Palestinian Elections

[Imran Siddiqui]

The main thing, for me, is the message that is being sent: "we want you to be democratic, and we will help you (or even FORCE you) to be so, but only if you vote for the guys we want to win. Otherwise, to hell with you."

Bingo. What incentive do other countries have for being more democratic if they know that if the 'wrong guys' win, they are screwed?

[Arrian]

LotM,

I read Haaretz occasionally. JP is reg. req., right? Even if free, I just don't do that. Period. Before it was reg req, I remember getting the distinct impression that the JP was seriously right-wing militant in its editorial bias (not that Haaretz isn't biased the other way).

Besides, there is a similar effect over here - US politicians are expected to say the right things about Israel. Failure to do so results in summary execution of their political careers.

-Arrian

p.s. Meh, Hillary. I wish she'd just go away.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Well if Sharon can change (sort of), so can Hamas...

Indeed... but catagorically saying we don't deal with you unless you do THIS is a recipe for disaster. It'll only make them dig in their heels more.

Whatever happened to policy of engagement?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The main thing, for me, is the message that is being sent: "we want you to be democratic, and we will help you (or even FORCE you) to be so, but only if you vote for the guys we want to win. Otherwise, to hell with you."

Bingo. What incentive do other countries have for being more democratic if they know that if the 'wrong guys' win, they are screwed?

Other countries will become democratic mainly based on their own internal dynamics, which we can only influence marginally. Which doesnt mean we shouldnt try.

Supporting democracy does not mean holding democratically elected govts free of obligations. If it did, it would be absurd. But then some folks here think that supporting democracy is absurd from the get go, and so naturally are trying to claim that it is what it is not.

Now can we move beyond this IR theory discussion and ask what will happen on the ground? IT looks like Hamas wasnt ready for this, and wants a coalition with Fatah. Its not clear Fatah will bite. First blush this looks to help Bibi in the Israeli election, but Olmert may be unilateralist enough to withstand this.

[Arrian]

However, they really do need to recognize Israel. I admit that I'd glossed over their failure to do so. It's one thing to say you're keeping your weapons and will fight for a viable Palestine (West Bank, etc). It's another to keep saying you will destroy Israel.

Our aid is intended to assist the peace process, and if they really intend to deep-six that, then I agree that sending them aid doesn't make sense (I would take that same money, however, and provide it to a good NGO or two that is working in Palestine).

It was my hope, given the recent cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, that Hamas has decided to grow up (if they won, which they have). Let's see what they say.

So, upon further review, I agree that if Hamas continues listing the destruction of Israel as a key goal, funding a government under their control is not in our interests.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
LotM,

I read Haaretz occasionally. JP is reg. req., right? Even if free, I just don't do that. Period. Before it was reg req, I remember getting the distinct impression that the JP was seriously right-wing militant in its editorial bias (not that Haaretz isn't biased the other way).

Besides, there is a similar effect over here - US politicians are expected to say the right things about Israel. Failure to do so results in summary execution of their political careers.

-Arrian

p.s. Meh, Hillary. I wish she'd just go away.

1. No registration required for JP, except for special content

2. Its not just what the pols say, its what the pundits say. In fact if you believe the pundits the polsl, esp the right wing ones, are more deferential to the WHite House then they let on in public

3. Hillary

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Indeed... but catagorically saying we don't deal with you unless you do THIS is a recipe for disaster. It'll only make them dig in their heels more.

Whatever happened to policy of engagement?

Engagement requires sending a check?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Engagement usually means money (see: China). Unless you are thinking that US companies are going to be moving to Palestine en mass. Without money, any dialogue for change falls flat.

I mean the money is our main bargaining point! You take it all away and you've lost that. If you take a little bit away, you can still have an 'in'. But if you say, screw you, we're leaving, the country won't change. It didn't work when we sanctioned India and Pakistan (they didn't change one bit... the sanctions were lifted when we needed their help against terrorism).

So, upon further review, I agree that if Hamas continues listing the destruction of Israel as a key goal, funding a government under their control is not in our interests.

Even with a cease-fire in place? Hamas and Israel haven't been fighting recently. And, IIRC, Hamas ran on a platform of domestic change in education and law & order. Does not officially recognizing Israel matter if they de facto end up recognizing Isreal?

[Arrian]

Recognizing the basic right of Israel to exist is not exactly surrender. It's reciprocity. Israel has committed itself to the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

Demanding that they recognize Israel, and disarm, and this and that... too much too soon. Simply asking them to stop calling for Israel's total destruction, however, isn't unreasonable.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

That charge wasn't in their election manifesto, FWIW. I believe it is in the founding documents of Hamas.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Engagement usually means money (see: China). Unless you are thinking that US companies are going to be moving to Palestine en mass. Without money, any dialogue for change falls flat.

Ok, so if they want to engage with us, let them send us money.

This is absurd. Aid is not a requirement for engagement.

You will recall imram, that when the Madrid process occured, and Israel engaged in the Oslo discussions with the PLO, the US did NOT give aid to the PLO. Yet the discussions worked and aid FOLLOWED.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well if you don't think aid is requirement for engagment, take it all away and see how much the Hamas led Palestine even gives a hoot about what the US thinks about the issue.

As for the Oslo Accords, the PLO got something greater than aid in return from Israel. The PLO was recognized by Israel as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians, above Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It basically steered them into the power chair. I don't think there is anything similar that Israel can offer Hamas that they don't have already.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Even with a cease-fire in place? Hamas and Israel haven't been fighting recently. And, IIRC, Hamas ran on a platform of domestic change in education and law & order. Does not officially recognizing Israel matter if they de facto end up recognizing Isreal?

Hamas and Israel havent been fighting, as Israel allowed Abu Mazen to build up his forces to do it himself. Israel probably still wont attack Hamas (though it will be interesting to see how Hamas reacts when Israel attacks Islamic Jihad) But if they want aid and recognition, they need to go beyond a hudna.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well if you don't think aid is requirement for engagment, take it all away and see how much the Hamas led Palestine even gives a hoot about what the US thinks about the issue.

Right now they seem to be quite nervous about taking power without Fatah. I dont think theyre nearly as confident as you make out. Of course im following actual news stories from the region, and not just having an arguement about neoconservatism.

[Az]

I wouldn't say that Hamas coming to power has this much impact.

Seriously, I haven't really stated an opinion, KH. I just put an objective description of reality. America and the lapdog israeli govt. has screwed the pooch on this one, as Imran said, and now they're either in the position that they admit failure, or become "flexible" and talk to fricking hamas. HAMAS, dude. The 'party' that didn't just utilize the indscriminate killing of civilians as a political tool, but effectively paraded it proudly. The two don't make any difference to me, but the for the "public opinion" minded politicians, this has to be a slap on the face.

All of this is due to the fact that the range of options the Quartet, and the current Israeli government are willing to consider is, in fact, miniscule. For example, total war isn't just marked as highly undesirable ( the sane position), but as unacceptable at all.

And this, is of course, because noone is going to accept that they've made a mistake. Neither the Israeli government that decided to withdraw from Gaza, nor the Quartet members that cheered them on. Esp. since accepting that you've made a mistake will cost the government dearly in the upcoming ( march ) election in Israel.