalia and Clinton pulled the boys out.
The Soviets when they had their people kidnapped in Lebanon simply kidnapped the relatives of the head terrorists, cut their testicles off, shoved them in their mouths and then blew their brains out........and then dumped the body at the residence of the terrorist family.
The net result the Soviets had no more terror events aimed at their people and American love thy Muslim policy got us 9 11.
Annapolis will only bring war, not because Hamas is not there, but because America is not making it too expensive for these terrorists and their wards to keep from terror. The liberals would howl at the carnage that needs to be accomplished, but with it the billions flowing in from Europe by the Ashkenaz banking cartel to the PLO to make war on Judeans would have to be confiscated too.
The UN via the United States feeds all these people so it doesn't matter if they work or not. The UN via the United States houses and provides medical care for these people no matter if the are terrorists or not.
Into this the Saudis and now Iran is building and funding their wacko religion with a cause promising power and testicles to any man and woman who buys into the lie America is evil as are the Jews.
Terrorism pays and pays billions. There is no reason to stop it no more than there was a reason for the Sioux to stop terrorism, because it go the Dept. of the Interior BIA to give them modern guns, ammunition, clothes, food and shelter. General Custer was made a scapegoat for that asinine Grant liberal policy.
The same State Department and UN run the international wild Indian terrorists now in rewarding their misdeeds. If terrorism pays then there is not any reason these thugs should give it up as it means going back to listening to a sweaty stinky mullah dictate their existence.
As a first fix in this, I would feed the women and children only if they attended I love America schools every day and if their husbands went to work, even if it meant handing out 100 million brooms and making them sweep dust from dust.
While I would not want to saddle the military with this, it is proven the military knows how to hand out money better than diplomats as they bribe people who actually are helping the US forces.
Someone in the GOP like Fred Thompson needs to address this as this disasterous policy of Carter summits gets nothing but Judeans dead, Americans dead, civilized Muslims dead and hot spot wars as people leverage for power.
This crapper globalist policy would not happen under a John Lehman as Sec. of War........yeah change the name of that department back to what it is supposed to be too.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Diplomacy
November 26, 2007 - 18:55 ET by KC MulvilleThis is a recurring theme. These people simply don’t understand diplomacy. Diplomacy isn’t just talking for the sake of talking. This isn’t open mike night at the neighborhood town hall. This is a specific and strategic negotiation. You invite people to the negotiation because you think they can move the ball forward. If you don’t think they can help, you don’t include them. If the chief purpose of these talks is progress toward a peaceful solution, and it’s our party, we get to choose who we think will advance that goal. If we decide that Hamas isn’t going to help move forward, then we don’t invite them. In fact, the refusal to invite them achieves a purpose all by itself; it tells the people of that region that we don’t believe Hamas is helping peace, and we don’t support them.
Critics can't argue that local elections in the Middle East proves much of anything. Iraq had local elections, and critics love to say they didn't mean anything in Iraq. Shoe's on the other foot, now, isn't it?
Liberals invite the
November 26, 2007 - 22:05 ET by motherbeltLiberals invite the terrorists to "come to the table" like legitimate parties. Then they go into "acknowledging" and appreciating the fact that the terrorists were willing to come and talk. Every hour that they go without killing someone or attacking somewhere is treated with great gratitude and admiration.
And then the terrorists present their "demands" which are treated with the same respect given to those of the terrorized parties.
From there, it's all downhill.
More possible CNN Gathering Complaints
November 26, 2007 - 22:04 ET by ThisnThatCNN has raised a question: Why not Hamas? Heck, why stop with that question? Here are some more that CNN could get agitated about and ask their viewers:
Debate on Fox News: "How can you have a Presidential Debate series that doesn’t include the most popular cable news channel FOX? Forget whether or not you don’t like them as a group, or call them biased. How can you not?"
Iraq Reporting: "How can you have a report on Iraq that doesn’t include the truth about the surge? Forget whether or not you think agree with Reid that the war is lost, or whether you hate the military. How can you not?"
Illegal Aliens: "How can you accept a one-word answer from Hillary about illegal drivers licenses when you know she just wants to drop the topic? Forget whether or not she has threatened you, or if you're just naturally in the tank for her. How can you not?"
We could go on, but you get the point. Stop already with the fake astonishment and the cherry-picking of topics.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber