US to "Destabilize" Hamas Government

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thanatoast, Feb 13, 2006.

  1. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #1
    Apparently democracy is the only legitimate form of government, but only if you pick someone we approve of.
    NYTimesI like this new strategy of "starving them out". We should go with the proven winner that's served us so well in North Korea, Iraq and Cuba.
     
  2. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #2
    Well that's a good idea! I don't see how this could possibly be a bad thing. :rolleyes:
     
  3. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #3
    Hmmm... I've been to Cuba, and Fidel makes a living portraying himself as the bulwark against Yankee imperialism. I'm sure Hamas won't try to portray themselves as leaders against foreign intervention, right? Oh and working hand in glove with the Israelis ought to make this effort really popular with Palestinians. My only question is who would be fool enough to go along with this plan on the Palestinian side? Someone with and very pronounced death wish is my guess.
     
  4. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #4
    To the degree that this will further impoverish the palestinians road to stable nationhood - I think it is despicable.

    Who cares who the leadership is, if it results in a more coherent Palestinian entity and a more harmonious ME.

    Not that anything is certain - there are too many variables.

    The interesting thing here is Israel. The Palestinian-Israeli peace process was once described to me as analgous to divorce proceedings for a couple that had long been living apart.

    A defacto Palestinian state has been around since 87 - since the beginning of the Infantada - and the fact that Israelis subsequently felt unsafe in various locales such as Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This state has not been a strategic threat to Israel, since they control the skies above and the highways through the area, and Palestianian authorities generally have only small arms.

    Interestingly enough, this defacto Palestinian state bears some resemblance to the weak and indefensible Jewish state Israel might have become if the Palestinians had accepted the 1947 partition.

    In any case, like many divorces - it was bound to be messy - water rights had to be apportioned, like bank accounts. Jerusalem, like a child, could not be divided, but required a joint-custody arrangement, with two flags and divided sovereignity.

    Since one spouse is financially dependant on the other, the Palestinians cannot prosper without access to the Israeli economy, so there will be trade and labor agreements. It is this economic reality that makes it seem unlikely that Hamas, or any other "radical" organization will really gain traction with the Palestinian populace over the issue of Israel - rhetoric aside - as it has been, and will continue to be a reality.

    Because this process has been going on for so long, and we are merely waiting for the "divorce" to become final, so that the two parties involved may one day become civil to each other, I have never found the Palestinian/Israeli issue to be that interesting - as it's outcome is predictable. The eventual outcome will be merely a legal expression of what already exists on the ground.

    For all the talk of the destruction of Israel by "radicals" the fact remains that Tel Aviv exports about twice as much as Syria, Egypt and Jordan combined - and that a palestinian mini-state within a dynamic Israel that will continue to attract workers from accross it's border will make it a stabilizing force in the Region.

    Israel and Palestine obviously have reasons of self-interest to cooperate, despite vocal objections from some in their respective countries. When I think of Hamas, I also think of Shas - a political party in Israel which has been just as impressive in it's efforts in education and social welfare as Hamas has been in Palestine or the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt. They were all shadowy alternate-power networks where the official bureacracy is unable or unwilling to get the job done.

    Shas has been willing to be part of any alliance - hawkish or dovish - provided it got the money it needed for it's needs. I wonder if Hamas is really that different in this regard - merely opportunistic, as opposed to radical or antagonistic.

    So, I have to wonder if this is another case of the US applying "moralistic" policy, perhaps backed by US Jews who are equally absolute with their positions to Palestine - at the expense of everyone's self-interest.

    Still, OTOH, A Palestinian State, coupled with a weak and calcifiying Syria, a chaotic Iraq and a Jordan with a majority Palestinian population could cause a Yugoslavia in the ME. Perhaps, from a strategic perspective, it is best to keep Palestine as it is for now.

    sorry, it's late and I am rambling - but perhaps this will be interesting to someone over their morning coffee...
     
  5. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #5
    I think Palestine will rapidly move to a thugocracy. Strong dictators can subvert democracies, especially if they're powerful, militaristic, have a populist streak, and have an outside enemy. Sounds like Hamas to me. I wouldn't be surprised if Hamas is in power for 20 years.
     
  6. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #6
    Way to push Hamas even further to the right. :rolleyes:

    Look: you want to get somebody to cooperate, you got two choices, right? The carrot or the stick.

    How well has the stick worked in the Middle East?

    Right.

    Maybe it's time we start trying to make friends over there -- even if it's just by butting out -- rather than trying to push governments around, either overtly or covertly.

    Of course, trying to calm Hamas down and convince them we are not threatening them involves two complications: one, getting Israel to go along with it (good luck!) and two, getting the cooperation of the Jewish community in this country, as blackfox alluded to.
     
  7. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #7
    Pot kettle interface,the Israeli government was origonally formed out of the terrorist groups that fought for Israel(and some politicians had that background until recently) and now suddenly Hamas can't do the same thing,hypocrisy.
     
  8. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #8
    It's almost like they're trying to cement the power of Hamas and at the same time increase the tension and escalate the situation between Palestine and Israel. Now why would they do that?
     
  9. Stella macrumors 604

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #9
    The Palestine government was elected democratically, the states has absolutely no business interfering.

    Democrasy is Democrasy, even if you don't like the outcome.

    Live with it, Bush.

    ( i find it ironic that americans don't like other countries interferring in their politics, but its sooo OK when america interferes with others. double standards. ).

    edit: Hamas will have to change, it will, and probably has noticed ,when it finds that it can't have good relations with the rest of the world.
     
  10. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #10
    Very astute of you. The Israeli right has never wanted a negotiated solution. That is the essence of Sharon's policy. Don't negotiate, delineate the borders on your own and force the Palestinians into a situation in which their new mini-state is totally dependent on Israel. This is the "bantustan" option Israeli hawks have wanted all along. The fact that it has helped to produce a Palestinian leadership that can be isolated internationally only furthers the goal of the hawks. Look for more annexation of West Bank territories Israel sees as defensible, along with forced withdrawal of some settlements it sees as a liability. Add the speed up of the new de facto border by building of the Wall and targeted assassination of Palestinian leaders and we have the dream of all Likud and neo-con politicians come into reality. A powerless, unsustainable Palestine fenced in by Israel and without any support internationally.
     
  11. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #11
    Interesting. I think you are correct about the "bantustan" option, which will probably be kept quiescent by the thuggish tactics of the Palestinian leaders.

    As far as the Likud/Neo-Con future - alot of (broad) parallels can be drawn between Israel and the US. In both cases the Far Right has come to power on absolutes - The rigid moral position(s) implied in the Far Right allows few chances for compromise, and the needs of many of the people for absolute security , which was hard to argue with either - though at least the latters position was based on concrete self-interest and therefor amenable to some change.

    There is some blowback, however - There are many in Israel who have turned away from Religion as what they see it displayed as turns them off. The mixing of nationalism with theology, where walls have been erected between Jew and Arab and Jew and Jew have made many cynical about Judaism. Over time, I don't think that the Far Rights position can remain tenable.

    As for how borders will be deliniated - it is anyone's guess - your suggestions seem very plausible - but since the (arab) "enemy" lies within, at some point Israel will want a clear, legal separation from Palestinians. This will allow them to play the normal power game - making alliances with various Arab Nations and Turkey against other Arab States for reasons of self-interest.

    So while the Far Right may hold sway over the near-term is Israeli politics, I am not sure it will last - the identification of Religion with Nationalism has caused the end of real devotion - much like the rise of political Islam has - and eventually this will be naturally rectified.

    Also, I am reminded that many Arab leaders trusted Rabin, as he framed his arguments in terms of Israeli self-interest, rather than moral terms. In a country surrounded by Arab nations, cooperation and diplomacy will be needed for any real security.
     
  12. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #12
    I for one think this is a great idea. I mean, we already have most of the Arab society pissed off at us, why not further this by exacting our policies in Palestine? Come on, don't you you guys see that we need one more society pissed off at us and commit massively destructive attacks on OUR country? It's the greatest idea ever!

    Jesus. Stay out of other countries business. Screw em. Let them suffer, or prosper in their own way. It's the only way that America will ever gain ground on its reputation.
     
  13. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #13
    We can't leave Hamas alone because they sponsor terrorism - they fund and support suicide bombers that go after civilian targets. Whether they're democratically elected or not, that's unacceptable.
     
  14. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    So did the Israelis in the 40s.
     
  15. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #15
    If the plan is to ignore the rest of the world, why would we care about our reputation?

    Isolationist foreign policy has been tried before with disastrous results - two world wars. Constructive engagement and collectively punishing aggression is the only path that works - not always, but usually and over time. Think Bosnia and Gulf War I - both successes. The current policy, pre-emption, doesn't seem to be working very well, because you have to get too involved in other nation's affairs and might even end up having to govern them.
     
  16. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #16
    Huh? Israel didn't come into existence until 1948. Did they fund suicide bombers before they even had a country?
     
  17. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #17
    I understand this point, but it seems a little too inflexible of a moral position to take, especially reeking of obvious hypocrisy.

    While Hamas has supported and funded terrorists, so have many groups we have either directly or tacitly supported over the years.

    Also, who knows what the motivations of Hamas were for such activities - perhaps like Shas in Israel, they did so not out of ideology, but out of calculated self-interest. They were without legitimate support, dissatisfied with the official bureacracy (fatah), and did what was necessary to secure funding for their projects.

    Even if this is not the case, no organization remains static and Hamas could very well evolve peaceably into a more legitimate organization with the downplay of their more radical side (such as sein Fein/IRA) or something along those lines.

    Still, you are most likely correct that that will be the official line and policy if the US - despite whether that course of action provides the most utility in terms of self-interest for any of the parties involved.

    I am not a fan of isolationism either, but if you are going to meddle in geopolitics, who better be ready to make tough, intelligent decisions, based not on moral absolutes, but on concrete conceptions of self-interest based on the realities at hand, which in part is the realization that you are going to have to choose between various degrees of *******s and be one yourself from time to time.
     
  18. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    OK, the "Jews in Palestine".
     
  19. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #19
    Then what do you suggest? (and this is an honest question, not trying to be a jerk here).

    I know we have to help out with epidemics like aids and natural disasters and what not. But political uprisings? Taking down governments? Establishing our form of democracy?
     
  20. dornoforpyros macrumors 68040

    dornoforpyros

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
  21. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    The two World Wars were hardly a result of US isolationism.
     
  22. Stella macrumors 604

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #22
    Thats the quite a lot of the world think about the states...

    bomb civilizan targets ( abeit, accidently, but it happens a bit too often ), interfering, aggressive.

    Hamas has a very good opportunity to change its ways. america shouldn't start interferring because it doesn't like the democratically elected government. some people may view hamas as "freedom fighters" - trying to get their land back.

    Fine line between "terrrorist" and "freedom fighter", and there are many examples. ( I'm not saying they are freedom fighters ).

    america likes democrasy, only on their terms. nothing else.
     
  23. frankblundt macrumors 65816

    frankblundt

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Location:
    South of the border
    #23
    Iran. fund
    Contra. bombers
    Nicaragua. civilian targets
     
  24. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #24
    Absolutely not. Gulf War I and Bosnia should be the models, because those are instances where the international community was able to come together and curb aggression. Preemptive regime change has not worked - at all.

    Apply that to Hamas, and basically you would put together an international force that would help prevent suicide bombers, and if you can directly link those bombers to Hamas, you would take out the Hamas command and control structures as punishment. But you would not overthrow the government or try to take over.
     
  25. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #25
    So just because the US did something bad in the past, everybody should be able to do whatever they want now? Should everyone be allowed to implement slavery?
     

Share This Page