Hamas outlines basis for reconciliation with rival Fatah
Deposed Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh has laid out what he calls the basis for reconciliation between Hamas and the Fatah party.
Haniyeh's vision includes the restructuring of Palestinian Authority security services formerly manned mostly by rival Fatah, respecting signed Hamas-Fatah deals and staging a general national reconciliation.It is very hard for any person who respects democracy to argue with this principle. It should go without saying that when a people make a democratic choice it should be respected. Of course, in the case of the Palestinians and Hamas this choice was not respected. Indeed, the US, EU and Israel immediately took actions against the Palestinians for making a choice that they did not agree with that resulted in a policy whose intention was to starve the Palestinians into submission in the hope that the Hamas led government would collapse. When that same government then formed a coalition with Fatah, in the hope of lifting these inhumane restrictions, the US and Israel started to arm Abbas with a private militia in the hope that he could take on and defeat Hamas militarily. As we all know, Hamas pre-empted Abbas and took the Gaza Strip.
Speaking at the Hamas-run Islamic University of Gaza, he also said Palestinians should "protect their national principles and rights, respecting the legitimacy and dealing with the democratic choice as the solo option for rotating the authority."
"Any talks should go according to the principles rather than [U.S. President George] Bush's vision," he said.
But we should be under no illusion of how we arrived at our present position, with the Palestinian movement split into two. Nor should we pretend that the current situation does not suit the US and Israeli camps. They have what they always wanted. A weakened Palestinian leadership at each others throats. It's the policy that the old Roman empire described as "divide and conquer".
And Abbas is a fool to have fallen for it. All this has occurred because he did not want to accept the result of an election in which he was fairly beaten and because his US, EU and Israeli counterparts encouraged him in his pointless demands that the election must be held again until it yielded a result which named him as the victor.
So Ismail Haniyeh can talk "principle" as long as he likes and, whilst many of us who favour democracy will agree with the broad points he is making, he is pissing in the wind as long as Bush, Olmert and others insist on handing financial and military muscle to "their man".
And Abbas has no intention of allowing the democratic principle to shape events in the West Bank and Gaza. It's a principle under which his party was defeated, so he much prefers to bask in the power he is allowed to hold under the guidance of his American and Israeli sponsors.
At a time when the west claim to be seeking to export democracy to the Middle East, the situation in Palestine should be a source of shame to all of us. For the underlying principle which Haniyeh is talking about is the one question that our leaders are seeking to avoid answering at all costs. Do we believe in the democratic principle or do we not? Our actions suggest the latter.
Oh, I've heard every argument about Hamas being a terrorist organisation and seeking to destroy Israel, but, if we believe that the election of extremists is unacceptable, then why was there no western outrage when Olmert appointed Avigdor Liebermann - a fascist who advocates the forced ethnic cleansing of Palestinians - to his cabinet?
In Israel his appointment caused outrage:
In an editorial, the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz warned that his appointment could inflame the entire region.From our western governments? Disinterested silence. The argument that we oppose Hamas because they are extremists who wish to destroy Israel rings hollow when we have nothing to say regarding the appointment of an Israeli extremist who wishes to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. And the reason our argument rings hollow is because it is not actually based on any principle at all.
"The choice of the most unrestrained and irresponsible man around for this job constitutes a strategic threat in its own right," it said.
"Lieberman's lack of restraint and his unbridled tongue, comparable only to those of Iran's president, are liable to bring disaster down upon the entire region."
Israel, not only did not like the result of the Palestinian election, she was not willing to accept it, and we have been scrambling around ever since attempting to pretend that there is some principle in order to hide that fact. There is none.
We favour democracy when it yields the results that we agree with. That's not a principle at all.
Click title for full article.
Tags:
6 comments:
Oh, I've heard every argument about Hamas being a terrorist organisation and seeking to destroy Israel, but,
There's always a but to excuse these guys, isn't there?
if we believe that the election of extremists is unacceptable, then why was there no western outrage when Olmert appointed Avigdor Liebermann - a fascist who advocates the forced ethnic cleansing of Palestinians - to his cabinet?
It is of course a fallacy to attempt to compare a terrorist party elected by a populace and guilty of mass murder and a platform that supports continued murder of Israelis, to a single individual appointed to a cabinet position. This fallacy pretty much destroys the validity of the rest of the argument along this line of reasoning.
We favour democracy when it yields the results that we agree with.
I haven't seen evidence of official opposition to the Palestinians holding elections as you indicate. The false dilemma you try to advance is that nations are under some kind of obligation to support an elected government simply because they were elected. That of course is also not true.
It is of course a fallacy to attempt to compare a terrorist party elected by a populace and guilty of mass murder and a platform that supports continued murder of Israelis, to a single individual appointed to a cabinet position.
Ah, but of course. Our extremists are acceptable but theirs are not.
The false dilemma you try to advance is that nations are under some kind of obligation to support an elected government simply because they were elected. That of course is also not true.
It's not a false dilemma at all. George Bush insisted on elections in which he knew Hamas would stand. It was for that very reason that Abbas did not want to have the elections, but Bush insisted. So it does come down to the point, do we believe in the democratic principle or do we not? I would certainly argue that it is far better to encourage terrorist groups to engage in the political process (as in Northern Ireland) rather than continuing down the route of terrorism, but one can hardly be said to be encouraging that process by the actions taken by the US, EU and Israel.
So what would you rather they do, run for government or continue a military campaign? And before you even attempt to argue that they were continuing a military campaign, you are aware of the long ceasefire which Hamas complied with and which Israel ignored?
Our extremists are acceptable but theirs are not.
Where was it stated that any group of extremists was acceptable? Is this another attempt to state that a murderous terrorist organization responsible for countless crimes is somehow equivalent to this individual you named who was appointed to a cabinet position?
George Bush insisted on elections in which he knew Hamas would stand.
Are you stating a belief that the Palestinians held elections because George Bush insisted on it?
So it does come down to the point, do we believe in the democratic principle or do we not?
Belief in democratic principles does not imply a contract that any democratically elected candidate is acceptable.
I would certainly argue that it is far better to encourage terrorist groups to engage in the political process (as in Northern Ireland) rather than continuing down the route of terrorism
It is certainly beneficial to encourage terrorist groups to cease terrorism and give up there arms. If encouraging them to take part in the political process goes hand-in-hand with this, so much the better. However, this was not the case with Hamas, who vowed to continue down the route of terrorism.
And before you even attempt to argue that they were continuing a military campaign
No need for argument, it's a fact.
Is this another attempt to state that a murderous terrorist organization responsible for countless crimes is somehow equivalent to this individual you named who was appointed to a cabinet position?
Yes, they are both equivalent. Both are extremists. You appear only to recognise extremism on one side of the fence. Indeed, the very fact that you refer to Lieberman as "this individual you named" tells me he has not even punctured your political radar. I have already provided links which show how much of a big story this was in the Middle East. It says a lot about how we choose which extremists outrage us that he has not even achieved name recognition with you.
Belief in democratic principles does not imply a contract that any democratically elected candidate is acceptable.
So you don't believe in the democratic principle. You believe that the people are what??? Too stupid to be trusted to choose the candidates that best represents them? And what is the point in elections if some winners are unnaceptable? And unnaceptable to whom? Certainly not to the people of Palestine. But, of course, you mean acceptable to the governments of Israel and the US. Why should the wishes of the people of Palestine be subject to your veto?
It is certainly beneficial to encourage terrorist groups to cease terrorism and give up there arms. If encouraging them to take part in the political process goes hand-in-hand with this, so much the better. However, this was not the case with Hamas, who vowed to continue down the route of terrorism.
They operated a ceasefire which Israel refused to comply with. Their every attempt to come to a peaceful resolution to this, including entering the political process, has been rejected by an Israeli government uninterested in peace.
Yes, they are both equivalent.
I find it amazing that you believe that a group of terrorists who have murdered and maimed countless, is equivalent to an individual who has not undertaken any violence. That's not even rational. Are you that blinded by your hatred of the Israelis?
So you don't believe in the democratic principle.
Can't see where I said that.
oo stupid to be trusted to choose the candidates that best represents them?
They can choose whomever they like, however there is no contract implying that third-parties are required to deal with those candidates.
Why should the wishes of the people of Palestine be subject to your veto?
They are not. However, just because they choose to elect terrorists does not mean we must deal with them or legitimize them.
They operated a ceasefire which Israel refused to comply with.
Firstly, it was a unilateral ceasefire and not a negotiated ceasefire, which is relevant in that Israel was not a party to the ceasefire and therefore the use of the term "comply" us out of place. More importantly though, do you believe the purpose for Hamas's unilateral ceasefire was to help bring a lasting peace or some kind of resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Their motivations for a ceasefire would certainly be relevant to Israel's reaction, don't you think?
Their every attempt to come to a peaceful resolution to this
What serious attempts have Hamas made to reach a peaceful resolution? Surely your only offering isn't this one?
The Hamas leader said his group will not abandon its goal of destroying Israel.
"When I speak about a long cease-fire and a temporary agreement, it means that we do not recognize the right of the state of the occupation on our lands, but we will accept its existence temporarily," said the leader.
Why should the wishes of the people of Palestine be subject to your veto?
They are not. However, just because they choose to elect terrorists does not mean we must deal with them or legitimize them.
That's nonsense, Jason. Not only did the US refuse to "deal with them", but together with the EU and Israel they set about starving the people of Palestine in an attempt to make a democratically elected government fall.
You may disagree with the democratic choice the Palestinians made, you may even say - as your country does with Iran - that you will have no diplomatic dealings with them, but the situation here was clearly designed with the intention of bringing the government down.
Would you agree with an equivalent action against a democratic choice by Israel's citizens? What if the UK decided that Ariel Sharon was a war criminal because of Sabra and Chatilla and decided - obviously insisting that we have such power only for the sake of this argument - to starve the Israelis for electing him? Let's leave aside the arguments over what took place at Sabra and Chatilla and concentrate simply on the principle. Do you think it's legitimate for one country to starve another into submission because it disagrees with the democratic choice that other country made?
Post a Comment