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.)
"one very basic point in all this is that it seems that the Palestinians had only two choices: Fatah or Hamas."
It's a really good point, save for the fact that, you know, it isn't at all true. So maybe it's not a good point. Maybe it's what we call a "bad point."
Here were the party choices, and then within the parties, you had different flavors, such as "young guard Fatah" and "old guard Fatah" and "militant Hamas" and "moderate Hamas":
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 28, 2006 at 03:01 PM
"...you're going to have to accept that people might just think you're being a bit disingenuous."
I'm glad to see that you've been appointed a spokesperson for more than yourself. I'd like to thank all of cleek's multiple personalities for their thoughts. (I'm sure many lurkers support you in e-mail, as well.)
"my. god. what an insufferable ass."
I deeply regret your suffering. But not so much.
Since clearly, in your universe, "I'm perfectly willing to believe you meant no such thing" means "I admit I was completely in error in believing you meant what you wrote, and clearly the fault for your bad writing lies with my reading," rather than "I'm entirely willing to charitably and politely move on, and believe your disclaimer that you didn't mean what you actually said," I shall try to remember in future to remember that charity and politeness are met by you with such a charitable and polite response as above, and to respond accordingly. Noted.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 28, 2006 at 03:18 PM
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.
This is completely unrelated to the topic in question but I'd like to point out that a) I've said equivalent things in my time and, what is more, b) been right on many occasions. [Been wrong a whole lot, too.] Fact is, it's incredibly easy to make firm declarations of principle or desire that simply aren't held, even without a presumption of deceit or foul play, and people IME tend to do so fairly frequently.* One does have to be careful in calling people on their error, naturally, but it's neither as rare nor as hard as you seem to think.
What, if any, relevance this has to the present topic I leave to you, since I stopped reading this thread several dozen posts back; I just thought it was worth pointing out that the simple existence of such a declaration doesn't automatically validate it.
* Simple brainlessness or naivete are most often the culprits, and I speak here from experience.
Posted by: Anarch | January 28, 2006 at 04:30 PM
I shall try to remember in future to remember that charity and politeness are met by you with such a charitable and polite response as above, and to respond accordingly.
if you don't want to insulted, i might help if you don't insult others. and, don't forget: no matter how flowery and clever you make an insult, it's still an insult.
charity begins at home.
Posted by: cleek | January 28, 2006 at 04:32 PM
Back on substance, in case anyone thought I was making sh--, stuff up about Palestinian's declining support for, and walking away from, "embracing" terrorism, some polling data.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 28, 2006 at 05:03 PM
"I'm glad to see that you've been appointed a spokesperson for more than yourself."
From what I read I would have to lend my support to his analysis and only add that he left out the part about you coming off as a real ass.
But of course you've probably heard that before and are numb to it.
Posted by: BillW | January 28, 2006 at 05:33 PM
Gary- I don't want to hurt your feelings, but I was lurking and tend to support cleek in this, sorry.
Posted by: Frank | January 28, 2006 at 08:41 PM
Actually, the election results sound like a good result. First, unless Hamas renounces terrorism and a dedication to the destruction of Israel, neither Europe, the US nor Israel (of course) will give the PA *any* money; even the Europeans won't actively fund a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's completely destructoin. Yet, the PA runs nearly completely off of these externally provided funds.
So Hamas is really screwed. Either they are responsible for cutting off nearly all funds to the Palestinian controlled areas, which will cost them a great deal in popular support, or they have to moderate their policies.
Or Iran has to fund all of Palestinian government expenses. But it isn't clear that they *can* provide that level of funding, or want to, or will be allowed to by Israel.
Posted by: PghMike | January 29, 2006 at 08:38 AM
"Is the Hamas election another example of how our war in Iraq has spread a wave of democratization across the Middle East?"
Democratization yes, dm. Freedom no, since the PA was not free to begin with, and it is the second most corrupt "nation" in the Middle East. Since Hamas desires an Islamic state, I'm doubtful they will grant more political rights and civil liberties to their citizenry.
Several other thoughts. With Hamas where it is now, Sharon looks prescient in deciding to build a security fence and get out of Gaza, both of which were efforts to lessen Israeli exposure to potential terrorists. I foresee more securitization by Israel now that a terrorist group is in power. The practical effect of this election is that Palestinians may also be wanting to lessen their exposure to Israelis. It may just happen as long as terrorist attacks do not increase.
As I see it, fears of U.S. intervention are unfounded. The election was monitored by international elections observers and were found to reflect the will of the people. The people spoke, and once again the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
If Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist AND if Hamas doesn't renounce terrorism AND if terrorist attacks by Hamas members do not abate, the U.S. cannot involve itself in its historical role as honest broker. Our longstanding policy is that we do not negotiate with terrorists, and there is no reason to change that policy now. We should stop aid to the PA and possibly freeze assets. Hamas did quite a bit of damage with a $70 million budget, and now they will be handling billions.
The election result is decidedly not good, but it didn't look like Palestinians had many good choices either. Hard to blame them given the lousy system they're stuck with.
Posted by: Charles Bird | January 29, 2006 at 11:33 AM
You say "terrorism," they say "armed struggle," let's call the whole thing off.
It depends on which path Hamas and Palestine wind up following: the one they've followed thus far, or the one the IRA/Sinn Fein wound up on.
The path Palestine has take so far is: Political Group A renounces terrorism, even throws out its more vocal supporters-of-terrorism. Then, when the ousted members form their own splinter group, Group A publically expresses dismay but privately works with the splinter group. In other words, the change is cosmetic only.
The IRA/Sinn Fein model is more complicated, more interesting, and ultimately more hopeful. Sinn Fein may have been meant to act as a political fig leaf for the IRA, but a funny thing happened at some point: the members of Sinn Fein got serious about dealing with issues politically, rather than by blowing things up.
I think there were a number of reasons Sinn Fein became a political party for-real, rather than just a fig leaf.
One reason is the reification factor, aka "Seem as you wish to be," aka "Burying yourself in the role." Talk and act as though you're genuinely interested in a political solution long enough, and eventually you internalize that and actually are genuinely interested in a political solution.
Another reason is related to the reification factor: present your part as a genuine political party, and you'll attract people who want to be part of it, and some of them will be really good at it. Eventually, your political party is comprised of people who are seriously, genuinely interested in a political solution; who have the dedication and talent to make it happen.
A third, and vital, reason is: your political party succeeds in pushing its agenda, wins meaningful concessions from the other side, and thereby encourages the population your party represents to continue supporting a political solution - and, as a correllary, stop supporting terrorism. In other words, the other side has to be honest about wanting to find an alternative to terrorism, has to be honest about redressing real grievances, has to be willing to give your political party some victories.
The Palestinians have supported terrorism for lo these many years. They've consistently supported fig leaf parties, winking and nodding at collaboration with terrorist splinter groups. They've consistently thrown in with whoever utters the most rejectionist rhetoric, whoever caters to the fantasy of an Israel-less Middle East, and whoever can claim credit for blowing up the most Israelis.
What do they have to show for this, after 30-odd years? Very little; and nothing at all like what they could have had, if they'd told Arafat back in 2000 to piss up a rope and accept Barak's offer; if they'd refused Arafat's call for another intifadah. Whether Barak could deliver, whether the offered territories were contiguous - reasons, or excuses, given for Arafat's decision - were bluffs they should have called. They would have had an independent state, for pity's sake; a far better base from which to negotiate.
Sooner or later it has got to occur to enough Palestinians that terrorism in general, and the "fig-leaf party covering up for terrorism" model in particular hasn't delivered. Time to try something else - like, maybe, really and truly renouncing terrorism, no more winks and nods.
And Hamas might be a good place to start. It might be a good place to start because Hamas is not as corrupt as Fatah, does have a proven track record in providing the things a government is supposed to provide - and, now that it's in the tent, might be able to follow the Sinn Fein model of reifying itself into a real political party working towards a real political solution. Its leadership could shift to people who are serious about change, and it could attract more people who are serious about change.
That's a lot of coulds and maybes. But it's the best road out of where they are.
Posted by: CaseyL | January 29, 2006 at 11:58 AM
This is actually an open question. There are plently of rumblings in all directions coming from different European countries in the immediate aftermath of the election. Some are making threats to call off aid, but it is yet to be seen if they will follow through. Cutting off the funding means Palestinians starving. Will the EU put up with that just because Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel? History seems to say no. I would be unsurprised if in a few weeks most of the European countries decide to treat the 'political arm' of Hamas like they do the 'political arm' of Hezbollah.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | January 29, 2006 at 12:16 PM
"Freedom no, since the PA was not free to begin with, and it is the second most corrupt 'nation' in the Middle East. Since Hamas desires an Islamic state, I'm doubtful they will grant more political rights and civil liberties to their citizenry."
It's certainly true that the Palestinian territories have had a variety of gangs of thugs wandering about, many of whom had one degree or another of affiliation with Fatah or the PA, but I'm pretty unclear by what standard you're saying that "the PA was not free."
It's never been anything remotely resembling a totalitarian organization, and I wouldn't accuse Hamas, for all its various faults, of that, either. Various degrees of intimidation have been imposed by both organizations upon Palestinian "citizens" at times, but never really in any sort of systematic way.
What exactly do you mean by this? And what sort of "more political rights" do you, specifically, have in mind?
Patrick Belton, incidentally, has been wandering around the Palestinian territories for a couple of weeks; don't know if you've noticed. You might find his interview with the Christian mayor of Ramallah of interest, and what she thinks of Hamas, and also his interview with Kadura Fares, one of Marwan Barghouthi's aides.
I kinda also wonder where you get most of your info/perspective on Israel/Palestine from, and how long and heavily you've been paying attention, if you don't mind my asking.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 29, 2006 at 12:27 PM
"The practical effect of this election is that Palestinians may also be wanting to lessen their exposure to Israelis."
I forgot to mention that the statement boggled me. Gee, ya think?
Whatever gave you that idea?
Or, more seriously, what on earth makes you think the election has any significant effect on this, and what on earth were you thinking to suggest that this hasn't been the case since, oh, about 1920 and the Hebron riots?
"...AND if terrorist attacks by Hamas members do not abate"
Possibly you've not noticed that there hasn't been a single Hamas suicide attack since early in 2005, when they agreed to a truce, and they have strictly kept to it despite continued Israeli arrests and some killings of Hamas members. They're quite disciplined, generally speaking, particularly compared to Fatah.
So, what are you talking about, Charles?
CaseyL: "...They've consistently thrown in with whoever utters the most rejectionist rhetoric,"
This simply is nonsense. Abbas has had more Palestinian support than not, and he most certainly is the opposite of the above description. And the overwhelming majority have supported the Oslo Accords, have supported negotiations with Israel, have supported (reluctantly) a two-state solution, and supported the goal of getting to peace. I already supplied a polling data link above. I can throw whole bunches more if necessary, but it shouldn't be.
This is not 1977 or 1980, any more.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 29, 2006 at 12:39 PM
Sebastian,
Cutting off the funding means Palestinians starving. Will the EU put up with that...
If the Arabs stated will put up with that, then why shouldn't EU? This is what I don't get. With all these pretenses at Muslim solidarity, why should western aid even matter?
Posted by: Stan LS | January 29, 2006 at 12:57 PM
stated=states
Posted by: Stan LS | January 29, 2006 at 01:12 PM
Um, I don't want to get into the entire I/P debate since I agree with most of what people are saying in this thread about the situation right now. On the most crucial point, clearly Israel can't negotiate peace with a group that doesn't recognize them. The best one could get would be a continuation of the truce. Hopefully the majority of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas understand this--there's some reason to think that they probably do. If we're lucky, Fatah will reform itself and ultimately Hamas will be replaced by a group that is both relatively free of corruption and willing to reach peace. Distribution of ponies can follow immediately thereafter.
Jimmy Carter suggested the other day that in order to keep the Palestinians from starving, aid could be funneled to them through other channels besides the PA. I don't know how that would work. Given how corrupt Fatah was it sounds like an idea people should have implemented before.
But it is a little irksome to see the usual cliches concerning Palestinians who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, or the one about rejecting that oh-so-generous offer of Barak's at Camp David (Charles Enderlin spoke to all the parties at the time and wrote a book "Shattered Dreams" which doesn't quite fit in with the self-serving narratives put out by Clinton and Barak supporters in the US). As for Palestinian rejectionism, one normally doesn't expect people to enthusiastically endorse the results of their own ethnic cleansing, accompanied as it was by two dozen known massacres, of which Deir Yassin (120 deaths) was not the largest. (See http://www.deiryassin.org/bennymorris.html ) They ought to be pragmatic about what they can get and use the right of return as a massive bargaining chip, and they should stop murdering civilians, while similarly expecting Israel to stop committing war crimes. But I don't expect them to be the kind of self-hating idiots they'd have to be to accept the framing of the issue that seems to be preferred in the US.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | January 29, 2006 at 01:36 PM
NPR had a series of interviews with Palestinians about their votes and how they chose. Tnose interviewed, which included, I believe, two Christians, voted for Hamas because they werre opposed to the corruption of Fatah. The two Christians were not worried that Hammas would impose conservative Islamic mores on them. They were worried that the rest of the world would cut off aids and that the subsequent suffering would give rise to extremism. They thought that, if aid continued, Hamas would moderate. Obviously the interviews were just individual opinions, not polls, but it was interesting to me that Christians who, according to Western conventional wisdom, ought to be appalled by an Islamist party, actually voted for the party.
Posted by: lily | January 29, 2006 at 01:36 PM
Gary's response was more to the immediate point than mine was. If I restart a full-fledged debate about Who Is More Responsible for the overall conflict I have only myself to blame. Not that I'm retracting anything I said, but maybe the last paragraph belongs in some other thread.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | January 29, 2006 at 01:42 PM
lily,
Obviously the interviews were just individual opinions, not polls, but it was interesting to me that Christians who, according to Western conventional wisdom, ought to be appalled by an Islamist party, actually voted for the party.
Ofcourse, you'll find the huge decline of Christian population in the west bank since Arafat took over from Israel in 1993, even more interesting.
Posted by: Stan LS | January 29, 2006 at 01:48 PM
Our longstanding policy is that we do not negotiate with terrorists, and there is no reason to change that policy now.
When have we ever kept that policy?
Posted by: Phil | January 29, 2006 at 01:59 PM
Hi Stan,long time no see. Did you follow Gary's link to the mayor of Ramullah? Please do.
Posted by: lily | January 29, 2006 at 02:06 PM
lily,
Yes. I read it earlier this morning. Hence I offered you to contrast and compare opinions of two vs. those of tens thousands. People vote with their feet.
As for the election overall. I'ld imagine it would be tough to call an election "democratic" if it takes place in a land of no free speech, don't ya think?
Posted by: Stan LS | January 29, 2006 at 02:43 PM
"Ofcourse, you'll find the huge decline of Christian population in the west bank since Arafat took over from Israel in 1993, even more interesting."
I would. I assume you can provide a cite with details?
Lily: "Did you follow Gary's link to the mayor of Ramullah? Please do."
Of course, one should also keep in mind that it's entirely possible that Janet Mikhail is being naive and is wrong in her appraisal. After all, no one is a seer.
But I'm not inclined to think Charles has a better grasp of the situation on the ground that she does, or frankly, than I do.
Hamas, of course, is made up of individuals, who have a range of views. A certain portion of the core, and not a small portion are religious fundamentalists, or at least firmly Islamic, and are apt to never fundamentally acknowledge Israel's right to exist, or recognize Israel as legitimate; that's a part of their Charter (which I did a rather longer-than-Katherine quoting from and mockery of, along with a bunch of other relevant stuff here) that is actually, from their point of view, quite understandable, and perfectly explainable as at least not-crazy, like all the Rotary/Lions club nonsense, and all the anti-Semitic, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, let's find all the Koranic anti-Semitic quotes we can, insanity stuff, in the Charter that one would like to hope they'll someday see their way towards shedding, though doubtless as a quite late step, not an early one.
But the this-is-an-Islamic-land part is as understandable as the Jewish religious-this-is-our-land point of view, and really not demonstrably any less reasonable from anyone who doesn't particularly buy into either religious point of view.
This is unfortunate, but an essential part of the heart of the whole conflict, of course.
Now, plenty of other Hamas supporters and members are less hardcover, and it's more within the realm of possibility for those people to eventually be able to compromise, just as the mass of Israelis have been able to compromise on the notion that us Jews aren't going to get to have the entire historic Land Of Israel to ourselves, regardless of what the Torah says, or that we'd spread some really nice delis throughout the land.
But many of the current leaders of Hamas are presently, and have been for some time before the election, quite outspoken about how while they are unable to ever concede a de jure right-of-Israel-to-legitimately-exist, saying clearly that they're practical people nonetheless, and that they know it's not in their power to wipe out Israel, and that they're quite willing, under the "right circumstances" (and that's where it gets tricky and nitty-gritty, of course, and they don't have any sort of clear position as yet) to have a long-term hudna (true), and they've lately been throwing "for one hundred years" about as a term, and saying "we'll leave it to the children."
And, really, there's a fair amount of practical room for maneuver and development, there, to explore, much though it is absolutely more than uncomfortable, but down right problematic to reach agreement or even deal with people who deny your legitimacy or right to exist as a political entity.
Nonetheless, it's there, to be ignored or explored.
I don't, as I've said, expect very much to happen between Israel and a Hamas-led government for a few years, other than at a low and local level of practical arrangements, perhaps, on such issues as firefighting, dealing with communicable disease, and those sorts of things that affect both people without regard to what their ethnicity or religion are.
But I think it's crucial to take note of the realities of the situation, rather than fall back on rhetoric that's out of date, or inflexible, or that comes, frankly, from Americans who don't particularly know very well what they're talking about.
Not that it much matters what any of us say here on a blog thread, of course, either. But accurate knowledge is always, in my view, a virtue, and spreading ignorant half-truths a sin. Better, I daresay, to consider the humility of a bit of quiet than talking about what one knows little about without acknowledging that, and I stress again that I'm not in Israel, nor the world's greatest expert on the situation, either.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 29, 2006 at 02:52 PM
"I'ld imagine it would be tough to call an election 'democratic' if it takes place in a land of no free speech, don't ya think?"
Indeed. What land would that be, Stan?
It's certainly not the Palestinian territories, where speech has been, generally speaking, quite free. Where do you get your information from?
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 29, 2006 at 02:54 PM
"...and really not demonstrably any less reasonable from anyone who doesn't particularly buy into either religious point of view."
Should have been "and really not demonstrably any less reasonable from the perspective of anyone who doesn't particularly buy into either religious point of view."
"...a long-term hudna (true)...."
Should have been "a long-term hudna (truce)." I wasn't vouching for their sincerity.
Apologies to all for my lack of sufficient proofing.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 29, 2006 at 02:59 PM
I noticed this in the Newsweek coverage, by the way:
Thank God! Or Olmert, anyway. What a horrible, horrible, horrible mistake that would have been!The Israelis would have once made themselves the complete villains of the piece were they to have shut down elections like that, just because of a problematic outcome. What an ass Shalom can be.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 29, 2006 at 04:39 PM
Gary,
The Palestinian authorities limit freedom of speech and the security services have regularly shut down media outlets, banned publication or broadcast of material, and harassed or detained journalists, including foreign reporters covering the second intifada. Self-censorship by Palestinian journalists is widespread.
link.
There's been a ton of stories about PA seizing video which they seem as bad PR. International press has been censuring itself as well (as it has in Saddam's iraq).
Need I remind you of the lynching of hte two israeli reservists? Somehow, a tape of that lynching, filmed by an italian tv crew, made it out. Italians apologized:
Facing what he later said were "heightened pressures" on Italian journalists following the Ramallah incident, Riccardo Cristiano, a correspondent for Italy's RAI state broadcast network, who was not present at the lynching, wrote a letter that wound up on the front page of the October 16 edition of the Palestinian paper Al-Hayat Al-Jadedah. "Dear friends of Palestine," the Italian press quoted the letter as saying. "A private network and not official Italian television filmed that footage.... We would have respected the Palestinian Authority's rules for press working in Palestine."
Freedom of speech... Yea, right. This is the place where you can get a knock on your door, be accused of being an Israeli collaborator and shot on the spot.
Posted by: Stan LS | January 29, 2006 at 05:31 PM
I might also have pointed out this from the Newsweek piece:
"The Palestinian authorities limit freedom of speech and the security services have regularly shut down media outlets...."Thanks for providing a cite, Stan. I said "where speech has been, generally speaking, quite free," not "land of perfect free speech."
You said "land of no free speech." Not "land where there are abuses of free speech."
I'll stand by "generally speaking, quite free." I'd also point out that the BBC quote is entirely vague, and makes no mention of any specific incident whatever in the past six months. But I do agree that that there are abuses against free speech in the Palestinian territories either by Palestinian authorities, or slightly finer grained, by factions amongst the incredibly splintered and incoherent groups that additively make up Fatah and the PA, as well as other factions competing against them. They all are constantly jostling with each other, and in-between the 11 or so different security agencies Arafat invented, which have yet to be actually consolidated in any practical way, so far as I'm aware, and who have a tendency to pull guns on each other with great frequency, and not infrequently a few Palestinians wind up dead. It's quite ugly, without doubt.
But most of the time, most people generally get to tell their neighbors what they think, and there's a fair amount of relatively free Palestinian journalism, and of course they have complete access to Israeli, Jordanian, and sometimes Egyptian radio and tv, and plenty of foreign newspapers.
"International press has been censuring itself as well...."
I'm fairly sure this isn't so. This is because "censuring" is not the same as "censoring."
"This is the place where you can get a knock on your door, be accused of being an Israeli collaborator and shot on the spot."
At times, true. It's a violent and essentially lawless place. But since you are specifically denigrating the election, how about finding some testimony from credible sources that generally people weren't free to vote as they wish?
Are you calling Patrick Belton some sort of crazy or blind, left-wing idiot? And saying that all the hundreds of western journalists aren't bothering to report how unfree the elections were because they're frightened? And all the Western observers, and Condi Rice and the United States government and President Bush? Are they all in on the leftist conspiracy to suppress the Truth, too?
If so, I suppose we should just give up now, and let the super-powerful Palestinins rule the U.S., and the whole world, too, since their mighty power to intimidate is so frigging awesome.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 29, 2006 at 05:58 PM
I'll stand by "generally speaking, quite free."
Quite free? Did you even bother to read the link?
how about finding some testimony from credible sources that generally people weren't free to vote as they wish?
Where did I claim that they haven't been free to do so??? Are you feeling OK?!
If so, I suppose we should just give up now, and let the super-powerful Palestinins rule the U.S., and the whole world, too, since their mighty power to intimidate is so frigging awesome.
Are you off your meds?!
Posted by: Stan LS | January 29, 2006 at 06:12 PM
"Quite free? Did you even bother to read the link?"
Yes. If you can't see the distinction between a place such as Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or North Korea, or Stalinist Russia, or any number of examples, and a places with abuses of free speech, like the Palestinian territories, or 1980s El Salvador, say, than there's not much that's useful to discuss.
"Are you feeling OK?!"
Had some insomnia last night, but also got in a bit of napping today, and otherwise just fine, thanks. Glad to see you can stick to substance.
"Are you off your meds?!"
Yes, well, clearly you have nothing substantive left to say, so bye now.
You might try responding to the substantive point: why is it that President Bush and Condi Rice and the U.S. government, and every other Western government and observer hasn't protested the crippling and utter lack of freedom of speech that leads you to claim -- out of your vastly better knowledge of the Palestinian territories than all those people, and all the journalists there -- that "As for the election overall. I'ld imagine it would be tough to call an election "democratic" if it takes place in a land of no free speech, don't ya think?"
Do you understand what "no" means? It doesn't mean "flawed."
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 29, 2006 at 06:56 PM
Especially since Arafat's death, there has been a big upsurge of willingness on the part of Palestinians to say what they think about their own communities' politics.
Uri Avnery has an assessment that respects and celebrates the depth of participation in these elections. Read even if you have a reflexive reaction against him, for the intriguing passage on Palestinian politicians who've spent years of involuntary exposure to Israeli TV.
Posted by: Nell | January 29, 2006 at 07:12 PM
"Read even if you have a reflexive reaction against him...."
Yeah, not a name to invoke to convince any on the right familiar with him. (Which at least isn't many non-Jewish Americans.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 29, 2006 at 07:18 PM
From Nell's link:
"Israel must negotiate with whatever Palestinian leadership is elected by the Palestinian people."
No, unilateral disengagement is an option.
"A group that is ready to negotiate with Israel, thereby already recognizes the State of Israel."
Is this not just sophistry?
Posted by: rilkefan | January 29, 2006 at 07:24 PM
rilkefan, I didn't advocate Avnery's conclusions by posting the link, so I'm not going to defend them. This is what I hoped ObWi readers might see, so I excerpt it here for those who will not overcome their disinclination:
Posted by: Nell | January 29, 2006 at 07:37 PM
Gary,
Glad to see you can stick to substance.
Yea, nice! This is coming from a person who said: how about finding some testimony from credible sources that generally people weren't free to vote as they wish?
Nice strawman. Where did I say there were not?
why is it that President Bush and Condi Rice and the U.S. government, and every other Western government and observer hasn't protested the crippling and utter lack of freedom of speech that leads you to claim
Uh. A lot of things don't get protested in this world. I think they call it "diplomacy" or something.
Do you understand what "no" means? It doesn't mean "flawed."
Uhm.. Yea, I suppose that a place where you can be dragged out of your house and shot in the middle of the night (with the authorities doing nothing about it) is not a place to exchange ideas freely.. Yea, I guess you can say that the concept of freedom of speech over there is "flawed" even!
"Are you off your meds?!"
Yes, well, clearly you have nothing substantive left to say, so bye now.
That was clearly in response to your absurd comment:
If so, I suppose we should just give up now, and let the super-powerful Palestinins rule the U.S., and the whole world, too, since their mighty power to intimidate is so frigging awesome.
Posted by: Stan LS | January 29, 2006 at 08:03 PM
Nell, I was just arguing with the article, not you - and what you quote sounds right to me (though saying Arafat wandered to Jordan and Lebanon is something-or-other). Think I've heard similar things in reference to Barghouti, who I've lost track of.
Posted by: rilkefan | January 29, 2006 at 08:06 PM
Bye.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 29, 2006 at 08:18 PM
"Think I've heard similar things in reference to Barghouti, who I've lost track of."
Assuming you mean Marwan, not Mustapha, or any of the other Barghoutis, he's in Israeli prison, and has been for years, on a sentence of decades to come (five life sentences, as I recall), although I wouldn't be sure that's actually going to hold.
His trial and appeals were, ah, quite the story in Israel and Palestinian lands, and he continues to be one of the most significant Palestinian figures, constantly in the Israeli news on a weekly basis, and revered by Palestinians. He initially ran against Abbas from prison, but withdrew very late in the day in favor of "unity." He formed a "young guard" party and ran in the current election.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 29, 2006 at 08:24 PM
Here is an interview he gave last week. Yesterday he again called for Palestinian unity. His having won election is unlikely to make much or any difference in his treatment by the Israelis for now.
I take it you don't follow Israeli or Palestinian news.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 29, 2006 at 08:28 PM
"I take it you don't follow Israeli or Palestinian news."
That was rather an unnecessary observation. Sorry.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 29, 2006 at 08:31 PM
StanLS: "Are you off your meds?!"
This violates posting rules, imho. Consider this a warning.
Posted by: hilzoy | January 29, 2006 at 08:40 PM
I have to get a new job, and a new car, and a complete set of baby stuff, and oh yeah there's that book I should try to get published - so I'm not following all sorts of news, sadly. I'm kind of hoping for a smooth uninteresting transition to a better world not requiring my attention, and the will-power to cut back on blogging.
Posted by: rilkefan | January 29, 2006 at 09:10 PM
RF: Good luck with the will-power thing.
Must . . . resist . . . I/P . . . must . . . resist . . . I/P . . .
Oh hell. I don't know why the extent of freedom of press or expression is relevant in the circumstances. Are folks saying that Fatah was able to suppress to some extent people voting for Hamas? Or even that people favor Hamas because they haven't had a chance to hear about some great more-liberal-than-Fatah movement, that would exist if only Fatah would have let it.
GMAFB.
I can't prove a counterfactual, of course, but I've got a strong sense that in the P context -- just as in lots of similar contexts -- more freedom just equals more Islamism. In the short run, anyway.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | January 29, 2006 at 11:32 PM
Charley,
That's the thing. I guess you can only feel free to speak your mind if you have an army behind you (either Hamas or Fatah).
Posted by: Stan LS | January 30, 2006 at 12:49 AM
A reminder of my comment above, Charley.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 30, 2006 at 12:54 AM
reporters">http://www.rsf.org/">reporters without borders:
Posted by: dutchmarbel | January 30, 2006 at 03:26 AM
What exactly do you mean by this? And what sort of "more political rights" do you, specifically, have in mind?
Try Freedom House, Gary. I wrote "not free", not totalitarian for a reason. The cite for second most corrupt here.
I forgot to mention that the statement boggled me. Gee, ya think?
What an insufferably assy comment, Gary.
My mistake about not knowing that the last Hamas attack occurred a year ago.
Posted by: Charles Bird | January 30, 2006 at 09:50 AM
Closing italics.
Posted by: Charles Bird | January 30, 2006 at 09:58 AM
Um, do the posting rules not also apply to mainpage posters, or is there a special exemption if the target of one's ire is named 'Farber'?
'Assy', indeed; something certainly stinks...
Posted by: matttbastard | January 30, 2006 at 12:12 PM
Charles, sorry to pick on you but from Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index 2005:
Your use of "second most corrupt" made me wonder "how do you measure something like that?" I don't mean to say that the PA isn't corrupt, but Transparency International is much more careful about how it defines its terms. I think your shorthand is not justified by their data.
This measure of perception is perhaps a partial explanation of a desire to "throw the rascals out," but I think that's about as far as it goes.
Posted by: ral | January 30, 2006 at 12:16 PM
"Try Freedom House, Gary. I wrote "not free", not totalitarian for a reason."
And yet I'm conversing with you , Charles, not with Freedom House. Strangely, I thought you might be thinking for yourself, and I wondered what your thinking was. My query to you was: "What exactly do you mean by this ["not free]? And what sort of 'more political rights' do you, specifically, have in mind?"
Having read the Freedom House page, aside from the fact that it was almost entirely about 2004, I largely learned that there had been violence in the Territories. Who knew? And various other stuff that I'm aware of in far greater detail than given in that little, almost entirely quite dated, summary.
But what do you, Charles Bird, have in mind when you say they were "not free" in the past year and "since the PA was not free to begin with [... and] I'm doubtful they will grant more political rights and civil liberties to their citizenry."
I can guess, and maybe you're too busy to say, in which case I'll just have to guess what you had in mind. It would be nice to have answers relevant to the last six months and the future, if you do feel like replying.
Yes, clearly terribly offensive and over-the-line.
Apparently my being boggled is far more powerful an effect than I had possibly imagined.
I shall try to keep future mentions of the awesome effect of my boggling (not to be confused with "my blogging") to myself, since I certainly wouldn't want to offend such a delicate and sensitive flower of a soul.
But nice of you to again demarcate the boundaries of acceptable language around here. I shall refrain, nonetheless, from indulging in such unclever and unentertaining rhetoric.
I'll just keep in mind that should I choose otherwise, you have no grounds whatever for complaint. However, if "the statement boggled me" makes your head explode like that, I wouldn't want to bear responsibility for the collateral damage were I to say something actually, you know, offensive or insulting. Bystanders might be badly injured by your hurtling skull fragments, after all, and I really wouldn't want that.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 30, 2006 at 04:01 PM
If you do decide to return to substance, Charles, my other query is actually something I'd like to know ever more: "I kinda also wonder where you get most of your info/perspective on Israel/Palestine from, and how long and heavily you've been paying attention, if you don't mind my asking."
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 30, 2006 at 04:05 PM
Why do you have a problem with Freedom House, Gary? From where I sit, it looks like you didn't read it, judging from your sniffy dismissal. Sure, the Palestinians have free speech and a free press, as long as they don't say or write anything that comes across as pro-Israel or too anti-PA. Reporters Without Borders says the press is more independent than other Arab countries (which isn't saying much when the PA has the 132nd most free press out of 167 countries worldwide) but reporters are routinely subject to censorship and governmental pressure. We've heard well enough about the lack of due process given to "collaborators". FH concluded that the PA does not have an independent judiciary. Are they wrong in concluding so? Because it sure looks like there's not much rule of law or civil order in effect there. The PA respects freedom of religious expression, but that respect is not codified into law and it's unclear whether that respect extends to descendants of Christ's killers. Is FH wrong there? Or in any other areas? Or are you just interested in insulting people you disagree with?
If you do decide to return to substance, Charles...
And how exactly was your insufferable ass of a comment substantive? And how was my comment "over the line"? After all, the comment was criticized, not the person. What's more, if you're going to chide someone for not offering substance (which you've done several times in this thread), then you should practice what you preach rather than holding other people to one standard but not doing the same for yourself.
As for where I get my sources on Israel-Palestine, lots of places. Mostly mainstream news sources.
Ral,
I wasn't as careful as I could've been re "most corrupt" and "least transparent". Arafat does have a history of verifiable corruption, and it looks like Hamas is clearly less so.
Posted by: Charles Bird | January 30, 2006 at 06:46 PM
Uh huh.
Charles digs a deeper hole, this time tacking on a lame semantical justification for good measure.
Again, I ask the collective: Do the posting rules not also fully apply to main-page posters?
Posted by: matttbastard | January 30, 2006 at 07:04 PM
Charles: I'm with matttbastard: it's harder to try to get other people to act civilly when we don't do it ourselves.
Posted by: hilzoy | January 30, 2006 at 07:13 PM
"Why do you have a problem with Freedom House, Gary?"
The same reason I have a problem with the sun, the moon, the stars and all the flowers and puppies.
I don't. Why you think I do escapes me.
Clearly "And yet I'm conversing with you , Charles, not with Freedom House. Strangely, I thought you might be thinking for yourself, and I wondered what your thinking was" was unclear in ways I'm not seeing. I'm, however, at a loss as to how to substantively reword it to try to make the same point.
For explanation of my thinking, see here and here. The answers are in there. Somewhere.
"From where I sit, it looks like you didn't read it, judging from your sniffy dismissal."
There's something going wrong with communication between us, and I have no idea what it is. The only things wrong with the Freedom House page are these: 1) it's largely about 2004, and in a place where things change rapidly, that's of limited relevancy to the run up to this election, and the present situation now existing; 2) it tells me nothing whatever about what Charles Bird thinks is most important or least important unless Charles Bird is trying to tell me that he has no original thoughts of his own; I think better of you than that, but if your message is that I shouldn't, I'll get that eventually. I'm slow at times, but I do tend to catch on sooner or later.
Now, however, in this comment, you've mentioned some specifics as to what you think, so I thank you for that. Freedom of the press, lack of due process, lack of an independent judiciary. Okay, then, that gives me some short answers to my query. I agree that those are lacking or insufficient, and that that is Bad.
Whether that makes them binarily "not free" is something of a subjective judgment, and I therefore won't argue it. But now I know a bit as to what you had in mind. Thanks. That's all I asked for.
"Or are you just interested in insulting people you disagree with?"
I'm unclear how I insulted you beyond saying that I was boggled by one of your comments. If you can make it clear to me, well, when I realize I've insulted someone in an unfair way, I tend to apologize.
*cough* glasshouses, *cough*
"And how was my comment 'over the line'?"
You may wish to reconsider your use of quotation marks, there. Maybe not, in which case I'll try to keep your usage preferences in mind.
"...then you should practice what you preach rather than holding other people to one standard but not doing the same for yourself."
Feel free to make clear to me where I've been hypocritical. I would not like to engage in being hypocritical.
"As for where I get my sources on Israel-Palestine, lots of places."
Well, that was informative.
"Mostly mainstream news sources."
Slightly more so. I'll assume that means occasional American newspaper and magazine stories, and maybe tv and radio news, from time to time, absent further specifics from you. How much would you say you read about Israel/Palestine per week, and and for how many years, offhand and purely loosely, would you say you've given that level of attention, if you care to say? Any books?
"Arafat does have a history of verifiable corruption...."
Indeed. Of course, he's been dead for more than a year, so he's engaged in an entirely different form of corruption these days, one not at all so bothersome to anyone. I hope.
I am mildly fascinated by your parameters for acceptable discourse, though. Apparently if I said "your comments are f*cking retarded and moronic," that would be fine.
I don't, in fact, think that. My critique, insofar as what I actually think of you and your discourse, is, in fact, endlessly gentler and I, in fact, hold you in considerably greater respect than a comment like that would suggest. (Is that clear? I don't think that; it does not describe what I think; it is not something I am saying; I offer it solely as an example of what you, by example, find rhetorically acceptable on this blog, and that is all.)
But it's interesting that you clearly believe that that sort of thing should be an acceptable standard around here. I don't think much of that, as a good policy for encouraging courtesy and minimally respectful interaction, myself, but it's your blog, not mine.
Oh, hell, Wendy Wasserstein died? Crap.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 30, 2006 at 08:06 PM
"I'll assume that means occasional American newspaper and magazine stories, and maybe tv and radio news, from time to time"
Here someone in a different context might say something like, "If I intended it to be read that way I would have written it that way."
Posted by: rilkefan | January 30, 2006 at 08:50 PM
Posted by: Windle | January 30, 2006 at 09:10 PM
Paging Jackmormon or liberal japonicus....
Posted by: matttbastard | January 30, 2006 at 09:17 PM
Windle: incivility is against the posting rules. This is a warning.
Posted by: hilzoy | January 30, 2006 at 09:45 PM
"Constantly ignoring somone so obnoxious only invites more."
Aw, I don't feel ignored. I'm a national treasure.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 30, 2006 at 09:55 PM
"Here someone in a different context might say something like, 'If I intended it to be read that way I would have written it that way.'"
And if they did, I'd like to hope they'd not deliberately edit out part of the full sentence:
And maybe even note that the context is having more than once asked Charles what the specifics were.Nice. If you can explain to me what was wrong with this formulation, in this context, I'll be all ears, I promise.
Then you might explain why you felt that it was an honest presentation of my words to edit out the last clause.
Set me an example of how to do it right.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 30, 2006 at 10:00 PM
Paging Jackmormon or liberal japonicus....
I did my take on Hate Central, if that is of any help.
Posted by: DaveC | January 30, 2006 at 11:13 PM
"Nice. If you can explain to me what was wrong with this formulation, in this context, I'll be all ears, I promise."
Tried in similar contexts, failed. Given that you've not understood this point several times, I'm going to assume you're just evil, absent further understanding from you.
Posted by: rilkefan | January 31, 2006 at 02:03 AM
Ah yes, forgot that you were now on the HOCB roster - my apologies, and belated congrats at the position.
And thank you for answering the call of duty.
;-)
Posted by: matttbastard | January 31, 2006 at 02:10 AM
"Given that you've not understood this point several times, I'm going to assume you're just evil, absent further understanding from you."
A bit hard for me to tell what level of seriousness is embedded here, although I'm going to tentatively assume at least some, while being completely prepared to toss that tentative assumption if better information is offered.
All I can do is invite you to explain. If you're insufficiently motivated to make the effort, so be it, but my words that I was interested and committed to make an effort to understand were and remain entirely sincere.
I genuinely have no understanding of why you think it's reasonable to interpret someone's sentence by clipping off the key modifying clause, and to then present that as if it were an honest presentation of what that person wrote. I'm open-minded as to learning how or what I might be missing about that.
That's specifically in the context of the only answer being offered being "As for where I get my sources on Israel-Palestine, lots of places. Mostly mainstream news sources."
If you'd like to offer a better substitute interpretation, I'd find that genuinely interesting, and perhaps educational, and that, too, is a completely sincere request. Since you clearly seem to believe that there was something wrongheaded about my response, and you're not a dumb person, I'd like to find out where and how we're talking past each other. This desire doesn't obligate you to fulfill it, of course.
I don't even have a guess at what might be offensive or unjust or unreasonable about asking someone for a short sentence or two of specifics about something, more than once, and then when, at the time, not given an answer, writing "I'll assume that means occasional American newspaper and magazine stories, and maybe tv and radio news, from time to time, absent further specifics from you."
I'm entirely interested, and utterly sincere, in saying that if I'm missing something, I'd like to learn what it is.
More than that, well, I'm also sincerely interested if there's something I'm doing wrong, or missing, in not knowing, just now, what that might me. Maybe I'm just engaging in some variety of Asperberger's Syndrome, or there are any number of other possibilities. All I can do is ask.
If that's evil, well, all I can say is that it's not by intent or desire. Which doesn't at all exclude the possibility that it is, in fact, evil, of course. But what more might you have me do? That, too, is sincerely asked.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 31, 2006 at 02:50 AM
"...what that might me."
Should be: "...what that might be."
And "Asperberger's Syndrome" should be "Asperger's Syndrome"; I should have remembered that somehow I always get that wrong.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 31, 2006 at 02:55 AM
"Given that you've not understood this point several times, I'm going to assume you're just evil, absent further understanding from you."
For the record, and repeating that the following incurs no obligation on Rilkefan, I'm going to add that this rather bothers me, and mildly distresses me, though not to a huge degree.
Posted by: Gary Farber | January 31, 2006 at 02:58 AM
Charles: I'm with matttbastard: it's harder to try to get other people to act civilly when we don't do it ourselves.
And here is where the ObWi Double Standard kicks into high gear, Hil. In this strange and hypocritical world, Gary gets to sprinkle in an insult or two (in what was otherwise fair commentary), which I assume was to him within the bounds of civil discourse. When the other guy expresses a strong response as to what he thinks about said insult, apparently that is not within the bounds and Charles gets admonished, and over the course of this Gary inserts a further insult or two downstream as to the originality of my thinking. This is not a whine, just a recognition of what is. So, sorry, but I reject your suggestion unless it is coupled with the other party. I prefer civility, too, but may I suggest that your way is not the only way to get there. You're not in my shoes, and perhaps you don't see the numerous times when civil disagreement takes a turn for the worse. I let much of it pass, but in this case, I didn't, to defend myself for one reason. Oftentimes a strong response and ensuing spirited exchange can result in more understanding and long-term civility. I hope that happens here, but if it turns out to be otherwise, then my apologies.
If you can make it clear to me, well, when I realize I've insulted someone in an unfair way, I tend to apologize.
So I guess you must've thought it was an insult in a fair way, Gary. I call that progress, of a sort. In either case, to me it was an insult; it added no substance and no contribution to the spirit of civil exchange. When these things happen, I reserve the right to respond as weakly or as forcefully as I see fit, all within the posting rules of course. If you think that your being boggled constituted the offense, then I find myself boggled. Boggle all you want for all I care.
As for some of your Freedom House comments, I agree that little of 2005 was covered, but governments don't tend to change that quickly (especially when the ruling party retains power), and I haven't read or heard of any changes to Palestinian law which restored a free press or free speech or a workable judiciary, etc. to its citizens. I read quite a bit information on the Internet every day, so I'd be surprised if major Palestinian reforms slipped past me. If they did happen, what did I miss? Of course, the last two elections can be considered progress, despite the recent result. FTR, I don't have a "go to" site for all things Israel or Palestine. I read current events from left, right and middle sources, and drill down when curiosity strikes.
As for FH being "binary", perhaps quadrinary is more accurate. What can I say, the CPA in me gravitates toward objective measures, such as this one from The Economist Intelligence Unit. Like with RSF, the PA is freer than many other Arab nations, but that ain't saying much.
As to your second insult, the issue has nothing to do with what Charles thinks or what FH or EIU writes or originality or unoriginality. In my line of work, I'm an expert in several functions, and then I rely on experts whom I trust to get me the rest of the way. It's how my world works because we can't be experts in everything. If you have a problem with the sources I use, then spell it out instead of taking the path you did.
Posted by: Charles Bird | February 01, 2006 at 12:56 AM
"So I guess you must've thought it was an insult in a fair way, Gary."
It might be helpful if you would quote the "insult," so I have a clue what you're referring to, Charles. Just a thought. It's difficult to respond to "it" when I have no idea what "it" is.
"As for FH being 'binary', perhaps quadrinary is more accurate."
Apparently I was unclear, since I said nothing of the kind; I'm baffled at your repeated insistence that I had some sort of problem with the FH post, other than my actual statement that it was largely dated.
It was you who was being binary, by saying that the PA was "not free," rather than something less binary or more, oh, gosh, I'm a Democrat more than not, so I'll say it, "nuanced."
"What can I say, the CPA in me gravitates toward objective measures,"
Fair enough, but I can't agree with using a term about something as multiplex as political "freedom" in a way that makes no distinction between North Korea and the PA. You're free to use terms as you prefer and see fit, of course. And I'm free to suggest that this is less useful than making finer grained distinctions. Celebrate our freedom!
"...and then I rely on experts whom I trust to get me the rest of the way...."
Certainly; that's entirely reasonable. So, who are your three favorite experts on the Palestinian Authority?
Do please, if you're inclined, quote my "second insult," so I'll know what you're talking about there, too.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 01, 2006 at 02:43 AM
Back on substance, the Egyptians have made their first move. I have no complaints so far.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 01, 2006 at 05:00 PM
It doesn't seem as if anyone else has anything more to say on substance, but maybe eventually. Anyway, Patrick Belton is still wandering around the West Bank, and among other things he had to say, I found the following observations of interest. Oh, and if you'd like some examples of thuggishness, Charles, or anyone, this:
Just stuff for mulling.Posted by: Gary Farber | February 01, 2006 at 08:10 PM
On the flip side, here a bit of a normal verbal slip from a representative of Israel's extreme rightwing:
That is also an example of what, in turn, Palestinians are sometimes faced with. Similarly: This is Jew-on-Jew violence, of course. We got our own form of thugs; sometimes they murder Palestinians, too. They don't suicide bomb, and they only massacre occasionally, but, you know, that happens on occasion, too.There's a lot of history for both sides to deal with it, and it's not all saintly Jews and evil Palestinians, not hardly.
And Effi Eitam is quite despicable, although not, so far as I know, personally a murderer.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 01, 2006 at 08:41 PM
Okay, I'm fighting hard to resist my urge to keep adding more news from Israel or Palestine to this thread, because on average of about four days a week, more if I have time, less if I don't, I do tend to read a fair amount each such day, but I seem to be talking to myself here, so that's not good; but at least this one more.
The bad news is the torture of Palestinians. The good news is that they could sue, and they won.
Oh, and "torture" doesn't here just mean loud music, or cold air, or shaking, or shoving, or being made to wear panties, etc., though there was that sort of thing, too.
Just another bit of today's news. Nothing special.Posted by: Gary Farber | February 01, 2006 at 09:34 PM
Hi,
I was recommended here by someone from a different blog, and found much of what I read extremely interesting.
What I wonder is this. How many of you are writing from here - meaning Israel anywhere west of the Jordan?
Naturally, I have a different take on things than folks writing from elsewhere.
Briefly, from the little feedback from Arabs that I get, this election was a choice between two mafias, neither of whom are particular popular. But their thievery made Fatah more odious than Hamas.
The approach I see from Hamas is to treat us like a Crusader state; they offer a truce, but never recognition or peace. Wonder if the Shabakniks who helped Hamas in the '80's realized what they were creating?
Posted by: Ruvy in Jerusalem | February 02, 2006 at 08:23 AM
"What I wonder is this. How many of you are writing from here - meaning Israel anywhere west of the Jordan?"
No one but you. Feel free to stick around. However, now that the exceptional event of the PA elections have passed, it doesn't seem as if there's anyone left around (other than me) still following (as I've done for decades) daily, or at least a few times a week (most of the time; I have off-weeks, as well), news from Israel or the Palestinian territories; I'm afraid discussion of those issues is only an occasional topic around here.
Everyone else seems to have moved on to the cartoon/reactions issue. (Prove me wrong, gals and guys! Charles?)
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 05, 2006 at 12:56 PM