by hilzoy
Hamas seems to have won the Palestinian elections. From the Washington Post:
"The radical Islamic group Hamas won 76 seats in voting for the first Palestinian parliament in a decade, election officials announced Thursday evening, giving it a huge majority in the 132-member body and the right to form the next government. The long-ruling Fatah movement won 43 seats.Earlier in the day, Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia and the rest of his Cabinet resigned, effectively acknowledging Hamas claims of a legislative majority before election officials released the results in a news conference.
"This is the choice of the people," Qureia told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "It should be respected."
The Hamas victory ends end the governing Fatah party's decade-long control of the Palestinian Authority. It also severely complicates Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' policy of pursuing negotiations with Israel under a U.S.-backed peace plan known as the roadmap, which conflicts with Hamas' platform in several key respects.
Hamas officials in Gaza City, where their victory was greatest, said the group has no plans to negotiate with Israel or recognize Israel's right to exist. Europe, Israel and the United States classify Hamas, formally known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, as a terrorist organization."
My attempts at analysis below the fold.
I don't think I need to belabor the obvious fact that this is a horrible outcome. It's horrible both for the peace process and for the Palestinians and Israelis. As I just heard someone say on the NewsHour, this essentially ends the peace process, and even if, somehow, it were to recommence, it would have been set back by decades: to the point at which people were negotiating about the removal of clauses advocating the destruction of Israel from the Palestinians' representatives' founding documents, and figuring out whether they could talk at all. I can think of only a few good things that could come of this in the near term. For one thing, a less corrupt government for the Palestinians. For another, social services that will probably be more efficient. Those few good things don't begin to make up for all the unbelievably bad consequences it will lead to. It's a disaster for all concerned.
On the other hand, a few other things are more complicated.
As I understand it, the causes of Hamas' victory are complex, and not entirely bad (as they would be if, for instance, Hamas' victory showed nothing but widespread support for terrorism.) For one thing, there is a lot of frustration with Fatah. It is (I gather rightly) seen as corrupt, and people are tired of its having a monopoly on political power. In this respect, the Palestinian vote seems to have something in common with, say, the Mexican people's decision to oust the PRI in favor of Vicente Fox.
Moreover, Hamas does a lot of genuine good works for Palestinians. From the Council on Foreign Relations:
"In addition to its military wing, the so-called Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. It funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. “Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities,” writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. The Palestinian Authority often fails to provide such services; Hamas’ efforts in this area— as well as a reputation for honesty, in contrast to the many Fatah officials accused of corruption—explain much of its popularity."
As I understand it, the relevance of Hamas' social service work is twofold. Most obviously, Hamas get mileage just from the fact that it is doing good works, and helping Palestinians. Moreover, it gets further mileage from the fact that, in a lot of cases, it is either doing things that the Fatah-led government should have been doing but hasn't, or it is doing them better. Providing social services allows people to directly compare the performance of Fatah, which is actually responsible for providing a lot of these services since it runs the government, and Hamas, which is not responsible for providing them but does so anyways, and generally does a better job.
Consider this excerpt from a Time article:
"The first thing that people in the West Bank town of al-Bireh noticed about their new mayor was that he turned up for work on time. Previous mayors had often arrived late, if at all, but Omar Hamayel, 29, has a lot to do. Though al-Bireh is relatively wealthy compared to other towns in the West Bank, its streets are littered with garbage, streetlights and water pipes are broken and unemployment is high. "The fact that when the staff comes to work I am here and when they leave I am still here means that they see a sense of responsibility becoming a reality," says Hamayel, a former chemistry teacher who was elected mayor a month ago. His employees have taken notice. "He's at his desk by 8 a.m. and works through after the doors are closed and people leave," says Ahmad Arqoub, a civil servant who has worked for the town since 1980. "He is really trying to make a good impression."Whether Hamayel and pols like him succeed may well influence the future of the Middle East. Hamayel is a member of Hamas (...)
In towns like al-Bireh, Hamas has built popular support by providing a disciplined alternative to Fatah, which is seen by many Palestinians as corrupt, inefficient and unable to run a garbage collection service, let alone negotiate with Israel. Hamas has long run its own medical clinics, schools and soup kitchens for the poor — mostly in the Gaza Strip, its stronghold. In last year's local elections, Palestinian voters gravitated toward Hamas because of its reputation for having "members with a clean record," as Mayor Hamayel puts it, in a reference to Fatah's many corruption-tainted officials. Residents of towns where Hamas won control say they are now better run than they were under Fatah. In Qalqiliya, a West Bank town that Hamas won in elections last June, the Hamas council has paid off the town's debt, balanced its budget, raised salaries and begun rebuilding roads. Even in al-Bireh, which Hamas has governed for less than a month, there are signs of improvement: the streets are being cleaned and teams of men last week were installing stoplights in the rain hours after the end of the workday. The locals are impressed. "Fatah has not achieved anything for me," says Haytham Hammad, 22, a corporal in the Palestinian security forces, over a cup of coffee and a cigarette in an al-Bireh cafe. "Hamas is capable of taking back the rights of the Palestinian people—daily rights like a good job, clean water.""
To repeat: voting against a party that is widely seen as corrupt and inefficient, and whose corruption and inefficiency probably stem in large part from its having had a monopoly on political power, in favor of a party that has a track record both of providing real services to the people and of doing so efficiently and without corruption, is completely comprehensible, and not at all a bad decision to take, other things being equal. And the reason I note this is that the results of the election would be even worse than they are if Palestinians had been choosing between two honest and competent parties whose only difference was that one supported terrorism and the other did not. Then we'd have to conclude that all the people who voted for Hamas did so because they supported terrorism, pure and simple. And at least we don't have to draw that dismal conclusion.
That said, of course, other things are not equal. Hamas is a terrorist organization, not just an honest and competent provider of social services, or an alternative to Fatah. And while the people who voted for Hamas need not have been motivated primarily by its support for terrorism, they do have to have been willing to vote for it despite its support for terrorism. Moreover, at least some of its support is probably due to its being seen as the most uncompromising opponent of Israeli occupation, which, while not exactly the same as being a terrorist organization, is not (in this case) unrelated either.
In this respect, it reminds me (to some extent) of support for the PKK in the Kurdish parts of Turkey, back in the 80s, when I was there. The PKK was a dreadful Marxist (arguably Stalinist) organization which had committed atrocities, and which was more generally in favor of a disastrous program of civil war with Turkey. A lot of its support was due to two things: first, of the major opposition parties in Turkey which had some degree of sympathy with the Kurds, it was the only one that held not just that there had been too much torture, or that torture had been taken a bit too far, but that torture was wrong, period. In a part of the country where torture was routine, this got it a lot of support. Second, it was seen as the most uncompromising opponent of the Turkish military government that had just relinquished power, and whose memory was still very fresh.
At the time, it struck me as completely understandable that people would, in general, support a party with those two features. The tragedy was twofold: first, that they did not regard either its Stalinist bent or its record of atrocities as disqualifying; and second, that no other major party had emerged that was implacably opposed both to torture and to the government that practiced it, but that was neither Stalinist nor into committing its own atrocities (nor, I'd add, an advocate of military confrontation with Turkey, which was, thanks to us, very, very well armed.) Likewise here: I understand why Palestinians are opposed to Israeli occupation, and of course why they would support a party with a track record of honesty and good works. But it's a tragedy that there is no other major party that has those features and is not the political wing of a terrorist organization. That, to me, is the part that's genuinely depressing.
Another genuinely good thing is that the elections seem to have been largely fair, and all parties seem inclined to accept their results. This is not by any stretch of the imagination a given, and it is extremely important. And I agree with Abu Aardvark that it is incredibly important that we respect the results of the election:
"It is an article of faith among virtually all Arabs and Muslims that in 1992 the United States and Europe green lighted the Algerian military coup after the Islamist FIS stood on the brink of electoral victory. This has been taken for a decade and a half as the definitive evidence that the American and European commitment to democracy was a hypocritical farce: democracy only if our allies won.The Bush administration has talked a lot about democracy, about past mistakes in American policy towards democracy in the region, and so forth, but I think it's fair to say that most Arabs remain deeply suspicious. Recent Arab elections haven't really tested whether this has changed. Iraq under American military occupation is sui generis. In Egypt there was never any chance that the Muslim Brotherhood would be allowed to actually win, and even if it somehow had Mubarak would have remained in control over a relatively impotent Parliament. Jordan's Parliamentary elections have been sufficiently gerrymandered (via electoral law) to ensure a strict ceiling on Islamist seats. Sudanese Islamists arrived on the back of a military coup. (...)
For America, I think it's extremely important right now to handle this right: honor the will of the people, demonstrate a commitment to democratic process, and see what happens. Give Hamas the chance to prove its intentions. Don't get too upset about the inevitable bursts of objectionable rhetoric by excited victors - test deeds, not early words. Above alll, don't give the Islamist hardliners the winning argument they crave about American hypocrisy. Refusing to deal with Hamas right now could effectively kill American attempts to promote democracy in the Middle East for a generation. "
Many people in the Middle East distrust the United States. They have some good reasons for doing so, reasons that they often remember better than we do, for the simple reason that they concern things that we did in their neighborhood. If no other good can come of this -- and, as I said, I don't think a lot of good will -- at least we have the opportunity to demonstrate that when we talk about the spread of democracy, we are willing to live by what we say, if not when it involves undercutting repressive regimes with which we are allied, then at least when the will of the people appears in such a blazingly obvious form as a landslide victory in a fair election with extremely high turnout. By the same token, we also have the opportunity to demonstrate that our words are completely meaningless. That would, in my opinion, be a catastrophic mistake.
(Note: "living by what we say" doesn't mean that we have to like it. Of course we don't. It doesn't even mean that we have to be willing to talk to a Hamas-led government, though in general I tend to the view that we ought to talk to everyone. There's no harm in it, as long as you don't feel obliged to concede things you shouldn't. It does mean, at a minimum, that we should not countenance any attempt to overthrow the government, and that we should acknowledge it as the democratically elected government of the Palestinians.)
The third complicated question is: what effect will this have on Hamas, and on the Palestinian people? In The New Republic, Joseph Braude quotes and ridicules people who think Hamas might moderate:
"Americans have high hopes that Hamas, having swept the Palestinian legislative elections, will moderate its agenda. The New York Times has advised that "[l]etting Hamas run ... is the lesser evil because any movement, once in power, is compelled to supplement its bluster with deeds. That's what happened to the Palestine Liberation Organization, which once seemed even less acceptable than Hamas." "Once in power they might even become more responsible," editorialized The Wall Street Journal, "and voters will have a chance to judge them on their actions instead of their promises." The Associated Press reported the encouraging news that Hamas's campaign "focus[ed] on local issues, such as public services and the need to clean up government, while playing down its violent ideology." And The Nation expressed confidence in Hamas's willingness to seek peace: "The only certainty is that Hamas would not have embarked so decisively on the path of political integration if it was unprepared to accept--in substance if not as a matter of official policy--a two-state settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."Of course, only God and perhaps The Nation can know what will be. But these American voices are dangerously oblivious to what is. Far from focusing on domestic issues--social services and the like--at the expense of regional ones, Hamas appears determined to initiate a radical shift in the foreign policy of emerging Palestine."
For what it's worth, I disagree with the Nation: I can think of lots of reasons why Hamas might have decided to enter politics without being willing to accept a two-state solution, among them the possibility, which I've heard from a lot of people, that they themselves did not expect to win. I do not, however, think that the idea that Hamas might have to moderate its views is utterly laughable. Consider the constraints it will have to operate under:
"As American officials examined the Israeli-Palestinian situation, they predicted a debate within the administration, and between the administration and its European partners, on how to proceed with the roughly $1 billion in outside assistance that keeps the Palestinian Authority afloat.Over the years, the Europeans, the United States and the wealthy Arab countries have each provided about a third of the aid to the Palestinians. Under the leadership of James Wolfensohn, the former World Bank president, the plan until now had been to double that sum in coming years if the situation in the middle East stabilizes. That goal has now been rendered moot, diplomats agree.
Even before the election, Western economists charged that this money was wasted. It could now be frozen if Hamas enters the government or becomes a dominant part of it without renouncing terrorism or disarming.
"The United Kingdom could not countenance any aid money being diverted to finance terrorism," said a British official, asking not to be identified because of his country's ground rules about discussing the subject. "Were Hamas to join the Palestinian Authority government, we would need to review all areas of assistance to the Palestinian Authority."
A year ago, in an effort to coax moderates in the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Bush announced in his State of the Union message that the United States would provide aid directly to the Authority, instead of delivering it through non-government organizations in Gaza and the West Bank.
Now Congressional approval for any such direct aid in the future appears extremely unlikely without a transformation of Hamas, which few considered possible at least in the near future."
It's hard to imagine how Hamas could be unaffected by the thought of losing at least a third, and possibly a lot more, of the Palestinian Authority's operating budget. Conceivably, other countries in the region could help to pick up some of the slack, but it's hard to imagine many of them picking up all of it. Moreover, in at least some cases (e.g., the Gulf states), countries that help Hamas might demand moderating concessions of their own. The Palestinian Authority is a very, very long way from economic self-sufficiency, and if Hamas does not want to lose the next election because it is unable to deliver the most basic services to the Palestinian people, it will probably have to change to some extent.
That said, I do not for an instant suppose that whatever changes they make will be anything like enough to transform them into a nice, friendly, moderately Islamic regime, like (say) the present Turkish government. I agree with TNR that that is a fantasy. I disagree with them in thinking that the idea of any significant change at all is risible.
The more important change, I suspect, will be in the Palestinian people. Here I am going to use an analogy that's easy to misunderstand, so I want to be clear: I want to say that learning responsible self-government takes time, and that for this reason there are some similarities between the political process the Palestinians are going through and adolescence. Please believe me when I say that the point of this analogy is not, not, not to say that the Palestinians are immature or childlike or somehow mentally undeveloped. That is not, not, not what I mean at all. (For the record, I have known a fair number of Palestinians, including the ex-love of my life, and even if I were tempted to describe large groups of people in these terms, which I'm not, I could never say it of this one. I know far too many counterexamples.) Moreover, I am not saying that all, or even the most salient, features of adolescence have any counterpart whatsoever in the life of a people. Floods of hormones, immature brains: these have no analog at all that I'm aware of, and I am not trying to say that they do.
What I do want to say is this. One part of being an adolescent is negotiating the transition from being a child, most of the features of whose life are determined by parents, to being an adult, who is responsible for him- or herself. When you're a child, you don't have to take responsibility for the really big decisions. Your parents may put you in charge of feeding the dog or cleaning your room, but they will typically not allow you to decide whether to drop out of school, or to train full-time to be an Olympic athlete, or to stow away on a ship bound for South America (as I once tried to do. I didn't get very far.) For this reason, it's easy for a child to think: I could be an Olympic athlete, if only my stupid parents would let me train enough; and never have either to confront the actual consequences of that decision, or to appreciate the fact that his or her parents might have good reasons for deciding as they did.
Likewise, when a people is not allowed to make political decisions for themselves, or to elect people to make decisions for them, it's easy for them to make parallel mistakes. If people adopt some idiotic view or other, this may get them in trouble with the government, but that in no way forces them to recognize why that view is idiotic (any more than being punished for trying to run away forces a kid to realize why running away, if successful, would be a really bad idea.) Their political choices, and the political ideas they adopt, have no consequences, and there is nothing other than their own innate good judgement to ensure that their political views and decisions will be responsible.
When a kid goes through adolescence, one of the things that kid does is to try on various views and identities for size, trying to figure out which ones fit. This is often not a particularly pretty process -- it certainly wasn't in my case. But it's essential that one go through it, because it's by making those mistakes, and seeing why they are mistakes, that we grow up and become responsible adults. I'm sure there are some people who have so much innate good sense that they don't need to learn from their errors, but I am equally certain that they are not the majority.
I think it's similar with countries. If you take a people whose political decisions have never had any consequences, because they have never been allowed the freedom to make their own mistakes and learn from them, it is (it seems to me) very likely that some of their initial decisions will be bad. They have never had to develop the skills they need to figure out who is a leader and who is a demagogue, or which policies are realistic and which are not, or which accommodations need to be made to the rest of the world and which are craven capitulation. Creating an Islamic republic: a way of securing God's blessing, or an invitation to repression? A Marxist state: worker's paradise, or totalitarian nightmare? As long as a people doesn't have to live with the consequences, there's no particular need to develop the skills needed to answer these sorts of questions correctly (especially when there are no object lessons ready to hand, as there now are in the case of Marxism.)
Just as I'm sure there are people whose adolescence is uncomplicated owing to their innate good sense, I'm sure that there are some peoples who navigate this process with grace. (South Africa leaps to mind. Not that it has been flawless; just miraculously good given the history.) But I'm also sure that there are a lot who don't. Because figuring out how to govern either your own life or your own country is a difficult and tricky business, and for most of us it takes mistakes, sometimes very serious ones.
I also think that the two cases are similar in one more respect: it's very important to let these mistakes happen unless some clear and obvious catastrophe will result. One of the main problems with the Middle East is that it is so largely undemocratic, and one reason (not by any stretch of the imagination the only reason, or even the most important, but one reason) it's so largely undemocratic is that, in a lot of Middle Eastern countries, there's pretty good reason to think that were democratic elections allowed, the people would make catastrophic choices; and thus they have not been allowed to elect their own leaders. I think that not letting such peoples elect their own representatives is almost always* a serious mistake, not just morally but also prudentially. (Would either Iran or the world be worse off today had Mossadegh been allowed to retain power in Iran? Not that I can see.) It's easy to see the moral argument for letting a people make its own mistakes, and respecting the results of their elections. It's also easy to see the prudential case for intervening when those mistakes genuinely threaten others, as Hamas' victory obviously threatens Israel. But it's very important, I think, to bear in mind the prudential reason for not intervening: that intervention not only understandably inflames resentment, but also postpones, perhaps indefinitely, the day when this sort of learning process will finally be over.**
(If anyone thinks I'm talking about intervention too easily here, I should say first that I do think it's wrong, but second that it's important to really try to imagine what it means for a very small country to countenance the election, next door, of a government led by people who not only are committed to its ceasing to exist, but have a track record of sending suicide bombers out to kill its people. Electing Hamas could have horrible consequences.) (Further note, in a desperate though probably futile attempt to avoid a certain argument: no, I am not overlooking Israel's contribution to the plight of the Palestinians, or for that matter to the popularity of Hamas. But that in no way makes Israel's fears about Hamas' victory less understandable or less realistic.)
(Also: if you think, as I do, that freedom cannot be denied to a people forever, anyone contemplating intervention has to weigh the risks of the present set of mistakes against the risks of the unknown future mistakes that that people's freedom will, in all likelihood, involve. Moreover, here's a disanalogy between individuals and peoples: at some point, individuals turn eighteen, and are legally free of their parents' decisions. There is, by contrast, no specific date at which peoples attain legal majority. Their freedom can be postponed for a long, long time. And I think that postponing it generally makes the process of learning self-government a lot worse for all concerned, since there's so much entirely justifiable bitterness and anger to be worked through, and that rarely makes anything any easier.)
(Yet another disanalogy: when individuals make serious mistakes, they often remember them for the rest of their lives. When a free people makes a serious mistake, the generations around at the time often learn from it, but subsequent generations can forget. This fact, plus the fact that the United States is now powerful enough to be largely insulated from the effects of many of its bad decisions, has always seemed to me to present a real problem for us. Our earlier lessons need not be remembered by most of our citizens, and the process by which peoples continue to learn and relearn these lessons is considerably attenuated in our case.)
Anyways, the point of all this is: one of the few good things that might possibly come of this is that the Palestinians have gotten what they wanted, and they will now have to live with the consequences. If no one steps in and tries to somehow "fix" their decision, it might become clear, in a way that it would be harder to blame on others, why electing terrorists, however incorruptible, is a really bad idea. On the other hand, it might not. Who knows? I'm grasping at straws here, the way I might if I were watching some friend of mine embark on a course of action I thought would probably be disastrous, both for her and for others. "Perhaps she'll learn something", I might say, since there's no other good thing to say about it. What I'm certain of is that it would have been much, much better if the Palestinians had voted for someone else.
***
* Footnote: Why did I put the 'almost' in "not letting such peoples elect their own representatives is almost always a serious mistake"? Think of the democratically elected Nazis. There are some elections whose consequences are so appallingly awful that, at least with hindsight, there's a serious case for the idea that it would have been better had someone stepped in and said: no, I'm sorry, no electing people who will plunge the world into war and gas millions of innocent people who had nothing whatsoever to do with this election. Whether there are any such cases in which this can be known with enough certainty ahead of time is another question. But this is the line of thought that led to the qualification. It's just the philosopher in me, thinking of extreme counterexamples to generalizations, and qualifying those generalizations as a result, not any line of thought related to the case at hand.
** Second footnote: I really hope I added enough qualifications to make the adolescence analogy clear. NO claims about different capacities; YES claims about a specific set of skills and refinements of judgment, which some peoples manage to figure out without having to learn from experience but many do not; and which through historical accident some peoples have already had the chance to figure out, more or less, while others have not had that chance, normally as the result of serious injustice.
("Normally" to deal with e.g. cases of popularly accepted monarchies. I don't really know enough to know whether e.g. the king of Bhutan has popular legitimacy; supposing, for the sake of argument, that he does, he's the sort of exception I had in mind.)
Well, Hilzoy....I'm really not sure I agree - despite your strong caveat - with the "adolescence metaphor".
It could be, quite simply, that the Palestinians are between a rock and a hard place and they're deciding to let the rock have a turn.
As for the West...if we believe in democracy, then it's best to simply accept the result and carry on.
Abu Aardvark had a good post today. Among his many points:
Posted by: spartikus | January 26, 2006 at 11:12 PM
I gave my initial opinion on the Hamas victory here, if anyone is interested.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 26, 2006 at 11:21 PM
Gary, if you have tenative optimism towards this, that makes me feel much better. The law of averages makes me hope that the IP situation deserves at least one good roll of the dice.
And OT, but this
to stow away on a ship bound for South America (as I once tried to do. I didn't get very far.)
Tell us more, tell us more!
Posted by: liberal japonicus | January 26, 2006 at 11:32 PM
"Abu Aardvark had a good post today. Among his many points:"
[scratches head]
Um, did you read Hilzoy's post, where she already linked to that and quoted what you quoted?
[scratches head again, and clicks "preview"]
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 26, 2006 at 11:33 PM
Mea culpa.
Apologies.
Posted by: spartikus | January 26, 2006 at 11:42 PM
"Gary, if you have tenative optimism towards this, that makes me feel much better."
That's long-term optimism.
In the meantime, it's entirely possible there will be at least temporary (but perhaps lasting many months, or even a couple of years) re-occupations, many military strikes, possibly even a war, and god knows what. I certainly hope not, and I'm not predicting that, either, but it's certainly possible.
What I'm worried about is the synergy with Iran.
It's certainly upended the table. It will be quite relevant and interesting to see how Eqypt reacts. Hamas is, in essence, the same people as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere (which produced Ayman al-Zawahiri) and they can't want to encourage them, yet it would also be difficult for the Eqyptians to openly oppose Hamas, as well. (King Abdullah, on the other hand, is apt to be less conflicted, although also, of course, still somewhat limited in how far he might demonstrate a lack of support for Hamas, given the Palestinian majority in Jordan.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 26, 2006 at 11:43 PM
The 1988 Hamas Covenant. Nearly 20 years old now--I don't know how much of this they'd still sign onto.
They really, really, really don't like the Rotary club:
And if you thought the current administration was immune to cognitive dissonance--I mean, wow:
Posted by: Katherine | January 26, 2006 at 11:45 PM
Posted by: Katherine | January 26, 2006 at 11:46 PM
I guess the point I was trying to make was that trying to frame this as a "adolescent mistake" sort of assumes there was a "mature right answer".
Sorry again.
Posted by: spartikus | January 26, 2006 at 11:47 PM
Wow, that was really long.
Well, you can't have a peace process or a two-state solution without two states. Fatah/Abbas apparently was only a facade of a government, without full legitimacy or support of the people, and unable or unwilling to provide services and order. To me it was never Israel and occupation as the prime cause of Palestinian poverty and disorder. There will never be any possibility of a permanent peace until "Palestine" is a functioning viable state that provides for and protects its people. Fatah/Arafat was always negotiating in bad faith, because they could not deliver anything to anybody, except Swiss bank accounts to the leadership, and the phony appearance of a peace process to those who wanted any hope, even a false one.
Perhaps Hamas can create an independent state, which might seem an obvious precondition for a solution. Even with their committment to terrorism and the destruction of Israel, I think they are an improvement on Fatah. You don't negotiate peace with your allies.
...
On further thought, just scratch the above. It is not gonna work, or survive long enough to work. But Israel/US are not going to be able to destroy this Hamas government, and then expect the Palestinians to say:"You are absolutely right, we want the good government without the tactics and territorial ambitions. Boy, did we mess up."
Having read Gary, I just don't see Hamas abandoning violence. They need it to control the territories and fringe groups, and need it to maintain popularity and legitimacy. And I don't see Israel tolerating violence, or responding in a measured way, although I think that is what might be necessary to reach a peace process. I suspect the Palestinians will soon be without a government or representation. Again.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | January 26, 2006 at 11:48 PM
"Nearly 20 years old now--I don't know how much of this they'd still sign onto."
All the leaders of Hamas I've seen quotes from in the past month have announced that they stand by every word of the covenant.
Now, of course, it's one thing to say it, and another thing to be launching Quassam rockets from Gaza as frequently as they can.
Which, of course, is what they've been doing, save when the PA has been stopping them, which is a fair amount since the Israeli withdrawal.
It's going to be quite a while, I'm afraid, before the leadership and much of the rank-and-file start turning less irredentist.
Although the statements about a willingness to engage in a "long-term truce" (hudna) with Israel is at least a small step in the right direction. It's just a baby-step. We're just going to have to see how things go, but I don't expect piles of good news from Hamas in the next six months or year, really. Small bits and pieces, maybe.
God forbid this should somehow lead to Netanyahu's election. I don't expect that, but I can't exclude it, depending on events. I've been pleased, though, at the maturity Olmert has been showing so far, and that Kadima has been holding together, given its extremely inchoate state when Sharon collapsed.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 26, 2006 at 11:55 PM
hilzoy, that was a fantastic post, you really laid out a lot of ways to think about the results of the election. Unfortunately I am totally disheartend about the prospects for any meaningful kind of peaceful settlement, worse than since spring 2002. Will keep my fingers crossed.
Posted by: DaveC | January 26, 2006 at 11:57 PM
DaveC: I was , like you, incredibly disheartened before I read your comment, but now I'm also stunned by the fact that we agree on something. I mean, I guess it had to happen sometime, but...
Cool.
Posted by: hilzoy | January 27, 2006 at 12:01 AM
"Unfortunately I am totally disheartend about the prospects for any meaningful kind of peaceful settlement, worse than since spring 2002."
It's always been necessary to take a very long view of Israel/Palestine. Tremendous progress has been made in the last ten and twenty years, in context.
I've been so discouraged for so long that, myself, it's not difficult to maintain equibilbrium. There's been so much worse news in the past. And yet there's been improvement and an upward trend, however erratic and slow, overall.
The dance has always been one step forward, two back, one forward, one back, two forward, one back, two forward, one back, one forward, two back, two forward, and so on. It's a very peculiar dance. Not at all like the Hokey-Pokey, or the hora. (Alas, I don't know any Arab dances.)
Sometimes it's "you put your right foot in, you wave it all around, and you fall on your face."
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 12:21 AM
Incidentally, I think President Bush's comments on this, at least, at his press conference today were very good. (As usual, with my bias, I have trouble watching his various tics and mannerisms, and what strike me as weird snorts, grins, and laughs and what not, but the substance of the words were good, I thought.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 12:23 AM
"To me it was never Israel and occupation as the prime cause of Palestinian poverty and disorder. "
Bob, you might want to google phrases like "Palestinian economy" and "Sara Roy" (someone who has studied the Palestinian economy) before you make your decision on what is the main cause of Palestinian poverty. Yes, Fatah's corruption is also a major factor--I'm not prepared to say what the primary one might be.
Good post, hilzoy. I too hope Hamas turns out to be a pragmatic bunch of war criminals now that they're in power--that seems to be the best one can hope for these days.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | January 27, 2006 at 12:26 AM
Another weird way to think about this is to analogize to the remarks made about the peace process when hard-line and quasi-terrorist Israelis came into power -- that in the Middle East, only these types seem to have any legitimacy in actually making peace with the enemy.
I don't know that this parallel works for Hamas, which has a history of being far too violent and extreme. But its worth remembering that such remarks were made when Sharon came into power, with his past history toward Palestinians that while not the flip side of Hamas, is a lot more like it than anything peaceful.
Bottom line -- we are all trying to focus on the 5% of the glass that still has water in it to see if anything good can even be hoped for in this.
Posted by: dmbeaster | January 27, 2006 at 12:35 AM
Hilzoy,
Fantastic post. There is an opportunity here, if one could tread lightly through a minefield and nothing went wrong. But as Lloyd Christmas might say "So you're saying there's a chance..."
Posted by: Pooh | January 27, 2006 at 01:01 AM
Is the Hamas election another example of how our war in Iraq has spread a wave of democratization across the Middle East?
You know, that democratsunami thing?
Posted by: dmbeaster | January 27, 2006 at 01:01 AM
If Hamas can make the trains run on time at the local level, I don't see any reason why they couldn't do that nationally. The question becomes, who gains control , the local technocrats, or the more extreme elements?
I'd also add that there's another factor to consider about Hamas' social programs. It could reinforce the notion of Islam is the solution. It appears that the Islamists managed to get things done, where the secularists failed.
Posted by: Happy Jack | January 27, 2006 at 01:02 AM
So, I know other versions of this idea have been suggested previously, but let me make a suggestion analogous to the one made to Dan Drezner in this post. If I lived in your state, I'd vote for you, though in most districts that'd require a primary challenge against a Democratic opponent (despite going into that level of detail, this comment is meant as a general compliment on the post as opposed to serious advice).
Posted by: washerdreyer | January 27, 2006 at 01:39 AM
"The Palestinian Authority is a very, very long way from economic self-sufficiency, and if Hamas does not want to lose the next election because it is unable to deliver the most basic services to the Palestinian people, it will probably have to change to some extent."
Do they really have to change, or do they have to kind-of hint that they sort-of thought about change? Or maybe they could change formally without changing anything about how they actually operate. There are lots of governments in the world which seem to be willing to pretend that formal statements equal reality.
I'm not optimistic about this turn of events at all. Even if it is true that the long-term trend is three steps forward and two steps back it is quite possible that this is unreservedly the two steps back.
An interesting question is, what separates the societies that descend into genocidal chaos from those that eventually get over their ethnic problems?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | January 27, 2006 at 03:32 AM
Great post Hilzoy. It does appear to be a case of, cross your fingers, close your eyes, and hope for the best. I, really, really hope that the US does not interfere in the results.
Posted by: Debbie(aussie) | January 27, 2006 at 05:28 AM
I'm going to really stick myself out on a limb here...
If Hamas is as popular in Palestine as the election indicated, people will listen to them whether they are officially in power or not. Better, in that case, that the world negotiates with the people that the Palestinians actually listen to, than a group that are more benign but everyone ignores.
I would completely agree that it would be better that the Palestinian people did not support Hamas. But since, as it's clear now, they do, Hamas must be dealt with. If Fatah were somehow still in power there, but the palestinian people felt the same way, I would contend this is a worse situation; Israel would have to try and make peace with the Palestinians through a group they ignored.
Posted by: Shinobi | January 27, 2006 at 06:34 AM
Very interesting and thoughtful post. Well done.
One point: you say that Hamas could moderate once in power, because other countries will cut off aid if it continues terrorist activities:
"if Hamas does not want to lose the next election because it is unable to deliver the most basic services to the Palestinian people, it will probably have to change to some extent."
But earlier on you say that Hamas won by providing better services than the PA - presumably without access to any of the PA budget.
My questions are:
What are Hamas' 'independent' sources of funding (the estimated $70 million a year mentioned);
Is there any reason to suppose that these are liable to dry up, given that they are, by definition, insensitive to Hamas' terrorist acts;
If not, could not Hamas simply maintain its election-winning levels of services from its own resources if necessary, without needing to draw on the PA budget at all?
$70 million is not a lot when you are talking about providing social services to a population of about 3.6 million. $20 per head per year doesn't buy a lot of soup.
I conclude that either a) the budget is wildly underestimated or b) Hamas' actual 'budget' includes a lot of volunteer labour or c) Hamas' social service network is not as extensive as people believe. Thoughts?
Posted by: ajay | January 27, 2006 at 06:59 AM
This LATimes article is quite interesting, and the point that Hamas itself was taken by surprise is perhaps a good sign, though the article has a number of points for optimists and pessimists. Not sure what we did to live in such interesting times.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | January 27, 2006 at 07:14 AM
The kinda sorta hinting about change that Sebastian talks about would still be a step forwards, similar to what Sharon did (abandoning some settlements in order to cling that much more tightly to others.) It would represent a betrayal of the most extreme (in the bad sense) elements in the sociey, and that kind of betrayal is a good thing.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | January 27, 2006 at 08:00 AM
Sebastian asked --
"An interesting question is, what separates the societies that descend into genocidal chaos from those that eventually get over their ethnic problems? "
In the case of South Africa, there was an enormous amount of international pressure on the white rulers to come to a just solution. If that hadn't happened, the civil war that was already going on between the Inkatha Party (backed by the apartheid government and moral support from American conservatives) and the ANC street gangs would have probably gotten worse. It also helped having someone like Nelson Mandela (who never renounced violence) at the head of the liberation movement.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | January 27, 2006 at 08:23 AM
"Is the Hamas election another example of how our war in Iraq has spread a wave of democratization across the Middle East?"
Not particularly, but it is partially a result of strong American pressure for democracy; it's more a result of Abbas actually believing in democracy, and many of his people. This is a good thing. I'm assuming, dmbeaster, that you don't support democracy only when you like the result?
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 08:35 AM
While I think this post is at Hilzoy's usual standard of excellence, I would like to present one data point contrary to the whole discussion of the election of Hamas as somehow part of an 'adolescent' stage in Palestinian democracy:
The election of Gerry Adams as MP for West Belfast in 1983 and after. The IRA, as far as I know, wasn't providing the kind of social services Hamas is in Palestine. People who had been part of a democracy for quite a while still voted for him.
Posted by: Shinobi | January 27, 2006 at 08:42 AM
"If Hamas can make the trains run on time at the local level, I don't see any reason why they couldn't do that nationally."
There's likely a lot of truth to that, although reform of the PA apparatus isn't something that can be done with the snap of fingers. But it's besides the point. If the trains run on time to enable the Schlieffen Plan, that's bad.
But the good news, and the reason I'm not moping and falling on swords, is that Hamas poses no existential threat to Israel whatever. The very worst that can happen is that we go back to where we were pre-Oslo. Israel faced existential threats in 1967 and 1973 and before that. This isn't anything like that. (This is why Iranian nukes worry me about 1000 times more.)
Sebastian asks: "An interesting question is, what separates the societies that descend into genocidal chaos from those that eventually get over their ethnic problems?"
Sufficient grasp of reality. Always.
Shinobi says: "If Hamas is as popular in Palestine as the election indicated, people will listen to them whether they are officially in power or not. Better, in that case, that the world negotiates with the people that the Palestinians actually listen to, than a group that are more benign but everyone ignores."
This is my point for the long term.
"I, really, really hope that the US does not interfere in the results."
I don't know what Debbie means by this. Certainly we're not obligated to give money to Hamas if we don't think it's a good idea; the Europeans are similarly considering what's best.
One option is to give support directly to the Palestinian people through the (quite flawed) UN mechanisms rather than to the PA; it remains to be determined what might be best. Do remember that Abbas is still in charge of the PLO, as well as the PA, and the PLO has the responsibility for dealing with Israel. It all remains to be seen how it will evolve. Will Abbas stay? For how long? No one knows right now. (He'll certainly stay for a while, but he's the kind of guy who isn't going to stick around once he decides he can no longer accomplish anything.)
"If not, could not Hamas simply maintain its election-winning levels of services from its own resources if necessary, without needing to draw on the PA budget at all?"
No. Or: that would be insufficient. It's one thing to run supplmentary social services, even ones far better than a government, and another to run a full-blown government. The PA gets over a billion in annual support. Constrast that to $70 million.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 08:53 AM
"People who had been part of a democracy for quite a while still voted for him."
Sure, but the IRA MPs, Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams were elected as a couple of representatives, not as a government.
And Hamas didn't win because of mass Palestinian support for a renewal of a full-blown intifada, but because Fatah was incompetent, remote, and corrupt. And also because of the complicated split election system with proportional representation in each district, plus the national half of the election. (I always try to warn people about the dangers of proportional representation, but I digress.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 09:08 AM
As I mentioned in an erlier thread regarding Chavez - if you support democracy, you have to be willing to support the election of people you don't like. If Hamas chooses to act badly, by all means we ought to oppose them, but until they do we ought to respect the integrity of the election process, which by all accounts was fair.
Another point - The connection between social services and terrorism is not incidental. On NPR the other day Hamas was described as an organization with a mission of terrorism and philanthropy, but that's wrong. Terrorists (or guerillas) need the support of the people in order to operate effectively, and the surest way to win that support is to provide concrete improvements in the lives of the people. People who realize that their lives are better because of the presence of Hamas operatives in their midst are much less likely to turn in militants than those for whom the presence of the militants causes nothing but increased danger of Israeli retaliation, with associated collateral damage.
Posted by: togolosh | January 27, 2006 at 09:18 AM
It would be a digression, but what's wrong with proportional representation, Gary? That's a non-rhetorical question, intended to elicit information. I don't have any opinion or much knowledge of the subject. If the Palestinians had some other system, wouldn't Hamas still have won a big victory?
Posted by: Donald Johnson | January 27, 2006 at 09:21 AM
"It would be a digression, but what's wrong with proportional representation, Gary?"
In a nutshell, it tends to lead to extemists getting into office, and then it tends to lead to weak coalitions dependent upon said extremists, which leads to either governments constantly falling, or being paralyzed, or being led to extremist positions.
See the history of Italian democracy and Israeli democracy of the past fifty years for examples.
Democracy is a virtue, but it's not the only virtue. The tyranny of the masses and of the mob are as grave a threat as any other tyranny.
Thus the virtues of separation of powers, and guaranteed rights, restraining pure democracy and mob rule.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 09:44 AM
I agree that adopting a "wait-and-see" attitude is probably the best course for the US, but I'm pessimistic about the future. Mussolini famously got the trains to run on time and broke the power of the Mafia, but then led his country into disaster. I can't exactly blame the Palestinian people for wanting an alternative to the corrupt and ineffective Fatah. I just wish there had been a better alternative than Hamas.
Posted by: ThirdGorchBro | January 27, 2006 at 09:52 AM
In analyzing the relationship between terrorism and social services, I think one key fact is overlooked. For many years the Israeli army had (and still has) free rein through the territories and they forbade many above board attempts at providing social services for Palestinians.
I attended a school run by the Brothers of the Christian Schools, a catholic order of monks that ran boys' schools around the world. While there, I spoke with some brothers who had recently attempted to run a school in the occupied territories. Since they had been running other schools in Israel proper, and since they spoke hebrew and arabic fluently, they assumed this would not be difficult. So they began running their school, offering it to anyone willing to come. Nearby Israeli settlers scoffed at the notion and refused to send their children. Both christian and muslim Palastinians were eager to try it and sent their children.
And so they began teaching. However, before they had gotten very far, an Isreali army unit visited them. There were problems, problems with the permits you see, so they had to cease their instruction immediately. This point was emphasized by sweeping large guns in the direction of children studying. And so the brothers dismissed their classes and went back to dealing with permits. But strangely, no matter what they did, they could never quite get all the approvals necessary from the Israeli government. Just when they thought they had the right combination of approvals, another army unit would come to break up their horribly illegal "teaching". I have no doubt that teaching palastinian children how to read and write qualifies as a grave and existential threat to Israel.
Now the funny thing about this is that these brothers operate in far more hostile countries that Israel. They run schools in Israel, and they are well respected internationally. I know people who attended their schools in Cairo and Tokyo, to say nothing of New Jersey.
The brothers I spoke with belived that fundamentally, they were not permitted to run a school for palastinian children because the Israeli government did not want them to become educated. Now, you may disagree with their asessment. At the time, I foolishly trusted the word of men dedicated to teaching the young over the shining moral beacon that was Arial Sharon. I'm sure you all can forgive my moral idiocy.
The point here is that a legal, well respected, above board organization was not permitted to provide social services in the occupied territories. But the need for those services obviously still exists. So who will provide them? Obviously, the only group that can provide them is the group willing to stand up to the Israeli government publicly while privately evading their military. If you outlaw teaching, then the only teachers practicing their craft will be outlaws.
Posted by: Common Sense | January 27, 2006 at 10:01 AM
And so the rise of Slartibartfastianismismism begins.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 27, 2006 at 10:06 AM
Naive question here:
Is there any kind of tax system in the Palestinian territories? Does all (or almost all) of the revenue from from international aid? I also vaguely remember hearing that Israel remands some taxes (via W-2s or something) to the PA.
Posted by: Jackmormon | January 27, 2006 at 10:11 AM
Seb: I think it's up to the international community to define what counts as 'change'. And I don't think it has to act as one, though it would be best if it did: different countries provide aid, and we can be (and I hope will be) clear about what constitutes "change" as far as our bit is concerned, as can others.
On the other hand, a clear consensus that winks are not enough would be vastly preferable.
My view, on this as on most matters of diplomacy, is: it's very important to be very clear, but also not to be needlessly antagonistic. The goal is to get Hamas to renounce the use of violence against Israel, and to accept its existence as legitimate. To do this, I would think, you need on the one hand to avoid any obfuscation about what this means, but on the other hand to provide them, if at all possible, with a path in which taking this step is as non-humiliating and non-awful as it can possibly be. (Where "as it can possibly be" refers to the fact that there's no getting around the fact that Hamas will, in fact, be making a major change in its position in response to international pressure if it does this. We shouldn't try to change that by e.g. not requiring it. We can, however, try to provide them with face-saving ways to do it, if possible, and we can also refrain from anything that would make the 'bowing to international pressure' part worse. Public grandstanding and table-thumping, for instance.)
Posted by: hilzoy | January 27, 2006 at 10:12 AM
Let's not overlook the point made by Shinobi - if Hamas is really the group that Palestinians respect then it is the group with whom it is important to negotiate. There is little sense in making deals with people who can't deliver on their promises.
Implicit here is that one of the advantages of democracy is that it tells others who is really running things. Using an economic analogy, it is like a market, which not only allocates goods but generates information as their relative value.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | January 27, 2006 at 10:16 AM
The goal is to get Hamas to renounce the use of violence against Israel, and to accept its existence as legitimate.
Yes, but I'd rather see deeds than words. Deed inconsistent with the words would be OK, if the deeds are OK. Thus, I'd rather see a lessening of support for violence in practice, than forcing a verbal renunciation that may end up having winks, nods, etc going the other way.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | January 27, 2006 at 10:38 AM
CharleyCarp: I agree. I should probably have made that clearer: by 'renounce' I didn't just mean 'say the words', but really stop it.
The words would be a good first step, and I think that given that Hamas seems to have been observing a 'truce' for around a year (iirc), there's room for taking the words at face value if, and only if, they are accompanied by the continuation of the truce. But not otherwise.
Posted by: hilzoy | January 27, 2006 at 10:49 AM
A few links to try and answer Jackmormon's question about taxes.
First, this NYT article about how the US paid to help bolster Fatah (whoops!)
Here's a PDF about "Decentralization and Intergovernmental Finance in the Palestinian Authority"
This CSM article details the budgetary problems of the PA and gives various figures needed for various tasks.
I myself wonder if support from other Arab nations is going to be dependent on holding to a strong anti-Israeli stance, or not, but I don't know how to tease this out from the possibilities
Posted by: liberal japonicus | January 27, 2006 at 10:55 AM
Rereading your comment: so I'm OK with words plus deeds, not OK with words without deeds, but what about deeds without words? There I have some degree of flexibility, I guess, but I think that in practice, given the fact that (as has always been the case) it can be hard to tell the difference between a group really trying but failing to control all its members, and that group claiming to try but winking at its members, 'deeds without words' would have to involve some pretty compelling deeds, plus a pretty clear sense that the ground is being prepared for the words being spoken. And I don't think that this attitude could be maintained indefinitely.
On the other hand, of course I'd prefer Hamas saying bad things but not actually blowing up anyone, or launching any rockets into Israel, to its saying nice things but killing Israelis right and left. I just think that (a) it would be hard, in practice, to know that the first situation obtained, and (b) that words have their own power.
Posted by: hilzoy | January 27, 2006 at 10:56 AM
To do this, I would think, you need on the one hand to avoid any obfuscation about what this means, but on the other hand to provide them, if at all possible, with a path in which taking this step is as non-humiliating and non-awful as it can possibly be.
That would be wise. But if I may indulge in a bit of mcmanusism, it's always seemed to me that the humiliation of Arabs is a positive goal of the more neoconnish members of the GOP, not just a side effect that they don't care enough about. It's more important to them than peace. Hopefully the same isn't true of the right in Israel.
Posted by: JP | January 27, 2006 at 10:59 AM
i'm sure a hundred other people have made this point already, but...
if democracy is Bush's answer to terrorism, doesn't the advent of democratically-elected terrorists suggest his answer isn't good enough ?
Posted by: cleek | January 27, 2006 at 12:02 PM
i'm sure a hundred other people have made this point already, but...
if democracy is Bush's answer to terrorism, doesn't the advent of democratically-elected terrorists suggest his answer isn't good enough ?
Not really. It's what folks do afterwards that's important.
Posted by: gwangung | January 27, 2006 at 01:16 PM
"Is there any kind of tax system in the Palestinian territories?"
Taxes are, in fact, collected by the Israeli government and post-Oslo, most of the time turned over to the PA. On occasion when tensions are peaking the Israeli government withholds the funds or threatens to.
"Yes, but I'd rather see deeds than words."
Simply agreeing to join in the elections was a colloboration with and slight acceptance of the Oslo Accords that Hamas had previously refused to engage in, because the PA has no legitimacy outside Oslo; Hamas and all its supporters are acutely aware of this. Forming a government is a much larger step down that road.
Naturally, one can also turn off a road and bound across a field, or turn 180 degrees at any time, of course. (Certainly "the road map" is in, at best, deep deep deep freeze for now.)
"...I myself wonder if support from other Arab nations is going to be dependent on holding to a strong anti-Israeli stance...."
I may be wrong, but I think pretty much only Syria will give more than lip service to that. And, of course, most strongly of all, the non-Arab country of Iran.
What will be interesting is that now the leaders of Hamas actually in Gaza/Palestine really will have an independent power base from the Hamas leaders in Damascus, just as the younger generation of Fatah has long been fighting to gain power from those formerly in Tunisia.
"...it's always seemed to me that the humiliation of Arabs is a positive goal of the more neoconnish members of the GOP,"
Without debating the merits or demerits of their theory, I believe it runs along the lines that Arab culture is shame-based, not guilt-based, and said humiliation is sought for practical effect and result, not as an end in itself. That said, I offer no opinion on the usefulness or anti-usefulness of such thinking.
"if democracy is Bush's answer to terrorism, doesn't the advent of democratically-elected terrorists suggest his answer isn't good enough ?"
Speaking purely myself: does everything have to be about George Bush? Isn't it possible to have a conversation without bringing him in from where he, in this context, is on the fringes?
Personally, I'm a lot more concerned about how this situation affects Palestinians and Israelis than I'm concerned about how it faintly affects G. W. Bush's credibility or person. But that's just me.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 01:37 PM
also, doesn't electing a government that explicitly calls for the destruction of another country come pretty close to a de facto delcaration of war against that other country ?
Posted by: cleek | January 27, 2006 at 01:38 PM
"First, this NYT article about how the US paid to help bolster Fatah (whoops!)."
It helps not to forget to paste in the link. :-) (I manage that, and many other ways of screwing up a link all the time. It's these evil little beings who live in my keyboard, you see; you may have cousin gremlins. We hates them, we does. But in a nice, liberal, way.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 01:40 PM
Speaking purely myself: does everything have to be about George Bush?
the question wasn't so much about Bush
per se, except as far as he's the most prominent advocate of the Marching Freedom movement - and the one getting credit (wave to Fred Barnes!) for promoting this Bold and Tangy method of dealing with terrorism.
but the proponents of the idea that "democracy will eliminate terrorism" (regardless of who they are) don't seem to have considered that people might democratically vote to support terrorism as official government policy. or if they did, they never added that caveat when running down the list of reasons we should support their actions.
But that's just me.
and this is just me.
Posted by: cleek | January 27, 2006 at 01:46 PM
Gary: "Speaking purely myself: does everything have to be about George Bush? Isn't it possible to have a conversation without bringing him in from where he, in this context, is on the fringes?"
Much as I would like to blame every negative incident in the world on Bush, there are times that just doesn't work well.
And as you say, in this case, he is at best on the fringes, if in the consciousness of the voting Palestinians at all.
He may or may not have had some influence or impact in the Iranian elections, but not in this case.
However, his reaction to these results will probably have some impact, and the rest of the Middle East may well be looking at how the US reacts, as mentioned in several comments upthread.
Again, you show an example of why you are needed here. Hold our feet to the fire.
Posted by: john miller | January 27, 2006 at 01:46 PM
"also, doesn't electing a government that explicitly calls for the destruction of another country come pretty close to a de facto delcaration of war against that other country ?"
They've not yet formed a government. They want Fatah in a coalition (only if idiocy strikes Fatah leaders would they be so stupid, and most of them aren't that stupid; corrupt, maybe, but not stupid). A few individual Fatah dissidents may go into the government, and probably some technocrats.
A "100-year hudna" really wouldn't be a bad starting point at all. Were it seriously enforced, it really wouldn't be so significant as to what they're giving lip service to for a decade or two or three; how they actually behaved during that time -- would incitement be eliminated from schools and society over time, would violence be tolerated, and so on, is what really matters most, not that words aren't also critical, of course -- but 100 years is quite a long time to learn to adjust to reality.
It took Fatah and Ariel Sharon a few decades to come to grips with reality, but both did about 75-80% of the way.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 01:46 PM
"And as you say, in this case, he is at best on the fringes, if in the consciousness of the voting Palestinians at all."
I think we can safely say that the number of Palestinians who thought going to the polls was a good idea thought it was a good idea because George Bush said so is, shall we say, minimal.
You could probably gather all of them in a studio apartment the size of mine own.
I wrote: "Speaking purely myself," which should, of course, have been "speaking purely for myself," but as often occurs, words out.
I already allowed as to how I thought Bush's words on this issue (I'm not commenting here and now on any of the other nonsense that passed his lips) yesterday were good. And I'm all for his calling for democracy, in general. If George Bush happens to say "water is wet," he'd be correct, even if even he spent an six hours before and after that spouting lies and nonsense.
And I'll give him credit for being accurate for declaring that water is wet; whether he has just finished draining a reservoir and sold all the water to Halliburton for ten cents is a distinguishable topic from the merits of the declaration.
Of course, he likely would have done that, and also assured us that his lawyers say it's entirely legal, and Congress mustn't investigate, because that would aid the terrorists, who were plotting to poison the water, and now we are all much safer. Some Democrats, you know, favor poisoned water.
But the water would still be wet.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 01:56 PM
Words, deeds, declaration of war.
Let's think about our own government. Plenty of folks in and out of government are going around talking about violence as the preferred solution (OK, number 2, after capitulation) to various foreign policy issues the US faces. The president himself calls certain governments "evil," suggesting, at one point, that they are in cahoots -- a veritable "axis."
I'm annoyed by this talk, but so long as we don't invade Iran or NK, I can live with it. I don't think we've declared war on NK, even by re-election of a government that seems to endorse it.
To go a step further, I'd say that i think Russia, Iran, and the PA have just as good a right to talk about 'regime change' -- and even act to effectuate it -- in countries they don't like as does the US. (Or Israel. Or New Zealand.) And just as much right to engage in self-defensive violence. Which is why I think lowering the bar -- albeit under some sort of claim of divine sanction -- was/is such a bad idea.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | January 27, 2006 at 02:09 PM
Much as I would like to blame every negative incident in the world on Bush, there are times that just doesn't work well.
i hope nobody here honestly thinks i was trying to "blame" Bush for Hamas' election success. that had never even crossed my mind until now, and i don't agree with it. i was really thinking about the policy of "democracy stops terorrism".
Posted by: cleek | January 27, 2006 at 02:13 PM
I'm annoyed by this talk, but so long as we don't invade Iran or NK, I can live with it. I don't think we've declared war on NK, even by re-election of a government that seems to endorse it.
understood.
but, we don't have a history of attacking Iran or NK (though we did have that history with Iraq, and we all know what happened there). Hamas has a long history of actually attacking Israel, and Israel's been none too shy about killing Hamas members when it has the chance. the actions on both sides have been saying "war" for quite a long time
Posted by: cleek | January 27, 2006 at 02:21 PM
"To go a step further, I'd say that i think Russia, Iran, and the PA have just as good a right to talk about 'regime change' -- and even act to effectuate it -- in countries they don't like as does the US. "
I'm all for hoping that Hamas changes after the elections, but I'm not all for being unaware of what change would entail because that will tend to obscure the change or lack of change.
Hamas is currently and has been for decades a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel as an entity. It is not just for 'regime change'.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | January 27, 2006 at 02:45 PM
Hamas election is really a product of the European and American left. Don't think so? Follow the money!
While this is horrible if it wakes them up to the evils of this group then the net effect could be positive.
Posted by: qtb | January 27, 2006 at 02:47 PM
"...but, we don't have a history of attacking Iran or NK...."
Um, I think you'll find they each have a quite different view of that.
For the latter, something about some guy named "MacArthur" and the Yalu River, and the present leader's sacred-god daddy.
For the former, something about overthrowing a fellow named (with various spelling) "Mossedq" and being responsible for Shah Reza Pahlavi and SAVAK and a nest of spies, and then some unpleasantness with helicopters in 1980, and then some blame for some Saddam fellow or other. Just for starters. Lots of smaller stuff for each, as well.
With all due attention to be focuses on Israeli violence, you're engaging in some unjustified and easy moral equivalency here.Israeli policy, for all its fits and starts, has since Oslo been for a Palestinian state, and negotiations with a democratic, free, non-violent, Palestinian government and any Palestinian who signs up for that. Hamas policy is hardly a mirror image of that (Fatah's, on the other hand, is).
Hamas policy is that Israel is to be destroyed. The nicest they get is to talk about a possible truce, possibly even for up to "100 years," although so far that's nothing more than a phrase a handful of people have suggested in casual conversation that might be something that could be considered, maybe.
Not mirror images. To be sure, Israel has eagerly killed Hamas leaders when possible, and been a tad casual about whether or not a bunch of bystanders happen to get blown up, too. Hamas, on the other hand, is thrilled to simply kill any Israeli man, woman, child, civilian, baby, they can get to, as their goal. All part of killing every Jew in the land of Palestine so it's properly cleansed.
Not mirror images.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 03:23 PM
Thought-provoking and lucid, thanks.
I get why people would balk at the "adolescence" metaphor, but I think you've framed it clearly enough that it isn't insulting.
The developmental model works even better if you consider that there is no point at which either the individual or the society ever stops maturing. And, too, regression happens. A lot.
I have to say that I also think that the United States itself is struggling with its own developmental crisis. At the moment, not very well, either.
Posted by: belledame222 | January 27, 2006 at 03:41 PM
re NK: For the latter, something about some guy named "MacArthur" and the Yalu River, and the present leader's sacred-god daddy.
err... really? are you actually saying events that happened 50+ years ago between NK and the US are at all similar and have the same relevance and import today as do things that have happened in I/P in the last 12 months ?
With all due attention to be focuses on Israeli violence, you're engaging in some unjustified and easy moral equivalency here.
wow. only in your imagination.
Hamas policy is hardly a mirror image of that
i can only assume your imagination has gone and created a cleek who actually wrote anything suggesting one was a "mirror image" of the other.
To be sure, Israel has eagerly killed Hamas leaders when possible
my "none to shy" means i'm playing moral equivalency but your "eager" doesn't ?
you're totally off-base here. completely off the rails.
Posted by: cleek | January 27, 2006 at 03:54 PM
I don't think it has been mentioned yet, or at least clearly enough, that the Hamas call for the destruction of Israel comes in the context of an Islamic commandment for Islamic control of the holy sites. The impression given is that Hamas just doesn't like Jews, or that this is a territorial dispute analogous to Northern Ireland. Such is not the case, although both might be in play. There is a regional religious context here.
I have read that Abdullah of SA hints ambiguously at the possibility of compromise, based on an interpretation of "control", but I won't believe him until I and Gary can freely wander around Mecca.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | January 27, 2006 at 04:10 PM
Gary, I agree about the too-easy moral equivalency, and I think you even granted more than necessary when you said, "To be sure, Israel has eagerly killed Hamas leaders when possible, and been a tad casual about whether or not a bunch of bystanders happen to get blown up, too."
Since there are, in the real world, no such things as smart bombs, surgical strikes, or James Bond, the decision to assasinate Hamas leaders is a decision to create collateral civilian casualties. But Hamas posed such a threat that only a pure pacifist could object to the decision to strike back at it. I don't think it's "casual" to refuse to spend one's days ruing the unavoidable consequences of necessary actions of war.
What Israel has generally done, however, is to target Hamas rather than simply release a "shock and awe" type campaign in Hamas stronghold regions. This decision has cost them in lives, as when Israel cleaned Hamas out of Jenin house-by-house (the most dangerous form of attack there is) rather than by saturation bombing. This sort of decision is not taking collateral civilian casualties "casually," but rather doing everything reasonably possible to minimize them, consistent with getting any military good out of the attacks at all.
So, no, I don't think that Israel has been casual about the deaths. That term suggests that others in like circumstances have tried harder to reduce civilian casualties -- and I have never heard of any army, anywhere, ever, that has done so in a long-term antiterrorist campaign.
Hilzoy, great post. I would love to see you debate the authors of an op-ed in today's NYT, who opined that the U.S. should respect democracy by engaging fully with Hamas and continuing to fund the PA. I don't quite understand their logic (perhaps because there isn't any) -- the U.S. can respect democracy, while despising the outcome of a particular election. As you said, we should not try to overthrow Hamas, but we are surely not required to approve or aid it just because they won the election.
A sad day.
Posted by: trilobite | January 27, 2006 at 04:16 PM
"err... really? are you actually saying events that happened 50+ years ago between NK and the US are at all similar and have the same relevance and import today as do things that have happened in I/P in the last 12 months ?"
No, I'm saying that you would find few North Koreans who would agree with the statement "we don't have a history of attacking [...] N[orth K[orea].
Perhaps I need to repeat in different words the difference between aiming to kill the leaders of a military organization (if we grant them that), and being willing to, and perhaps overly callous about, accept[ing] the deaths of some innocents nearby while striving to minimize that, and aiming deliberately to kill civilians whose only crime is their existence.Were Israel to act as Hamas desires to act and advocates, they would indeed sweep in and simply kill or expell all Palestinians from the historic Eretz Yisroel. Thankfully, only a crazed fringe favors that.
Saying "Hamas has a long history of actually attacking Israel, and Israel's been none too shy about killing Hamas members when it has the chance" in parallel construction is... well, maybe you're not familiar with what the grammar of a parallel construction says in English grammar. I'm perfectly willing to believe you meant no such thing.
"you're totally off-base here. completely off the rails."
I try to chart my own road, yes.
Bob: "...although both might be in play."
Both are in play, yes.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 04:28 PM
Gary, if you think that the Hamas leaders are serious about wanting to commit genocide it's a little hard to understand your guarded optimism. People who want to commit genocide probably aren't the pragmatic albeit murderous sorts who'd negotiate 100 year truces. But I could be wrong--in fact, now that I think about it I suspect that there are more than a few people on both sides who'd cheerfully wipe the others out if they could get away with it. And maybe negotiate a truce if they couldn't.
Now that the dreaded term "moral equivalence" has been let out of its cage, we can all take this as a signal to start swapping atrocity stories. My position on the subject is outlined better than I could do it by Henry Siegman in the current New York Review of Books, under the guise of a review of the movie "Munich". Actually, he's attacking the people (David Brooks and Leon Wieseltier) who said the movie was guilty of moral equivalence. Siegman's point is that over the decades, both sides have deliberately massacred civilians and for similar reasons. Unfortunately the article isn't online.
As for recent history, trilobite, you should consider googling what Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem have to say about Israeli human rights practices in recent years. Here's a website from AI about Jenin and other events in 2002---
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE151542002
Posted by: Donald Johnson | January 27, 2006 at 04:41 PM
"Gary, if you think that the Hamas leaders are serious about wanting to commit genocide it's a little hard to understand your guarded optimism."
There is a huge difference between a dream, and a completely grudging willingness to be willing to accept being forced to accept reality (seeming redundancy intentional). I'd recommend asking Ariel Sharon, were that possible. But you could ask Olmert, or any former Likud member of Kadima.
In his heart, I'm sure Netanyahu would prefer expulsion, but even he, while unwilling to accept a Palestinian State, doesn't, so far as I know, think expulsion is a realistic alternative or possibility. (The Kach types are another story.)
And to repeat again: my "optimism" is for some years, possibly a decade or so, down the road. Not for next month, or particularly for next year. We'll know more by 2010.
I tend to take a long view of things. And I've lived through 47 years years of Israeli history (albeit without much consciousness of my first 9; it didn't particularly cross my sphere of consciousness until June, 1967, when I was 9 going on 10).
My main point was that Hamas and its supporters were going to have to be dealt with -- one way or another -- sooner rather than later, anyway. And it's actually easier to deal with them when they're forced to deal with responsiblity, rather than while they're relatively free to be irresponsible with no other constrainsts than the Israeli Defence Forces.
"But I could be wrong--in fact, now that I think about it I suspect that there are more than a few people on both sides who'd cheerfully wipe the others out if they could get away with it. And maybe negotiate a truce if they couldn't."
Quite so.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 04:57 PM
A couple of comments on issues peripheral to the central ones. I know much less about Palestine than many other posters here, so I'll stick to the broader generalizations and analogies, without in any way specifying that they apply in a meaningful way to the current I/P situation. (As one of my professors used to say, "I bring no knowledge to this question - only wisdom.")
1) On "adolescence." I didn't use the exact same metaphor as Hilzoy, but have been arguing for many years that powerlessness can corrupt as much power, especially in a colonial situation. When ultimate authority is always beyond your grasp, it is easy to slip into advocating unrealistic "solutions" to problems, confident that they will never have to be implemented. E.g., part of the fumbling that has occurred in the Philippines over the past 30-odd years, IMHO, is due to an underlying implicit assumption, rooted in nearly 400 years of colonialism, than someone outside (e.g., the United States) is ultimately responsible for what happens to the country, rather than the RP government.
It takes time - sometimes more, sometimes less - to recognize one's own responsibility for one's fate, and then act responsibly. Thailand, which had never been colonized, recovered (economically) much faster from the closing of American bases than the Philippines did; at least part of this, I think, is because they took it for granted it was up to _them_ to find a solution to problems.
Where Hamas fits on this scale I have, as indicated above, no idea.
2) On deeds without words. This is a commonplace in certain kinds of foreign relationships, especially those involving territorial claims. Back in the 1960s the Philippines claimed Sabah and opposed the formation of Malaysia, which was in the process of incorporating it. For a few years there were actually schemes to invade or subvert the disputed territory, though all were abortive, thank goodness.
It has now been more than 30 years since the Philippines has in any meaningful way done (or threatened to do) anything about this issue. They get along fine with Malaysia most of the time, and from the viewpoint of historians (like myself) this is a closed issue. But I believe that they have never formally renounced the claim.
Similar patterns may be seen in a number of other claims involving China, Japan, Russia, Vietnam, and other countries bordering the oceans of eastern Asia. About 15 years I was one of the co-editors of a book on territorial claims in the South China Sea, which came out at a time when we - and many others - were apprehensive that this might become the next flashpoint for a regional war. Yet in the event, next to nothing has happened, which in the larger sense is an excellent thing (though not so great for book sales). Yet AFAIK none of the countries involved has formally renounced the claims they once made, or even - though I'm less sure of this - formally renounced the use of force to "resolve" them if necessary. Ultra-nationalist constituencies at home, we assume, make such renunciations politically unpalatable.
IF this analogy applies - and I re-emphasize that I have little knowledge here - one might hope for a Hamas that co-exists with Israel in practice, while refusing ever to give up its rhetorical opposition to "Zionist-occupied Palestine." Demanding that they must say that Israel has a right to exist before anyone treats with them might, in such a scenario, prove counterproductive.
As always, YMMV.
Posted by: dr ngo | January 27, 2006 at 05:03 PM
... well, maybe you're not familiar with what the grammar of a parallel construction says in English grammar
feel free to quote the rule that says any such construction necessarily implies moral equivalency.
Posted by: cleek | January 27, 2006 at 05:10 PM
"About 15 years I was one of the co-editors of a book on territorial claims in the South China Sea, which came out at a time when we - and many others - were apprehensive that this might become the next flashpoint for a regional war."
This continues, however, to my purely amateur eye, to be something to continue to keep a close eye on for at least the next couple of decades. Pressures to make good on these claims due to possibilies of oil and natural gas claims will only increase, not decrease, it seems to me.
Feel free to tell me I'm full of it and don't know what I'm talking about.
"IF this analogy applies - and I re-emphasize that I have little knowledge here - one might hope for a Hamas that co-exists with Israel in practice, while refusing ever to give up its rhetorical opposition to 'Zionist-occupied Palestine.' Demanding that they must say that Israel has a right to exist before anyone treats with them might, in such a scenario, prove counterproductive."
This is how I very much tend to lean. Although it also does put some boundaries on how far Israel can be expected to go, as well, unfortunately. Rhetoric does count for something, particularly insofar as it keeps false hope alive, and most particularly insofar as it is used to indoctrinate children. But also simply insofar as it frightens people on the other side. Threats are, after all, threatening. And gestures have to be met with parallel gestures for matters to ever advance.
But my long-term hope is that that that sort of rhetoric can eventually, someday, ease, as it did to varying degrees for much of Fatah, over the decades.
On the downside, one can rarely underestimate the doggedness of a religious point of view. On both sides there will always be some irredentists. (Of course, in dreamland, someday both Jews and Palestinians will be able to live anywhere in the land, in either country, even if voting rights would be the very absolute last possible last step; but simple freedom to buy land and live where one chooses in peace would be the fulfillment of a great dream for both peoples.
I'm highly doubtful I'll live to see that. But dreams are important, too.
cleek: "feel free to quote the rule that says any such construction necessarily implies moral equivalency."
It would be besides any point to address such a silly; I already said that I was perfectly willing to believe you meant no such thing; do you have a problem with that?
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 05:45 PM
already said that I was perfectly willing to believe you meant no such thing; do you have a problem with that?
i have a problem with the fact that you didn't seem to mean it.
nonetheless, enough.
Posted by: cleek | January 27, 2006 at 06:15 PM
"First, this NYT article about how the US paid to help bolster Fatah (whoops!)."
It helps not to forget to paste in the link
I didn't mean it to be but the whoops was self-referential, I guess.
The link is here
back to reading what y'all wrote while I was asleep.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | January 27, 2006 at 06:18 PM
"On the downside, one can rarely underestimate the doggedness of a religious point of view."
I do this all the time too. Probably meant "overestimate".
I am not Gary's evil twin.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | January 27, 2006 at 06:33 PM
Ahh, and now I see I contributed to the 'this is all about George Bush' meme and a decline in the value (to my eyes) of the thread. Sorry about that, it was just the first link that came up for Palestinian Authority and budget (or some such other combination) and I thought it would be a bit less than serious way to start. I didn't mean to start a fight, but I just thought it bizarre that so many people complain that Fatah was corrupt and an obstacle to peace, but 'we' (since most of us here are Americans) are still willing to boost up the subsidies when we think it serves our interests. I'm not suggesting that we not have paid this, it just demonstrates to me the problems of tying helping people to political outcomes. Also, I am primarily interested in how the US responds to this because that is the only government who I can even dimly imagine affecting. (Japan suggested that they act as a negotiator in the Iran nuclear mess, which was ignored completely, and if they can't be taken seriously in dealing with a country with which they have some huge contracts with, they are going to be completely irrelevant to the IP situation, I think)
Posted by: liberal japonicus | January 27, 2006 at 06:38 PM
just to play devil's advocate a little:
there is an important distinction between the platform of a political party and the position of a government formed by that political party.
frex, compare what Bush has said and done with the official Republican party platform adopted at the last convention.
so count me firmly in the wait-and-see camp. If the next government of the PA takes actions consistent with the Hamas platform regarding Israel, then a legitimate case can be made that the PA has declared war on Israel and the Israelis can conduct themselves accordingly.
but to say that the election of a Hamas slate of candidates of itself means that the PA is now at war with Israel (which i've read in various places, but can't remember where) is just stupid. The official Hamas platform is no more binding on the next PA govt than the Republican party platform is binding on the current US one.
Posted by: Francis | January 27, 2006 at 06:49 PM
dr ngo: the adolescence thing was more about the learning curve, and less about the corruptions of powerlessness. That said, I completely agree with you. -- I first started really thinking about this when taking a course on Enlightenment moral and political theory, in which, as often happens when you plunge into the literature of a very different period, I was struck by all sorts of topics that were extensively discussed then, and quite neglected now.
One of them was the psychology of courtiers, especially courtiers in the courts of Louis XIV and XV, who had very little power. And once I had focussed on it, it seemed to be relevant everywhere. The battered women's shelter I was working at was taken over by a horrible authoritarian executive director: lo! Montesquieu's Persian Letters suddenly began to seem very apt. I got a job at a college that had shed a President who allowed the faculty no power at all: there it was, the psychology of courtiers, in the middle of our faculty meetings. Etc.
One can never read enough Enlightenment moral and political theory, imho. It is relevant to everything. And it is utterly unlike its reputation: skeptical, playful, mordantly funny, wonderful to read. And lucky me got to be introduced to it by Judith Shklar, who was a wonderful teacher, though she could be a dragon if she decided you were an idiot.
There was one poor guy in particular whom she just vivisected in class. He was going on and on (and on) about some tedious interpretation of some writer, which turned on that writer's having talked about the wisdom of royal edicts. And I looked at Judith Shklar, for no reason, and watched her eyes get narrower and narrower as he blathered on, and she coiled to strike. When at last he was done, she looked at him and said:
Edicts, Toby? The wisdom of edicts? Have you ever heard of (and here came a long list of edicts that the writer might have had in mind, all of which were completely stupid). And after listing them all (Have you heard of this edict, Toby? No? Have you heard of that edict? No? Etc.), she glared at him and said: Clearly, Toby, edicts are not your strong suit. Let's try another topic. Have you ever heard of SARCASM???
Silence.
It was scary.
A decade later I heard that same Toby interviewed on NPR, talking about a book he'd written on what was wrong with America and its academic liberals, and all I could think was: well, if Judith Shklar had torn me apart like that, I might be out for revenge too.
Posted by: hilzoy | January 27, 2006 at 06:54 PM
I should also note that it's easy for me to spout off about Israel since I don't live there. I tend to limit any serious "recommendations" as to what Israel should do, accordingly, if anyone were to seriously engage me about them, and obviously I speak to Palestinian issues from my (secular) Jewish perspective. I thought I should toss that in, just for the record. People in other lands have to come to their own conclusions about what it's wise to live with, naturally.
(Although did you know that it's been revealed, for the umpteenth time in my life, that I am not really Jewish? [Scroll down past the Iranian parts of the post to get to the other part.] Every so often in my life I get that sort of thing from some ultra-Orthodox nitwit; fortunately for my respect for Orthodoxy and religiosity in general, I've always known some sane and non-idiot Orthodox [Hasids, even; lived with a few, even]. But I do find it pretty hilarious, along with the irritation.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 08:36 PM
"i have a problem with the fact that you didn't seem to mean it."
Could I borrow your mind-reading cap when you're not using it? It would be really handy.
Oh, wait. Never mind. It's broken.
How grand it is to live in a universe where one can write the uncomplicated sentence: "I'm perfectly willing to believe you meant no such thing."
And have it surrounded by invisible auras -- or something -- that apparently -- somehow -- indicate that I don't, in fact, mean what I plainly and flatly said.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 08:50 PM
"Probably meant 'overestimate'."
Correctamundo! Bob wins the kewpie doll! Don't spend it all in one place.
My fingers: they're evil, I tell you! Evil!
Very disobedient.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 08:55 PM
Gary:
"Is the Hamas election another example of how our war in Iraq has spread a wave of democratization across the Middle East?"
Not particularly, but it is partially a result of strong American pressure for democracy; it's more a result of Abbas actually believing in democracy, and many of his people. This is a good thing. I'm assuming, dmbeaster, that you don't support democracy only when you like the result?
I am making fun of the ardent Bushies who prop up a bogus Iraq policy by pointing to every democratic moment in the Middle East as proof of the alleged brilliance of the Bush Iraq policy. If elections in Lebanon are part of the benefits, then so should Hamas being elected.
I have previously written that elections in and of themselves don't necessarily mean a whole lot in reforming a region. Afghanistan is sinking fast despite elections. Its hollow for the Bushies to get all excited about an election in and of itself; many others have made the point in connection with the Hamas vote. My favorite historical example is German history from 1918 to 1933 -- a new democracy and elections that led to Nazism anyway.
Posted by: dmbeaster | January 27, 2006 at 09:23 PM
I'm not as alarmist about Hamas' victory as hilzoy and others are. Fatah deserved to lose: it was corrupt and ineffectual. I do believe that's why Hamas won, not because Palestinians are "re-embracing terrorism." (When did they stop embracing terrorism?)
Either Hamas will be able to deliver its promises to provide more honest, more efficient government, or it won't. If it does succeed, I don't see how that's a bad thing. If it doesn't, I don't see how it can make things much worse than the status quo ante.
There's a tendency for radical organizations, once they decide to enter a normative political process, to become less radical over time. They're busy actually governing, for one. For another, success in governing invests them in the process - enough, hopefully, that they start resenting the fire-eaters who want to keep sabotaging what is now their government.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when Hamas' efforts to 'actually govern' collide with their own hotheads who just want to keep blowing things and people up.
Posted by: CaseyL | January 27, 2006 at 09:26 PM
"(When did they stop embracing terrorism?)"
Well, since the majority accepted the Oslo Accords, and the recent "calm," of couse.
These days it's more of a quick handshake and a wave, then an embrace. Eventually, the bitter accusations, and the storming out of the house, with some pleading from terrorism not to be abandoned after all I've done for you, honey!
HTH.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 10:25 PM
"...then an embrace."
"...than an embrace."
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 27, 2006 at 10:26 PM
Gary: this is a somewhat tangential point, but Jonathan Edelstein's post on the election results suggests that Hamas would have won even more decisively under a plain first-past-the-post system. They took only a slim plurality of the proportional-representation seats but won big in the district seats. So the hypothesis that proportional rep. helps elect extremists doesn't seem well supported by this election.
Of course it's possible that with a districts-only system the election campaign would have been fought very differently, people would have felt differently about the impact of protest votes, etc. So it's not an open-and-shut case against the "PR -> extremism" hypothesis either.
Posted by: Nicholas Weininger | January 28, 2006 at 12:13 AM
"So the hypothesis that proportional rep. helps elect extremists doesn't seem well supported by this election."
Y'know, I never said or suggested any such thing. I made a passing remark about p.r. in general. I was then asked what I meant, in general, and I politely and briefly answered. Possibly I shouldn't have. Apparently it really really is necessary to constantly, endlessly, every single time, point out what I don't mean every time I make a passing aside.
Any other connection anyone is making about proportional representation, and this election, including the one above, is purely a product of their own creative imagination.
All I said was this:
If you can find anything there about the Palestinian election, get back to me.I really really hate this dynamic where people hallucinate implications and read them into words that plainly and obviously have nothing whatever to do with said hallucinations.
And before anyone bridles and quotes the earlier part, I also said this:
But, again, if you can find any claim by me in there that therefore proportional representation had a bad effect in this election, I'd have to call that a highly creative interpretation. Let alone would anyone be able to legitimately get from it to any claim that I somehow asserted that "the hypothesis that proportional rep. helps elect extremists [was] supported by this election."I'm sorry if this is a cranky response, but as I said, I'm endlessly weary of these sorts of strangely careless readings. That is not, of course, your fault, Nicholas Weininger, and I apologize that you happened to be next in line when I fired off on this dynamic again.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 28, 2006 at 01:15 AM
Gary, usually when people are discussing topic X where policy Y or anti-Y played a role, and someone says policy Y is bad because it causes result Z, and X happens to be a Z, it's natural to think that person was talking about X when mentioning Y, unless that person specifies that this is not meant to reflect on the particular case at hand which in fact is a counterexample to the general principle. (Hopefully the references make sense.)
In other words, I suspect I would have made the same mistake.
Posted by: rilkefan | January 28, 2006 at 01:35 AM
"(Hopefully the references make sense.)"
Yes.
"In other words, I suspect I would have made the same mistake."
I shall renew my efforts to explain what I don't mean, and I Will Work Harder.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 28, 2006 at 01:59 AM
I wonder what proportion of Americans knows what a knacker is. I don't know the American equivalent, if there is one, or what a glue-factory worker is called...
Posted by: rilkefan | January 28, 2006 at 02:12 AM
One of my favorite Britishisms is the commonality there of using the word "scheme" to simply neutrally mean "plan."
So you endlessly read every day in Britain, in signs or newspapers or whatever, about this or that government or corporate "scheme."
Whereas in America, different connotation. Snidely Whiplash.
I'm a bit knackered, myself, just now.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 28, 2006 at 02:37 AM
I must, in no uncertain terms, disagree:
http://www.tacitus.org/story/2006/1/27/1660/58604
Posted by: Bernard Guerrero | January 28, 2006 at 11:48 AM
Hope you're right, Bernard. Anyway, good post.
Posted by: rilkefan | January 28, 2006 at 12:09 PM
one very basic point in all this is that it seems that the Palestinians had only two choices: Fatah or Hamas. Scylla meet Charybdis. They chose what they saw as better representing their interests. It would behoove us to find out why they felt Hamas was better. Right now all we have is speculation.
Posted by: moe99 | January 28, 2006 at 12:13 PM
Could I borrow your mind-reading cap when you're not using it? It would be really handy.
oh fer fnck's sake. when you admit to maybe misinterpreting someone, but then wrap that admission in a sarcastic critique of that person's knowledge of English grammar, you're going to have to accept that people might just think you're being a bit disingenuous.
And have it surrounded by invisible auras -- or something -- that apparently -- somehow -- indicate that I don't, in fact, mean what I plainly and flatly said.
and then you have the gall pretend you didn't do that?
my. god. what an insufferable ass.
Posted by: cleek | January 28, 2006 at 01:48 PM
Second Francis on the comparison to the Republican Party platform. How many people voting for Bush wanted to enact that entire platform?
Abortion is a better analogy. Everyone knows that Hamas opposes Israel's existence and that the Republicans oppose legal abortion. And yet many vote Republican in serene confidence that legal abortion is here to stay.
Let's hope many Hamas voters had the same attitude.
If Hamas tries to stay radical, it will split or be displaced. Israel is here to stay, & most Palestinians know it; I'd bet a plurality favor it, whether or not they'd admit it to a pollster. (They would prefer Little Syria? Iraq 2.0? I think not.)
Posted by: Anderson | January 28, 2006 at 01:59 PM
cleek, posting rules. People are allowed to be annoying, but not uncivil. Maybe the former point should be amended, but that's above my pay grade.
Posted by: rilkefan | January 28, 2006 at 02:12 PM
cleek, posting rules
i throw myself on the mercy of the kitten
Posted by: cleek | January 28, 2006 at 02:26 PM
Anderson,
"...and that the Republicans oppose legal abortion. And yet many vote Republican in serene confidence that legal abortion is here to stay."
Ayuh. I certainly don't lose any sleep over it, and my take on abortion is pretty much the same as Steven Levitt's. (Or rather, my analysis of it.)
But in the end, I suppose, it doesn't matter. If they voted for Hamas thinking that they wouldn't get radical policies, and they don't, all is well. If they voted for Hamas expecting radicalism and they don't get it, Hamas will be replaced in short order, lather, rinse, repeat. And if they want radicalism and they get it, well, I believe in feedback loops....
Posted by: Bernard Guerrero | January 28, 2006 at 02:31 PM
"The goal is to get Hamas to renounce the use of violence against Israel, and to accept its existence as legitimate."
Unfortunately reality speaks...
"Militants from Fatah and Hamas capped a tense and emotional day with violent clashes on Friday, while a Hamas leader said the group had no intention of recognizing Israel's right to exist or changing its charter, which calls for Israel's destruction"
Posted by: BillW | January 28, 2006 at 02:31 PM
You don't expect things to change in a day, BillW. It may not change for the better, but if it does, I wasn't expecting it to happen immediately.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | January 28, 2006 at 02:57 PM