A word to the conventionally wise
Published on January 30, 2006 By O G San In International
It was a poor week for the conventionally wise. Virtually every article I have read about the Palestinian elections has described the result as "a shock". The vast majority of the commentariat have been caught flat-footed by Hamas’ thumping victory in last week’s poll. Am I alone in feeling that the result was no shock at all, that in fact it has been coming for a long time?

For those who take an interest in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it took no great expertise to predict that the Islamists were in for a very good day at the polls. Consider Fatah’s divisions, its incompetence, its corruption. Consider Hamas’ record of honesty and social welfare provision. Consider the Gaza pull-out, which is easier to ascribe to Hamas’ bombs than Abbas’ negotiation - as there was no negotiation. And consider Israel which has continued to murder Palestinians and to steal their land. All good reasons for predicting a Hamas victory in last week’s poll.

And, as if to make the science of prediction even easier, just look at last year’s municipal elections, when Hamas made huge gains, not just in its Gaza stronghold, but also in the more secular West Bank. How, given all this, could any Middle East "expert" not have foreseen that Hamas would win in the legislative elections?

It seems to me that what we are witnessing is the collapse of so many castles in the sky. For the conventionally wise who expected victory for Fatah, and hence for the "peace" process, have been shown the chasm between their rhetoric and the reality of life in the Occupied Territories. It is a fact little reported in western media that living conditions in the West Bank and Gaza have deteriorated in the twelve years since Oslo. What’s more, "peace" has not meant an end to the settlement drive but rather its acceleration. Given this, why exactly should the Palestinian people endorse the failed tactics of "negotiation"?

None of what I am saying is overly-complicated, neither is it a secret. Yet the great and the good have missed all this because it doesn’t fit in with their mindless clichés about "cracking down on terror" and putting the peace process "back on track". Their head-in-the-clouds optimism has obscured their view of the real situation - that of one people occupying another, one people brutalising another. Oslo hasn’t changed this, in fact it has cemented the occupation. Hence the rise of Hamas

However, it would be wrong to equate predicting the triumph of Hamas with welcoming it. It saddens me to see religious fundamentalists win elections anywhere in the world. I would rather that the Palestinian people had endorsed the non-violent resistance espoused by Mustafa Barghouti, than the failed policies of Fatah, or the suicide bombs of Hamas. But I was never naïve enough to think that this would actually happen.

I do not choose who represents the Palestinians any more than Ehud Olmert, or Angela Merkel, or Tony Blair, but I do respect their right to choose. The governments of the EU and the US have their rights too. As democracies, they can refuse to meet with Hamas ministers, or starve the Palestinian Authority of money. They are under no moral obligation to deal with any government purely because it has been endorsed by its people. However, to ostracise Hamas is flawed, both morally and politically.

To proclaim that "we do not talk to terrorists" is all fine and well, but such a position requires consistency. To use just the most obvious example, the British government negotiates all the time with loyalist and republican paramilitaries. Why then should it not talk to Hamas? Is the blood of Irish innocents worth less than the blood of Israeli innocents?

If the governments of the so-called civilised west recoil from talking to those who kill, then they should break off all contacts with Tel Aviv, recall their ambassadors and impose sanctions on Israel. If morality is mere mathematics, then Israel, which has caused infinitely more bloodshed than Hamas, must be considered more untouchable.

Politically too, it would be a mistake to blockade a new Hamas-led government in the Occupied Territories. Experience, to say nothing of rudimentary common sense, suggests that the imposition of economic sanctions would only cement the Islamists’ hold over Palestinian society. Faced by a hostile world, the people would turn in ever greater numbers to Hamas. This is obvious - even to those who couldn’t see Hamas’ victory coming in the first place.



Comments
on Jan 30, 2006
Thank you O G for your brilliant and honest analysis. You know alot more about the situation here in Israel/Palestine that most of the others that have been pontificating over the events of the past week.
The US and Israeli government did everything in their power to sabotage the election from taking place in the first place, finall warning the Palestinians that if they did elect Hamas, they would not deal with them.
No people wants to be dictated to by a foreign power. The Palestinian people have spoken and now the rest of the world, including Israel has to deal with their choice.
In order for peace to become a reality in this area, both sides will have to work out a just solution. Failing that, there is only one alternative that no one wants to see.
on Jan 30, 2006
If Al Qaeda were elected in Saudi Arabia or somewhere Monopeace would still want to deal with them.
on Jan 30, 2006
Monopeace does not respond to ignorant anonymous users who are too guttless to identify themselves.
on Jan 30, 2006
Frankly, I don't think we should have been sending a dime in aid to them in the first place, but the idea that Israel "blockades" Palestine is what is really absurd. Look at a map. The real seige is placed upon Palestine by their "fellow" Arabs, who despise them as much or more than the Israelis do.

This way, maybe we can all be honest and stop pretending that the Palestinians are just a bunch of peaceful folk and that the terrorists there are an aberation. They've made their mind known, and now hopefully we can reject them as we should have from the start. It's true that England negotiated with its terrorists, and frankly I don't think legitimizing them did anything more than time and boredom with the whole thing did on its own.


"Monopeace does not respond to ignorant anonymous users who are too guttless to identify themselves."


LOL, i think manopeace just did. It isn't an ignorant question, either. There's no difference at all between al qaeda and Hamas in terms of what they are willing to do to accomplish their goals. If you can sit down and negotiate with people who can strap bombs onto teens and send them onto buses and into wedding parties, well, any standard is pretty much hypocritical.
on Jan 30, 2006
For those that know absolutely nothing about Hamas, please read the following link...Link
on Jan 30, 2006
Sec Rice is quoted in the NYTimes as saying, "I've asked why nobody saw it coming. It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse."

Honestly?!? Nobody knew? Makes me a little nervous to think these could be my colleagues in a few short months.

To proclaim that "we do not talk to terrorists" is all fine and well, but such a position requires consistency. To use just the most obvious example, the British government negotiates all the time with loyalist and republican paramilitaries. Why then should it not talk to Hamas? Is the blood of Irish innocents worth less than the blood of Israeli innocents?


I had a full rant on Friday about how everyone must have forgotten that Gerry Adams was invited to the White House on Paddy's Day (well, except last year cause he was in some hot water over the McCartney murder). I posited that it had more do to with skin color than Irish innocents being worth less (as in, "well, we can chat with the white terrorists, but those dark skinned terrorists, no way!)
on Jan 30, 2006
P.S. some of us weren't shocked. After seeing the Palestinian people dancing in the streets on 9/11 and seeing their behavior in response to terrorism in the media all my life, I felt quite certain that they were bloodthirsty and not worth negotiating with. All they have done is proven my point.

I think it is funny that people who claim they are peaceful and that terrorism is the exception are now trying to look like they were somehow right all those years they claimed otherwise, or are trying to claim people would turn to Hamas as if it is a humanitarian organization...
on Feb 01, 2006
They are under no moral obligation to deal with any government purely because it has been endorsed by its people. However, to ostracise Hamas is flawed, both morally and politically.


Up until Hamas became a real live social manager in the recent elections, they were nothing more then terrorists on the local street corner, killing without regard as in war by attrition.

To proclaim that "we do not talk to terrorists" is all fine and well, but such a position requires consistency. To use just the most obvious example, the British government negotiates all the time with loyalist and republican paramilitaries. Why then should it not talk to Hamas? Is the blood of Irish innocents worth less than the blood of Israeli innocents?


On the contrary, you're applying consistency as if theoretical it’s to be applied across the cultural board without judgment...not so! Consistency is a behavior that's founded in beliefs, affected by right vs. wrong good vs. evil, and has limits. If the British government chooses to bargain with questionable groups, its situation driven, plus it's their right.

If changes occur in culture values, as in Palestine’s leadership, those changes naturally affect how outside consistency is applied. Case in point, the US, European Union and UN along with a few others give a combined 1.8 billion each year so Palestine can meet their budget. That was done because the ruling party had open ears and made slow movement towards concessions with Israel. Even though a few Hamas leaders are of moderate mind, as a whole they're terrorists and now as the ruling party of Palestine are saying they won't change their ways.

We have to be patient with a wait and see limited policy. Their monies run out in about three months. Once they realize they hold the keys to their cultures lively hood and future in their decisions, and they learn those few Middle Eastern countries they think will come to their rescue won’t give till it hurts, they will be standing on a lily pad in the middle of a very large ocean about to sink. Help is just over the horizon but not without conditions.

If the governments of the so-called civilised west recoil from talking to those who kill, then they should break off all contacts with Tel Aviv, recall their ambassadors and impose sanctions on Israel. If morality is mere mathematics, then Israel, which has caused infinitely more bloodshed than Hamas, must be considered more untouchable.


Each country is founded in our own measure of right vs. wrong, good vs. bad behavior. The hope is always to find similar values, and so far we've agreed, all terrorists are bad and wrong even if they are now leading Palestine.

on Feb 01, 2006
That was clear as mud.