|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Interested
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| nautilus wrote: |
Bigbird
| Quote: |
| It's harder to get away with brutalising a people and dispossessing them of coveted land and precious water resources when too many of them appear as rational articulate human beings. |
I find it hard to blame the hundreds of suicide bombings, use of child warfare and human shields, targetting of civilians, firefights against the palestinian authority and desecration of Jewish/christian sites within Palestine, on Israel rather than Hamas.
Where does their responsibility for their own behavior start, according to you?
The only rational spokesperson I've seen for their cause was an American they'd employed to present an articulate TV image.
Lets just look at todays events shall we?
"Hamas gunmen ambushed a Palestinian police patrol in the Gaza Strip early Saturday.One of the officers was shot in the head and remained in a coma"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060128/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians
I'm sure the government of Palestine is safe in their sophisticated and responsible hands. |
Looks like a civil war between different factions. While civil war is never good, in this case it is the best of a number of bad choices.
Two groups of thugs killing each other. Maybe when enough of each have been killed, the moderates will have a chance to come to power and secure a lasting peace deal. Israel is never going to come to terms with Hamas in its present incarnation. |
except it is fatah fighting fatah. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| nautilus wrote: |
Bigbird
| Quote: |
| It's harder to get away with brutalising a people and dispossessing them of coveted land and precious water resources when too many of them appear as rational articulate human beings. |
I find it hard to blame the hundreds of suicide bombings, use of child warfare and human shields, targetting of civilians, firefights against the palestinian authority and desecration of Jewish/christian sites within Palestine, on Israel rather than Hamas.
Where does their responsibility for their own behavior start, according to you?
The only rational spokesperson I've seen for their cause was an American they'd employed to present an articulate TV image.
Lets just look at todays events shall we?
"Hamas gunmen ambushed a Palestinian police patrol in the Gaza Strip early Saturday.One of the officers was shot in the head and remained in a coma"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060128/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians
I'm sure the government of Palestine is safe in their sophisticated and responsible hands. |
Looks like a civil war between different factions. While civil war is never good, in this case it is the best of a number of bad choices.
Two groups of thugs killing each other. Maybe when enough of each have been killed, the moderates will have a chance to come to power and secure a lasting peace deal. Israel is never going to come to terms with Hamas in its present incarnation. |
except it is fatah fighting fatah. |
Huh? The above article explictly states "Clashs have already broken out between the two sides." And it is talking about Hamas vs Fatah.
Where in the article does it say Fatah is fighting Fatah? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that BB meant that much of the fighting now is between rival factions of Fatah and has nothing to do with Hamas, though there is also substantial fighting between the oppositional groups.
Another interesting twist to this whole thing, is how it will affect people's perceptions of the validity of forcing democracy upon a people, and what happens when it backfires....
Election result poses dilemma for Bush in his war on terror
| Quote: |
The Bush administration��s promotion of democracy forms the core of US foreign policy. It was the pillar of President George W. Bush��s second inaugural address a year ago and, officials say, will be reiterated in his State of the Union address tomorrow night.
But having assisted Hamas – listed as a terrorist group by the US – to power through elections Washington insisted should take place, the Bush administration is now in a dilemma in the ��war on terror��. |
Now that the experiment into democratizing the Middle East has in a sense and in a limited scope backfired, how will the US administration and the people of the US see the idea of "staying the course" when now that because of this hurry towards democratization, the opposite will occur. The US will not produce aid to the Palestinians ties with Israel will suffer more and more. Hamas will look elsewhere for support, particularly Iran and perhaps China and Russia....leading to more oppositional stances and a leaning towards more fundamentalist backing.
The US has been so full of the hubris of spreading democracy, but now it has come back to bite them a bit, because with all things, the results of democracy aren't always what you had hoped.
Democracy's three edged sword.
| Quote: |
Second-term inaugural speeches tend to be little but hot air--cameras capture a president's warm breath as wisps of gray fog in chill air. So George W. Bush startled the White House press corps last January when he actually said something newsworthy.
It was in this speech that the president committed his administration to the spread of democracy "in every nation and culture," in countries ruled by our enemies and allies alike: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one."
But was that mere noble blather? Supporters and critics of Bush's robust (the latter group would say pushy) foreign policy wondered what would happen if, say, the long hapless Palestinians held an election--and Hamas terrorists won? Would Bush's attitudes and platitudes fold like pup tents in a West Bank windstorm?
Now, of course, comes that test. A triumphant Hamas in the Palestinian election is Bush's nightmare. |
Of course there is always the hope that Hamas will legitimize itself, not unlike Hezbollah did in Lebanon after the Israeli withdrawl, showing itself able to govern, while at the same time maintaining a militant standing. Will Hamas emerge through the growth of democracy not necessarily as we in the West would like it but as how Bush himself put it that:
| Quote: |
| "when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own." |
...and that is the rub, can we sit by and let the democraticly elected government, that we fully supported prior to the outcome of last week's election, or will we abandon democracy, or further fight against it, because it does not sit well in out stomach? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Huh? The above article explictly states "Clashs have already broken out between the two sides." And it is talking about Hamas vs Fatah.
Where in the article does it say Fatah is fighting Fatah? |
It doesn't. I was just going by what I saw on ABC news, which said it was entirely a fatah fight, but it might become between Hamas and Fatah. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Now that the experiment into democratizing the Middle East has in a sense and in a limited scope backfired, how will the US administration and the people of the US see the idea of "staying the course" when now that because of this hurry towards democratization, the opposite will occur. |
The problem with the Bush idea of spreading democracy in the Middle East, is that his administration seriously underestimated the attraction of Islamism and the fact that democracy might not lead to freedom, human rights and peace, but tyranny, human rights abuses and Jihad. It was a silly notion from the beginning. Still, as more and more muslim states democratically elect limb amputating Jihadis, the notion that people with such views represent a 'tiny minority' will look more and more foolish. I am sure the election of Hamas will speed up the Christian exodus from the West Bank. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| The problem with the Bush idea of spreading democracy in the Middle East... |
When we went into Western Europe in the post-War years (the Marshall Plan, covert election operations in Italy, the Truman Doctrine, NATO, etc.), we were rebuilding something that had already existed, and doing so with many friendly allies on the ground.
They already knew democracy, most of them wanted to continue it, they not only had had a powerful economy, but they had a strong infrastructure mostly in the form of highly educated people and technical expertise.
We attempted to repeat this success in Latin America and the Caribbean in the 1960s, the so-called Alliance for Progress. We met much resistance on the ground there.
Local elites resisted all efforts to enact agrarian reform. They maintained a quasi-feudal political economy that rested on the harsh exploitation of rural labor, from Chile to Guatemala. The middle classes wanted to become more like the elites they emulated than like the U.S. middle classes we hoped they would become. They, too, resisted our initiatives at socioeconomic reform.
In the end all that was left was the counterinsurgency program, which achieved Guevara's death in Bolivia. We also overthrew Allende and saw the establishment of brutal "national security" military regimes in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and Guatemala, and elsewhere in the region.
We went into the situation totally ignoring ground realities and hoping, idealistically, that we could change things there. In the end, we changed nothing. We left it as we had found it: an unworkable chaotic mess.
Comes now W. Bush, who wholly lacks the idealism of 1960s, and just wants to democratize the Middle East, or at least parts of it, strictly through military force. But W. Bush is not Alexander.
And in the end, we will leave the Middle East just as we found it: an unworkable chaotic mess.
There will be no modernization or democratization there unless it has indigenous origins, as it did in Western Europe and the U.S. And this election strongly suggests to me that they are not ready for democracy.
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
The problem with the Bush idea of spreading democracy in the Middle East, is that his administration seriously underestimated the attraction of Islamism and the fact that democracy might not lead to freedom, human rights and peace, but tyranny, human rights abuses and Jihad. It was a silly notion from the beginning. |
Perhaps not so the attraction of Islamism, but the repulsion many feel in relation to US sponsored democratization. Many (rightly or wrongly) see Western democracy as promoting corruption and misgovernment, particularly with the situation and precidents set during the rule of Fatah.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
There will be no modernization or democratization there unless it has indigenous origins, as it did in Western Europe and the U.S. And this election strongly suggests to me that they are not ready for democracy. |
who is they??
If they, you mean Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, you are correct. What sore, pathetic losers. They disgust me even more than before (and obviously they disgust their fellow countrymen since they got the boot).
If you mean Palestinians in general, I think you're jumping the gun. It was a clean, fair election with no reports of fraud or anything along those lines. Can't say the same about recent elections here in the United States.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bignate wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
The problem with the Bush idea of spreading democracy in the Middle East, is that his administration seriously underestimated the attraction of Islamism and the fact that democracy might not lead to freedom, human rights and peace, but tyranny, human rights abuses and Jihad. It was a silly notion from the beginning. |
Perhaps not so the attraction of Islamism, but the repulsion many feel in relation to US sponsored democratization. Many (rightly or wrongly) see Western democracy as promoting corruption and misgovernment, particularly with the situation and precidents set during the rule of Fatah.... |
Yeah. Who gave Fatah and the PA billions of dollars? The West. Where did that money go beyond the leaders? Back to Europe into bank accounts.
I'm not criticizing the West, it felt compelled to give aid, and a trickle of it did reach where it needed to go. Unfortunately it wasn't as useful as hoped. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| ...who is they? |
Middle-Easterners.
Unless you know about a functional Middle-Eastern democracy that I don't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Israel  . Turkey as well.
It doesn't help that the United States has looked the other way when elections were annulled in Tunisia and Algeria in the early 90s, and did hardly anything to stop Mubarak and his crew from cracking down on opponents last year. Pretty hard for a country to politically develop when a (beneveloent) dictatorship is getting massive funding just because it isn't against the United States or West in general.
While Korea and Taiwan were in similar positions, they were able to develop was because they had leaders who had some economic common sense and it was clear cut who what sides they were on during the Cold War.
You need to get off your high horse and not show off your ignorance so well. It is obvious you do not know the political history of the region very well. Unlike Latin America, there have been many vested foreign interests the past 100+ years; those interests put regional stability at the bottom of the list. Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria are perfect examples of it.
There are two places where democracy has had a decent shot in the Middle East. The beforementioned Turkey, which is now a fairly stable democracy. The other, Lebanon, has the most free press in the Arab world, and has become a lot more independant and democratic in the past year. Unfortunately, due to secretarian issues (partially due to past colonalism by the French, partially due to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but also due to themselves), it might fall apart again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll give you Turkey. And my understanding, which mostly comes from Prof. Lewis's book on the Middle East, is that Turkey is something of an exception.
Maybe I can state my position clearer: democracy is not just about holding free and fair elections.
It's about stable, constitutional govt. It's about an independent judiciary. It's about a free press and the free exchange of ideas -- autonomous universities, for ex. It's about religious and other tolerance in the social order. It's about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It's about civilian dominance over the military (I'm not sure how much of an issue this last is in the Middle East; but it is one of the top three issues in Latin America and the Caribbean).
Maybe I am relatively ignorant on matters pertaining to the Middle East. I still don't see too much evidence of these things in that part of the world, whatever progress Turkey has made notwithstanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is an Arab's perspective:
| Quote: |
Contrary to the claims of alarmists who see the Hamas election victory as a threat to peace, new opportunities for making peace could now emerge. The peacemaking episodes of the past were based on assumptions absolutely unacceptable to the majority of Palestinians and those who support the justice of their cause. From Oslo to the road map it was always assumed that Israel was the victim that needed to live in peace and security and that the key to this was the end of Palestinian terrorism. The new peace process that Hamas may indeed be willing to be part of should be based on the fact that the Palestinians are the victims and have been victims since Israel was created on their soil. It is not Palestinian terrorism that is the problem, but Israeli aggression.
Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, who was cut to pieces when Israel shot him with an air-to-surface missile, spelled it out long ago. We shall never recognise the theft of our land, he said, but we are willing to negotiate a ceasefire whose duration can be as a long as a generation, and let future generations on both sides decide where to go then. His ceasefire conditions are fully compatible with international law. Israel would have to give back what it occupied in 1967 - then without any Jewish settlements - and release all Palestinian prisoners. For that Hamas would halt its armed struggle and instead pursue peaceful means.
The IRA, whose leaders negotiated a deal with the British government, continues to dream of uniting Northern Ireland with the Republic; it was never a condition for the peace talks that they should first abandon that dream.
|
Click here for the full article.
I don't think that the election of Hamas necessarily has to spell the end of peace. It's possible that they could evolve and make more use diplomacy. However, I feel quite pessimistic about the likelihood of this being permitted by the powers that be. I think the convenient fact that they are a 'terrorist group' will be the perfect excuse for hardline zionists and sympathetic US neo-cons to 'bulldoze' their way over the Palestinians.
It's always conveniently forgotton that Israel has elected former terrorists into government, including Prime Ministers such as Begin and Shamir. Menachem Begin lead Irgun (officially classified by the British as a terrorist organisation) which counted among its attrocities the infamous bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, which killed 96 people. Yitzak Shamir was a member of the Stern Gang, another notorious Israeli terrorist gang.
The Israelis themselves were the first practitioners of modern terrorism in the Middle East, including the execution of the first highjacking of an aircraft. Even after the founding of modern Israel, they continued to indulge in terrorist activity including, most famously, the "Levon Affair" which involved an Israeli terrorst squad blowing up various British and American institutions in Cairo. Israel eventually admitted these actions. Israel had initially hoped to sour relations between the West and the Arabs by attempting to make it appear that it was in fact Arab terrorists at work. Thankfully they failed.
So I have to laugh at the extraordinary hypocrisy involved with respect to these election results.
[edited for glaring errors of grammar and punctuation]
Last edited by Big_Bird on Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:17 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Even if we take your site at its word and assume it is the truth, you will see that Israel funded Hamas in order to infiltrate the group and identify dangerous terrorists. Plus in the beginnings the group was moderate. According to this article it did not repress Islamic groups and although "The group had always embraced the doctrine of armed struggle, but the doctrine had not been practised.."
It is hardly suprising that Israel would fund such a moderate-seeming group as a counterbalance. Surrounded by hostile states, Israel would naturally seek to protect itself by attempting to influence groups that on the surface appeared moderate. It can hardly be held to blame for the fact that later Hamas was seized by hardliners.
. |
I'm sorry to burst your little bubble, but the Israelis are not so naiive as you would wish to have it. The Israeli government continued to knowingly fund and cultivate Hamas long after it could be claimed that they were a 'moderate-seeming group.' Their aim was to create division among the Palestinians and undermine the PLO.
| TUM wrote: |
| Nor (again according to your site) was Israel the only supporter. Support also came from the "oil-producing states" a quote from the site you so kindly provided |
So what? It's well known that Arabs have funded Hamas. Jordan (a nation which colluded with Israel, at its inception in 1948, to seize large tracts of Palestinian territory) in particular considered Arafat a threat. This is not news and it doesn't change the fact that certain elements in Israel also very much appreciated the rise of Hamas.
[edited for typos]
Last edited by Big_Bird on Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:44 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
