Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
In Defense of the Hamas Victory
Posted by: Jon Henke on Friday, January 27, 2006

There's been no end to the vexation over the recent Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections. That's unsuprising, of course. Consider the difference between the two main Palestinian political organizations:
  • Hamas, while active in Palestinian social services, is indisputably a violent organization which has engaged in terrorism and is dedicated to the elimination of Israel.

  • Fatah, on the other hand, is merely a thoroughly corrupt and violent organization which occassionally still supported terrorism and is dedicated to the "eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence".

Now, obviously, Hamas has been more vocal, more active, in their dedication to violence against Israel. And perhaps that will continue. But as a commenter brought up in this post, if Hamas "launch[es] attacks, or even sponsor[s] attacks, or [is] even be THOUGHT to be sponsoring attacks, that’s not terrorism- that’s WAR."

Leadership not only brings a new set of responsibilities, it also brings a new set of calculations. As Thomas PM Barnett wrote just prior to the election...
1) those striving for power act differently than those who’ve achieved it (sometimes they act worse, sometimes they act better); and 2) most founders of countries start out as rebels and terrorists (as the members of the British Parliament reminded me when I spoke there a couple of years back, they still consider George Washington to be a master terrorist).
So perhaps, imbued with a new sense of responsibility, Hamas will begin to behave like a rational State actor; or perhaps they will continue to behave violently, and choose to face the consequences of a violent State actor. Either way, that breaks one long-standing logjam in Israeli/Palestinian politics. Israel and other State actors have had no substantial leverage over Hamas

Israel and other State actors have had no substantial leverage over Hamas. So long as Hamas was a minority agitator, States could not deal directly with them. So long as Fatah remained in power, the socio-political structure incentivized only stasis and corruption; so long as Hamas was a minority, the socio-political structure incentivized only radicalism and agitation.

Now that Fatah has been deposed and Hamas is in charge, however, Fatah must change, and States must deal directly with Hamas in some manner. (Bush administration protestations notwithstanding)

As terrible as the legitimate election of a terrorist group may appear, it was still the least painful way to disrupt the clearly failing status quo. Perhaps — like Nixon going to China; like Sharon conceding the Gaza strip — only Hamas can break the poisonous equilibrium in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Divider



Going forward, the task for the United States is complex. If we are to resolve the Middle East problem, a diplomatic solution must be crafted that addresses the vital interests of every major nation-state in the region. I think the answer to this may be a mix of US security guarantees, temporary status of forces agreements, economic interconnectivity, secure Palestinian and Israeli States, and — most importantly — an end to the Iranian/Israeli nuclear tension.

Increasingly, I think, the Muslim world is recognizing that they have a vested interest in regional stability and economic connectivity. We ought to exploit that interest while we still can.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Sorry for being a noob, but what exactly does the elected Palestinian ’government’ do exactly? Are they kind of like an official opposition to the Israeli government?

Also, is the Gaza Strip still considered Israeli territory even though they have withdrawn militarily?
 
Written By: Derek
URL: http://
Well, apart from local governance, social welfare issues, etc, they negotiate with the Israeli government on behalf of the Palestinian people.

I believe the Gaza Strip is still occupied Israeli territory, but effectively overseen by the Palestinians now. It will remain Israeli occupied territory until it becomes a part of a permanent state.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
That’s what I thought.
 
Written By: Derek
URL: http://
Does that negotiation include blowing people up?

Is this a good time for the US to stop sending money to Palestinians that blow people up? Hey, I’m just askin’.
 
Written By: the wolf
URL: http://gabbleratchet.blogspot.com
Does that negotiation include blowing people up?

Is this a good time for the US to stop sending money to Palestinians that blow people up? Hey, I’m just askin’.
When Israel stops killing innocent civilians and stops building illegal settlements, you might have a point. Until then, you don’t.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Does that negotiation include blowing people up?
We’ll find out. If it does, it should have very different consequences now.
Is this a good time for the US to stop sending money to Palestinians that blow people up? Hey, I’m just askin’.
I’m agnostic. I’d like to not send money to them, certainly, but perhaps that will give us some leverage over them. I don’t know.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
yeah mk has a point, we should keep sending money to people who send children strapped with bombs to try to kill as many civilians as possible. excellent logic as always mk.
 
Written By: Chris
URL: http://
"stops killing innocent civilians "
Israel is bombing itself? Oh THOSE innocent civilians, not the Jewish ones of course...
Yes, I get it, perfectly clear.

The fact that one groups ’innocent civilians’ have a tendency to have caches of explosives or be driving in vehicles which contain terrorist thugss while the other groups innocent civilians tend to be riding buses, sitting in cafes or going shopping is clearly not important to the discussion.

Palestinians who choose to wear explosive vests should be free to detonate themselves where ever they like. Damn those Jews for violating the religious and free speech rights of homicide bombers and those who support them.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
yeah mk has a point, we should keep sending money to people who send children strapped with bombs to try to kill as many civilians as possible. excellent logic as always mk.
&
The fact that one groups ’innocent civilians’ have a tendency to have caches of explosives or be driving in vehicles which contain terrorist thugss while the other groups innocent civilians tend to be riding buses, sitting in cafes or going shopping is clearly not important to the discussion.
v.
Whereas Palestinian suicide attacks targeting Israeli civilians have garnered much media attention, Israel’s quantitatively worse record of killing non-combatants is less well known. According to the most recent figures of the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (B’Tselem), 3,386 Palestinians have been killed since September 2000, of whom 1,008 were identified as combatants, as opposed to 992 Israelis killed, of whom 309 were combatants. This means that three times more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed and up to three times more Palestinian civilians than Israeli civilians. Israel’s defenders maintain that there’s a difference between targeting civilians and inadvertently killing them. B’Tselem disputes this: "[W]hen so many civilians have been killed and wounded, the lack of intent makes no difference. Israel remains responsible."

Furthermore, Amnesty International reports that "many" Palestinians have not been accidentally killed but "deliberately targeted," while the award-winning New York Times journalist Chris Hedges reports that Israeli soldiers "entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport."
Now, lets assume for purposes of argument that 1000 of 2378 civilian Palestinians who were killed were in some way responsible for their own deaths. That would still mean that twice as many innocent Palestinians have been killed.

This is from Human Rights Watch:
The Israeli army and security forces continued to carry out daily arrest raids and military operations in Palestinian areas during 2005. There have been over two thousand IDF incursions into Palestinian population centers this year. The IDF often carried out the operations in a manner that failed to demonstrate that it had used all feasible measures to avoid or minimize harm to civilians and their property. In one such incident, an August 24 arrest raid in the Tulkarem refugee camp, the IDF shot and killed five unarmed Palestinians, including three seventeen-year-olds. This incident reflects a growing pattern of IDF “arrest operations” in which security forces kill the target of arrest or bystanders rather than seeking to apprehend the target. More than 20 Palestinians were killed in assassinations or extra-judicial killings in 2005.
Now, do Palestianians kill innocent civilians? Yes. Do the Israelis do the same thing? Yes. Am I willing to admit that both sides kill innocent civilians? Yes. Are the wingers who post here willing to do the same? Apparently not.

That’s the moral distinction.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Jon, your post sounds like a rationalization after the fact. Yes, things may in fact turn out for the good. But you need to ask yourself: would this have been your preferred outcome before the fact? Likely not.
 
Written By: cllam
URL: http://
Am I willing to admit that both sides kill innocent civilians? Yes. Are the wingers who post here willing to do the same? Apparently not.
Both sides kill innocent civilians.
Jon, your post sounds like a rationalization after the fact. Yes, things may in fact turn out for the good. But you need to ask yourself: would this have been your preferred outcome before the fact? Likely not.
I think I was suggesting in the QandO chat room that a Hamas victory wouldn’t be such a bad thing. That Thomas PM Barnett post came up prior to the election.

Honestly, I can think of a lot of outcomes I’d prefer. Status quo was not among them, though.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Israel and other State actors have had no substantial leverage over Hamas. So long as Hamas was a minority agitator, States could not deal directly with them
Again - more fiction. From Richard Sale at the UPI:
Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.

Israel "aided Hamas directly — the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

Israel’s support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative," said a former senior CIA official.

According to documents United Press International obtained from the Israel-based Institute for Counter Terrorism, Hamas evolved from cells of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928. Islamic movements in Israel and Palestine were "weak and dormant" until after the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel scored a stunning victory over its Arab enemies.

After 1967, a great part of the success of the Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood was due to their activities among the refugees of the Gaza Strip. The cornerstone of the Islamic movements success was an impressive social, religious, educational and cultural infrastructure, called Da’wah, that worked to ease the hardship of large numbers of Palestinian refugees, confined to camps, and many who were living on the edge.

"Social influence grew into political influence," first in the Gaza Strip, then on the West Bank, said an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

According to ICT papers, Hamas was legally registered in Israel in 1978 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the movement’s spiritual leader, as an Islamic Association by the name Al-Mujamma al Islami, which widened its base of supporters and sympathizers by religious propaganda and social work.

According to U.S. administration officials, funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel. The PLO was secular and leftist and promoted Palestinian nationalism. Hamas wanted to set up a transnational state under the rule of Islam, much like Khomeini’s Iran.

What took Israeli leaders by surprise was the way the Islamic movements began to surge after the Iranian revolution, after armed resistance to Israel sprang up in southern Lebanon vis-à-vis the Hezbollah, backed by Iran, these sources said.
Israel is at least partly responsible for the creation of Hamas. To say that they did not have direct dealings with Hamas is simply not true, unless you believe Cordesman is lying.

Of course Israeli support for Hamas does not get mentioned in the mainstream US press, so I am not surprised that you missed it, Jon. Moreover, it does not fit within the traditional winger narrative of an innocent Israel and the evil Palestinians.

Facts are hard to come by in the Middle East conflict. It doesn’t help when there are legions of wingers out there trying to obscure history.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
The moral distiniction is that the Palestinians want to see Israel wiped off the map.

Big surprise you’re a defence lawyer.

 
Written By: Derek
URL: http://
mkultra, your point about the deaths of innocent civilians makes one important error, the TARGET of each side’s attacks. Hamas/Hizbollah/Al-Aksa INTEND to target civilians, whereas the Israelis INTEND to target terrorists. The civilians are "collateral damage." And yes, that is a difference. It says that the Palestinians, those involved in "armed struggle" MEANT to kill the people in the Sbarro Pizzeria or at the Seder, simply because they were Jews/Zionists. A goodly portion of the time the dead Palestinians are the result of bad luck... and as I said, it makes a difference.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
As counter-intuitive as it may seem, I am beginning to consider that the election of Hamas may indeed be a good thing. It is quite telling to note that Hamas actually had no intention, or desire, to actually win the election. They were much more interested in being a minority party where they could make some noise, but still otherwise hide behind Fatah and the Palestinian Authority. Now they are the Palestinian Authority. They initially offered to form a coalition government with Fatah, who conveniently informed them that they won a majority of seats, and as such have no need to form a coalition government.

Hamas has always hid behind the PA while conducting their violent operations. Because of the amount of power and on-the-ground control they held, the PA could do very little to actually stop them or keep them in check. When the rest of the world demands that the PA stand behind its obligations, there will no longer be any excuse. Fatah could shrug its shoulders and point at Hamas, and declare that there was little they could do to control them. Hamas can do no such thing.

Hamas is already being faced with a choice. The PA will go bankrupt in a few short weeks if it does not collect tax revenues and foreign aid, which allows it to function. All of which comes from outside organizations, all of which have demanded that the money will stop flowing if the PA refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist. My bet is that they will concede fairly quickly.

Hamas has made its bed, and now they have to sleep in it. They will no longer be able to blame the corrupt and inefficient PA for the problems of the country, they are they PA. They will no longer be able to hide behind the PA, they will have to own up to their own actions. Now Hamas will have to be held accountable by voters, something they have never had to do before.

A terrorist group winning control of government may just end up being the biggest step towards peace in decades. Reality really is stranger than fiction. This should be very interesting.
 
Written By: Rosensteel
URL: http://
Well Rosensteel, I see just one problem with your posting... at the risk of a Goodwin’s Law accusation. You are putting a good spin on what happened, and I too, hope for the best, however, when the Bolsheviks or the Nazi’s came to power, there were those who felt that governing would "tame" those groups too. It didn’t. They proceeded to do what they said they intended to do. The Nazi’s especially. We keep hoping that some group will come to power in the Middle East that will honestly seek accomodation with its neighbors. And I think we pin our hopes on each successive group.

It is just as likely that Hamas will be as disastrous for the Palestinians as Fatah was and more destructive towards Israel. It could result in a Sunni "Iran" next door to Israel that will proceed to oppress its women, launch attacks on Israel and still leave most Palestinians impoverished and embittered.

I hope not, but I fear we are simply saying the equivalent of, "That Mr. Hitler is now Reichskranz and I’m SURE that he will grow into the position." The truth was and is that he didn’t and Hamas might not either.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Israel is at least partly responsible for the creation of Hamas. To say that they did not have direct dealings with Hamas is simply not true, unless you believe Cordesman is lying.
I didn’t say anything about "dealings". I said "substantial leverage".
Of course Israeli support for Hamas does not get mentioned in the mainstream US press, so I am not surprised that you missed it, Jon. Moreover, it does not fit within the traditional winger narrative of an innocent Israel and the evil Palestinians.
You’re being quite the douche today. I note your lack of acknowledgement of my agreement that both sides kill innocents. Nevertheless, the "winger" bullshit continues.

I realize you’re here to advance your political agenda and not to be intellectually honest. But....well, I’ve nothing to add to that, really. Just wanted to point it out.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
No Mk, I’m not willing to say Israel doesn’t kill innocent civilians when they retaliate.
What I AM fairly sure of is Israel doesn’t SET OUT TO DO IT ON PURPOSE.
Simple logic says it’s bad for their image, bad for negotiations, bad for world opinion, and won’t be productive.

Now, if you can sit there and tell me that HAMAS doesn’t set out to kill innocent civilians when it sends suicide bombers to blow up a shopping mall then we know where your head, and your heart, is at.
HAMAS no only finds it ’productive’, but thinks it enhances their image with the people of Palestine. What’s even sicker is, it obviously is....
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I didn’t say anything about "dealings". I said "substantial leverage".
You didn’t? Really? Then I suppose you are saying someone else named Jon Henke posted this.
So long as Hamas was a minority agitator, States could not deal directly with them.
And I am the one not being intellectually honest, huh? You said they didn’t "deal" with Hamas. That was the word you used. Giving money to Hamas is having direct dealings with them under any definition of the word.
mkultra, your point about the deaths of innocent civilians makes one important error, the TARGET of each side’s attacks. Hamas/Hizbollah/Al-Aksa INTEND to target civilians, whereas the Israelis INTEND to target terrorists. The civilians are "collateral damage." And yes, that is a difference. It says that the Palestinians, those involved in "armed struggle" MEANT to kill the people in the Sbarro Pizzeria or at the Seder, simply because they were Jews/Zionists. A goodly portion of the time the dead Palestinians are the result of bad luck... and as I said, it makes a difference.
Oh - I see. So if I drive my car into a crowd of people, but I don’t INTEND to hurt anyone, then I am not morally or legally responsible for their deaths? Right. Just those folks bad luck, I guess. Some moral compass you got there. What’s a few dead Palestinian kids, after all. Besides, if the Israeli military is going after them, why doesn’t the Palestinian military strike back .... Oh wait, they aren’t allowed to have a military.

We intend the consequences of our purposeful actions. If I know with a reasonable amount of certainty that my extrajudicial killings (and that’s what they are - outside the legal process) are going to end up taking the lives of innocent civilians as well, then there is no moral distinction between me and the guy who set out to kill the civilians in the first place.

Let me put it this way: If your loved one was in the crowd of people I drove my car through, and I hit her or him, I don’t think you would be so charitable.

Now, when it comes to wars, that’s a different issue. I believe there is a moral distinction between killing innocent civilians in wars and killing innocent civilians outside of war. War is different. At least in a war each side is protected by a military. The problem is that there is no "war" between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Moreover, as I noted above, Palestinians can’t have a military. Palestinians are under de facto control of Israel. They have no military to defend themselves. So when Israel kills Palestinians, they do not so pursuant to any warmaking power. Therefore, they do so outside the legal process, because the people they kill have never been tried in a court of law.

But I understand the rule of law has become quite meaningless to wingers lately.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
So if I drive my car into a crowd of people, but I don’t INTEND to hurt anyone, then I am not morally or legally responsible for their deaths?
I’d like to know how you could intend to drive your car into a crowd of people without hurting them.

See Hamas.

If, however, you’re chasing a murderer and your car accidentally ends up in a crowd of people, you might accidentally hurt some of them.

See Israel.

Now if the difference between the two examples is too nuanced for you to understand, see your reading teacher.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Or just ignore the nuances, and invent straw arguments about how you can drive your car into a crowd pretending from the get-go that you won’t hurt anyone in
the process.

And be sure to try and use moral relativism that since death is death it doesn’t really matter how it was achieved or for what reason. See, say your positino on abortion versus say, capital punishment.

Then make further arguments about how the Israeli’s ought to allow the Palestinans who live on territory that the Israeli’s think is really thiers to have an army of their own to, um, I guess, defend themselves from Israel inside of, um, Israel. This despite the fact that prior history indicates that there was no Palestinian government per say to control said army, or that people who were allegedly Palestinian in origin had a tendency to blow themselves up in areas where there were handy Jews wandering around, rather than in, say, their own homes.

What’s the matter MK - did your social meter blow trying to find a way to defend what is clearly a group of terrorists who can’t be held accountable for performing acts of terror against a legitmate government who can be held accountable for their actions?

Nice MK - your own moral compass, assuming you actually consult it on occasion without regard to worrying about mine, must spin faster than a draydel.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
They proceeded to do what they said they intended to do.

A crucial difference being they were able to do what they said they intended to do, or at least make a credible go of it. The Nazi Germany war machine was a real threat to Europe. Palestinian prospects of success in an open war against Israel are negligible at best.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
You didn’t? Really? Then I suppose you are saying someone else named Jon Henke posted this.
So long as Hamas was a minority agitator, States could not deal directly with them.
MK, how completely obtuse can you possibly be. Reread what Henke is saying. He is saying that States could not have meaningful direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas as a "minority agitator" while bypassing Fatah. The US, Israel, France, etc., etc., etc., could not, up to this juncture in history, sign a binding treaty with Hamas and expect Fatah, the GOVERNMENT of the Palestinian territory, to stand idly by and just say "ok." Fatah was not in a position to make deals as it was not the official voice of the Palestinians.

I mean, just damn! So what if Israel, the Pope, or little green aliens covertly supported Hamas. So what what if Israel grew Hassin in a petri dish in Tel Aviv. IT DOESN’T AFFECT THE BASIC POINT JON IS MAKING.

You sound like somebody arguing "Well, yes, you accurately described 57 differennt unique details of the kill, but his jacket was PUCE not Magenta! YOU LYING, INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST BASTARD!!!!!"

 
Written By: Terry
URL: http://
Blech

Make that, "Hamas" was not in a position to make deals.
 
Written By: Terry
URL: http://
So perhaps, imbued with a new sense of responsibility, Hamas will begin to behave like a rational State actor; or perhaps they will continue to behave violently, and choose to face the consequences of a violent State actor. Either way, that breaks one long-standing logjam in Israeli/Palestinian politics.


How does it break the logjam? Why won’t Hamas just do what Fatah and the IRA have always done, operate and "political" wing under the name Hamas for public consumption and a military wing under some other name to continue its crusade to destroy the the Jews? Sure, everyone in the whole world will see through the ploy, but that fact never hurt Arafat and Fatah. And it got the IRA a peace treaty and a place at the Governemnt trough!
 
Written By: Terry
URL: http://
Mk’s right, Israel should have killed those Hamas bastards when they were starting out. Course MK would have claimed they were innocent civilians killed by the Israeli government, but that’s beside the point.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The status of Gaza is not that simple:

"The Strip is under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority. The official Palestinian position is that the territory remains under military occupation, and that Israel holds the status of occupying power. The Israeli government disputes this, especially after the withdrawal of Israeli forces in 2005."

From Wikipedia.

I’d say if the occupying power has retreated and there is an authority in place (like PA police who man the border crossing with Egypt) how can it be "occupied."

MK Ultra: Suicide bombers could target military objectives, but instead actively seek out civilain buses, etc. Israeli missiles are not targeted at schools, they just accidentally hit them. This is a very important distinction in war.

Otherwise, with your system, I could factually claim:

Nazi Germany killed civilains in WW II. The USA did as well. The USA and Germany’s actions in WW II are equivalent.

Would you agree with this statement?
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
MK doesn’t think it’s a war.

It’s just, sort of like a neighborhood disagreement where your neighbor comes into your house (every week or so) with a gasoline bomb and tries to kill you (and himself/herself) because he claims you’re living in HIS house.

See, now, if your neighbors had their own police force then your local police force and theirs could fight it out, but as it is he’s not allowed to have his own exclusive force (which MK thinks is wrong). On the other hand when your police force goes over to the neighbors house to raid the place and look for gasoline bomb makers and materials, and accidentally shoots one of the people who live there who aren’t actually HOLDING a gasoline bomb, it’s evil and should be condemned with all possible vigor because he’s fairly certain they meant to do it. (Now, why, if your police MEANT to kill innocent neighbors, but stopped after only killing one of them by mistake, and didn’t just go ahead and kill ALL of them by mistake, well, I guess it’s because your police force is confused. Unlike your neighbors, who are quite clear about what they MEAN to do to you.)

As for your zany neighbors, well, just try and get along with them, okay? Maybe they’ll eventually stop trying to kill you if you let them live in your dining room. Even if they have repeatedly sworn to take the whole house and kill you and your family in the process.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Joe, I largely agreed with Rosensteel’s very well-put point, but this....
I hope not, but I fear we are simply saying the equivalent of, "That Mr. Hitler is now Reichskranz and I’m SURE that he will grow into the position." The truth was and is that he didn’t and Hamas might not either.
...is also worthwhile to remember. We absolutely ought to take into account the possibility that Hamas may, in fact, not change at all. But if that’s the case, we now have a new set of options. Unlike Hitler and the Bolsheviks, remember, Hamas already had a direct affect on other countries and not just on the regime in their own land.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
And I am the one not being intellectually honest, huh? You said they didn’t "deal" with Hamas. That was the word you used. Giving money to Hamas is having direct dealings with them under any definition of the word.
"Deal" does not = "interact with". I thought that was fairly obvious. Hell, I could "deal" with Hamas. That doesn’t mean I have leverage with them and can negotiate policy directly with them. I’m certain that Israel interacted with Hamas to some extent prior to their ascension. I don’t think Israel could deal with them in the same way they now can.

Or, better, "what Terry said".
How does it break the logjam? Why won’t Hamas just do what Fatah and the IRA have always done, operate and "political" wing under the name Hamas for public consumption and a military wing under some other name to continue its crusade to destroy the the Jews? Sure, everyone in the whole world will see through the ploy, but that fact never hurt Arafat and Fatah. And it got the IRA a peace treaty and a place at the Governemnt trough!
Well, that’s a possibility, too. though it would require Hamas to disavow terrorism and violence in their political wing, which would be interesting and perhaps balkinize their support.

And remember, leadership in the PA is now a competitive matter, and the populace seems to be voting on results, rather than heritage. (Arafat)
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
How does it break the logjam? Why won’t Hamas just do what Fatah and the IRA have always done, operate and "political" wing under the name Hamas for public consumption and a military wing under some other name to continue its crusade to destroy the the Jews? Sure, everyone in the whole world will see through the ploy, but that fact never hurt Arafat and Fatah.


Huh? Hamas won the election, Fatah lost the election - this is hurt.

It is possible that Hamas will now adopt the failed posture of Fatah, but generally the winners do not mimic the posture of the losers.
And it got the IRA a peace treaty and a place at the Governemnt trough!
The IRA are fighting the British who are motivated to include the British Catholics that vote Sinn Fien, Hamas are fighting Israelis who are not motivated this way. The technique as used by IRA and Fatah, that works on the British fails on the Israelis.

Hamas needs a technique that works. They need to make the leap that shark makes:
If they launch attacks, or even sponsor attacks, or even be THOUGHT to be sponsoring attacks, that’s not terrorism- that’s WAR.
They need to fight this war better than Fatah did. In my opinion Hamas should declare an immediate ceasefire with Israel, Hamas can then use this time to arm Palestine in such a way that it is a credible threat to Israel (everything from IEDs to anti-aircraft). Suicide bombings haven’t worked try something better. After 2 or 3 years of armament process make serious negotiations for a withdrawl of Israel from the West Bank.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
MK - still waiting...
 
Written By: Derek
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider