If only the Middle East had democracy, terrorism would evaporate. That's the argument, in simplistic form, made by Natan Sharansky in The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, and made by President George Bush in justifying his nation-building project in Iraq. Well, the Palestinians voted--at higher percentage than Americans vote--and...the terrorists won. The Palestinian prime minister announced his resignation today, leaving Hamas to form a government. Does Sharansky wish to rethink his proclamation, "the democracy that hates you is less dangerous than the dictator who loves you"? Does Bush wish to rethink the $350 million in foreign aid he sought for the Palestinian Authority in his most recent state of the union address? Who you vote for, not that you vote, matters most. Palestinians voted to turn their government over to a terrorist outfit. This is what democracy looks like?
Good points, Dan. I am apalled (though not surprised) at the PA election outcome. On the one hand, I thought it was outrageous that a terrorist organization could fob itself off as a political party, in the first place. But when I saw that happen as though it was noything at all unusual, I knew pretty much what the result would be. I have always maintained that the Palestinian Authority is no "authority" at all; that the Palestinians are run by terrorists. I guess this proves I was right. Anyone who thought otherwise is a blind fool.
F**K Hamas. They are prepared to slaughter anyone, Jews or not, who stand in their way of an Islamic Palestine. Take notice and take guard.
As well as being a fundamentalist religious party, from their origins in the first intifada they have provided some basic social needs like medical attention and elementary education. This has given them street cred in the Palestinian territorities. This and their pledge to slaughter Jews.
When inquiring what democracy looks like among Palestinians now, also sternly consider how "democracy" looked under Arafat and the PLO and PNA - Hamas's predecessors whose massive corruption and double-dealing kept their own people impoverished and restless - and stateless - for generations.
The funniest thing is the Drudge headline that's up there now: "World Leaders Shocked".
Kind of reminds me of the scene from Casablanca:
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, SHOCKED! to find that gambl-ing is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
Who the hell did they think they were dealing with?
I agree with Jeremiah and would add that President Bush was right on the money today when he said in his press conference that the people in Palestine have spoken. We may not like what we hear - who can like a terrorist organization like Hamas rising to power? But the old PA, remnants of the highly corrupt Arafat legacy was not doing what the people wanted.
We have laws here that will prevent any aid to a country headed by terrorists. The Palestinians will feel the pain of the canceling of that aid relatively soon and will likely demand that Hamas drop its "destroy Israel" rhetoric and act to be perceived as a new, non-terrorist faction. Who knows if they will listen?
But the bottom line is that in a democracy, the people will have their way. I happen to believe that some outcomes in our own elections, like putting Bubba in the White House, were pretty bad too, but he won. Now we have to learn how to deal with the situation - not re-examine our support for the democratic process.
A year ago at a college campus appearance David Horowitz recommended Sharansky's book. He went no further, however, than mention Sharansky's distinction between "free" societies and "fear" societies: in one you can stand on a street corner, say the government stinks, and go home to your family; in the other if you do the same thing and you go to jail or worse. Dan's takes on the book seem to push the envelope a little further than Horowitz did in that appearance.
I like Emanuele Ottolenghi's opinion piece in today's NRO, "Hamas Without Veils": "For now, the Palestinians have chosen an Islamic option over a secular one. Let them have it. Let them enjoy life under Sharia. It is their choice...."
So what do Eamonn de Valera, Ariel Sharon, and Khaled Mashaal now all have in common? Having begun as terrorists only to eventually become democratically elected leaders of their peoples. As Buchanan has pointed out one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Could you substantiate your claim that Ariel Sharon, some of whose tactics I read are studied at West Point, is a terrorist?
Just when you think the world has gone crazy, there appears further evidence that is has: I saw Sheppard Smith on "Studio B" (Fox News) saying that he thinks the win by Hamas "may be a very, very good thing." His rationale? Because Sinn Fein was finally recognized by the British parliament and ten years later the Irish Republican Army called it quits. So, by a real stretch of logic, Shep Smith thinks the same will happen now that Hamas has become the dominant power in the PA. What part of "Hamas is a terrorist group" does this moron not understand?!
No one should ever take seriously the idea that President Bush and the Neocons invaded Iraq to turn it into a democracy. Nor should anyone take seriously idea that democracies are peaceful and don't go to war or don't support terrorism. Democracy is just a verbal fig leaf the Neocons use to conceal their imperial phallus. WMD was just a fig leaf to make war in Iraq look like a pre-emptive war. No one believes in these ideas. They are transparent rationales for political power and hegemony. There is no reason to rebut ideas that no one believes in.
The Irony of Hamas
In 1982, Ariel Sharon was convicted by an Israeli commission of responsibility in a massacre of Palestinians carried out by allied Christian terrorists in Lebanon. 800 to 2000 Palestinians died in the attacks, including women and children. When he was elected Prime Minister of Israel nearly two decades later, Palestinians were horrified. They saw him as a leader who would obstruct peace. In previous governments, he had championed the settler movement - a movement which threatened peace itself.
Today, Hamas won 60% of the vote in its first attempt at parliamentary elections. It's massive landslide is similar to the landslide which elected Sharon. As soon as it happened, the Western world condemned the election (though all international observers agreed it was free and fair) and declared that no negotiations would occur so long as such an extreme group was in government. Sound familiar? Palestinians said the same thing when Sharon got elected.
It is not surprising to me that both Israelis and Palestinians are electing hard-liners - the soft-liners haven't delivered anything but promises and corruption. Whether or not Hamas can move from terrorism to statesmanship is a question that will determine Middle East peace. Let's remember that Sharon, in 2003, renounced his ties to the settler movement and initiated the unilateral withdrawal - a complete 180 on his prior position. If Hamas can achieve the same, it would change the Palestinian political map - something that is necessary, since so many Palestinians continue to support terrorism in the face of its obvious failure.
I'm not saying Hamas' win is good - far from it. Hamas at the moment is a terrorist organization which refuses to recognize Israel, a necessary precondition for negotiations. But should we be surprised that Palestinians are fed up with Fatah's failed promises and corruption? No. This was not a vote against peace - countless Palestinians opinion polls show huge majorities support the peace process. No, this was a vote against 40 years of corrupt leaders.
Was anyone else disturbed? In the picture on Drudge that Hamas captured landslide win, half the Palestinian men were wearing baseball hats.
Jeremiah,
Israel was established as a Jewish majority state, and forced the withdrawal from the region of Britain, in significant part by the use of terrorism. The Irgun and the Stern Gang were the two groups back in the forties and fifties most inclined to make such attacks, they were the Israeli equivalents of Hamas. I could have pointed out that in fact 3 Israeli prime ministers had terrorist roots, or had committed acts of terrorism in their pasts, since Yitzhak Shamir was the leader of the Stern Gang and Menachem Begin was the leader of the Irgun. As for Sharon, he had been the leader of a commando unit of the Israeli army which destroyed the village of Kibya in Oct. 1953 killing 69 women and children.
My point is that nationalism isn't pretty. People celebrate as national heroes and will elect to office figures they see as defending and fighting for their interests often w/o regard to the means by which those people fight.
Heck, on this last point, one might as well wonder why the citizens of Massachusetts have repeatedly voted into the Senate someone of whom, it has been quite well-established, committed manslaughter.
Nobody has seen more movies than Fong!
Hi Brian,
While (obviously) not having had to make decisions for my country's or family's survival, I at least feel ok to argue, as a distant observer, that there are no Israeli "equivalents" to Hamas. If you're a pacifist, sure, killing's killing and I can't expect you might relent on your point. But I don't think you are one.
So I'd like to contrast the society Israelis have created thus far (a free-market, representative democracy) and the kind Palestinians have created a) thus far (inconsistent rule of law [at best], gangsterism, religious fundamentalism) and b) likely will under Hamas: sharia.
I think I'm with you that nationalism isn't pretty, or rather isn't always pretty. If there are points that need to made about Kibya in 1953 or elsewhere, fine. As statesmen, however, Begin gave Sinai back to Egypt; Barak (who in his day performed commando hits in Lebanon) offered Arafat nearly all the "Palestinian territories"; and Sharon transferred Gaza. (You probably know all these "statesmen" facts, I just wanted to add it to the mix to sit there alongside "terrorist" facts.) It's been a pleasure.
Hamas, is, more or less, screwed.
They have been elected into power. Now they will have to do what they simply cannot.Deliver actual results to the people of Palestine, instead of simply complaining about Israel or Fatah.
Wilds, your rants get sillier by the moment. Saddam Hussein was in material breach of his disarmament obligations and supported international terrorism.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2005-351.pdf
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1051125568653&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&DPL=JvsODSH7Aw0u%2bwoQO%2bYJDSbkFxAj%2bwoUO%2bYNDSbgFxMn%2bwkVO%2bUODSXhFxMv%2bwkYO%2bQKDSTkFxUn%2bw8QO%2bMIDSPjFxUi%2bw8XO%2bMMDSPvFxUu%2bw4RO%2bIIDSLhOw%3d%3d&tacodalogin=yes
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A76_0_2_0_C/
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A75_0_2_0_C/
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101&o=DIB004
more on request.
President Bush never made the argument that war in Iraq was necessary even if Iraq did not have any WMD. The idea -- as I continue to point out -- that the United States military exists to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions is ridiculous, and about as far from conservatism you can wander.
The only results that matter in democracies are on election day -- Hamas got results.
How you cannot comprehend "Anti-American dictator who is in material breach of his disarmament obligations, has the United Nations on his payroll, and is supporting international terrorism = bad for America's national security and foreign interests" is beyond me.
Ben,
If that's such a strong case for why didn't President Bush et al make the argument -- that Iraq had no WMD -- as a reason for invading Iraq?
It's you that's being simplistic Dan. The title of the book isn't "The case for an election," it's "The Case for Democracy." Lot's of countries (see Venezuela) have somewhat-"free" elections and still elected dictators, it's true. Democracy goes beyond just voting, you're right, and that's what Sharansky is talking about.
