Hamas, egg and cheese
Slate has a good article on "How To Civilize Hamas".
The "pothole theory" is similar to what I have been arguing in the past few days, although it has the benefit of being reinforced by a minute amount of historical evidence. I'm not sure how Hamas' election cannot be good for Israel. If they continue their attacks, no one will have to try very hard to find the people responsible. If they stop violence they will be deprived of credibility with hard-liners and will have to move against their former supporters.
The advantage is that they can't and won't just sit on their hands. Even if they do they will lose the support of the people, perhaps slowing down the growth of fundamentalism and extremism in Palestine.
Democratic politics have the ability to co-opt the most extreme of politicians. In the process of trying to triangulate and prevent others from triangulating you, you have to change your views or get thrown out of office by someone who is able to say what you want to say while bringing in your opponents as well.
The "pothole theory" is similar to what I have been arguing in the past few days, although it has the benefit of being reinforced by a minute amount of historical evidence. I'm not sure how Hamas' election cannot be good for Israel. If they continue their attacks, no one will have to try very hard to find the people responsible. If they stop violence they will be deprived of credibility with hard-liners and will have to move against their former supporters.
The advantage is that they can't and won't just sit on their hands. Even if they do they will lose the support of the people, perhaps slowing down the growth of fundamentalism and extremism in Palestine.
Democratic politics have the ability to co-opt the most extreme of politicians. In the process of trying to triangulate and prevent others from triangulating you, you have to change your views or get thrown out of office by someone who is able to say what you want to say while bringing in your opponents as well.
posted by Austin 5-000 at 9:38 PM
6 Comments:
Out of every desperate and awful development there may be long-term positive outcomes. We need not go through history to recite them. This does not mean, however, that what happened in Palestine is a good thing. It's a very bad thing. The dream of a peaceful two-state solution, negotiated by a secular and conciliatory Palestinian authority has been dealt a serious blow. In its place is a terrorist organization, whose Islamic fundamentalism could mean bad things for women, further violence by Israel, and quite serious economic repercussions for the region. In any case we are looking at something far from an alleviation of Palestinian death, poverty, and anger. This is not a positive development: it will lead to no peace, and it will lead to no democracy. Such, I suppose, is looking more and more like the fate of the Middle East.
I'm not sure I agree. The argument is that democratic politics will change the nature of this organization. You merely cite it's current characteristics. This is not a counterargument.
Moreover, the statement that the Hamas victory will not lead to more democracy is simply unfounded and off the point: the point is that Hamas' victory is democracy. The reduction of corruption is democracy. Whether or not it will end up being beneficial to our or Israel's interests is up for grabs; that doesn't mean it is not democracy.
Agreed, if this is nothing else it is a result of democracy in action. The only anti-democratic aspects I saw were those of Israel leading up to the election, when it prevented balots in East Jerusalem from carrying Hamaas candidates and arrested some of those candidates. They had and do claimed that they wanted Palestinian democracy, but I think that they wanted more than that, and now they've gotten more than they wanted
I think I'm much more reactionary (or radical, I can't tell) than either of you on this particular issue. Is "democracy" defined as purely popular election? I'm no political scientist or theorist, but this can't be all there is to democracy. In my opinion, when the majority vote in a terrorist organization that worships the suicide bomber, that worships the complete anhilation of its neighbor, that will deny, de jure, the rights of women -- we are not dealing with democracy as I conceive of it. If by virtue of being voted into power Hamas reforms itself -- something Hamas itself is declaring it won't do -- then that is all well and good. I will celebrate it. However, I just don't see it as a good thing that a people are so fucked that they have to turn to these murderers for change. Not "fucked" like they are stupid or, as some Israelis are saying, will stop at nothing short of the destruction of Israel; but rather, fucked as in they're poor, they're desperate, they're victims of internal corruption and some Israeli/American policies. These problems (the real problems of Palestine) cannot be fixed by a democracy (where there are no famines) that votes in a terrorist organization, because a democracy cannot have a terrorist organization as its government. And I refuse to celebrate the election of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.
I too find it difficult to echo, along with many conservatives and foreign policy liberals, that the election of Hamas is a good thing. One extreme brand of conservatism wants to say that bringing Hamas to power will simply accelerate the process through which we exterminate the Palestinian Authority and save Israel once and for all. Some, including John Podhoretz at National Review, also think Fatah was just as terroristic as Hamas will be. I can't subscribe to this line of thinking, mainly because it's patently barbarous and warmongering, but neither can I side with those who think democratic politics will necessarily "contain" Hamas. Hamas leader al-Zahhar has said he will not renounce the destruction of Israel, and while it is too early to tell what course he will really take, this all adds up to NO GOOD no matter how you look at it. Robot, I hate to burst your bubble, but this is democracy in action by many people's definition of the word. It is for these reasons--demagoguery, mob rule, hysteria--that the American founders looked to Rome and not Greece. "Pure" democracy is indeed dangerous, and only a civil society that has learned to avoid voting across strict sectarian lines and has some cohesion ideologically will survive it. People constantly deride the American two-party system, saying its candidates are largely the same, but I will take two people within comparable ideological lines over the chance that Hamas, the French National Front, or some other fringe group potentially coming to power. In other words, mediocrity is sweet,
Hi, very good article.
Thanks for sharing keep up the good work.
Financial Accounting
Cost Accounting
Post a Comment
<< Home