Tuesday, September 20, 2005
I was all set to mock this H.D.S. Greenway column in today's Globe, but I'll be honest with you...I think he may be right. He acknowledges that Hamas is a terror organization...that's something...for the Globe. HonestReporting points out that Hamas's participation in the elections is an abomination, according to both the Roadmap and Oslo, but Greenway does what most have done...ignore that uncomfortable truth and pretend it doesn't exist. What else? No one is going to stop Hamas, and if the Palestinian Arabs want to elect a genocidal group to power...maybe we should let them.
Hands off the Palestinian elections
At one time, the entire Arab world refused to recognize the state of Israel and called for its destruction as Hamas does today. Yet Egypt and Jordan now recognize the Jewish state, and all the rest of the Arab League have committed themselves to doing so in principle if something approximating the 1967 borders can be restored...
Have Palestinians shown they can compromise for peace? I'd like an example of that. And it's instructive to note that Jordan and Egypt are two of the world's biggest sources of Jew hate.
OK, I'm going soft. There is no indication that Hamas getting what it wants will moderate them. In fact, the evidence is entirely the opposite. Sharon and the so-called "Jewish terrorists" were all democrats at heart. They fought for a democratic state. Hamas's goals are entirely different.
I don't see a bright outcome, however. Be real. Hamas is running. Let's see what percentage of Palestinians elect a genocide, terrorist hate-group to lead them. Take note.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: If your enemy's going to walk off a cliff, why stop him?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/4738
Solomonia has thoughts on a recent Boston Globe op-ed that supports Hamas participation in upcoming PA elections: if the Palestinian Arabs want to elect a genocidal group to power, maybe we should let them... [But] there is no indication that Read More
It's sort of a lose-lose situation. You are having democratic elections for a population that does not necessarily believe in democratic norms, or that at least favors a party that doesn't believe in democratic norms.
Look at Algeria in the early 1990s. The government stopped an election when it became apparent that the Islamic fundamentalists were going to win. In stopping the fundamentalists' victory, the government served the cause of democracy, sort of. But in stopping their victory, the government served to destroy democracy, because, well, they stopped an election. The vox populi was stifled.
So, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you avoid the expression of public will until you deem the public to be ready, that's oppression. But if you allow elections to go on, then the public might elect a dictorial power that will eliminate democracy once it's in office: a case of "one man, one vote...one time."
What a shame that there isn't the time for the political culture to evolve to a point where respect for democratic values and institutions have been well assimilated. Having an election before that happens runs the risk of making a mockery of the electoral process: It just becomes an arena of competition among non-democratic forces, by means fair and foul. Also, any further elections will probably decay into parodies.