Hamas' stunning victory in Palestine

[Pangloss]

(I know that's not correct to call it "Palestine", but I got halfway through typing that title in and realized that I lacked an appropriate noun, and then I realized it was actually kinda interesting to leave it in error like that, if you see what I mean.)

 

I was just curious what the reaction here might be. Two things about this strike me as being of particular interest at the moment:

 

1) The level of vehemence amongst the supporters of Fatah is amazing to me. Demonstrating in the streets and angrily denouncing leaders and threatening violence is something I normal associated with Hamas supporters, not Fatah.

 

What's interesting about that to me is that while most of their angst at the moment is clearly directed at their own party, it's also clear that they're not about to jump on the Hamas bandwagon, and in fact today a cadre of policemen very publically announced that they would not work under Hamas.

 

The point being that now that Hamas, the quintessential Middle Eastern opposition party, has to keep the lights on and the garbage picked up, one can't help but wonder how they will react to having such a virulent and demanding opposition party to contend with. What an interesting turnabout!

 

2) The Bush administration was the first to send aid to the Palestinian Authority (about half a billion dollars). The Bush administration has stated flatly that the funding will NOT continue unless Hamas renounces its terrorist ways and recognizes Israel's right to exist.

 

That will get played up as more war-mongering by the Bush administration, especially in the blogosphere, but it's worth noting that most of congressional Democrats support that position. Senator Barak Obama of Illinois was outspoken in his support of the president's position on this during a morning interview today.

[Pangloss]

A couple of other points of interest:

 

3) In order to actually reach parliament, the newly elected Hamas members will have to actually pass through Israel. There is some speculation over whether Israel will allow them to do so. Either way, it raises the pressure on Hamas to deal with the Israelis.

 

4) One of the newly elected Hamas members is a woman who is famous amongst Palestinians for giving up three sons to the "cause" -- they became suicide bombers. She's in the actual tapes that her sons recorded before going out and blowing people up. Is she retracting her position now? No way -- she has three MORE sons that she's ready to give up to the cause. No, really.

[Severian]

It certainly puts the US in a difficult position. Since Hamas are now a democratically elected government, they cannot, by definition, be terrorists anymore. Any Hamas attack on Israel becomes an attack of one state on another.

 

And the US demand for a democratically elected governement to give up violence just after the US has invaded two reasonably close neighbours of Palestine seems a little rich.

[gcol]

The Bush administration's reaction brings on that old Pavlovian response..hypocracy. Or "My democracy good, yours bad, choose mine or I will thump you".

[ecoli]

I think Bush's response was actually appopriate, and not in the least hypocritical. In both cases, (Iraq and Hamas) Bush is targeting terrorists... you guys can spout any semantic games you want - it doesn't change the facts. Until Hamas publicly annouces and demonstrates that they bode to threat to the well-being of Israel, they aren't and shouldn't get a cent from any foreign government (US, Israel or otherwise). Hell, Hamas is even under pressure from other Muslim countries to recognize Israel's right to exist.

 

Hamas was elected into power, and that's fine. But, so were the Nazi's... and don't here anyone saying that we should've let them alone (post-WWII, that is).

 

Bush's war in Iraq was targeted towards terrorists... yes, civilians were killed, but there's a big difference between Bush's war and Hamas's, who were targeting civilians to cause terror.

[gcol]

ecoli:

 

I just knew you would say that. Same old Pavlov. Different training, different response!

 

Fill in the blanks: "Shock and awe" was designed to strike t----r into the Iraqi people, indescriminately. Shame about the civillians.

[Sisyphus]

Please don't bring Iraq into this. It's a different situation and the easiest way to get wildly off-topic. You've both said unfair and needlessly provocative things. Now drop it.

 

Anyway, it of course makes sense that we wouldn't give aid to a government that openly promotes terrorism, democracy or no. It will be interesting to see what happens. Either everything goes to hell, since you have crazy terrorists running the government, or the crazy terrorists are forced to become more moderate and reasonable since they actually have to govern. If the former happens and Hamas continues to openly support violence against Israelis, we could have a more conventional war (civil war?). If the latter happens, it still won't stop terrorism, because it will just destroy Hamas' credibility among those who are bent on blowing themselves up. To those people, a denunciation of terrorism is just a sign the denouncer shouldn't be listened to.

[gcol]

sysiphus:

 

Your second paragraph I completely agree with. very reasonable.

[Jim]

It certainly puts the US in a difficult position. Since Hamas are now a democratically elected government' date=' they cannot, by definition, be terrorists anymore. Any Hamas attack on Israel becomes an attack of one state on another.

[/quote']

Excellent point. Hopefully Hamas will realize this paradigm shift has occurred.

And the US demand for a democratically elected governement to give up violence just after the US has invaded two reasonably close neighbours of Palestine seems a little rich.

 

I don't follow. You are equating recent US military action with attacks on Israeli civilians?

[Jim]

The Bush administration's reaction brings on that old Pavlovian response..hypocracy[/i']. Or "My democracy good, yours bad, choose mine or I will thump you".

 

Democracies can engage in wrongful actions just like any government, although IMO they are less likely in the long term to do so.

 

The United States has every right to refuse to deal with a country that refuses to recognize the right of an ally to exist.

 

Why is this hypocritical?

[Jim]

I think Bush's response was actually appopriate' date=' and not in the least hypocritical. In both cases, (Iraq and Hamas) Bush is targeting terrorists... you guys can spout any semantic games you want - it doesn't change the facts. Until Hamas publicly annouces and demonstrates that they bode to threat to the well-being of Israel, they aren't and shouldn't get a cent from any foreign government (US, Israel or otherwise). Hell, Hamas is even under pressure from other Muslim countries to recognize Israel's right to exist.

 

Hamas was elected into power, and that's fine. But, so were the Nazi's... and don't here anyone saying that we should've let them alone (post-WWII, that is).

 

Bush's war in Iraq was targeted towards terrorists... yes, civilians were killed, but there's a big difference between Bush's war and Hamas's, who were targeting civilians to cause terror.[/quote']

 

Yes, what Ecoli said.

[Severian]

I don't follow. You are equating recent US military action with attacks on Israeli civilians?

 

Plenty of democratic governments have deliberately targeted civilians of another country in military attacks (the US included). Granted the attacks on Iraq were aimed at military or political targets, but they also killed a lot of civilians.

 

I don't think you can legitimately class an elected government's actions as terrorism though, no matter how evil they may be. I think the US has to get out of this mindset of calling everyone they disagree with a terrorist.

[Jim]

Plenty of democratic governments have deliberately targeted civilians of another country in military attacks (the US included). Granted the attacks on Iraq were aimed at military or political targets' date=' but they also killed a lot of civilians.

 

I don't think you can legitimately class an elected government's actions as terrorism though, no matter how evil they may be. I think the US has to get out of this mindset of calling everyone they disagree with a terrorist.[/quote']

 

True. A good example would be the bombing of Dresden. Sherman's march to the sea targeted civilian property. (Interesting question: What if R.E. Lee had adopted the same strategy in his 1863 invasion of the North?) I would not say the war in Iraq, "shock and awe" notwithstanding, is analogous to either of these events.

 

I completely agree that Hamas is now in a different category.

[Pangloss]

It's interesting that I explained in the first post how this position by the US is a bipartisan one, and yet two posters immediately jumped on the ABB bandwagon. I believe I even predicted that in my first post. What a shocker, eh?

[Severian]

What's the 'ABB bandwagon' and who jumped on it?

[Pangloss]

ABB = Anybody But Bush. From my first post:

 

That will get played up as more war-mongering by the Bush administration, especially in the blogosphere, but it's worth noting that most of congressional Democrats support that position. Senator Barak Obama of Illinois was outspoken in his support of the president's position on this during a morning interview today.

[Sisyphus]

What's the 'ABB bandwagon' and who jumped on it?

 

I assume it's something along the lines of "always bash Bush," a strategy which, while often fun and satisfying, is rarely helpful in the long run. I mean, he can't possibly do everything wrong, can he?

[Pangloss]

I don't think you can legitimately class an elected government's actions as terrorism though' date=' no matter how evil they may be. I think the US has to get out of this mindset of calling everyone they disagree with a terrorist.[/quote']

 

Of course it can. It's called "state-sponsored terrorism", and it has been the grounds for numerous international sanctions in the past, so I can't think of any reason why anyone wouldn't think to bring it up again.

 

If you're that determined to find a way to pin something on Bush, you'll find it. Nothing I can do to stop that except continue to point out that Bush is hardly operating in vacuum here. He's pursing an internationally-agreed-upon course of action that enjoys bipartisan support here in the US.

[Pangloss]

Anyway' date=' it of course makes sense that we wouldn't give aid to a government that openly promotes terrorism, democracy or no. It will be interesting to see what happens. Either everything goes to hell, since you have crazy terrorists running the government, or the crazy terrorists are forced to become more moderate and reasonable since they actually have to govern. If the former happens and Hamas continues to openly support violence against Israelis, we could have a more conventional war (civil war?). If the latter happens, it still won't stop terrorism, because it will just destroy Hamas' credibility among those who are bent on blowing themselves up. To those people, a denunciation of terrorism is just a sign the denouncer shouldn't be listened to.[/quote']

 

Exactly. Interestingly put.

[john5746]

The Bush administration's reaction brings on that old Pavlovian response..hypocracy[/i']. Or "My democracy good, yours bad, choose mine or I will thump you".

 

Liberal Democracy

 

Bush had a little egg on his face, since he has been spouting democracy as if that alone will fix everything. Even if it is hypocritical, we are deciding not to give them money and everyone else seems to be happy to ablige.

 

It actually will probably make things for the US a little easier. It is very easy to support one side, when the other side is openly saying they want the destruction of that side. Israel is very capable of handling it themselves, especially if it is seen as self-defense.

[Severian]

Of course it can. It's called "state-sponsored terrorism"' date=' and it has been the grounds for numerous international sanctions in the past, so I can't think of any reason why anyone wouldn't think to bring it up again.

[/quote']

 

There is a difference between the government of a country supporting a terrorist organisation, and actually carrying out the acts themselves. Otherwise that bombing of Pakistan recently becomes terrorism.

 

If you're that determined to find a way to pin something on Bush, you'll find it. Nothing I can do to stop that except continue to point out that Bush is hardly operating in vacuum here. He's pursing an internationally-agreed-upon course of action that enjoys bipartisan support here in the US.

 

I never mentioned Bush. That seems to be your fetish.

[Pangloss]

I never mentioned Bush. That seems to be your fetish.

 

Oh! Well let's see...

 

And the US demand for a democratically elected governement to give up violence just after the US has invaded two reasonably close neighbours of Palestine seems a little rich.

 

Gosh, I sure stand corrected there. Clearly you were referring to the government of the state of Idaho, which of course declared war on Iraq and invaded last year, overthrowing its government and ousting its brutal dictator, much to the chagrin of the popular "Potatos for All" opposition party.

 

My bad. You're quite right in pointing out that your original quote couldn't possibly be misconstrued as a criticism of the Bush administration! What was I thinking?

 

Pardon my while I depart lock-step to the tune of the "Idaho Republican Party March". ;-)

[Severian]

My bad. You're quite right in pointing out that your original quote couldn't possibly be misconstrued as a criticism of the Bush administration! What was I thinking?

 

You yourself pointed out that the US position was bipartisan. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

In fact you said:

 

It's interesting that I explained in the first post how this position by the US is a bipartisan one' date=' and yet two posters immediately jumped on the ABB bandwagon.

[/quote']

 

which appears to be a criticism that I blamed Bush rather than the US in general. In fact, I did not. You were the only one jumping on bandwagons....

[ecoli]

Liberal Democracy

 

Bush had a little egg on his face' date=' since he has been spouting democracy as if that alone will fix everything. Even if it is hypocritical, we are deciding not to [b']give[/b] them money and everyone else seems to be happy to ablige.

 

It actually will probably make things for the US a little easier. It is very easy to support one side, when the other side is openly saying they want the destruction of that side. Israel is very capable of handling it themselves, especially if it is seen as self-defense.

 

It can certainly handle itself... but what will the costs be if it doesn't have UN support, as has been seen in recent years. Israel can't survive without foreign financial backing. The world's public opinion matters more in this particular conflict then any other seen before on the Earth.

[Pangloss]

You were the only one jumping on bandwagons....

 

Can't agree with you there either.

 

The Bush administration's reaction brings on that old Pavlovian response..hypocracy. Or "My democracy good' date=' yours bad, choose mine or I will thump you".[/quote']