The NY Times had an article this morning describing the effects the blockade of Gaza is having on people there. United Nations building projects have been halted, factories are closing since they can no longer get needed materials, and so on. Unfortunately, as always seems the case, it will be the majority of civilians just doing their best to lead normal lives who will likely suffer most.
While I appreciate the difficulty of their lives, I find it hard to sympathize.
About 18 months ago the citizens of Palestine were given an opportunity to vote, a privilege they exercised. In doing so, they elected Hamas to power. Now, that election may have said a lot more about the disgust the citizenry had with the corruption rampant within the other main party, Fatah, than it did about their degree of alignment with Hamas ... but whatever the motivation, Hamas won.
All well and good -- elections held, and the will of the people was implemented. However, since among the founding tenets of Hamas is the commitment to the destruction of Israel, one can understand why Israel might be a bit concerned about the result. Since the election, Hamas has held to it's tenets and refused to recognize Israel's right to exist, and last month implemented a military coup in the Strip, driving off or killing Fatah supporters. Israel responded by closing access to Gaza, leading to the current state of affairs where the economy of the area is turning from disastrous to non-existent.
The article mentioned the seeming lack of concern within Israel (and in the West Bank for that mater) over the situation, and the apparent lack of haste in re-opening commercial access to the Strip. However, given Hamas' intransigence it can't be a surprise Israel might not be in a real hurry to provide aid and assistance to an organization committed to Israeli destruction.
What the people of the Gaza Strip are learning is that, while elections are great to have, they don't occur in a vacuum. Elections have consequences. The citizens living in the Strip are learning about some of those consequences, and they are likely to continue living with them until either Hamas officially recognizes Israel or the people themselves institute a change in their government.
I may be too harsh on Palestinians for not understanding the consequences of their vote. After all, they were new to Democracy. We've had centuries of experience, but apparently couldn't figure out the same lesson in 2004.
Politics, mostly national, some AZ, and whatever else hits my fancy.
About Me
- Sirocco
- I work as a software researcher. My political views are on the liberal side of the fence. Like many people, I consider myself an expert on all subjects, but in reality I am adequate in some, abysmal in most.
Some blogs I like
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(127)
-
▼
July
(18)
- Ticket thoughts
- Televised trolling
- Starting the Rumpus
- Playing the odds
- What Sept. benchmarks?
- The beat goes on ...
- Accountable to none
- Permanent Filibuster
- Inherently Contemptible
- It's Tim(e) to Bee deciding
- What's good for the Iraqi goose ...
- Plan B obfuscation
- Bad Christians! No donuts!
- Obstinance or Criminality?
- Gaza Blockade
- Attorney Firing Catch-22
- One of these things ...
- Health (un)insurance
-
▼
July
(18)
5 comments:
Sirocco,
Amazingly, I agree 100% with everything you have written, at least until the last paragraph.
In fact, it seems that there is only one sure way to combat Terrorism, and this appears to be it. The tactic looks to be to isolate terrorists inside a populace that might normally look the other way, and allow it free reign among that citizenry. Sooner or later they will wind up rejecting it and fighting back, or they will submit. If they reject it, it is a win. If they submit, it is a different thing entirely.
Wins look to be recent events in Somalia, the eradication of pro Al Queda groups in Lebanon (still a long ways to go here), and Sunni rejection of Al Queda in the Anbar province of Iraq.
Gaza looks to be a loss, however, and in those cases it is a great tragedy. The only bright spot is that freed from Gaza, the West Bank may move away from Hamas influence, at least incrementally.
The other problem is that this strategy cannot be risked in certain places like Pakistan and to a certain extent Saudi Arabia. It's too bad about Saudi Arabia, because it sure would be justice to have them live in the filth that they have been exporting.
The other sad thing as this will apply 100% among many European countries as well, and maybe the United States.
What a mess. And there is less political will to deal with this issue than immigration. Even the best case solutions are bleak.
Excellent post, and like Framer, I concur. Declaring commitment to the destruction of a state pretty much cements the destruction of a good relationship with that state. Hello?
It works that way with people, too.
I am not a Middle East expert. My math matches Anwar Sadat's. The smart move is letting Israel be, making peace, and better yet, establishing commerce and collaboration. That's been the smart move for decades. I'm not sure why they don't get it.
Bush's axis of evil declaration was just as stupid. People respond to threats by preparing to defend themselves.
Framer,
1st time for everything :)
For some reason I feel I should note I am not an unabashed Israeli supporter ... I really feel Israels behavior regarding West Bank settlements is wrong, and there can't be any lasting peace in the region until those are removed and some arrangement for at least some form of shared access to the principle holy sites in Jerusalem is reached.
I am not sure I agree that the events in Gaza provide some ort of blue print which can be applied elsewhere -- Gaza has certain special attributes. Primary among them are it small area geographically and that a significantly more powerful state with significant interest in the affairs controls access to the area. That's not really true elsewhere.
x4mr,
I am a firm believer in the power of commerce and trade to create long-term stable relationships as opposed to the power of the sword.
I've said this elsewhere, but I really believe we would be far better served if we invested, say, $30 billion a year for the next 20 years providing teachers and tools to educate people around he world. Those people would grow up with better tools and a better appreciation for America and American values (such as democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.).
Unfortunately, we don't tend to think in such long-term perspectives. We don't want to wait 20 or 30 years for the payoff, we want it now, or next year at least.
I never said that allowing terrorists to remain in an area until they won or were sent packing was a good idea, it just seems to be the only thing that seems to be working at this point.
Indeed, the only way it can be managed at all, is like you pointed out, allowing it in a small limited area without a danger of overflow, and there are not a lot of places where this an be accomplished effectively.
And should we completely withdraw from Iraq, the "not a lot" will become "none at all."
But I am sure that Democratic leadership has a new, more effective plan to unveil, otherwise why would they be attempting to undercut Petraeus at every turn.
Post a Comment