Join 3,516 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Showing Hamas the Door?
February 13, 2006 9:34 PM   Subscribe

Newsfilter: U.S. and Israel looking for ways to "oust" Hamas
posted by FeldBum (34 comments total)

 
delmoi looking at ways to conqure the world, get laid. Film at 11.
posted by delmoi at 9:42 PM on February 13, 2006


...and the odds for all three are just about the same.

I kid because I love
posted by youcancallmeal at 9:45 PM on February 13, 2006


Yeah, what the hell, isolation worked with Cuba. Although I did feel a little snark at this:

Hamas will find the money it needs from the Muslim world, said Mr. Abdaljawad, who spent 12 years in jail and got a Ph.D. while there. Hamas will save money by ending corruption and providing efficiency. Hamas will break the Palestinian dependency on Israel, he said.

Ya really think Saudi Arabia and the rest will step up to the plate on this one? Have they stepped up to the plate much in the past for the Palestinians?

Anyway, more context and lots more interesting info than you'll get in any US paper, from Haaretz:

Hamas rounds up weapons in northern Gaza Strip
posted by mediareport at 9:47 PM on February 13, 2006


Aint democracy a bitch?
posted by wilful at 9:53 PM on February 13, 2006


Iran has given plenty of money to Hamas in the past, why stop now? They'll certanly make enough to continue as a political party.
posted by delmoi at 9:57 PM on February 13, 2006


More from the Jerusalem Post:

A-Zahar rejects 'satanic' US aid

And Fatah leaders are fighting in their last days to keep as much control as possible:

Abbas now controls Palestinian media:

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri strongly criticized as "illegal" the latest decisions, saying Abbas had no right to make such changes before the formation of the new cabinet. He said Abbas was exploiting the transitional period to make last-minute changes and to create new facts on the ground.

Ah, trying to bypass the law by "creating new facts on the ground" -- a time-honored Middle East tradition, from both Jews and Arabs.
posted by mediareport at 9:57 PM on February 13, 2006


delmoi has the post that sums this up.

Israel and the US cooperating to stop the Palestinians organising, same old, same old.

Surely a bigger story is Olmert saying that he wants to fix the final borders

Even if these are not the UN 1967 resolution borders this could be a really good thing. With luck it could really stabilise things.
posted by sien at 10:02 PM on February 13, 2006


One more, from the head of Hamas' political bureau:

We will not sell our people or principles for foreign aid:

Our message to the Israelis is this: we do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be respected and protected. Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us - our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.

We shall never recognise the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights. We shall never recognise the legitimacy of a Zionist state created on our soil in order to atone for somebody else's sins or solve somebody else's problem. But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms. Hamas is extending a hand of peace to those who are truly interested in a peace based on justice.


Ok, *now* we have enough to discuss. Single-link news stories generally make really lame-o posts.

delmoi: Iran has given plenty of money to Hamas in the past, why stop now?

Fair point, delmoi. Maybe the support will flow from the Muslim world, and maybe a Hamas-led government can indeed make it. But a deliberately inflammatory strategy of isolation on the part of the U.S. is so strategically stupid it boggles the mind. The kneejerk far-right militants behind that brilliant move must surely have their heads far up their asses. This is a complex opportunity with multiple, complex possibilities for interaction; you'd have to be a moron not to explore those.
posted by mediareport at 10:06 PM on February 13, 2006


Apartheid in Palestine!
Apartheid in Palestine!

I call it!!!
posted by j-urb at 10:08 PM on February 13, 2006


Wow, thanks for your thoughtful contribution to the discussion, j-urb.
posted by mediareport at 10:09 PM on February 13, 2006


"Newsfilter: U.S. and Israel looking for ways to "oust" Hamas"

'Cause supporting democracy isn't as important as defending the status quo.
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:12 PM on February 13, 2006


It will blame Israel and the United States for its troubles
From the sounds of it, Israel and the US are looking for ways to make sure that blame is deserved.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 10:33 PM on February 13, 2006


this can't possibly go wrong!
posted by wakko at 10:40 PM on February 13, 2006


insomnia_lj: 'Cause supporting democracy isn't as important as defending the status quo.

Consider this; while trying to oust Hamas does show some disrespect to the democratic process, it's better than the alternative. If we consider Hamas to be the legitimate leaders of a sovereign nation, it's a nation run by a terrorist group, who will no doubt support terrorism, and who has publically stated that they intend to destroy Israel. Israel would have more than enough cause to declare war.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:43 PM on February 13, 2006


And yet, Mitrovarr, there are some Hamas leaders who are making statements that, if engaged, just might begin to be conciliatory:

But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms. Hamas is extending a hand of peace to those who are truly interested in a peace based on justice.

Again, this is a situation that offers multiple complex avenues for possible engagement; ignoring those in favor of a rigid embargo is ridiculously short-sighted. I'm not a pollyanna, but I am able to recognize reality when I see it, and smart, practical realpolitik almost always requires "negotiating with terrorists." So why is now any different?
posted by mediareport at 11:21 PM on February 13, 2006


Actually, if you read the article, it says:

They say Hamas will be given a choice: recognize Israel's right to exist, forswear violence and accept previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements — as called for by the United Nations and the West — or face isolation and collapse.

Which makes the covert-sounding FPP make a little more sense, after all, the UN and Europe have been saying the same thing, heck, even the Egyptians have been pushing Hamas to accept previous agreements.
posted by blahblahblah at 11:39 PM on February 13, 2006


If Sharon wakes up, he's going to be pissed that he didn't get to do this.
posted by gsteff at 12:41 AM on February 14, 2006


If we consider Hamas to be the legitimate leaders of a sovereign nation, it's a nation run by a terrorist group,

It's not like there is precedent for accepting a government made up of people that was responsible for terrorist acts in that region. Look up Irgun.
posted by srboisvert at 1:07 AM on February 14, 2006


Forget all the political arguments.

You can't mess with the state of Israel's existance if you want the end times to come.

I'm just sayin'.
posted by lowlife at 3:56 AM on February 14, 2006


How about Hamas recognizes Israel and Israel recognizes Jerusalem as being Palestinian?

Never going to happen is it? If Hamas is going to be isolated then so should Israel. If the world iattempted to isolate both states then maybe a better, and more moral message would be sent.
posted by twistedonion at 4:49 AM on February 14, 2006


If we consider Hamas to be the legitimate leaders of a sovereign nation, it's a nation run by a terrorist group,

Didn't bother us about Afghanistan, until they wouldn't hand over Osama
posted by twistedonion at 4:51 AM on February 14, 2006


Looks like there's less enthusiasm in the White House for this "democracy in the middle east" idea once they discovered that "democracy" sometimes means "people electing parties the US doesn't like".
posted by clevershark at 5:14 AM on February 14, 2006


A question to those of you in the US - you do realise how this looks to the rest of the world right?
posted by fingerbang at 6:30 AM on February 14, 2006


If Hamas depended on the US and Israel for support, it wouldn't really be Hamas, would it?
posted by telstar at 6:39 AM on February 14, 2006


Chavez, on the other hand, is working towards peace, as usual:

Asked if the Venezuelan government would receive the Islamic militant group, Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel told reporters: "Of course we will. What is the problem?"

"If they come, with pleasure," Rangel said. "They've just won an election."

posted by loquax at 7:29 AM on February 14, 2006


A-Zahar rejects 'satanic' US aid

I've posted this many times before, however I'll say it again. The concept of Satan in Islam is different than the concept of Satan for most western Christians who believe in him.

In Islam, Satan is not the embodiment of evil, not an anti-Christ, as nothing is as great as God (Allahu Akbar, right?). Satan instead is a trickster who tempts the devout away from the path of righteousness with earthly comforts. Zahar's statement is saying that the US is trying to draw Hamas away from the righteous path with promises of aid and he rejects that.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:53 AM on February 14, 2006


The concept of Satan in Islam is different than the concept of Satan for most western Christians who believe in him.


This is similar to the jewish faith isn't it?
posted by twistedonion at 8:03 AM on February 14, 2006


The concept of Satan in Islam is different than the concept of Satan for most western Christians who believe in him.

Pretty much. The Satan is Judaism is "the evil inclination" inside everyone more than an actual incarnation of evil.
posted by FeldBum at 8:24 AM on February 14, 2006


If Hamas depended on the US and Israel for support, it wouldn't really be Hamas, would it?

This is more significant than it seems. If we deny all their funding right off the bat, we're left with very little leverage should they try to do something we don't like.
posted by gsteff at 8:29 AM on February 14, 2006


clevershark writes "Looks like there's less enthusiasm in the White House for this 'democracy in the middle east' idea once they discovered that 'democracy' sometimes means 'people electing parties the US doesn't like'"

Which really doesn't bode well when people the US likes tend to be like Saddam in the 80s and the House of Saud.
posted by Mitheral at 8:33 AM on February 14, 2006


US Government, and judging by the discussion above, people too:

1. "Let's bring democracy to the middle east!"
2. Far right islamic party is elected in fair elections in the middle east.
3. "Let's impose sanctions and if that doesn't work, bomb the crap out of them!"

Yes, I can see how that works. People, you can't have it both ways.

Consider Sinn Fein if you will for a minute, the 'political' wing of the IRA. We seem to have had a tentative peace in Northern Ireland for several years, now that they've been given an outlet politically. Can not the same work here?
posted by BigCalm at 8:45 AM on February 14, 2006


I don't think Hamas is a problem in a lot of ways (obviously it's totally problematic in many other ways!) but the real problem is not now, it's when the next election rolls around.

One thing Islamic groups have been keen on is getting elected, but one thing they seem to hate is when they have to get re-elected.

Since Hamas holds a level of power in Palestine anyway, it's probably better to have them in the government then to not... but watch out when new elections roll around. Then it could really get ugly.
posted by chaz at 10:55 AM on February 14, 2006


You know, I just wanted to share, but the first time I read the headline I thought it said, "out" Hamas.

"Khalid, that keffiyeh makes you look fabulous! And those fatigues are fierce!"
posted by Pollomacho at 11:42 AM on February 14, 2006


I think the Hamas/Sinn Fein comparison is apt. Hamas has both military and political "cadres" or divisions, and in many places in the Middle East acts almost exclusively in the political and local-level government realm. They have the respect and support of a pretty large constituency - and I think it highly unwise to assume that the Palestinians elected them to power because they wanted to be ruled and represented by an organization that is solely a violent terrorist group.

The whole conflict is incredibly complex, and looking at Hamas with the black vs. white mentality does everyone involved a major disservice. Disrespecting the Palestinians' legally (and apparently fairly) elected government right off the bat isn't going to help anyone.

Their statements sound like they are trying to start from a position of ideological strength in the eyes of their own people, but then they are opening a door for parley with "our" side. We absolutely should not slam the door in their faces - though we should be as watchful as we always are for underhandedness.

Just get to the table and start talking, stop being so arrogant.
posted by zoogleplex at 1:35 PM on February 14, 2006


« Older We've heard of outsider music, but along with this...  |  Tayler... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments