Palestinian Elections

[Az]

So the answer is to push democratic elections, knowing there was a good chance the 'wrong guys' win and then you'll cut off aid? How in the WORLD is that a better result?!

Actually, in all fairness, that's quite obvious. The public takes responsibility of their actions, as well as has the freedom of influencing their fait. That's what's democracy is all about. Since noone contemplates pushing the real ethical solution of a complete society-building with the resources needed, this is second best.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If they dont, at least we've saved some money. Its not like there arent other places to spend it.

You have to be kidding me. I'm sure that Isrealis aren't so flippant about the havoc we've caused by pushing democracy and then say if Hamas wins, we're going to cut off our aid. This is the US's fault. And it is stunning bad foriegn policy if our response is "No Aid for You". It means things go from some hope under Abbas to back into the crapper once again.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


So the answer is to push democratic elections, knowing there was a good chance the 'wrong guys' win and then you'll cut off aid? How in the WORLD is that a better result?!

This isn't some backwater area where no one gives a damn. This is a very important piece of real estate and by doing this, we may be leading the Palestians to reach for more extreme measures (as GePap pointed out... if aid from the US is gone, they'll get it from somewhere else).

Im confused - do you really think Abu Mazen and Fatah could have managed to survive if they had refused elections? With their incompetent and divided security forces? Dictatorships often fall on their own you know.

And Palestine is in a different position from most arab polities as far as exposure to democracy. They have been exposed via the Israeli media, and via their own (natural) deep concern with future of Israeli policy, to the details of parliamentary democracy in Israel. That may have something to do with the high turnouts, and largely clean election and very vigorous election that just took place (something Pals should be quite proud of, IMHO)

[Az]

Actually more poverty might truly make the palestinians more docile. As was pointed out a million times, the poor palestinians are the ones doing the fighting. It's the lower middle class ones. However the cutting of american aid won't really have this effect. It will simply lead to the exploration of other resources, and the loss of american financial influence on palestinian society. Question is, if you people are shelling out money for political influence, when is this better time to cash that investment of yours?

However, even if you do this, you're too late. After all, Hamas already got elected.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If they dont, at least we've saved some money. Its not like there arent other places to spend it.

You have to be kidding me. I'm sure that Isrealis aren't so flippant about the havoc we've caused by pushing democracy and then say if Hamas wins, we're going to cut off our aid. This is the US's fault. And it is stunning bad foriegn policy if our response is "No Aid for You". It means things go from some hope under Abbas to back into the crapper once again.

I know of no Israelis, other than the most extreme far rightists, who think there was an alternative to democratic elections. Az, can you confirm that?

And of course cutting off aid is not the WHOLE policy - we will offer a carrot (recognition and aid IF they change) as well as a stick, and we will hope Fatah reforms, and other political movements arise. But yeah, things did get worse as far as the short term prospects of the peace process. That happens. This is a long thing. Patience is required.

[Imran Siddiqui]

do you really think Abu Mazen and Fatah could have managed to survive if they had refused elections? With their incompetent and divided security forces? Dictatorships often fall on their own you know.

Arafat managed to for a while. I think Fatah could have survived. Of course they would initiate some reforms (just to stop critism mainly). Remember, they didn't get destroyed in the polls. They seemingly got 45%+, which is a good deal of support.

I do wonder if the Bush administration would really like democracy throughout the Middle East. Perhaps he would, he'd get his clash of civilizations war he seems to want so much.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Sometimes the best way to force an immature troublemaker to get his act together is to promote him to a responsable position. Don't know if this works on scale of organizations though.

It did and didnt work with Fatah. Some responsible elements arose, though Arafat discouraged that. Some terribly irresponsible elements also arose. What will happen with Hamas, time will tell.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Az
Actually more poverty might truly make the palestinians more docile. As was pointed out a million times, the poor palestinians are the ones doing the fighting. It's the lower middle class ones. However the cutting of american aid won't really have this effect. It will simply lead to the exploration of other resources, and the loss of american financial influence on palestinian society. Question is, if you people are shelling out money for political influence, when is this better time to cash that investment of yours?

However, even if you do this, you're too late. After all, Hamas already got elected.

Yep, we screwed the pooch (so to speak) here. If we take out our money, all it'll mean is that the US won't have influence on the Palestinian side. They'll get theirs from someone else... perhaps from someone we like less.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

do you really think Abu Mazen and Fatah could have managed to survive if they had refused elections? With their incompetent and divided security forces? Dictatorships often fall on their own you know.

Arafat managed to for a while.

Yeah, and that was really working well, wasnt it? He did so by COOPERATING with Hamas, both before and during the intifida, if youve forgotten. If you so fear Hamas, whats the point of having a Fatah dictatorship thats only a cover for Hamas policies? Might as well negotiate with the principal. But negotiate tough, and DONT give them money for nothing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yep, we screwed the pooch (so to speak) here. If we take out our money, all it'll mean is that the US won't have influence on the Palestinian side. They'll get theirs from someone else... perhaps from someone we like less.

Like KSA? I think we need to have a long talk with them, and whether they think a breakdown in the peace process is really in their interests.

Where else are these deep pockets?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Yeah, and that was really working well, wasnt it? He did so by COOPERATING with Hamas, both before and during the intifida, if youve forgotten. If you so fear Hamas, whats the point of having a Fatah dictatorship thats only a cover for Hamas policies? Might as well negotiate with the principal. But negotiate tough, and DONT give them money for nothing.

Like said before, a Fatah/Hamas alliance with Fatah having the big political positions and foriegn affairs and Hamas having the smaller positions would not have likely provoked any response from the West. The West would have accepted that situation and real progress would have continued to be made in the Mid East peace process, as it had been for the last few years (with Fatah holding the foriegn relations component in hand).

Now, the peace process may end up being blasted to smithereens.... depends on the US's reactions, but it can't be good, considering the pre-election blustering.

And apparently we didn't mind Fatah's relationship with Hamas seeing as how we channeled somewhere around $20 million to help Fatah in their election campaign.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's pretty clear that the Palestinian people, in their wisdom ( ) want Hamas. A government without Hamas would have zero legitimacy. But since Hamas is a bunch of thugs (as opposed to Fatah??), we're going to shut off aid to the democratically elected government of Palestine. Brilliant. Of COURSE it's our right to do so. It's just stupid.

-Arrian

tell me, what exactly does giving them aid buy us? I understood why we were giving the PA aid, to keep the peace process on track. If theres no peace process, (and how can there be if Hamas wont recognize Israel or swear off terror) what is the benefit that justifies the cost? There are fire stations in the US that need funding, Russian nukes that need securing, public health improvements needed, etc, etc, in case anyones forgotten.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Like said before, a Fatah/Hamas alliance with Fatah having the big political positions and foriegn affairs and Hamas having the smaller positions would not have likely provoked any response from the West. The West would have accepted that situation and real progress would have continued to be made in the Mid East peace process, as it had been for the last few years (with Fatah holding the foriegn relations component in hand).
.

Uh no. THe Fatah Hamas alliance was Arafat policy, and led to a diplomatic boycott of the PA, etc. And to Israeli occupations of Pal cities, etc. It was NOT a hopeful time, nor one of progress. The hope started when Arafat was buried, and when Abu Mazen promised a DIFFERENT policy, one not a cover for Hamas (though he wouldnt directly take on Hamas) But Abu Mazen did not have enough internal legitimacy to carry one without elections. Elections were therefore inevitable, whatever US policy was.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm agreeing with LoTM on an ME thread.



The world must be coming to an end.

[lord of the mark]

1. Maybe the Pals werent stupid. Maybe Fatah was so corrupt, it needed time out of power to clean up, and voting in Hamas was the only way to make this happen. And maybe thats worth a delay in the peace process, and maybe Hamas will allow another free election.

2. Maybe the Pals were stupid. You cant always protect people from their own stupidity. You cant force people do the smart thing. Which doesnt mean you have to subsidize the stupid thing. Id THINK a libertarian would understand that.