The Unknown Candidate: Parallels: BushCo & Hamas

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Parallels: BushCo & Hamas

Referring to Hamas, Thomas Friedman in today's NY Times op ed (see below) states:

"Democracy is not just the act of winning a free election. It involves respect for the rule of law, constitutional restraints and decisions taken by previously elected parliaments."

Hmm. Is anybody else out there beginning to see a scarey similarity between BushCo and Hamas?

According to Israeli political theorist Yaron Ezrahi:

"A terrorist organization which came to power by procedural democracy cannot be equated with a democratic government. 'Democracy' is not a one-night stand. It is a marriage between government and people. That is why we call it a social contract. It can't just be arbitrarily changed by one side."

Friedman adds,

"In sum, the world does not have to respect Hamas as a democratic government, if Hamas does not respect these basic principles of democracy."

Let's see. Bush has said numerous times that he could care less what the American people think or want. Polls don't matter. Protests don't matter. He'll do what he wants--condone torture, institute warrantless spying, wage illegal wars--regardless of whether we, the people, want it or not. That is hardly a "marriage between government and people."

Hell. With the voting irregularities that have thus far come to light in the last two Presidential elections, it is highly doubtful that Bush was "procedurally" elected in the first place.

Friedman concludes that although Hamas doesn't deserve to be treated like a democratic government, it has something Israelis want that may yet open the door to diplomacy: a cease-fire.

Although, given its roguish policies, Bush's America doesn't deserve the respect of a democratic country either, the world wants something from the U.S., too: peace. BushCo, unfortunately, has already proven its proclivity for war over diplomacy or other less drastic measures.

So what's a world to do?

Without realizing it, Tom-Tom has laid out the beginnings of a great case for why the world does not have to respect America as a democratic government, given BushCo's complete lack of respect for the basic principles of democracy.

Nice job, Tom-Boy. In spite of yourself.

The Hamas Dilemma
By Thomas L. Friedman
The New York Times

It doesn't have a sexy name yet, like "The Six Day War," "Intifada III" or "Suez," but since Israel withdrew from Gaza, a quiet little war has been going on between Israelis and Palestinians. Maybe that's what we should call it: "The Quiet Little War." Or better yet, let's call it by its real name: Stupid.

Let's see, Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians have a chance, not perfect, not ideal, but the best chance ever to build something decent of their own, without any Israeli occupation army breathing down their necks, and what are they doing? Mostly fighting each other and lobbing Qassam rockets into Israel, prompting increasingly iron-fisted Israeli retaliations.

Even the E.U. has decided to withhold aid money to the new Hamas-led Palestinian government, and when the Europeans get tough on the Palestinians, you know they really must be acting foolishly. The E.U. said it will not give the Hamas government direct aid or money for the salaries of Palestinian public employees as long as it refuses to abide by previous Palestinian decisions to recognize Israel and renounce violence.

What if Israel, the U.S. and the E.U. are right on principle, but that leads to an even bigger disaster in practice?

What do I mean? Let's start with the principle. Democracy is not just the act of winning a free election. It involves respect for the rule of law, constitutional restraints and decisions taken by previously elected parliaments. Both the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority and the P.L.O. recognized Israel's right to exist and, at least on paper, renounced the use of force. The Hamas government has rejected both. The only way Hamas can do that democratically is by holding a new referendum and asking Palestinians to reverse these established positions. But for Hamas to unilaterally reject the positions ratified by the previous Palestinian parliament is just an arbitrary exercise of power. It would be like President Bush tearing up the Panama Canal Treaty.

Also, a democratic government has to exercise a monopoly of force. Hamas can't ask the world to respect its democratic credentials if it, in turn, refuses to restrain Palestinian militants from attacking Israel from Gaza with rockets or suicide bombers. Hamas can't pretend it has no responsibility for "renegade" attacks on Israel by militias under its sovereign authority.

"A terrorist organization which came to power by procedural democracy cannot be equated with a democratic government," said the Israeli political theorist Yaron Ezrahi. "Every day that passes without Hamas trying to stop this barrage of rockets on Israel or to recognize the international agreements by [the former Palestinian government] is undermining the legitimacy of Hamas's election." Democracy "is not a one-night stand," he added. "It is a marriage between government and people. That is why we call it a social contract. It can't just be arbitrarily changed by one side." In sum, the world does not have to respect Hamas as a democratic government, if Hamas does not respect these basic principles of democracy.

So let's just starve them of money until they come to their senses, right? But what if that leads to massive unemployment in the West Bank? Sure, it's Hamas's fault, but Israel will suffer the consequences of having a desperate Palestinian population on its doorstep. Or what if starving Hamas drives it deeper into an alliance with Iran to pay its bills? Can that be in Israel's interest?

As Nahum Barnea, one of Israel's leading columnists, pointed out to me, the Israeli public is in a "very pragmatic" mood when it comes to Hamas. Bibi Netanyahu focused the Likud campaign in the last election on heated charges that the Kadima Party was going to deal with Hamas, and he got creamed. Israeli voters rejected his message. The fact is, the four-year Hamas suicide campaign had a huge impact on the Israeli psyche. Israelis do not want to see it resumed. A majority of Israelis would negotiate with Hamas tomorrow if they were persuaded that Hamas would deliver a long-term cease-fire.

So, yes, in principle, Hamas doesn't deserve to be treated like a democratic government. But in practice, Hamas has something Israelis badly want: a cease-fire — not recognition. Israel chose to destroy Yasir Arafat's government and got Hamas. What if it destroys Hamas? What will it get then? I don't know, but the answer is not simple. Designing the right policy to deal with a democratically elected terrorist group that deserves to be spurned but has something you want is not in the textbooks.

Photo credit: Thomas Friedman. (Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times)

Israel Breaks Off Direct Contacts With Palestinian Government

U.S. and Europe Halt Aid to Palestinian Government

Alone and Broke, Hamas Struggles to Rule

Bomber Kills 3 Israelis as Hamas Takes Power

Armitage Urges Bush to Hold Talks With Iran
Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state during President George W. Bush's first term, has urged the Bush administration to hold talks with Iran over its nuclear program. Mr. Armitage said Washington would benefit from talking to Tehran on a range of issues, including Iran's nuclear aspirations. The Bush administration has so far resisted calls from its European allies to engage Iran directly over its alleged nuclear weapons program.