That’s more a question, but given the topic, I open this thread in GD.
The other day, I was following a debate on TV about the situation in Gaza. Several of the debaters made the point that the USA/Israel insisted on the Hamas taking part in the elections in Palestine (something the Fatah opposed), only to declare after the elections that the Hamas had won that since it was a terrorist organization, maintaining relations with a Palestinian government led by or including the Hamas was not palatable. We know what happened then.
The first scholar who mentioned this more specifically stated that the USA insisted on Israel (presumably unwilling) pressuring the Fatah into accepting the Hamas participation. Another debater didn’t mention again the USA but agreed with the idea that Israel pressured the Palestinians. The spokesperson for Palestine (which means : for the Fatah) then went very indignant about this issue, accusing western countries and Israel of having incoherent policies (supporting Hamas participation, then declaring it unfit to take part in a government). The Israeli ambassador to France, who participated in the debate, being called upon it, didn’t deny, but essentially declined to comment.
I can easily understand why the Fatah didn’t want the Hamas to participate. However I’m quite puzzled as to why the USA (and possibly Israel) would have insisted on its participation. The Hamas nature and objectives weren’t exactly secret. The Hamas being extremely popular at the time for a variety of reasons, it was highly likely (if not a given) that allowing its participation would result in its electoral victory. Hence that Palestine would end up with a pariah government that other actors would refuse to recognize and with whom they would refuse to negotiate, but that would have an indisputable political legitimacy.
So, does anybody have a clue as to why the USA/Israel absolutely wanted the Hamas to participate?
Because George W. Bush is an idiot who thinks that America is synonymous with Freedom and Democracy, making it is impossible for any free electorate to ever elect an enemy of the U.S - and despite common perceptions, Israel generally does what the U.S. tells it to do.
lets see, there are 2 advantages to this:
1, you might get your enemy to grow a conscience and work toward a common good.
2, you might get your enemy to publicly register themselves as a future target.
That pretty much nails it. Being in power and having to actually make the electricity come out the all and the water out the pipes tends to make extremists more moderate. There look like there might be talks in Egypt. Bush is too close to his personal freedom date to interfere.
I mean, do you really think that just because GWB did things that we only now find abhorrent (and some are still on the fence) is a definitive proof of his idiocy? Is this what passes for a debate here?
It would be like saying, for example, that Madoff was just a greedy bastard while totally ignoring the fact that Madoff worked very hard and knowingly created an elaborate system of manipulation to make his $50 billion scam a success and he had a blast while doing it.
My own, candid guess would be they did it for the same reasons we French let the Front National run in national elections, then totally freaked when it looked like they had a chance to win - they didn’t consider the implications, nor the possibility they could have such level of popular support.
My cynical side wonders whether they didn’t know all along what would happen, and wanted to prove that the whole of Palestine was an Evil Country, i.e. any attack or hostile action against it is fair game, since it’s more likely to harm a Hamas supporter than an “innocent”.
So is it then fair to conclude that when you heard his famous Axis of Evil speech you were rolling your eyes in disgust like other 1% of Americans? And then, following the same line of thinking and applying to current Israeli PM, you are viewing recent actions against Gaza in similar fashion; i.e. made-up conflict with manipulated injection of fear into populus all without clear ideological goal but rather simply to retain power?
There was a point for the left to let the Front National grows. Here, I can’t see the point. And concerning popular support, the Hamas wasn’t fringe at this time. It was known that it had a widespread support. Otherwise, indeed, it would have made sense : nobody can complain about a fair election, and the moderates, as expected, get elected. Win-Win situation. But the Hamas success was hardly a surprise. Barring a large level of wishful thinking, as ** Alessan ** suppose, it was at best a very risky move.
I mean, even assuming wishful thinking, what was the plan B in case the Hamas would be elected? If there was any, I didn’t notice it being implemented.
Hmmm…Maybe he was rolling his eyes in disgust like other 99% of non-Americans?
Seriously…A large number of people assumed from the beginning, rightly or wrongly, that Bush was an idiot. And, certainly rightly, that his foreign policy was idiotic.
To the first question: it was more like bewilderment, actually.
To the second question: no, because not all wars are alike.
They dressed it up in a lot of ideology, but the bottom line is that the Bush Administration was committed to speading democracy at all costs, and to hell with the details.
But you remember something about this? If the USA actually insisted on this policy being implemented, for instance? Was it public knowledge in Israel? Was it debated in the media? Do you know what arguments were used, in favour of or against this decision?
Is it possible the administration(s) held the honest belief that the Palestinian people would reject Hamas, bolstering both Fatah and democratic ideals? What about the honest belief that it was a possible (if not probable) outcome, and the internal risk assessment of the potential benefits?
Not saying I agree with the thinking, but not every choice/belief is rooted in evil or stupidity.
“War. War never changes. The end of the world happened pretty much as we had predicted : too many people, not enough space or resources to go around… the details are trivial and pointless ; the reasons, as always, purely human ones.”
(sorry for the non-sequitur, it’s just the first thing that popped in my head reading your sentence)
You might have noticed from the follow-up on the war in Iraq that forethought and plan Bs aren’t exactly this administration’s forte ;).
I really think it’s possible that they could have gotten a plan A : best possible outcome, then circle-jerked long enough that any idea it wouldn’t turn out that way was rejected (if uttered). Not saying it’s the case mind you, but at this point, I really wouldn’t reject the possibility as inherently absurd anymore.
Dunno. To say the truth, I’m close to believe that anything was possible under the Bush administration. But in this particular case, you’d need both the US and Israeli governments to delude themselves for this to happen.
