Hamas Wins, Bush gets upset

I wonder if Israel ever regrets its decision to support hamas as a counterbalance to the PLO? Kind of like the u.s. supporting what later turned into osama and the taliban. Seemed like a good idea at the time, giant mistake in the long run. These groups still may have ended where the ended up, but it always makes me wonder what would have been different.

Though I think making hamas the dominant power will moderate it. In the long run this will probably help make peace easier, but in the short term this makes things much worse.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']in the short term this makes things much worse.[/QUOTE]
That's the problem with contemporary politics. no one is concerned with the long run.
 
Did anyone catch Bush's short-notice Q&A today? The first set of questions asked him about this. Basically, he has always trumped the neo-conservative philosophy of spreading peace through Democracy, and is known for also making the claim that "democratic states don't war with each other." This situation with the Palestinian elections has really turned that philosophy on its head, and is a clear contradiction of his philosophy - he wants to support democracy, but in order to be consistent, will be required to deal on equal terms with a group identified as a terrorist organization by the United States. And, of course, "the United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists."

Of course, the line of questioning wasn't so directly pointing out the obvious contradiction to Bush, and he blundered around answering it directly. However, it is an important point to make, and clear evidence of the short-sightedness and false foundation of the neoconservative philosophy.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Did anyone catch Bush's short-notice Q&A today? The first set of questions asked him about this. Basically, he has always trumped the neo-conservative philosophy of spreading peace through Democracy, and is known for also making the claim that "democratic states don't war with each other." This situation with the Palestinian elections has really turned that philosophy on its head, and is a clear contradiction of his philosophy - he wants to support democracy, but in order to be consistent, will be required to deal on equal terms with a group identified as a terrorist organization by the United States. And, of course, "the United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists."

Of course, the line of questioning wasn't so directly pointing out the obvious contradiction to Bush, and he blundered around answering it directly. However, it is an important point to make, and clear evidence of the short-sightedness and false foundation of the neoconservative philosophy.[/QUOTE]

The statement about democratic states was meant to illustrate a tendancy, democracies tend not to go to war with each other. You are interpreting it as an absolute. The 'thing' that turns his philosophy on it's head is a ruling majority that believes in the complete destruction of another neighboring democracy. So, the contradiction is in the states that already want to kill one another, not in bushes ideas about democracy. Nice try, though.
 
That's an interesting point, and yes, I hope I didn't misleadingly imply that democracy has been causal in creating conflict, as that would deny pretty much the entirety of Israel's existence.

On the other hand, there remains a conflict in which Bush must choose between his reverence for democratic states, and his disdain and unwillingness to work with terrorist organizations.

Of course, if you consider an example of an insurgency in the United States (the civil rights movement), which had an organization arise out of it (the NAACP was left after SNCC and um...those other groups I can't think of disappeared) which were given political legitimacy and a "seat at the table" to use the parlance. Now, in its history since the CRA was passed, the NAACP has had access to legitimate means of influencing policy and procedure in the United States. This reduces the need for movement actions (protests, riots, sit-ins, whathaveyou) because legitimate opportunities for creating change are available.

Perhaps it's an apple-orange comparison (since Israel is a separate governing entity, getting a "seat at the table" is nigh-impossible; Hamas wants to eradicate Israel, which is a far more radical position than any civil rights group; the concession of the willingness to support violent means, etc). However, I'd argue that developing political legitimacy has an effect of weakening the need to pursue illegal/violent actions, since it is less necessary (if you consider social movements in various forms to be, succinctly, "politics by alternative means," then becoming part of the political mainstream reduces the need for said alternative means.
 
I like some of the points made in this article:

No democrat can deny this was a fair contest. It was, moreover, the first time a ruling Arab party has been removed from power by peaceful electoral means. That is not a small thing. While pondering its meaning, we should also remember that a clear majority of Palestinians want peace with Israel, and that they are the same people who voted in Hamas, an organisation pledged to its destruction. Israelis should recognise the syndrome: most of them want to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians yet they regularly vote for leaders who make this impossible.

Nor is there any mystery why Fatah, the national liberation movement that flew the flag of Palestinian statehood for four decades, was repudiated with such disgust. Too many of its leaders had become bywords for corruption and incompetence, scrabbling for spoils amid the despair of their people.

Hamas, by contrast, is widely seen as honest and dedicated, with the courage of its rejectionist convictions. But would the Islamists have won if there were now a Palestinian state stretching across the West Bank with Arab east Jerusalem as its capital, rather than an Israeli occupation with expanding settlements and 400 checkpoints in an area the size of Delaware? No. Hamas has exceeded by far its natural constituency because of this deadly impasse.

That said, Palestinians are looking to the new government for jobs and schools, healthcare and rubbish collection, and for security instead of the lawless factionalism indulged by Fatah. Hamas until now has enjoyed the luxury of opposition and the aura of martyrdom; now it has to govern.

It is likely to try to do so in partnership with independent figures of stature. Fatah will probably be too busy imploding to join them, but Mahmoud Abbas should remain as president. He won his mandate separately a year ago and retains considerable power in a presidentialist system. While Hamas will recoil from formal dealings with Israel, it appears willing to leave diplomacy to President Abbas.

In the short term, the US, European Union and Arab League countries should open contact with Hamas only if it extends its truce with Israel and pledges to end all attacks on civilians. An Israel that would not treat with Mr Abbas is, on the face of it, unlikely to do so with Hamas. But it should recognise that the increasingly pragmatic Islamists can deliver a stability Fatah never could - but not if Israel continues with its project to fix unilaterally new borders for an enlarged Israeli state at Palestinian expense.
Click to expand...

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ab35c682-8ed9-11da-b752-0000779e2340.html
 
I was in an international politics class, and a professor of mine was talking about how all terrorist organizations have no legitimacy. I made mention of the Hamas parties throughout middle eastern states. He dismissed them as fringe parties, or in states that have no legitimacy to begin with. I wish I could remember which professor it was so that I could make him eat his words.
 
Hamas had ingrained themselves greatly in Palestinian life over the past decade or so. I remember reading how they built schools, hospitals, etc., and provided supplies for them as well such as textbooks and medical supplies. Palestinians don't see them so much as "terrorists" or even "freedom fighters", but already as their local government that took care of them for so long when the PLO didn't. So it didn't surprise me one bit that those that they've helped for so long voted them into power. They see more hope for their people with Hamas than anyone else.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']On the other hand, there remains a conflict in which Bush must choose between his reverence for democratic states, and his disdain and unwillingness to work with terrorist organizations.[/quote]

That's now an inescapable eventuality that he will have to make a decision on diplomacy in this situation. Since Hamas now has a responsibility to their people as a nation's representative and can now deal from a position of power, hopefully this new situation will have a moderating effect on them as you illustrated in your point about the NAACP.

The only other alternative would be to declare war and attack Israel which would only end up killing a lot of palestinians and cut off their aid from western and european nations. [/QUOTE]
 
Gunmen storm Palestinian parliament

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Firing into the air, Fatah gunmen and police stormed Palestinian parliament buildings on Saturday in growing unrest after their long-dominant party's crushing election defeat by Hamas Islamists.

Thousands of gunmen from President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah held protests across the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, many firing automatic rifles into the air.

They took over parliament in the West Bank city of Ramallah for about 20 minutes, shouting demands from the roof before descending peacefully. Fatah militants and police also seized the parliament building in the Gaza Strip.

Gunmen demanded that Fatah leaders resign. They also aimed to dissuade the party from any idea of sharing power with Hamas or letting it control security forces -- after Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshaal said it planned to form "an army".
Click to expand...
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-01-28T175749Z_01_L20602990_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml

Wow, Palestine is a lovely state territory. I'm having my doubts that Palestine won't self-destruct and implode.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Gunmen storm Palestinian parliament


http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-01-28T175749Z_01_L20602990_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml

Wow, Palestine is a lovely state territory. I'm having my doubts that Palestine won't self-destruct and implode.[/QUOTE]

Most of this chaos is staged, it's for show. Sure there are many genuine fights between police and hamas (usually when the police try to control hamas), but a lot of it is just a show of strength, not a real attack like it appears to be. For example, the kidnapping that occasionally occur in palestine are done to humiliate the government and they are quickly released, not like in Iraq where they normally harm or kill hostages.

Palestine, at least while occupied, isn't a place where a civil was is likely. The only way you'd really get one is if one group (likely fatah/government forces against hamas' militant wing) decided to attack the other and that group was fighting for its life. Keeping palestinians united in opposition against israel is more important.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Value judgements have nothing to do with a statement suggesting a state may implode:[/QUOTE]
Are you saying that these demonstrations of "power" and militance are conducive to keeping a state together? I don't think they are.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Are you saying that these demonstrations of "power" and militance are conducive to keeping a state together? I don't think they are.[/QUOTE]

Just because something doesn't strengthen a nation doesn't mean it aids its destruction, at least in any significant way.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Just because something doesn't strengthen a nation doesn't mean it aids its destruction, at least in any significant way.[/QUOTE]
You didn't answer the question. Anyways, my last post said nothing about "strengthening" a state. I said keeping a state together.
 
When factions in a population subsist on a philosophy of might makes right and respect for law is of no consequence, I don't think it's favorable for a nascent nation. There is yet no state to implode.
 
There is yet no state to implode.
Click to expand...

In a case like this that's a technicality.

You didn't answer the question. Anyways, my last post said nothing about "strengthening" a state. I said keeping a state together.
Click to expand...

I said it doesn't mean it aids in its destruction. Problems usually arise in young democracies when the sitting government is defeated, look at the fight they had in the south korean parliament not long ago. Personally it seems to be business as usual in palestinian politics, newsworthy but not that bizarre.
 
distinguishedbinladenthe7oy.jpg

:) Enjoy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top