Sun Blogs
The Wrong Right: Hamas' Right to Run in Elections
Email: 
Share: 
The Politics Factory
June 15, 2007 - 10:28am
Back in 2005, Israel took a huge step toward peace by withdrawing from Gaza, a move that would not be forgotten. Praises of Israel echoed in the streets in the form of Qassam rockets being fired from Gaza. Then, a delegation from Gaza visited Israel to pay tribute to them by kidnapping Cpl. Gilad Shalit. And now, the Islamic terrorist group Hamas has decided to throw a huge party in Gaza after seizing complete control of the area and capturing all the strongholds of the more moderate Fatah.
Hamas claims that it neutralized elements of Fatah which conspired to betray the government now led by Hamas after the last set of elections. Quite frankly, the mistake here happened in the elections. Not when Hamas won them. When they were allowed to even run in them.
As radical as the proposal of excluding people from elections may sound to some, this would not be the first time for an extreme measure like this. In many places in the United States, felons do not even have the right to vote much less run for public office. Hamas carries a bit more baggage than felons do.
But even before that, after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment (as well as many other regulations) laid out restrictions on who could run for office in the U.S., often excluding former Congressmen who joined the Confederacy. Furthermore, this highlighted a more general concern of Reconstruction. If the South could immediately regain all the rights it formerly had, radicals in the South would easily undermine the more moderate movement that promoted true freedom in the U.S.. The Union did not fight the Civil War just to go back to the status quo.
Now today as Americans, we do not have problems with lawmakers who are as radical as those from Hamas. In other parts of the world, though, this constitutes a huge concern. Giving terrorists and similar radicals the right to run for office can create a chaotic situation like the current one in Palestine. Refusing to exclude them in the name of freedom and liberty would prove much more idealistic than the most overzealous attempt by Democrats to protect civil liberties at the expense of national security.
Now inevitably someone will quote Benjamin Franklin, who said, “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” I have heard that cliché all the time, often as substitute for substantive debate and discussion, as well as Patrick Henry's quote, “Give me liberty or give me death!” Let me put this bluntly: If you give Hamas liberty, you will get death, and if Hamas has its way, there will be neither liberty nor security.
Some may hold more reasonable concerns about this policy, worrying that in addition to Hamas, it may also exclude a more legitimate group later on. This can be avoided, however, by setting extremely high standards for exclusion. After all, Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist, endorses violence, and also is classified as a terrorist organization by not only the U.S. but also the European Union. Hamas should have little trouble qualifying (or disqualifying in this case) under just about any standard.
However, some Palestinians, despite their concerns about Hamas, despise Fatah for being too close to the West and Israel and also mismanaging Palestine at times. Granted, for many people Fatah does not represent a very good alternative, but other ways exist to resolve this problem politically. For example, Palestinians could form a new party somewhere in the middle. Israel did that with the new centrist Kadima party, created by Ariel Sharon from the right-wing Likud party, with the support of Shimon Peres from the left-wing Labor party, and it seems to have succeeded. In fact, Kadima currently is the largest party in Israel right now. Or just try something else, anything. Even the worst proposal would work better than letting terrorists get elected.
Since Hamas never should have run in that election, a good solution in this situation would involve declaring a state of emergency and dissolving the Hamas-led government. Wait, Palestinian President Abbas of Fatah tried that just now, and Hamas did kindly accept his proposal. Considering that Hamas’ power has grown steadily since the elections, I suppose it’s too late to try that one.
So how can this crisis be solved? Implementing a three-state solution would work very well. With Fatah and all the moderates located in the West Bank, it now makes Israel's job much easier as they take out Hamas' terrorist state in Gaza. Let Israel take control of Gaza (again), but have Israel relocate the wall with the West Bank to be on the Green Line, not past it and in the West Bank, and voilà...Israel and Palestine have the two-state solution they were looking for all along. Granted, many Palestinians will relocate from Gaza to the West Bank for their own good, but Israel has already done something similar in Gaza quite forcibly, and eventually probably has to do it again in the West Bank. Hamas makes bad company in Gaza anyway.
That probably will not happen, though. Most likely, Hamas will continue to tighten its grip and further indoctrinate/pervert the minds of people, leading to a slow and steady buildup with the grand finale involving Israel in an epic showdown. Hopefully someone can intervene before it is too late once again...
I say make the Palestinians
I say make the Palestinians full citizens of Israel, with all the rights and responsibilities. Of course, that's the last thing Israel would want, as they want to maintain their theocracy.
I say make the Palestinians
I say make the Palestinians full citizens of Gaza, with all the rights and responsibilities. Of course, that's the last thing Gaza would want, as they want to maintain their democracy.
For your information, the
For your information, the Palestinians voted for Hamas. so they want Hamas running Palestine because they feel safer with them. so i think Hamas has every right to run in the elections.
Wrong for Right
To my understanding Hammas is like Robinhood and its the party for people. Fatah on the other hand is opportunist cpitalist oriented. They will just increase the gap between poor and priviledged rich. Probably the reason hammas is aggressive now is to irradicate such immperialist party and fight for people. So, may be violent - Wrong for Right. Let me make myself clear; I do not support violence. Things I think are not so simple, just to see on surface, oh! they are violent, so they are bad, I belive doiplomnatic, smart, opportunist mind set is much more unjust than native urges for good of people. After all there is thin line between intelligence and selfishness. Intuition and wisdom are good qualities not smartness, intelligence or cleverness.
By the way I have nothing to do with that region of he world, I am from India and I always support native people against the smart, diplomatic, opportunist people.
Remember humanity has survived for thousands of year without science and technology. No scientist has discovered potatoes or rice or said "here is this new fruit I thing humans should eat". No!
But I am not so sure about hammas. I am in support of native societies - which encourage sustainable lifestyle. Some examples are Madagascar, New gunea, native people from India, which unfortunately is over runned and crushed by mordernization.
Regards,
Concerned humanitarian.
Israel's main motivations in Gaza
Mike Wacker makes note of a number of sensible caveates & limitations that apply to democracy & representational government. I agree it is a good thing to occasionally reassert these sometimes-unpopular elements of our sometimes over-idealized or mythologized take on Democracy.
Hovever, the decisions taken by Israel with regard to Gaza (and other elements of their overall security situation) appear to have been heavily influenced by demographics ... that by holding on to Gaza it will evenually end up as part of the State, along with it's huge population of Palestinians, who will then hold a democratic majority in Israel, ending it's existence as a Jewish entity.
There is considerable discussion of this general predicament of Israel - that they are on track to eventually lose their fight with the Palestinians, at the ballot box. This consideration was probably of greater significance in Israel's decision to cut Gaza loose, than any hope that so doing would enhance the prospects for peace in the region. On the contrary...
In turn, Israel's adversaries know that by creating an unstable, threatening situation in Gaza, they can pressure Israel to re-take the territory, and thus reassume the demographic liability that will be their ultimate undoing. In light of this predicable move by Palestinian militants, it is more likely that Israel knew from the outset that freeing Gaza would degrade, rather than enhance peace in the region.
As our U.S. experience in Iraq demonstates, it is easier for the strong to win the battle, than it is to win the peace. Israel's main claim to fame has always been as the warrior, and much less convincingly as the peace-maker. But in a battle of the loins - as the Palestinians themselves characterize their best hope - Israel is practically defenseless.
"Now today as Americans, we
"Now today as Americans, we do not have problems with lawmakers who are as radical as those from Hamas"
Hahahahaha. I mean you're joking, right?
Palestinians and Israelis
I know many people here in the US who are enjoying the debacle of Palestinian violence and civil war. The theory that we should allow them to fight and kill each other and that this will "end" the problem is very faulty. It didn't happen in Iran and it didn't happen in Ireland. When the revolution takes place the people left standing are the ones who write the history. I believe that the issues in Israel and Palestine are very complicated and will not be solved with more name calling and pointing blame. These issues have become generational and our only hope in fixing them is a dialog between all the people brokered by impartial people whose interest is in a free and socially diverse middle east. I propose that Switzerland broker the deal and that leaders from both sides take some medication or have their feet held to the fire or whatever it takes to get them to sit down and stop the violence and the injustice perpetrated by both sides. No one is innocent in this and no one is a total villian. There are huge areas of gray and we need to acknowledge this and begin to discuss how to save the next generation from the cycle of violence and deprivation.
Rights of foreign democracies
Much has been made by the US Administration of democratic rights. But when the US starts to dictate whom people can elect or the rules of foreign elections - then democracy is being undermined.
Democracy is not perfect. It is an evolutionary system - meaning that it is self correcting. If the Palestinians need a stupid terrorist Government in control - they are facing the unbalanced Israeli control regime with fire. Bad choice. But it was a choice, was it not?
I do agree that the entry of militia into politics is unfortunate and really the same thing as a military dictatorship. It is the mandate of the oppressed, excluded and therefore angry people. Without damage to Israel, a solution that causes progress may be more tenable after Hamas has convinced the poor of Palestine that endless struggle is not the solution.
Palestine would benefit from some enterprising capitalism.
But until they hit rock bottom, how will they disclaim their addiction to violence?