Hamas and Bush: Fruit Loops
The sweeping victory scored by the fundamentalist Hamas in this week’s Palestinian elections is about to put the entire regional U.S. strategy to a perilous test.
The elections pushed relentlessly by the Bush administration have produced the least favorable results – for all parties involved. We saw the tight little corner that the President has placed himself in during Thursday’s White House press conference. As Juan Cole points out in a pungent piece of analysis for Salon: In a mystifying self-contradiction, Bush trumpeted that "the Palestinians had an election yesterday, the results of which remind me about the power of democracy." If elections were really the same as democracy, and if Bush was so happy about the process, then we might expect him to pledge to work with the results, which by his lights would be intrinsically good. But then he suddenly swerved away from this line of thought, reverting to boilerplate and saying, "On the other hand, I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And I know you can't be a partner in peace if you have a -- if your party has got an armed wing".
Did you get that? If so, send your answer in to us and make sure to include two Fruit Loops cereal box tops. The Bush administration must accept a sizeable quota of the responsibility for the poltical disaster in Palestine. Our policy fostered the isolation and erosion of the incumbent Fatah group and directly paved the way for Hamas’ landslide victory. Someone in the Bush administration, hopefully sooner rather than later, should figure out that elections don’t equal democracy. We have helped place the Palestinians in an untenable pressure cooker; then we turned up the gas. And now we’re surprised that the lid has been blown off? More from Juan Cole:
Bush allowed then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to sideline the ruling Fatah Party of Yasser Arafat, to fire missiles at its police stations, and to reduce its leader to a besieged nonentity. Sharon arrogantly ordered the murder of civilian Hamas leaders in Gaza, making them martyrs. Meanwhile, Israeli settlements continued to grow, the fatally flawed Oslo agreements delivered nothing to the Palestinians, and Bush and Sharon ignored new peace plans -- whether the so-called Geneva accord put forward by Palestinian and Israeli moderates or the Saudi peace plan -- that could have resolved the underlying issues. The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which should have been a big step forward for peace, was marred by the refusal of the Israelis to cooperate with the Palestinians in ensuring that it did not produce a power vacuum and further insecurity.
Frustrated, the Palestinian public predictably swung to the far right. Their embrace of Hamas does not indicate that most Palestinians are dedicated to destroying Israel; polls show that most support a two-state solution and are weary of the endless violence. Rather, they are sick of the Palestinian Authority and believe that Hamas will be more effective negotiating partners with the Israelis. As a Saudi political talk show host told the Associated Press, "They [Hamas] will be the Arab Sharon. They will be tough, but only a tough group can snatch concessions from Israel."
There will be no concessions from the Israelis, of course, unless there is an administration in Washington that is willing to remove its ideological blinders and put some real pressure on them. Defusing Hamas – of possible—will also require what Reagan used to call “constructive engagement” but of which his political heirs remain blissfully and recklessly ignorant. I can’t think of a worse moment to have the Bushies in charge.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:26 am
Good, thoughtful post, Marc. It’s hard to say what all this will entail in the months and years to come. One possible positive interpretation I’ve read about is that Hamas is now forced under the spotlight. In other words, they can no longer function solely in the shadows, and will be pressured to formally accept (or not) the roadmap (or what remains of it). While the Palestinian Authority could claim that militant factions like Hamas were thwarting progress, now Hamas itself must take responsibility for security–presumably, if they can’t do so, it would be their own fault.
Your thoughts on this admittedly optimistic scenario?
January 27th, 2006 at 1:10 am
No coherent thoughts except to say that I am completely pessimistic about this particular mess. It’s worth noting at this juncture that early on Hamas was actually given significant funding by the Israelis - Likudniks saw it as a “counter-balance” to Fatah and also a convenient foil for their long-standing strategy of not negotiating with the Palestinians over statehood. It was almost as if they need to help “invent” Hamas in order to rationalize their own intransigence. The settlements were another brilliant move in creating the worst possible case out of an already incredibly thorny situation. And, of course, Arafat ran one of the most corrupt kleptocracies on the face of the earth in the guise of a “liberation” movement. Lots of chickens coming home to roost. Not much else on the horizon. And, of course, on our behalf we’ve got the most incompetent administration in recent history. Listening to Bush falter through his comments on this, trying to rationalize it in context of his absurdist Middle East “strategy” was one of the most dispiritng moments I’ve had recently - and I’ve had quite a few. This man is preposterous. Maybe Condi can lead him by the hand through the ever-widening minefield, but I doubt it.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:42 am
Marc, Juan Cole recently cited and *praised* the ravings of right wing anti-Israel ideologue Justin Raimondo, who believes 9/11 was a plot by the Mossad. By the same logic that rejects Pacifica’s new chairman for similar conspiracy mongering, surely we’re honor bound to chuck Cole’s credibility by the wayside, right?
http://volokh.com/posts/1137959284.shtml
I was especially dismayed and appalled to notice that Cole–a man with serious scholarly credentials, and former head of the Middle East Studies Association–recently favorably cited the absurd meanderings of Justin Raimondo, whose views on Israel’s purported role in 9/11 (and much else) are simply beyond the pale of anything remotely resembling reason (a quick Google search will uncover much more colorful descriptions of Raimondo’s views by quite respectable individuals and organizations such as the ADL). The particular Raimondo post Cole links to states, among other things: “‘If we observe how we were lied into war with Iraq, and by whom,’ I wrote in May, ‘the whole affair looks more like an Israeli covert operation by the day. The AIPAC spy scandal is confirming this in spades – and much else, too.”
Here’s Cole’s take on Raimondo:
“I wish the argument were more nuanced, and there are many things in it with which I disagree (David Satterfield is likely to have been a relatively innocent bystander in this train wreck, e.g.). But because Raimundo pulls no punches, he forces us to consider the degree to which Congressional foreign policy on the Middle East in particular has become virtually captive to the Zionist lobby (just as US policy toward Cuba is captive to the Cuban-American community and its lobby). He clearly goes too far, but how far should an analyst of this case go?”
… Citing Raimondo as an expert on Israel and espionage, with a caveat that he merely goes too far, and that of course there is no “sinister cabal” is analogous to referring readers to the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and then adding that it “should be more nuanced” and “goes too far” and of course the Jews don’t control world finance and politics, but just engage in typical special interest politics.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:54 am
Wise to defer to Prof. Cole on these matters…
I think I stand with the majority with my inability to express jackshit at this U.S. faux pas(licy)-guided nutso year in the middle East. Just when I thought the downfall of “this America” couldn’t be any more pronounced…. EVEN Palestinian leaders for some reason believed that U.S. would ensure victory for the FAT(ah) party.
Now, to hear G-dub chuckle as he does; emphasizing his utter disconnect…
democracy in the middle east = hamas landslide =
>>>>>
I’m thinking that Putin, Berlusconi, even Haider are getting more props than ol’ Jorge at this point throughout Europe.
Some people have issues with Google for taking on China. I’d be following China’s lead and investing in oil, not problems.
Or, rather, what Prof. Marc Lynch sez.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:28 am
WJA: I agree with you on this one. Cole is way off in defending the likes of Raimundo.
Simon: I agree with you as well. Because Bush screwed up is no reason to close our eyes to the reality of Hamas. If it wants to be taken seriously by the US — whatever the slim odds– it will also have to govern the PA with seriousness. That also seems like pretty slim odds.
This must be what they mean by reaping a whirlwind.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:38 am
Do I understand correctly that everyone who has posted so far blames Israel and the US for the Palestinian electorate voting for Hamas, a party devoted to the destruction of Israel, whose charter approvingly quotes from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Do I also understand correctly that everyone who has posted so far blames Bush for encouraging a free and democratic election in Palestine, because they don’t like the outcome?
Well, never mind. The important thing is to be Progressive and support gay rights and women’s rights and freedom of speech and freedom of religion, so by all means, go to Birmingham and then Tel Aviv and than Ramallah, in that order. Stand on a corner in each city and loudly demand gay marriage and abortion rights and the right to freely choose a religion and public funding for artworks like Piss Jesus and Piss Buddha and Piss Confucious and Piss Mohammed and Piss Allah, and see in what city you get your throat slit.
That George Bush and Ariel Sharon are really evil guys, yes indeed. Poor Palestinians, poor Hamas!
I’m glad I’m not a Progressive. I couldn’t handle the double-think.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:48 am
Sam, actually, you don’t understand. And if you don’t already, it’s a little too late to explain.
I will only say:
Of course the Palestinians bear ulitmate responsibility for whom they elect. The suicide bombers and terrorists are wholly responsible for their barbaric acts.
And the intransigence of Israeli policy and the short-sightedness of U.S. policy have only made things worse. If we — or you– would desire a more tolerant and liberal Palestine then I guess a course of action that isolated and destroyed the more moderate and secular leadership of Fatah was wrong-headed.
Now, on the other hand, if you think the Pals are unilaterally responsible for all this amiss and that Israel and the U.S. are blameless, then I suppose your policy recommendation would be to continue with the status quo. Sounds like a loser to me.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:57 am
No, stott, you apparently don’t understand correctly. Not an iota of what you said was found in my post. Maybe getting your head out of your arse before making such a claim would prevent future misunderstandings. In other words: learn how to read AND comprehend, then try again.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:06 am
Marc,
There is much I don’t understand, admittedly, but I will keep trying to understand, even if it might be too late for me.
One thing I don’t understand is how Progressives can ever argue against democratic elections.
I interpret the election of Hamas to mean that the majority of Palestinians want a theocracy and the destruction of Israel.
I don’t see how any historical injustice perpetrated by Israel or the US or the British or any other party can mitigate the plain meaning of this election.
The Palestinians were free to form and vote for whatever parties they wanted. They will be free to do so again, unless Hamas kills the democratic baby in the crib.
If Palestinians consider themselves in a state of war then they should aim at Israeli soldiers — of whom there is no shortage — and quit targeting
civilians.
If they want peace then they should say so, by entering into negotiations for a two state solution. This assumes that they are willing to grant Israel the right to exist.
Rather than damning Israel and the US for electing Hamas, why not call upon the Palestinians to recognize the right of Israel to exist?
They don’t, you know. This election just proved it.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:00 am
Marc, I think there should be a bit more intellectual consequence in condemning Cole’s praise of Raimondo– if Cole considers that dude a credible resource on Israeli activity, doesn’t that entirely undermine anything *he* says about the Israel/Palestinian situation, as well? That’s like giving credence to a biologist who’s an admirer of a leading intelligent design theorist.
In that regard, there’s a actually a very strong argument that Hamas winning is a better outcome than them coming in 2nd to Fatah. If they came in 2nd, the reasoning goes, they’d get to retain their status as pure supporter of the people. The Palestinian Authority committed to a roadmap that Hamas must either accept (which would mean disarming) or they must hold steadfast, and walk away from negotiation entirely. Meanwhile, they actually have to put their platform into practice– and the Palestinians are about to learn that chanting “Death to Israel” 24/7 doesn’t create jobs or fix the goddamn sewers. And once that’s learned, Islamist terrorism is dead in every regard, with no military prizes to claim, no legitimacy in a democratic system, and no popular support for their bloodshed. Seems to me that’s the least worst alternative here.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:30 am
With folks like Samuel Stott it always comes back to one thing: always bash the “progressives”. He’s even able somehow to bring elections in Palestine back to the subjects of gay marriage and Piss Christ. Mr. Stott doesn’t seem to realize that “progressives” are not in charge of anything at the moment.
Good red-blooded, right-wing conservatives are running the show now, and what a show it has become. The Neo-Cons preach that democracy is the cure for every ill, so the Palestinians elect Hamas. The Iraqis elect a pro-Iranian Shi’ite government. Would Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria or Syria do anything differently? No.
It should be back to the drawing board for the “freedom is on the march” crowd. As Algeria showed way back in 1991, when free elections occur in the Muslim world Islamic fundamentalists win.
Free elections are undoubtedly the best form of government, but if you preach democracy you then have to accept the results. Often in the Middle East those results will not be acceptable. I don’t know what the solution is, but this ain’t workin’ that well.
January 27th, 2006 at 7:54 am
Deferring here to Dennis Perrin.
http://redstateson.blogspot.com/2006/01/damn-you-democracy.html
How many blue- or purple-fingered Hamas voters have you seen online today? Given our deep deep love of democracy, you’d think that bloggers far and wide would be posting numerous pix of happy Hamas supporters showing that they, too, are down with this voting thing. Yet, for some strange reason, I can’t find any, save for a single photo on the NY Times site (but then, what can you expect from that America-hating rag?). Doesn’t Hamas’ electoral victory further prove that President Bush’s freedom crusade in the Middle East is right on track?
As I’ve said before, for upstanding Americans, there is the Right Kind of Freedom, and there’s the Wrong Kind of Freedom. Hugo Chavez winning in Venezuela was Wrong. Evo Morales winning in Bolivia — Wrong. And Hamas winning the majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament? Wrong, so very very Wrong.
Not that the US didn’t try to steer Palestinian voters to vote Right. After all, we sunk some $2 million into the Palestinian Authority’s coffers, another sign that Americans favor freedom (though only we are allowed to financially influence elections in other countries). But damn it, those Palestinians clearly didn’t appreciate our altruism. Instead, they’ve handed the keys to a radical Islamic party. What does that say about their values?
Normally, I avoid most rightwing and related warblogs, simply because once you’ve read them, you’ve read them, and there’s only so much monotonous kettle drumming I can take. But in the wake of Hamas’ strong showing, I had to see what the Freedom Lovers were saying, and to a patriot they are pissed when not resigned to what some believe was an inevitable outcome. After all, the Palestinians are pretty much a terrorist race, and their electoral preference simply reinforces the fact. Roger “Hold On To Your Hat!” Simon opined, “I am glad Hamas won. Elections should reflect the will of the people and this one reflects the will of the Palestinians. Now we know.” Ed Morrissey bluntly mused, “[T]he Palestinians should be judged by the choices they have made this week. They have chosen war and the annihilation of Israel over the two-state solution favored publicly (if not fervently) by Fatah . . .Clearly, the Palestinians want war, and they have made no secret of using their children and grandchildren as bomb fuses in order to perpetuate it.” Cap’n Ed ended his post by fantasizing about Israeli-led ethnic cleansing, so his optimism for the region’s future hasn’t completely eroded.
When the Israelis voted in veterans of terrorist militias like Yitzhak Shamir, Menachem Begin, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon, men not only committed to war and territorial expansion, but also opposed to recognizing Palestinians as human beings, much less as equal negotiating partners, I don’t remember many people writing that this proved that Israelis as a whole were devoted to state terrorism, or that Jews as a race reveled in war and endless bloodshed. And what about we fine Americans? Aren’t we responsible, as a people, for re-electing Bush and thus endorsing his war and torture doctrine? There are plenty of people worldwide who believe this and think, should we get hit again by a terrorist attack, that we have it coming. But try saying that in the American media and see where it gets you. Yet when it comes to the Palestinians, few flinch when comparable arguments are made.
Amid these and other outbursts today, some rather relevant history is being studiously avoided. Much is being said about Hamas’ past, but no one I’ve read is reminding us that Israel helped Hamas take its first serious steps as a political alternative to the PLO. Faced with a moderating Fatah that was calling for mutual recognition and mutual security guarantees, Israel, while continually rejecting these offers, began pushing and funding Hamas, which grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, in an effort to weigh down the PLO’s secular nationalism and hopefully drain some of its support in the territories (as a US government official put it to UPI’s Richard Sale in this 2002 piece, “The thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the others, if they gained control, would refuse to have any part of the peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place . . . Israel would still be the only democracy in the region for the United States to deal with”). This, combined with corruption in Fatah and its relocation to Beirut, worked incredibly well, as we now see. Factor in Hamas providing social services in some of the poorest areas of the territories, as well as being seen by many powerless and brutalized Palestinians as standing up to Israel, and what happened yesterday is really no surprise. ….
January 27th, 2006 at 8:25 am
“I interpret the election of Hamas to mean that the majority of Palestinians want a theocracy and the destruction of Israel.”
And I interpret it as being sick of the corruption of Fatah and the status quo. Hamas at least provided social services so I can understand why they may be viewed the lesser of two evils.
January 27th, 2006 at 8:38 am
I don’t understand all this hand-wringing over Hamas’ election victory. Haven’t terrorists been in charge of Israel since its inception? Don’t we bend over backwards to kiss their fannies? Aren’t George Bush and his coterie of neo-con flacks terrorists as well?
If Boy George didn’t want Hamas to win, he should have sent the Ohio and Florida secretaries of state to supervise the conduct of the election.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:00 am
Marc -
Israel and the U.S. are certainly not “blameless” when it comes to the current mess, but let’s not forget that Sharon’s ascension to power was paved by the many suicide bombs which fell while the Oslo process was still very much alive and by the massive bloodshed in the first months of the second Intifada. All this occurred before Sharon ever had a chance to carry out a policy of isolating Arafat and before Bush had a chance to reject diplomacy. Neither did Sharon or Bush have anything to do with the widespread corruption within the Palestinian Authority, a huge factor in yesterday’s results.
Juan Cole’s contention that an insensitively implemented withdrawal from Gaza played a significant role in bringing Hamas to power is both absurd and condescending. It gives the Palestinians no credit for shaping their own destiny like grownups, for being capable of more than reacting to Israeli slights — it treats them instead like petulant adolescents.
The peace process has been dead for a while now (though the phrase is till tossed around by journalists as if it had meaning). It was dead by the time Sharon and Bush came into power. It’s very hard to say what, if any, change in policy by Sharon or Bush could have revived it. I’d love to believe a few simple changes could have done
the trick, but see no evidence for that assumption. With Hamas in power the myth of
the evanescent “peace process” can at least be laid to rest. This may inject a salutary dose of realism into discussions about next steps.
Though many predicate change for the better in the Middle East on the solution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, I’d argue that little progress can be made in this conflict while the surrounding countries are consumed with religio-political rage and are more than willing to export it. The cult of violence must be doused as a whole before we’ll see progress in Israel/Palestine.
Only then will we be in the happy position where the clumsy actions of an American President derail a process that could otherwise be consummated.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Good post, Marc. Bush’s attempts to parse the Palestinian elections yesterday was indeed a wonder to behold. And excellent comments, AAA.
Stott, babe, you’re clueless. Read a history book or two, why doncha?
Look: the smartest Middle East experts I know have been predicting a Hamas win for weeks, although admittedly the size of the win surprised everybody. THIS is why Abbas wanted the elections postponed; because he/they saw the Hamas victory coming, and wanted time to regroup. It had nothing to do with Sharon’s collapse. But BushCo didn’t believe it. Ooops. Democracy in action.
The win was, in large part, as Marc says: an Anybody’s Gottab Be Better Than These Guys vote against the thoroughly discredited Fatah. But also the vote reflected the widespread, albeit incorrect, perception that Hamas was responsible for Israel’s pull out from Gaza.
So will the US deal with Hamas? Of course. But we’ll do it indirectly. There’ll be pressure on Abbas—who although he’s momentarily swearing he’ll resign, is still legally the President, as he was chosen in a separate election— to do something creative, like re-form the PLO. We’ll see. But any reporter who wants to see how it eventually works out, need only follow the money—by that, I mean, the mounds of essential aide we provide for the Palestinians—and must continue to provide, if we don’t want to throw in the towel on the peace process, and the well being of the Palestinian people, now and forever. That money ain’t going away, folks.
So who will get it? And what governmental entity will distribute it?
The drama begins.
Okay, I gotta go teach now. Cheers.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
As the t-shirt sais, “Whiskey. Democracy. Sexy.”
Gotta love it.
Seriously though, its not like a terrorist organization has never come to political power before. Sinn Fein (IRA without the black ski masks) anybody? Resulting from that has been the most peacefull period in that conflict in decades.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Yeah Cole fell off the horse on that one. Pllenty of blame to go around but the Israelis are not behind 9-11. That’s strictly what the evidence shows it to be: 19 Saudis lead by Osama bin Laden and no one else. e.g. Oswald acted alone.
Free elections tend to send in the clowns over there and in Iraq but airing things out may be the prescription for eventual moderation. We’ll see.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
I can’t help but fault BushCo’s misconception of “democracy” and how incredibly difficult and unnatural it is to force it upon the complex, old world societies of the Middle East.
Mubarak has wisely resisted political reforms despite the nudging of the U.S. — the recent Egyptian election displayed wide support for candidates affiliated with the muslim brotherhood.
Likewise, Bush cannot encourage democracy while allowing for racist or terrorist candidates in the vein of Hamas or say, the KKK or David Duke.
Perhaps he’s subconsciously realizing his inabilities to uphold the basic tenets of democracy?
I definitely felt tinge of hypocrisy when Rice said democracy and terrorism don’t mix. The so-called “Quartet” more formally “…there is a fundamental contradiction between armed group and militia activities and the building of a democratic state.”
But just last summer in Cairo, she said: “Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspiration of all people….”
January 27th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Right-Wing Nationalists always breed more Right-Wing Nationalists.
When you got paranoid warmongering Right-Wing Nationalists screaming and yelling blood cries, the paranoid warmongering Right-Wing Nationalists in other nations are gonna scream back.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
I think may be good in the long run as it will likely lead to the discrediting of Hamas in Palestinian eyes when they find out Hamas (likely) perform just as poorly in office.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
I agree with DC Sniper:
Hamas now has to run things. That could be their downfall.
Another point I don’t see being addressed is the fact that we see reasonably stable, functional democracies in India, S. Korea, Japan, the Phillipines, Mexico, South Africa … and many more.
These countries run the gamut of cultures, religions, living standards and history of prior occupation or former tryanical regimes.
What is so uniquely different about the Middle East so that some here seem to imply that the region is not ready for democracy?
January 27th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
It might not be all doom and gloom–the article below gives a slightly different perspective.
An Israeli-born professor at the University of Florida said an Islamic militant group’s landslide victory in the Palestinian elections might actually help the peace process.
“Once you are in power, you see things different than when you were in the opposition,” said Ido Oren, an associate professor of political science.
Hamas scored an overwhelming victory in parliamentary elections Wednesday as voters rejected the longtime rule of the Fatah Party. Israeli politicians and President Bush have questioned whether a group responsible for suicide bombings can be a partner for peace.
But Oren said being in power might moderate Hamas, which has called for the destruction of Israel. Even if it doesn’t, he said, Israel has been unilaterally withdrawing from Palestinian territories and could continue to do so regardless of who is in power there.
Hamas will now have a vested interest in continuing the peace process, said Patricia Woods, an assistant professor of political science and Jewish studies at UF. It will face the same fate as Fatah, she said, unless it produces tangible results in gaining territory and other benefits for Palestinians.
“Hamas is going to have to change its spots on some really critical issues,” she said.
She viewed the election of a protest vote against the corrupt rule of Fatah. While the party failed to improve the lives of Palestinians, she said, Hamas was working to help Palestinians.
“Hamas has really been doing grassroots work for the last 20 years,” she said.
Annie Higgins has observed the lives of Palestinians firsthand as a volunteer in the territories from 2002 to 2003. The visiting assistant professor in Arabic languages and literature at UF said she’s amazed elections can even take place there, given impediments to moving freely.
The fact there was such high turnout - nearly 80 percent - shows the election was positive in terms of providing average people a voice in the political process, she said.
“It gives people hope,” she said.
But she said she didn’t expect the results would have a visible impact on their lives in the immediate future.
The election could also mean other problems in the near future, said Dennis Jett, director of UF’s International Center.
“In the short term, I’m not optimistic,” said Jett, who worked 28 years in the State Department including nearly three years in Israel.
The bulk of the Palestinian and Israeli people want peace, he said, but extremists are determined to disrupt that process. Still, he said, he expects pragmatism to eventually take hold as Israel continues to withdraw from the territories.
“You can’t occupy that land forever,” he said.
Woods said she believes the Palestinian people disagree with Hamas on major issues, such as their desire for freedom as opposed to having an Islamic state. And the group will be forced to accept Israel as a negotiating partner, she said, if it wants to give people the movement and economic benefits they desire.
“They’re going to have to change or they’re going to be out of power pretty quickly,” she said.
“Someone in the Bush administration, hopefully sooner rather than later, should figure out that elections don’t equal democracy. ”
I think the Bush administration is aware that there is no correlation between elections and democracy–look at our own government
January 27th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
This excerpt from Abbas’ article is a perfect description of the “Warsaw Ghetto,†known as Palestine.
How yesterday’s Palestinian elections will ultimately shake down is anybody’s guess. The Palestinians remain caged inside the West Bank and Gaza while surrounded by an Israeli military that has superior firepower. Much of their population are unemployed and live in abject poverty.
That they went to the polls in such large numbers shows that the desire for some kind of political say hasn’t been extinguished, but it has been seriously sharpened. Hamas isn’t going away, and if one seriously wishes that its members moderate their views and take a political path, then perhaps calling for Hamas’ violent extinction isn’t the best tactic to employ, especially when it comes from Americans. Given our heavy role in grinding Palestinians into the dirt, we’ve said enough as it is.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
The poll results from yesterday are tragic, but anyone who did not see this coming suffers from voluntary blindness. With Arafat and his organization vilified (when it should have been and shouldn’t have been) and destroyed by Israel - with crucial U.S. support - the only solution that the Palestinian people saw was to put into place an organization that, at the very least, had the capability to throw a few punches back.
January 27th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
The “they now have to run things” argument is true to a point…but it ignores the fact that the reason Hamas won is that they’ve proven themselves better able to actually run things than anyone else. They run lots of things and, to all accounts, do a pretty good job. If they bring that competence and, dare I say it, integrity to the government itself, they’ll win by an even bigger margin next time. And I say that as someone who hates Hamas for their fundamentalist, intransigent politics.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
It’s a misconception to believe that voting for Hamas was an act of rage or desperation. Terrorism has been popular with the Palestinian people throughout the conflict and being a terrorist organization has never been a stigma. It would probably be difficult to become a popular leader of the Palestinian people without being connected to terrorism. There is no difference between Hamas and Fatah as to the ultimate goal of defeating Israel, the real difference is whether this goal can best be achieved by pretending to recognize its right to exist or if one should just go about it honestly. Indeed, it’s likely that Mahmoud Abbas’s rhetorical moderation is viewed by the Palestinians the same way American conservatives view the Democratic party’s position on national defense, as unpardonably weak. Arafat could get away with it because his followers were willing to believe he didn’t really mean it. The election was another chapter in the end of the Arafat illusion. To some the illusion was that he could deliver peace, for others it was the illusion that he could deliver victory. With the illusion gone what possible attraction could Fatah have for the Palestinians? Corruption? Incompetence? Ineffectuality? Surprise at the outcome is an outgrowth of illusions about the Palestinians’ intentions. The wonder is that Fatah didn’t rig it.
I have a question for Palestinian sympathizers. Suppose instead of being welcomed to Florida, Cuban exiles had been set up in camps around Guantanamo on the assumption that Castro was soon going to be overthrown any day now. How well do you suppose they’d be doing by now? I’ll tell you one thing, the Cubans are a hell of a lot more likely to get their old property back.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Mark what concessions would you have Israel make?
Do you think the Palestinians should have accepted the offer at Oslo?
January 27th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
My Pollyanna self has been thinking all day along the lines that Eleanore has just outlined. Maybe not quite that optimistically….but there’s something strangely historically regenerative about this. I mean Arafat was a terrorist. Begin was a terrorist. Sharon was a war criminal twice or thrice over, depending upon how you count it.
So many crucial opportunities have been lost on this tragic road—going back to the promises Carter made to Sadat at Camp David that he could never keep..(okay, that’s a whole other story)…
Somehow handing the baton of power to the present terrorists seems, from a homeopathic perspective, to be, in some crazy way, more right than not.
(Sorry, I know I’m rambling…. but I’m too tired to explain this in a more sensible manner.)
I like Ugly A’s questions.
January 28th, 2006 at 1:25 am
People say about Iraq: Some problems don’t have American solutions. Those same people never say this about Palestine: some problems don’t have American causes.
The idea that the US and Israel are screwing up the peace process is debatable. The idea that a majority of Palestinians want peace is also debatable — but light years from from an unassailable premise.
Those of you have noted that elections don’t make a democracy already know that you can’t have one without them, either, and so blame foreign parties for their outcome. It is inarguable that a significant population within the the Arab and Muslim and Palestinian population reject the right of Israel to exist. By blaming Israel and the US for the outcome of what everyone concedes was a fair election, you are letting these rejectionists off the hook, and weakening their progressive counterparts. Arafat played that game to perfection.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:55 am
WJA, getting it wrong as usual: “Marc, Juan Cole recently cited and *praised* the ravings of right wing anti-Israel ideologue Justin Raimondo, who believes 9/11 was a plot by the Mossad.”
First, as far as I can tell, Raimundo goes no further than pointing to evidence that Mossad was tracking the 9/11 hijackers and that it may even have known what Atta et al. were up to on the day of the attack. Can you show me where he actually claims that 9/11 was a Mossad plot?
Also, Raimundo is apparently a Libertarian, not a right-winger per se.
Finally, consider your source (and take a look at a lot of other sources while you’re at it): The Volokh Conspiracy goes on to smear Cole by virtually equating his ambivalent interest in Raimundo’s opinions on a particular case not directly relevant to 9/11 with apologetics for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I’m sorry, but this is way below the belt. IF the Protocols had been written in dead earnest, with a by-line, rather than as a calculated forgery, attributed to Jews, and IF the same author had written something *else* considerably less crazy, and IF Cole had said that the guy might have actually had something like a good point, even if it was extreme, in that second piece of writing, you’re in the rough neighborhood of an applicable analogy — but only in the neighborhood. Your analogy would still suck.
Raimundo may be a bit of a paranoid nutter prone to exaggeration, but paranoically exaggerating the case against him is similarly nutty.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:00 am
Samuel - I don’t think the general drift is at all as you assert, that the “cause” of the problem on the table is “American”, but it’s clear that, given the U.S. role in the region and our alliance that privileges Israel, we are part of the hope for a solution. Also, if a significant population of Arabs reject the right of Israel to exist, its also been true that a significant population of Israelis have rejected the right of Palestinians to exist in the very same sense of nationhood. There’s been a double standard in operation since Day One, and while not the cause of the problem, it’s made it worse. As for Ugly A’s questions, anyone who doesn’t see that the settlements have been a surefire - even deliberate - breaker of any possible deal from Day One isn’t being honest. As for Oslo, of course Arafat should have taken it. Arafat and his henchmen became a disaster for the Palestinians - and now they’re reaping some retribution, although it seems to me like getting rid of the mess in your house with a hand grenade. If you think people like Marc are too soft on the Palestinians, read the Atlantic article he linked to. That was one of the best take-downs of the Palestinian leadership I’ve read. I don’t know if you’ve ever been to Israel, but my own impressions of the Israelis as the “good guys” were very negatively affected by going there and talking to a cross-section of them. The society is steeped in racism and hostage to some very crazy fundamentalists - both political and religious. And I say that as someone who’s quite critical of the Palestinians - frankly bordering on contempt both for the bulk the leaders they look to and for the intransigence that seems to trade hysteria and emotion for the pragmatism and realism necessitated by the complex historical and political roots of this problem.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:02 am
That shoud read: “There’s been a double standard on the part of the U.S. since Day One, blah, blah.”
January 28th, 2006 at 8:19 am
Reg -
Your assertion that Israeli society is steeped in racism is a lie and a slander. Maybe if you visit the nutcases who live in Kiryat Arba and claim that they represent Israeli society, you’d have a point. Israel is a modern, liberal society. Israel has embraced people of all races, there are a million Arabs living as full citizens, hundreds of thousands of black Jews were brought from Ethiopia, etc. Like any country, there is discrimination, but there is also progressiveness and social advancement. Your statement that Israel is a racist country is itself racist.
On the Palestinian issue, why do so many liberals fail to recognize that Israel turned itself inside out, first to fulfill its commitments under Oslo, including deploying out of Palestinian areas, even as buses were blowing up in Tel Aviv, and then to uniliterally disengage from Gaza? And the Palestinians in return have done nothing, zip, nada. Name one thing. Why are you always all over Israel’s case, and willing to give the Palestinians a pass on everything?
Yes, the settlements, the settlements, the settlements. They were a big mistake, mistakes are not corrected overnight, the disengagement shows that the large majority of Israelis wants to correct the mistake. They are not the root cause of the problem, that lies with the Palestinians. If the settlements didn’t exist, you wouldn’t have such a convenient cover for your inveterate anti-Israel leanings.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:45 am
[...] What it demonstrates is, once again, a lack of attention to detail. The last point is the one which had the most direct impact on the elections. Not only was Hamas allowed to run without disarming, but the administration pushed for elections to go forward despite reservations by Fatah that its organization was in dissaray and needed more time to get its act together. No matter, to Bush the fact of having elections was far more important than how elections were run or whether or not the results would be in the interest of the U.S., its allies or regional stability. Filed under: Current Affairs Comments: [...]
January 28th, 2006 at 9:49 am
Yes they should have accepted Oslo. Accepted something at least.
January 28th, 2006 at 10:28 am
I’m not saying that all Israelis are racist - far from it. But the society is steeped in racism. I’ve seen it first hand, have been subjected to incredible verbal abuse by a crowd of Israelis for personally intervening when an soldier treated an Arab kid like he was a piece of dirt and have had go-rounds with fomer in-laws who were Israeli citizens that degenerated into bigotry, pure and simple. You are either ignorant of this side of the Israeli scene - and it’s not some small minority - or you are in denial.
And to call the settlements a “mistake” is totally disingenuos. It was a concerted strategy to keep any negotiated settlement over the occupied territories from ever succeeding - and it might well have worked, whether they’re now happy with that fact or not. Also, to say the root cause of this problem lies with the Palestinians rather than the mission of Zionism, which had practically zero legitimacy among Jews prior to the Holocaust, is very strange. Among others, I blame the U.S. and Britain for their truly disgusting response to the Jewish refugee question in the wake of WWII. But anyone who thinks that the Zionist project was pristine and the Palestinians are simply some crazed killers who’s grievances come from nowhere is drinking the Kool Aid. Most of the most egregious apologetics and strained versions of the history we’ve been subjected to in the U.S. are from the rabidly pro-Israel lobbies. In fact, I can’t imagine any other state which could attack one of our ships, kill numerous American militry personnel and get away with it with impunity. The way the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty was swept under the rug is proof that Israel has long been a sacred cow for American politicians and that their government has worked that for everything it’s worth, which is quite a lot.
January 28th, 2006 at 10:32 am
I think many people find it hard to believe that, if there was no Israel, there would be no Palestinian refugee camps.
It is hard to deny this.
I totally agree with MarkC, Israeli culture and political life is wholly influenced by social democratic and progressive principles. They resemble Northern Europe for God’s sake! The whole Zionist project is a product of Western progressive principles.
But the Northern European nations do not have concentrations of refugee camps woven into them. And members of the refugee camps demanding their property back!
Yes, it is complex…but there are some fundamental issues that just will not go away.
Being an activist on the Left, I was “brought up†to view the Israeli-Palestinian as ethnic politics. On the principle of solidarity, I just kept out. But times are a-changing.
Ethnic whites are slowly becoming victim to right-wing gentrification. Solidarity is changing a bit. Remembering what it was like being poor, immigrant and despised by power elites is fading.
January 28th, 2006 at 10:34 am
I think many people find it hard to believe that, if there was no Israel, there would be no Palestinian refugee camps.
It is hard to deny this.
I totally agree with MarkC, Israeli culture and political life is wholly influenced by social democratic and progressive principles. They resemble Northern Europe for God’s sake! The whole Zionist project is a product of Western progressive principles.
But the Northern European nations do not have concentrations of refugee camps woven into them. And members of the refugee camps demanding their property back!
Yes, it is complex…but there are some fundamental issues that just will not go away.
Being an activist on the Left, I was “brought up†to view the Israeli-Palestinian as ethnic politics. On the principle of solidarity, I just kept out. But times are a-changing.
In American politics, ethnic whites are slowly becoming victim to right-wing gentrification. Solidarity is changing a bit. Remembering what it was like being poor, immigrant and despised by power elites is fading.
January 28th, 2006 at 10:41 am
That should read “Solidarity is changing a bit. Remembering what it was like being a refugee, poor, immigrant and/or despised by power elites is fading.
January 28th, 2006 at 10:49 am
“Israeli culture and political life is wholly influenced by social democratic and progressive principles. They resemble Northern Europe for God’s sake! The whole Zionist project is a product of Western progressive principles.”
Of course there’s a strong progressive tradition among Israelis, but it’s not nearly as predominant as it used to be. And it was always in tension with the messianic side - both religious and political. Have you ever heard of Jabotinsky ? Or considered that his version of Zionism is now mainstream, with the rise of, first, Begin and guys like Netanyahu and Sharon ? The old liberal ideal of Israel as a bunch of Kibbutzniks and such has long been dead.
January 28th, 2006 at 10:55 am
“stating Israel is a racist county is itself racist.” What country is not racist? As someone who is active in Jewish Anti-Occupation work here and t there, I can say that Israel, like the United States or anywhere else, has plenty of ingrained and even legal racism. Palestinians cannot marry Jews or in many places own land or achieve status within labor unions, and has to go through hurdles to do business. Jews can only be married and converted by Orthodox Jews. Fallashas (Ethiopians,) Druze and Sephardi (Oriental) Jews are second class citizens. Palestinans (Israeli Arabs) are third class citizens.
This is in no way a defense of Hamas who are violent, nihilist Islamists. This is to say that M. Cooper’s reaction to criticism of Israel is naive.
January 28th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Umm, not sure what the difference is between being racist and living in a society steeped in racism. I’ve lived here for ten years, I hang out with Israelis, I watch TV and read the newspapers. I’ve spent a lot of time with Arabic minorities here, and am well aware of the problems they face. Israel is not a racist country, notwithstanding a few personal anecdotes.
Why don’t we refresh the discussion with some (recent) facts. The latest projections show Kadima, the party of disengagement, the party that wants to give back the settlements, with 44 seats in the government, the peacenik labor party with 21 seats, and the likud, the party of your racist settlers, with only 14 seats. So how, exactly, are we steeped in racism?
The problem with polemicists is that they can’t get their heads out of the past. Really, why is it productive to argue the justness of Israel’s existence, when it is an inalterable fact? I’m prepared to admit that Israel’s existence entails some injustice, but so do so many other geopolitical facts. The only question that matters is who is preventing peace from happening today. And really, you are bringing up the USS Liberty, an ambiguous event that took place forty years ago? With everything that has happened in the world since then? You are over-exercised on the subject of Israel.
January 28th, 2006 at 11:44 am
btw I have no problem stating the Palestinians have clearly elected Hamas and that will be in the end a good thing.
Either Hamas will be moderated by its new found political power or it wont. Either way the Palestinians are now directly responsible for their actions.
January 28th, 2006 at 11:51 am
MarkC wrote:
“The problem with polemicists is that they can’t get their heads out of the past. Really, why is it productive to argue the justness of Israel’s existence, when it is an inalterable fact? I’m prepared to admit that Israel’s existence entails some injustice, but so do so many other geopolitical facts. The only question that matters is who is preventing peace from happening today.”
At some point all that matter have to get to this point.
We may need a few more generations to get to this.
And a lot of pain in the process.
January 28th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
(Excuse the way my grammer is, but thinking flow is erratic)
January 28th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
“Kadima, the party of disengagement, the party that wants to give back the settlements”
Yeah, “the untenable settlements”, which has yet to be defined. Also, the U.S.S.Liberty attack wasn’t “an ambiguos event” and the reason I brought it up was to prove a point about Israel’s privileged position in relation to U.S. politics. In any event, the past matters and is key to the future. You seem to be running from the past as quickly as possible. If a country that can elect a war criminal like Sharon isn’t tainted by him, I guess nothing matters except what you want to believe. I don’t want to argue Israel with anyone, frankly, because nearly everybody who’s got skin in the game is “over-exercised” on the subject. It’s understandable, considering how untenable the situation is. If you want to believe that Likud is “ancient history” and all Israelis think like Amos Oz, that’s your prerogative, but I’ll bet you know better. I find it more than a bit bizarre for you to suggest everybody just forget the (recent) past when the subject is Israel, a country that exists primarily on the tenet of remembering the past and trying to “correct” the course of history all the way from the ancients to the mid-20th century. Memories can be long. What makes you think the Palestinians will be any different ? “Forget the past, take what you can get and leave the rest alone” isn’t very credible advice coming from a political leadership with the Israelis’ particular ideology and history.
January 28th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Well, it’s nice that the anti-democracy Left is showing its colors by saying “See, we told you you couldn’t trust the brutes with democracy,” but frankly I think this is one of those cases where the worst possible outcome is better than all the others just barely staving off disaster. The Palestinian situation has been such a ridiculously artificial one– living off an economy they occasionally try to wreck, kleptocracy with the imprimatur of the international community, Hamas forcing Fatah to get ever more radical to keep the populace on their side. I’m glad it finally collapsed under the weight of such absurdities. I’m not one of those saying that Hamas will moderate, at least I frankly have NO IDEA whether they will or not in reality, but forcing them to deal with the consequences of the supremely diseased state they helped get that way is, at least, rough justice.
So you have schadenfreude that democracy doesn’t always work out the way Bush wants it to. I’ll have schadenfreude that fascism doesn’t always work out the way Allah wants it to, either.
January 28th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Also, Mark C, whether it’s rational and necessary or not based on the situation, the Israeli policy of accepting any Jew from anywhere as a citizen but denying residence even to Arabs who were kicked out of their homes - or fled, or whatever - is a racist policy, prima facia. I know a Palestinian-American who was drafted into the Jordanian army, fought in the ‘67 war as a conscript and had to emigrate to the U.S. and become a citizen in order to obtain a visa to go back and visit the home where he grew up and his family. (He was practically in tears when Rabin was assassinated, incidentally. Totally stunned and in sorrow.) I also know people who grew up in the U.S. who emigrated to Israel and are some of the most rabidly anti-Arab bigots you could find. Don’t tell me that Israel isn’t steeped in racism. Israel is one of the few states that is founded on an overt doctrine of ethnicity - the only current one I can think of that has Western roots. You can define racism out of the equation based on all of the nice Israelis you know, and there are many, but it’s not an objective assessment of the underlying realities.
January 28th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
“This is to say that M. Cooper’s reaction to criticism of Israel is naive.”
Mark C isn’t M. Cooper…Just wanted to clear one thing up that I think we can all agree on.
January 28th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Mark C. - I would agree that the pendulum has swung away from the classic Likudnik/expand-settlements view that was certainly effective in pushing it’s agenda on the ground for a couple of decades, but I fear it’s too little, too late. It’s also pretty obvious that the Palestinian view has hardened. Maybe it will be a good thing for them to get rid of the entrenched elements, come to terms with their own “far right” and ultimately have to deal with the consequences of their own - in my view - delusions, just as the Israelis have to a large degree. But basically I’m pessimistic. I also resent the degree to which the neo-cons have been able to inject a Likudnik agenda directly into the shaping of American foreign policy. ( If pointing out the undue influence of crackpots and zealots like Douglas Feith in this administration is anti-semitic, the brush of “anti-anti-semitism” has gotten so broad you better watch your back because most Americans aren’t having it. That’s one reason the pro-Israel lobby is stretching into the crazy fundamentalist wing of the far right in order to suck up allies, no matter that their vision of the Middle East involves a fiery Apocalypse.)
January 28th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
reg wrote:
“That’s one reason the pro-Israel lobby is stretching into the crazy fundamentalist wing of the far right in order to suck up allies, no matter that their vision of the Middle East involves a fiery Apocalypse.”
This is indeed scandalous.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Ugly A…. Assuredly you’re right. Either Hamas will mature with this new mantle, or they won’t. but about: “…Either way the Palestinians are now directly responsible for their actions…”
Well, no. Would that this were the truth. But that would require genuine sovereignty for the Palestinians. The reality is, they don’t have it. Not even close. Ironically, so much of the discussion about Thursday’s election results, is had within the illusary context of Palestinian sovereignty, which isn’t the reality.
Also, as was noted in yesterday’s LA Times by a Berkeley history professor named Beshar Doumani…
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-doumani27jan27,1,4187754.story
….the “no partner for peace” meme being energetically advanced in response to the Hamas victory, is anything but new. Until Oslo in 1993, “The PLO is a terrorist organization” was the mantra of successive Israeli administrations, and “We will not negotiate with Arafat’ was the catch-phrase of the post-Oslo era.”
Nevermind that, the Palestinian position, formally adopted as early as 1988 and frequently reiterated behind closed doors by Palestinian negotiators, was for a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel.
By the way, what IS everyone talking about regarding Arafat not accepting Oslo?!!! Uh, he accepted the Oslo agreement, remember???
TO JOG MEMORIES, A BRIEF OSLO PRIMER:
Oslo was not, in reality an agreement. It was a declaration of principles, and the outline of a process, without the outline of what a final agreement might look like.
Moreover, in terms of the principals that were hammered out at Oslo—other than the single mutual concession of mutual recognition—the Palestinians were required to make all their major compromises up front, whereas the Israelis made almost zero concessions on central issues—you know, things like the eventual boundaries of a Palestinian state, the fate of Jerusalem, and the fate of the illegal settlements. All these were saved to be decided—in some way or another not specified—-at the end of the process.
But still a badly weakened Arafat showed up in Washington for the fabulously festive signing of this one-sided Oslo document.
(For the record, I’m anything but an Arafat fan. He allowed rampant corruption to fester, among his own people, and on the world stage, I don’t believe his personality and past allowed him ever to assume the role of statesman with grace or real effectiveness. But I’m sick to death of the one-sided myths of what actually has happened over the years.)
Once the signing took place, surprise, surprise, Hamas, denounced the thing as one-sided, and backed up their denouncements with sporadic violence.
But, of course, Hamas wasn’t Oslo’s only enemy. Sharon publicly pronounced Oslo to be “the greatest misfortune ever to have befallen Israel.” And, then it was a member of Israel’s own violent right wing fringe who subsequently assassinated Prime Minister Ishtak Rabin—specifically for having agreed to Oslo at all.
Moving right along…..when the Likud returned to power in 1996-99, Netanyahu—who was fundamentally against Oslo from the outset—- avoided engaging seriously Oslo process and, instead, promoted the establishment of new settlements, expanded existing settlements (all considered to be a violation of the spirit of Oslo).
Finally in 2000, Oslo was jump-started up again by Barak…ultimately culminating in the Camp David talks— which Arafat was wrongly blamed for collapsing.
In fact, according to Robert Malley, one of Clinton’s Camp David negotiations team, rather than stonewalling, the reality was that Arafat and the Palestinian negotiators actually MADE FURTHER CONCESSIONS at the beginning of Camp David. For instance, they accepted “the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Wailing Wall, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, and Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem—neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the 1967 Six-Day War—though the Palestinians clung to the view that all of Arab East Jerusalem should be Palestinian….â€
And in another move toward a vital concession, Arafat asked Clinton to help him find some compromise way to package the “right of return‗a huge hot button issue for Palestinians, while still conceding the necessity of recognizing Israel’s demographic concerns. According to Malley, all the Palestinian negotiators “acknowledged that there could not be an unlimited, “massive” return of Palestinian refugees to Israel….â€
In fact as recently as 2002, Arafat publicly called for “creative solutions to the right of return while respecting Israel’s demographic concerns..†in a New York Times Op Ed, a risky but necessary move toward peace.
But the talks did collapse in July of 2000—due to failures and missteps on all sides, Palestinians, Israelis and Americans alike.
Two months later, on September 28, 2000, Ariel Sharon made his provocative and historically tragic visit to the Temple Mount. The visit may not have been the sole cause of what was to come. But it was just the match the tinder box needed.
The next day, riots broke out in Old Jerusalem and several demonstrators were shot dead.
And the Second Intifada began.
In the first six days of the Intifada, 61 Palestinians were killed and 2,657 were injured by the Israeli Military and Police. And the horrors got progressively worse—for both Palestinians and Israelis. Yet, for Palestinians, in addition to the horror, and the far greater numbers killed and injured, there has been constant and unmitigated humiliation, on both a small and large scale, with little tangible prospect of real relief—Gaza nothwithstanding.
So, now, Hamas.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
“Well, it’s nice that the anti-democracy Left is showing its colors by saying “See, we told you you couldn’t trust the brutes with democracy…”
No, Freddy, that’s not what people are saying at all. We’re saying, the Palestinians were trusted with democracy, made their choice, and now the “democracy”-promoters-in-chief in the Bush administration aren’t so happy about it. Some among us find this a tad ironic.
Reg….read all your posts. Good stuff!
January 28th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
I agree with Reg (strangely?) on the USS Liberty’s unjust destruction by Israel. Also on Israeli; nay, Jewish racism. (The Fiddler wouldn’t let his daughter marry one of THEM.)
It’s also clear the USA has a unique relationship with Israel; and the creation of Israel was NOT a fully just act.
But until 1967, the Arabs in control of Gaza and the West Bank could easily have allowed the “Palestinians” their own state, had Nasser the Egyptian war-monger wanted peace instead of war.
And Israel IS a democracy (though democracy doesn’t quite equal Human Rights — the correct goal.)
I’ve been saddened by the Hamas win — but in reading all this Leftist babbling about how Bush is a fruit loop, and proving it using Juan Cole (and Raimundo … Raimundo??? I knew Raimundo when he wanted Russell Means as Libertarian Party Pres. candidate instead of pro-Life Ron Paul, 1986. Passionate nutcase, fine writer.).
Since I know how wrong most Lefties have been so often lately; there must be more good in Hamas winning than I thought.
I remember.
Democracy. The People Choose.
Lefties hate it when the people “choose wrong.” The Right isn’t so happy, either — but doesn’t hate it (also may disagree on what is right/wrong; though not in this case?). Bush doesn’t claim supporting corrupt Fatah is certainly better than elections — and those saying Bush was wrong basically do claim this.
I hope Israel expands its territory by 100 Palestinian homes for every rocket and bomb attempt by Palestinians; and by 1000 homes for every Israel life lost by any terrorist attack. Give land for peace; take land for war.
The Palestinians need a Free Press — so paper editors critical of Hamas, or Fatah, or dead Arafat, are not killed. It would be good if Israel followed all Palestinian papers, and their editors.
January 28th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Getting rid of the old corruption is at least one good thing Hamas can do, right away. If they claim they need time to strengthen the Palestinian state before the “final solution,” that’s prolly good enough.
January 28th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
rosedog -
To keep things in perspective I’d say to you essentially what I said to Marc (in that case regarding Sharon’s ascension to the PM position). The Likkud didn’t simply come back to power in 1996. It was propelled to power by a series of suicide bombs that killed hundreds; they were detonated with the acknowledged intent of bringing Netanyahu to power so that the peace process could be stopped. Peres and Labor would have won fairly easily without them.
I would also argue with your depiction of Oslo as one-sided and your letting Arafat off the hook for the failure of Camp David (Clinton himself did not). I say this as one who lived in Israel for a bunch of years, always supported Labor and Peace Now, felt that the settlements were morally and pragmatically wrong, and wanted very much in the year or so after Camp David’s collapse to believe that the light could be rekindled. While I agree that Sharon’s march on the Temple Mount was foolhardy and chose to believe for awhile that if it had been averted, things may have been different, the frequency and intensity of the violence in the 2nd intifada soon disabused me of that notion.
I also think (and I know this will be unpopular on this board) that Sharon should get some credit for actually having changed in the last year or so; for having the guts to reverse some previously held (misguided and counterproductive) positions and for taking steps that may make peace ultimately possible.
I saw him speak on a street corner in downtown Jersualem once in the early 80’s; he was a true cringe-inducing demagogue and continued to be one for a long time. It was hard for me to acknowledge that he had in fact evolved, that his somewhat surprising moves in the last year stemmed from something other than brute realpolitik, but finally I was left with no other conclusion.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
I want to make sure I understand this correctly. Because Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mounts, something which under the Oslo Accords Israelis were supposed to be able to do, the Palestinians had no choice but to go to war, is that it. What was it that he did there? Drop cigar ashes? Disturb the dirt? Inhale precious oxygen and breathe out deadly carbon dioxide? This atrocity made it necessary for 61 Palestinians to give up their lives? This made it necessary to kill 21 high school students in a discotheque?
The reason Arafat had to make concessions in the Oslo talks was that he was negotiating a surrender. He was negotiating a surrender because his side had lost the war. My impression was that when Clinton and Barak made their last and final offer Arafat knew it was all he was ever going to get in negotiations, and that if he took it back to his people it would be like Michael Collins going back to Dublin six counties short, i.e., a fatal move. The Palestinians had to go to war again so Yasser Arafat could die in a hospital. What I wonder is, what happens to your pacifist ideals when the Palestinians are the subject? If anybody on Earth found war to be futile it ought to be the Palestinians. Every time they renew hostilities they wind up with less than they had before, and this time was no exception. Much if not most of their suffering is the result of continuing a war after it’s been lost.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
There is a difference between observing the past, and being paralyzed by it. I wouldn’t care if the Palestinians observed Nakhba day every day of the year, if that would take the same concrete steps towards peace that Israel has taken. Israel is not trying to “correct the past” by blowing up innocent civilians.
There’s no winning against anti-Israel polemicists. No credit for the disengagement, no benefit of the doubt for the future. We are all bent on deceiving the world and oppressing the Palestinians. Oh well.
Tom Grey, you have referred to “Jewish racism” in that Jews don’t intermarry. This is unfair, and possibly worse than unfair. First of all, tons of Jews marry outside the faith. My own brother married a non-Jewish woman. Second, the inclination to marry within the same religious or ethnic group is shared by many if not most minorities. Remember the movie ” My big Greek Wedding” (something like that). In Israel, where I live, we have a Druze minority, for whom marrying outside the faith is unthinkable. If a man marries a non-Druze woman, he is ostracized from the community. If a woman does it, she is in danger of her life, and there are still many honor killings, also among the Muslims.
People should be careful with the term “racism”.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
I’m partial to “ethno-centrism”
January 28th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Oh, wonderful.
Freddy the Aptly Named, aka Marty Peretz Jr., showers us with the gift of his “wisdom” once again.
No “anti-Democracy Left” for him, no sir. Only the champions of democracy and freedom at AEI are worthy of his praise.
(sniff, sniff) What’s that I smell? A hagiography of Sidney Hook in the works?
January 28th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
reg,
I think one of the things you see with MarkC (I don’t know, I’m just speculating) is something that’s quite common with a whole lot of folks. The inability to see anything other than good qualities in “one’s own kind.” It’s one of the symptoms of ethnic chauvinism.
For example, in my own family, as well as among my friends, I know lots of people who go on and on about how the Persian empire was the greatest thing in the world; about how we were so tolerant and so into promoting cultural diversity and what have you. Not that there’s not some truth to this — especially in comparison to the Assyrians.
But then, within minutes, these very same people start in with how Arabs are barbaric savages, how Africans are subhuman, how Indians and Pakistanis are “burnt black” and “smell like shit”, how Turks are poofters and morons, how Afghans are illiterate, uncivilized primitives who are fit for nothing other than being pack-animals and manual laborers, etc.
And they really see no inconsistency there and don’t see anything wrong with any of it.
Mind you, there is a difference in that we don’t have vast indigenous populations of any of the above in Iran and… well…
January 28th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
AAA.. that’s a good post. The Persian Empire may reek of national chauvinism, but I CAN tell you that Persians make kick-ass poker players. I have the bruises to prove it.
January 28th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Evets… Your points are well taken and I mostly agree with you.
Perhaps my use of “one-sided” with regard to Oslo, overstates the matter. “Uneven” is likely a better word. Yet, in this country, the situation is presented as if the majority of the compromises were done by Israel—to the point that, as you see on this blog, most people believe that Arafat actually rejected the tenets of Oslo, when in fact the opposite is true.
But assured, there were factions on the Palestinian side intent on destroying the peace process— both Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the highest on that list. (For the record, in three months before the May 1996 elections, there were four suicide bomb attacks, killing 59 people —not hundreds. Not that 59 isn’t horrible enough. And, yes, obviously they were intended to skew the elections to the right.).
Where we do disagree is around Camp David. I know in his book, Clinton blames Arafat. But, given what others present during the talks have said and written, I suspect that Bill heaps all the blame on Arafat’s doorstep for entirely self serving reasons. (There’s no percentage in spreading the blame around to include himself and/or Israel. Especially not if he’s got a wife who wants to take a run at the Presidency.) For more on this, Robert Malley’s multiple pieces in the NY Review of Books on the subject of Camp David are worth reading.
And, yes, Sharon does deserve credit for change. As I said on the Sharon thread a few weeks back, I was stunned at how genuinely undone I felt by the sudden disappearance from the stage of this man whom I’d always loathed. I believe he was beginning to reach toward a different place for himself in history. It is my hope that Hamas’ leaders will have the strength and courage to eventually to do the same.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:23 am
So much for silver linings. It’s just on the news that Hamas has announced they will base their legislation on sharia law, and will overhaul the educational system to include more religion, and will separate boys and girls. So far, no ban on alcohol or requiring headscarves, but who knows how long that will last. The Palestinians have voted in an islamic revolution. Hamas doesn’t need to moderate for western support, they’ve got Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.
One mistake the Israelis made (lest I be considered an ethno-chauvinist) is not considering releasing Marwan Barghouti as a viable candidate. They were hoping to deal with a weak Abbas, and got Hamas instead.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:28 am
This article, while not being strictly about Hamas’ rise to power, ties in well with the overarching theme.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11696.htm
And before anyone starts whining about “leftists” this and “liberals” that it might be a good idea to scroll down to the end in order to read the author’s background.
January 29th, 2006 at 7:34 am
rosedog -
I’ve read Malley’s pieces and many others on this subject. I’ve heard people with some inside knowledge speak on it and in the end believe Clinton was closer to the truth than Malley. I’m not disavowing U.S. and Israeli mistakes, but believe less and less that Arafat was ever ready to make a workable sort of compromise. Too much other evidence says he wasn’t; he certainly seemed unwilling to risk the unpopularity that would have come with explaining and enforcing the necessary compromises. Other Palestinian leaders may have been genuinely willing to make a reasonable deal and I assume that in the 90’s there was a segment of the Palestinian population that was also willing, but don’t now see how any of this could have come to fruition under Arafat.
The bombs which killed 59 (sorry about the miscount), seriously injured many more and did the trick of turning the election. Generally, for every bomb that goes off, many attempted attacks abort or are foiled, making it understandably hard for the target population to feel comfortable enough to take risks for peace.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
When I think…that Jews rounded up Arabs/Palestinians and forced them into concentrated refugee camps for a better ethnic future…well….the irony is just heartbreaking.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
“Invasion Of Iraq” anyone? Remember part of the neocon playbook was that the Palistians under, ah, shall we say “western influence” would have to get in line and play ball, along with the frightened into moderation Iranians? Doesn’t seem to be working out that way but I guess these things take time…..
January 29th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
“There’s no winning against anti-Israel polemicists. No credit for the disengagement, no benefit of the doubt for the future. We are all bent on deceiving the world and oppressing the Palestinians. Oh well.”
It’s funny because that’s the way I feel about both pro- AND anti-Israel polemicists. Partly because the pro-Israel polemicists try to paint someone such as myself - who believes the U.S. should, politically and militarily, guarantee Israel’s existence and pre-’67 boundaries - as “anti-Israel”. I find it offensive that being critical of Israel or seeng more than a single side to the issues at hand is characterized as anti-Israel. It’s not enough that we commit ourselves to America’s assurance of Israel’s existence as a nation - we have to certify that it’s ninety-nine and one hundredths percent virtuous as well.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Evets…. Sounds like we have dueling insider sources and may have to agree to disagree. (I don’t mean Malley, whom I only know from his writings.) I appreciate your informed comments though.
“…[Arafat] certainly seemed unwilling to risk the unpopularity that would have come with explaining and enforcing the necessary compromises…â€
Yep, I’d say so. Again, I don’t know that it was unwillingness, exactly. I don’t think he ever had the force of character. And thus far there’s been no one strong enough (at least no one who’s not presently locked up), to become the leader the Palestinians now need. On the other hand, what wonderful deal was it that Arafat was offered at Camp David II that he walked away from?
Another thing: relook at your last post. I don’t know if you meant it this way, but when you describe the Palestinians, you say “…I assume that in the 90’s there was a segment of the Palestinian population that was also willing…†the implication being that the rest of the Palestinians were intractable obstructionists to peace—or worse. While about the Israelis you say, “….making it understandably hard for the target population to feel comfortable enough to take risks for peace…†The implication being that the Israeli unwillingness to risk is reasonable…..but the Palestinian reluctance…? Not so much.
It’s a double standard. Perhaps not an intended one, but a double standard nonetheless. And from that perspective it’s a straight line to the conclusion the Palestinians are ultimately at fault for the breakdown of any peace process.
Certainly we can understand how ordinary Israelis have become furious and fearful due to years of suicide bombings. But why don’t we devote equal effort and weight to understanding the fear, pain, helplessness and hopelessness the Palestinians feel?
There’s an essay called “Why We have All Become Suicide Bombers†written by a Palestinian psychiatrist and human rights awardee named Dr Eyad Sarraj. I should caution you that it’s not a reasoned political argument, but a cri du coeur. It’s worth reading nonetheless.
http://www.mediareviewnet.com/WHY%20WE%20HAVE%20BECOME%20SUICIDE%20BOMBERS.htm
I’d also recommend reading the 2002 keynote address that (Jewish) middle east expert, Mark Bruzonsky gave to collage students at the Model United Nations held at the University of Chicago. (Most people will likely not be willing to read through the whole thing, but you might genuinely enjoy it—whether or not you agree with what he has to say.)
http://www.alternet.org/story/12881/
January 29th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Abbas brought these savages to power. He failed at peace, ending corruption, and making things generally better. Anyone who wanted to know how the vacuum was going to be filled with the death of the savage Arafat now has their answer.
The good news: Israel can wipe these Muslim savages off the map now. They have shown their true colors. Israel should bomb the entire West Bank to ZERO population. Next, drive all non JEWS from Israel.
Result: A victor. You will never have peace until you have a real victory. Go study how the USA destoryed the Indians. Can you say Scorched Earth Policy! No one is getting an arrow throught their neck as we won!…Israel needs to bomb to victory. Totally destory the Palestinians in the territories and West Bank. Oh, and there is a
Palestinian state….it is called JORDAN. Jordan is 90% Palestnian. These savages just want to kill JEWS. Fuck ISLAM! Israel should give them all 48 hours to move to their state, JORDAN, or be delivered to the DEVIL via a body bag.
January 29th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
What was that about ? Was it posted here because it wouldn’t fit on a men’s room stall ?
January 29th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Ames Tiedeman,
Sieg Heil, homeboy…jeez.
January 29th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
rosedog -
I didn’t mean to imply that there weren’t Israeli obstructionists. There certainly were and are. After all, one of them killed Rabin. I think, however, that they’ve represented a smaller percentage of their population and have been better controlled by their government. This was especially critical in the 90’s when the PA had the means and incentive to reign in Palestinian rejectionists and did a half-hearted (at best) job. The Palestinian rejectionists have also drawn crucial support from surrounding nations and political movements.
It’s possible that different Israeli/US actions in the 90’s might have led to a different result. I’m skeptical about this but will admit the possibilty. I once heard Shimon Peres say something wise about the sorts of negotiations taking place at that time, that when one party felt it had won the day’s bargaining, in fact it had lost — both sides had lost. He was warning those on his side as well as the other side that each would have to do business with the other forever and that it was counterproductive for either to try to maximize its advantage. Heeding his words may have made a difference.
January 29th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Ames must have wandered in here from LGF.
Speaking of which, here are a couple of very illuminating posts.
http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2006/01/pajama_party_sp.php
http://dennisthepeasant.typepad.com/dennis_the_peasant/2006/01/the_big_pitch.html
January 30th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Rosedog sez “THIS is why Abbas wanted the elections postponed; because he/they saw the Hamas victory coming, and wanted time to regroup. It had nothing to do with Sharon’s collapse. But BushCo didn’t believe it. Ooops. Democracy in action.”
Wrong. Abbas talked Bush and Rice into allowing Hamas to participate. Sharon and the Likudniks did not want Hamas to take part in the elections. It’s no surprise that people like Dennis Perrin and Cole missed this, but other anti-war people should have caught this.
Bush and Rice believe corrupt Arab dictatorships of the Middle East, remnants of the Cold War, breed terrorists like bin Laden. Only one way to be rid of dictatorships: elections.
Even though Israel has nukes and the unqualified backing of the lone superpower, it is surrounded by a sea of Arabs. Elections in the occupied territories, in Egypt, in Lebanon, etc, are bringing organized groups hostile to Israel’s policies to the fore. Israel better compromise and work towards a two-state solution or it will just get worse. If the Israelis don’t recognize this and act accordingly, it will be their country which will reap the whirlwind, not America.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
“Wrong. Abbas talked Bush and Rice into allowing Hamas to participate. Sharon and the Likudniks did not want Hamas to take part in the elections. It’s no surprise that people like Dennis Perrin and Cole missed this, but other anti-war people should have caught this.”
ACTUALLY, PETER, you forgot to read the fine print. Yes, Abbas rightly pushed for Hamas to participate—- realizing the elections would be viewed as all but meaningless without having them on the ballot. Plus, he quite correctly saw the necessity of pulling Hamas inside the tent rather than leaving them outside to toss firebombs—literally and metaphorically.
But from late December onward, when it was becoming undeniable that Hamas was moving toward an unexpectedly strong showing and Fatah was ever more plagued by its own nasty factional strife, Abbas was being pressured by all those in his own camp to get the elections postponed so that Fatah could have the time to heal its rifts and get some of its act together, and hopefully calm the militants in Gaza. All of the aforementioned has been reported on—albeit not extensively—by everyone from Fox to the BBC. It’s just that such nuances simply don’t register with Americans.
Okay, but the story doesn’t end there. Abbas at first wouldn’t talk about a delay—mainly because he would have looked foolish and opportunistic to suggest it. But then at the 1st of January, he found the perfect excuse: the elections shouldn’t be held, he said, until Israel agreed to let the Arabs in south Jerusalem participate.
Meanwhile, on the Israeli side, Sharon stated his own intention to obstruct the elections because of Hamas’ inclusion. But under pressure from the US and the EU, backed off.
48 hours later, Sharon had the stroke. Within days Abbas was again talking about postponing the elections, mostly using voting in Jerusalem as the excuse, with some mention of the vacuum left by Sharon. When the Israelis unexpectedly agreed to let Jerusalem residents vote, the US insisted the elections move forward. And that was that.
In early January, When the calls for a delay became louder after Sharon’s hospitalization,
January 30th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Ooops. That last line snuck in there without my knowing. Ignore. And forgive all typos please.
January 30th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
http://tomgrey.motime.com/post/540424
Democracy, Hamas, Ho Chi Minh 1956
One of the big problems of America in Vietnam was the question “what are we fighting for”?
Against communism is not a very adequate answer (although, after commie genocide, it’s not so bad, either).
Because Ho Chi Minh would have won a free and fair 1956 election, we were NOT fighting for “democracy.”
I’m feelin’ a LOT better about Hamas winning. The big advantage of democracy is how it CAN get better, if folk can just agree on what they want.
Stop corruption; most Palestinians (and poor folk everywhere) want this.
Fight to the death with Israel? I’m not so sure so many Palestinians really want this.
January 30th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
I hope you’re right. I’m pessimistic, but more surprising things have happened over the past several decades than if something good comes out of this particular election.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Hey Papi Ringtone…
Too Much Nothing Ringtone Too Much Nothing Ringtone Five Man Army Ringtone Five Man Army Ringtone When I Think of You Ringtone When I Think of You Ringtone Me Trancaron Ringtone Me Trancaron Ringtone A New Flame Ringtone A New Flame Ringtone Running Ba…
July 25th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Descriptions of poker pubs their atmospheresjnn
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Respect you!Added to favorites!!Nice site!
This is my site:
http://www.volny.cz/disctairlineticket/index.html
April 25th, 2007 at 3:09 am
Hi Sam! Photos i send on e-mail.
Green