Follow-up on the Burning Bush doctrine and the Palestinian election

Troubling signals from Hamas

In my initial post, I said "I think there is a possibility that Hamas--now that it is part of the system--will have to move more toward the center. There is also a possibility that will never happen." Well, early signs do not look so promising.

First, there is this from yesterday's New York Times:

The exiled political head of the radical Islamic group Hamas said Saturday in Damascus, Syria, that the group would adopt "a very realistic approach" toward governing the Palestinian Authority and would work with the Fatah president, Mahmoud Abbas, on an acceptable political program.

But the leader, Khaled Meshal, also said Hamas would not "submit to pressure to recognize Israel, because the occupation is illegitimate and we will not abandon our rights," nor would it disarm, but would work to create a unified Palestinian army.

He insisted that "resistance is a legitimate right that we will practice and protect," and he defended attacks on Israeli civilians, which included many suicide bombings until a cease-fire nearly a year ago. Then he said Hamas was "ready to work with Europe and even the United States if they wish."

(emphasis added). There are mixed messages in the above statements, and as the article discusses at length, there are seemingly many mixed messages coming from Hamas. Still, the fact that one of its leaders says the group still will not recognize Israel or disarm is not welcome news. The article also points out that one of the core stated objectives of Hamas is the destruction of the Israeli state and contains doubts from several experts that Hamas will change that goal.

Another not so good signal was reported by the AP:

The leader of Hamas suggested Saturday that the Islamic group could create a Palestinian army that would include its militant wing — responsible for scores of deadly attacks on Israelis — in the aftermath of its crushing victory in parliamentary elections.

No further explanation should be needed.

And Reuters reported yesterday that Hamas intends to use sharia (Islamic law) as a "guide" for legislation. Can anyone say "theocracy"?

Reuters also reported that "Although Hamas is formally committed to destroying Israel, it has said it could accept a temporary state and a long term truce if Israel gave up all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem following last year’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip." Yeah, like that's reasonable.

This is what we were--and are--destined to receive.

As I stated in the previous post, idealism without pragmatism and reality is a dangerous thing. Democracy in the Middle East is a noble idea, but Bush and the rest of neocons tried to pursue the ideal with a complete disregard for reality and pragmatism. We basically went into Iraq with one major ally--Britain (keeping in mind that Australia and Poland, while significant, did not provide anywhere near the same military participation). In other words, the vast majority of the countries that really mattered--which is to say those with significant military, financial, and diplomatic strength--were against war, but Bush basically said "Screw you, we're going to go on our own if need be." And wouldn't it have been helpful to have many more countries to share the military, financial, and diplomatic burdens of the war and the post-war period?

Shortly after 9-11 Bush did one of the most senseless things he could have done by referring to the war on terrorism as a "crusade." It would take too long to explain the sheer stupidity in using that term, but I will say that Bush could have not found a word more alarming and offensive to the Arab world. As explained in a September 19, 2001, article by Ted Olsen on the Christianity Today site,

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while," President Bush said. Vice President Cheney also used the word crusade. But after many complaints, "administration officials gave private reassurances that the word would not be used again," reports the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "It's what the terrorists use to recruit people—saying that Christians are on a crusade against Islam," Yvonne Haddad, professor of the history of Islam at Georgetown University, told the Associated Press. "It's as bad to their ears as it is when we hear jihad." One would think Bush's chief speechwriter would know this[.]

You know how there are some things that once said cannot be taken back? The use of "crusade" was such a thing. Bush's and Cheney's intentions or understandings were and are irrelevant. For Muslim Arabs, "crusade" has a particular meaning, especially when used in the same breath with "war." The important thing was their perception and understanding, not ours. For Arabs, "crusade" gave credence to the later proclamations of "infidels" invading Arab land. So, the majority of people in the Middle East (and that majority is larger if Iraq is not included) already thought Americans were infidels, and then we invaded Iraq, and the image was fulfilled in their minds. Given that, how can anyone be surprised that anti-American groups are making gains in democratic elections?

And then there was this little nugget from a Washington Post article:

Despite deep Israeli misgivings, the administration late last year shifted policy and decided Hamas could participate in the elections even though it had not disarmed its militias, in contrast to rules set for elections in Afghanistan and Northern Ireland.

What in the wide Wide World of Sports is a-goin on here??? Here is a good example of how pragmatism needs to be taken into account. The Israelis, Fatah (the Palestinian party now out of power), and supposedly the U.S. did not want Hamas gaining power. At the same time, to completely shut out Hamas from the electoral process would have been very risky. So, what to do? Well, one might have tried to put conditions on Hamas taking part in the election. That way, they would not have been shut out, but the risk of adverse consequences might have been reduced in the event Hamas made significant electoral gains (which it did). In other words, one might not be able to control the outcome of an election, but perhaps one can control how the game is played after the election. Admittedly, this approach might have been unsuccessful. However, at least it presented a possibility that was completely eliminated by the "shifted policy" adopted by the Bush administration.

This is just one of the things that astounds me about how the Bush administration operates. Time after time, the Bushies take actions that eliminate future options and flexibility. In other words, they obstinately choose actions which either leave us with only one choice or no good choices.