The Times is in fine fettle this morning, with an editorial that pretends to blame Fatah and Abbas for the Hamas upset. But they know who the real villain in the piece is:
Israeli hard-liners can blame themselves as well. Even though most reasonable people have recognized Mr. Abbas as a far more pragmatic negotiating partner than Yasir Arafat was, Prime Minister Sharon failed to give Mr. Abbas any concession that he could point to as an achievement. Instead, Israel has busied itself with carrying out Mr. Sharon’s doctrine of unilateral separation from the Palestinians, a doctrine that is sure to gain more favor now that the Palestinians have chosen Hamas.
I believe that the first thing on the agenda was the cessation of terrorism. You know, the thing that caused the 2,990 terrorist attacks in 2005. The attacks that the Times only noticed when they consisted of suicide bombers.
But hey, that’s beside the point, right?
But wait. The waffling begins already:
But all of this is peripheral to two central facts. Hamas grew out of a terrorist organization that has undermined every small step toward peace with mass murder. And on Wednesday, Palestinians voted almost two to one to put Hamas in charge of running their government. For there to be any hope of getting out of the impasse in the Middle East, one of those two things must change.
It would be nice to believe that Hamas, now that it is assuming the reins of power and the burden of actually having to govern, will renounce its call for the destruction of a sovereign state, disarm its private army, get into the business of making life better for Palestinians and try to negotiate the creation of a real Palestinian state. While we’re not hopeful, we are reminded that the Palestine Liberation Organization of the late Mr. Arafat, of which Mr. Abbas was once second in command, was born in terrorism. For many years Mr. Arafat and his gunmen were hunted by Israel, much as Hamas has been in recent years.
Once more, the mainstream media ignore the documented PA involvement in current terror attacks. But gee, get the dramatic conclusion:
Hamas has a choice between governing and terror. Is the party more interested in making sure that the electricity and water stay on, that Palestinian boys and girls make it to school, and that these battered people finally get a state of their own? Or is it more interested in continuing its campaign to destroy Israel? If Hamas chooses the latter, it’s more than likely that it will not be around for long, and rightly so.
It’s not a zero-sum game. Hamas is interested in doing both. And it thinks it can.
I remain skeptical that the world will not give it a month or two, then say, “But we have to work with the legitimately elected government of the palestinians.”
Aha! That, at least, comes as expected. No surprises with NYT!
I wonder, though, for how long they will continue to blame Arik?
Pingback: Israpundit
Pingback: Soccer Dad
This is an old line: when X terrorist group has to deal with quotidian tasks like garbage collection they’ll moderate their stance, which is rhetorical anyway.
It doesn’t happen and that’s no surprise, since the opporessor–in this case Israel–serves as an excellent scapegoat for the problems with garbage collection and everything else. Yet again, and always, Israel serves as a convenient distraction.
But the Arab leaders aren’t solely at fault. The Arab masses eat it up, as happy as their rulers to have someone to blame for their problems. However, the slightest hint from anyone connected with Hamas that they might ease their aim of destroying Israel will be seized upon by Western media and diplomats as a reason to shove the blame for the impasse on Israel. See if this doesn’t happen.
They won’t have to have slight hints. Western media and diplomats will make up fantasy indications of Hamas mellowing out of the whole cloth. Offhand the only terrorist outfit I can think of that really did mellow into a peaceful member of a democratic system was Begin’s Irgun. Uniquely among anti-colonialist movements, the world never forgave Begin for his past, the only such case (think of Kenyatta, Mandela and lots of other Third World leaders who started as terrorists and ended so admired by the fine souls, after they got power at any rate). But Begin and his followers really did become democratic. That’s a precedent Hamas is sure to reject.
Alex hits the nail on the head. Admittedly the choice between the corrupt Fatah and the murderous Hamas was not a rosy one for a hypothetical sane Palestinian Arab, if such exist. But I suspect they’d have gone for Hamas even if Fatah had been clean as a hound’s tooth. The Palestinians will always choose those who want more openly to kill Jews over their own good. Fatah’s strategy of dissimulation combined with deniable terrorism was too subtle for their tastes.
Pingback: Tel-Chai Nation
Warn them that one more bombing and war goes hot, with permanent land loss for the loser. The Gaza and the West Bank will do for starters, then the Negev up tp the Canal.
That was tried in 1967 and 1973. The world (and the Israeli left) insisted on the Oslo fake and on putting Arafat in power which led to today’s circumstances.