Is HAMAS rule really all that bad?
I vividly recall a number of articles and stories at the end of last month that seemed to be all about the doom and gloom of a Hamas ruled Palestinian government. The Times was particularly schizophrenic in that it couldn't decide whether to drool over the Bush admin's 'utter failure' or to decry the end of any hope for peace in the middle east (as it seems to do at least a few times every year).
Honestly though I am surprised at the reaction. It is foolish 1) to expect that any other group had a greater chance of succeeding in winning the elections (I mean they used the same tactics as Bush in 2000 elections) and 2) to assert that this is unequivocally a bad thing.
It is true that Hamas has little experience in actual politics. It is an organization full of expert militiamen and terrorists, but not a single statesman. But nothing does better to pacify a group of angry armed men than responsibility at home - kissing babies and such.
What is the best thing we can do as a nation and an international community? Respect them. At least in terms of their legitimacy. They were elected in democratic elections, fair and square, and that must be recognized. That doesn't mean we don't take a hard line with them. We have a right to make demands, but now so do they. The fatah movement may have been preferred, but I am not sure that they would have been better. Hamas represents the discontented and the troubled. The horrific and murderous, yes, but also the downtrodden. Hand them the reigns, and they may actually do something constructive. They've spent years making their practice destruction and hatred. Lets see what they can do with the power to create and build...
Fatah was not Hamas, but they were certainly not perfect either. They were unfailingly corrupt, and Hamas provided a certain transparency that could never be hoped for with Fatah. We may not like what they stand for, but we know exactly what it is.
That is not to say that rule by Hamas won't be a horrific failure. It may be so. Still, look at Lebanon and Hezbollah. Not exactly a great situation, but they aren't nearly as active in terms of violence and destruction as they once were.
I think the U.S. and the E.U. have taken a good stance thusfar, except in one instance and that is their relations with Iran. Just as with Hezbollah, Hamas has clear ties to big money Syria and Iran. Is the singular isolation of Iran, then, a good policy? If we could engage Iran as the large main state actor in the region to perform regional stabilization duties in the Middle East, rather than treating them like the nuke-happy "Big Tan Menace," we might actually be able to move away from the 'inevitable' hardline Israel/Mideast split that would result in a Mideast/West Berlin-Wall-type situation and lock them out of possible integration into the global marketplace.
Honestly though I am surprised at the reaction. It is foolish 1) to expect that any other group had a greater chance of succeeding in winning the elections (I mean they used the same tactics as Bush in 2000 elections) and 2) to assert that this is unequivocally a bad thing.
It is true that Hamas has little experience in actual politics. It is an organization full of expert militiamen and terrorists, but not a single statesman. But nothing does better to pacify a group of angry armed men than responsibility at home - kissing babies and such.
What is the best thing we can do as a nation and an international community? Respect them. At least in terms of their legitimacy. They were elected in democratic elections, fair and square, and that must be recognized. That doesn't mean we don't take a hard line with them. We have a right to make demands, but now so do they. The fatah movement may have been preferred, but I am not sure that they would have been better. Hamas represents the discontented and the troubled. The horrific and murderous, yes, but also the downtrodden. Hand them the reigns, and they may actually do something constructive. They've spent years making their practice destruction and hatred. Lets see what they can do with the power to create and build...
Fatah was not Hamas, but they were certainly not perfect either. They were unfailingly corrupt, and Hamas provided a certain transparency that could never be hoped for with Fatah. We may not like what they stand for, but we know exactly what it is.
That is not to say that rule by Hamas won't be a horrific failure. It may be so. Still, look at Lebanon and Hezbollah. Not exactly a great situation, but they aren't nearly as active in terms of violence and destruction as they once were.
I think the U.S. and the E.U. have taken a good stance thusfar, except in one instance and that is their relations with Iran. Just as with Hezbollah, Hamas has clear ties to big money Syria and Iran. Is the singular isolation of Iran, then, a good policy? If we could engage Iran as the large main state actor in the region to perform regional stabilization duties in the Middle East, rather than treating them like the nuke-happy "Big Tan Menace," we might actually be able to move away from the 'inevitable' hardline Israel/Mideast split that would result in a Mideast/West Berlin-Wall-type situation and lock them out of possible integration into the global marketplace.
posted by Sean @ 3:20 PM
3 Comments:
At 5:55 AM,
Dennis said…
Ok, Sean, while I normally view your posts as a beacon of clarity and we diverge on this one. A few points.
1) As far as your statement that "It is foolish to expect that any other group had a greater chance of succeeding in winning the elections (I mean they used the same tactics as Bush in 2000 elections)." I categorically disagree, and this is factually unaccurate. If a Parliamentary system could be compared to a Presidential one (which is a trying comparison), it would be more of a Ross Perot effect splitting the Republican Party that occured in the Palestinian elections. In many districts, Fatah candidates ran against each other as well as Hamas. Had there only been one Fatah candidate for each district, it is expected that Fatah would have tied Hamas if not beat it in number of Parliamentarians elected.
I also suspect that Hamas intimidation in Gaza was likely a bit stronger than Bush intimidation in 2000. Just a bit.
And granted I thought the Bush Cheney campaign in 2000 was disgraceful, particularly how McCain torched by the campaign. But I don't think its particularly a similar situation.
And, although I didn't like Clinton, I certainly don't think his administration was nearly as corrupt as Fatah, although selling the Lincoln Bedroom didn't help.
2) "nothing does better to pacify a group of angry armed men than responsibility at home - kissing babies and such."
So, giving them power will necessarily give them responsibility? I doubt it. Hamas has been providing social services for years, and at the same time encouraging and engaging in terror. Hamas can kiss Palestinian babies and bomb Israeli ones at the same time. Don't make the mistake of presuming otherwise, as there is scant evidence that that is actually true.
3) "What is the best thing we can do as a nation and an international community? Respect them. At least in terms of their legitimacy. They were elected in democratic elections, fair and square, and that must be recognized."
That they won, we can recognize. However, winning an election does not clean their hands of the blood of thousands of civilians killed in their reign of terror, both Israelis and Palestinian "collaborators." The elections for the Palestinian Authority cannot undermine the basis for the authority itself, which are the accords signed with Israel beginning with Oslo. If Hamas does not recognize those accords, then it does not itself recognize the source of legitimacy of the Palestinian Parliament and its own government.
Without accepting the basic charter of the Palestinian government, the United States should recognize they won the election but not recognize their legitimacy. A Palestinian government is only legitimate if it operates under the basic principles of its founding agreements with Israel.
4) "Lets see what they can do with the power to create and build..."
Their first discussion with Russia centered on the possible purchase of armored vehicles and helicopters. Create and build a more powerful army, so that, after the 15 year "truce" it can drive Israel to the sea? I'm sorry, Sean, this argument is ridiculous without Hamas' prior acceptance of the two state solution and recognition of Israel.
5) "Fatah was not Hamas, but they were certainly not perfect either. They were unfailingly corrupt"
And they also had their own militants, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which may be why Hamas feels it is being discriminated against. Fatah continued attacking Israel, why can't it?
I think on this account we can agree; Fatah was not, and is not, the perfect partner either.
6) "Still, look at Lebanon and Hezbollah. Not exactly a great situation, but they aren't nearly as active in terms of violence and destruction as they once were."
I beg your pardon, Sean. Having spoken to many Lebanese recently at several receptions, I can confirm that Hezbollah is still very much a pressing problem and that they are very much a threat to peace in the region. Iranian aid has actually increased for them, and its expected they are growing stronger militarily. Hezbollah is not a model I'd point to if I were you.
7) " If we could engage Iran as the large main state actor in the region to perform regional stabilization duties in the Middle East, rather than treating them like the nuke-happy 'Big Tan Menace,' we might actually be able to move away from the 'inevitable' hardline Israel/Mideast split that would result in a Mideast/West Berlin-Wall-type situation and lock them out of possible integration into the global marketplace."
Keep dreaming, Sean. Even the IAEA and the French are now openly acknowledging that Iran is going full steam after the bomb, and its clerics have authorized nuclear attacks against Iran's enemies in a recent Fatwa. I'm all for engaging Iran, but after they are stopped from getting the bomb. Now that the IAEA, Europe, and U.S. are all completely on the same page, I don't understand why you would suddenly propose we break our unity by trying to engage with a state that openly in its budget supports terrorist groups and is covertly (but obviously, even to the IAEA!) pursuing nuclear weapons. Sounds like a horrible idea to me.
Of course, you're still my favorite soldier. But I'm glad at the moment you're not our Commander-in-Chief on these issues.
At 9:08 AM,
Sean said…
1) True. I wasn't linking their intimidation tactics to bush, only their manipulation of an electoral system generally speaking. Should've been more specific. (And I don't think that bush was wrong either...)
2) They can certainly still attack Israel. I am trying to be optimistic. If they DO take their responsibility seriously then they won't have time for systematic death and destruction - if they actually want to run a nation state. If they choose not to, and continue their path of terror, then they will innevitably fail as an administration
3) What they are saying now is all rhetoric. Of course they are going to try to build up military strength. And we should do what we can to stop them. I will argue that they will be forced to accept the two state solution. Again, if they don't their administration will fail. If they want to be successful leaders they will choose the right path. We shall see what they actually do.
5) Fatah would have been just as bad if not worse. Hamas is just easier to deal with. They are straightforward terrorists and murderers. Mostly evil. Fatah likes to take multiple sides...
6)Hezbollah is not a model, just an example. They have grown stronger militarily, but their violent activity has decreased. Could they start up again and cause a shitload of damage? Yes. Have they? Not yet.
7)Dont misconstrue my desire to engage Iran as a desire to let them have the bomb. I've said that before but it was entirely in jest. I just want to make Iran FEEL like its important. Idea being that if they do they will stop trying to posture themselves. Its overarching machismo. Give them a solid task that makes it seem to them like they have power and self determination and maybe we can gain more leverage in reducing their nuclear arms program. In the meanwhile, send a few special forces teams over there and start sabbotaging shit. Enough with this IAEA crap. Its all talk and no getting stuff done.
At 2:59 AM,
Wang said…
good article though.
Post a Comment
<< Home