In January, I wrote a piece on the elections that brought Hamas to power in which I argued that while the knee-jerk response was to decry the election, that I was not ready to dismiss summarily the prospects that a Hamas leadership would transform itself.
The reasoning ran as follows:
1) I believe people have the right to choose their leaders. People have the right to make disastrous decisions. We sometimes lost sight of this during the Cold War -- imagine if we had simply allowed the South Vietnamese people to choose their own fate in the late 1950s and early 1960s. But the flip side of that right is that the rest of the world gets to react accordingly. No one today can blame Israel for adjusting to the facts on the ground. The facts on the ground are that the Palestinian electorate has chosen an organization that may provide them bread, but that has also avowed the destruction of Israel. No one can hide behind Arafat's demogoguery or assert that the majority of Palestinians just want peace. They chose Hamas knowing full well what that organization represents. Perhaps Hamas can change. maybe they will (see #3). But until they do, Israel has a right to adjust to what it knows, not what some may hope.
2) Hamas now has a choice -- the organization can lead and build a Palestinian state. Or it can destroy and negate. Suddenly Hamas must be accountable. more to the point, Hamas can be held accountable. I am not optimistic that this will happen, but participation in democratic processes, even when the participants are by their very nature authoriatarian, carries with it certain burdens, burdens the Palestinian people can hold Hamas to or that the outside world can. In a sense, Hamas just moved out of the shadows, even if unwittingly. We can hope that sunlight is really the best disinfectant, or we can know that it is easier to shoot into light than into darkness if we must.
3) I find it as distasteful as anyone that we sometimes have to hold our nose, swallow hard, and deal with that which we find unpalatable. But rhetoric aside, we are not likely to wipe out everyone who was, is, or might be a terrorist. Sometimes our best hope is to co-opt them. No one sleeps well knowing that murderers sometimes not only walk free, but benefit from their crimes. But time and time again we have to settle for what is possible and not for what we would like. Three examples spring readily to mind: South Africa, Northern Ireland, and Russia. In each of these cases the perpetrators of evil, far from being wiped out, were brought to the table and sometimes rewarded. There is a reason for this -- in none of these examples was it possible to destroy completely the bad guys. Does anyone really think that Margaret Thatcher's (or Tony Blair's) ideal scenario would have had the IRA having a say in the peace process, sitting in negotiations, or having seats at Stormont? Did Mandela lie awake at night in Robben island and Pollsmoor hoping, did Govan Mbeki and Oliver Tambo dream, that one day they would negotiate with the National Party, the party of Verwoerd and Botha, the party behind Vlakplaas and the securocrats, rather than wipe the Nats and their apartheid system off the face of the earth? Would Harry S Truman or John F. Kennedy or Richard M. Nixon have looked forward to a Russian ally that did little to punish the thugs and criminals who made the Soviet Union run? No, no, and no. Perhaps similarly Hamas being in the fold will be the option that breaks the logjam, that a combination of a place at the table and a chance to create a Palestinian state will lead Hamas to give up its dreams of destroying Israel and driving the Jews to the sea.
Make no mistake, this is not my preferred outcome. I would as soon see Hamas destroyed, wiped off the face of the planet for good, driven into the very sea they claimed was Israel's fate. But it is likely not going to happen. Instead the Palestinian people have made their choice (as Mr. Burns once said, "Look at those slack-jawed troglodytes, Smithers. And yet if I were to have them killed, I'd be the one to go to prison. That's democracy for you."); Israel can adjust accordingly and serious people cannot blame them if those preparations entail defensive and protective measures; and everyone can adjust to the realities on the ground. This might not be the ideal solution. But in the long run, it might be the only solution that will work.
Hamas leads what could become a Palestinian state. In the light of last month's Israeli elections, they apparently have chosen to support terrorists whose goal it is to destroy Israel. No one should be shocked when Israel chooses to defend itself at least in part by cracking down on the governing body that has given its approval to the recent attacks against innocents in Tel Aviv.
2 comments:
Thanks for posting this. Although it's unfortunate that many pessimists decrying Hamas' ascendancy have failed to make the connection between democracy and responsibility, Wednesday's NYT editorial seems to underscore the point. Untenable presumptions of policy that were held by many Palestinians have now been made transparent to the world - with all the attendent consequences. And the decision of whether or not for that society to begin to transform itself and its leadership in a way compatible with the kind of peace all sensible parties involved have envisioned is now squarely in their hands. There's no pressure for self-improvement comparable to that which can only come from within.
MUL --
It sounds as if you are more optimistic than I am, but yes, certainly the prospect of acountability is one of my ideals. The question is whether it will happen. News today indicates that Abbas is going to stand up to Hamas and against the appointment of a known militant to a security position. Again, in an ideal world, Hamas would not be part of the picture, but the fact remains that they are. Now the key is to make them as legitimate as possible, to give them a full stake in the emergence of a Palestinian state, and to make them live as Israel's neighbor in peace. We can hope . . .
dcat
Post a Comment