Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Russia and hamas sitting in a tree....

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Russia and hamas sitting in a tree....

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

khyber

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction

Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject: Russia and hamas sitting in a tree....

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/10/hamas-russia060210.html What are you opinions? Is this good or bad...? I personally think that dialogue will ONLY come through bloodshed OR dialogue. Russia has said several times...(though it isn't reported here...) that the recognition of Israel is a KEY in these talks and that NOTHING will come out of the talks if that position isn't dealt with. hm.....

Leslie Cheswyck

Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile

Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:26 pm Post subject:

So they can talk about...destroying Israel

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:55 am Post subject:

As the article points out,

Quote:

"I wonder what Putin would say if we invited the Chechens here and talked to them"

No shit.

I remember Putin blasting Bush for his hypocrisy on the War on Terror when Bush tongue-lashed Putin for atrocities in Chechnya. I had some sympathy for Putin's position then (altho, obviously, the Russians were heavy-handed with the Chechens before the radical Islamics took over the rebellion there). Now no longer. At least Bush didn't invite Chechens (I am right on this, right?) to talk about their oppression with him.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 7:23 am Post subject:

Quote:

Quote:
"I wonder what Putin would say if we invited the Chechens here and talked to them"

No shit.

So, on the one hand, the US, UK, Isreal etc say that they want democracy in the middle east. But when the Palestinians elect a party that these countries don't like, the US etc demand that the world cut off contact with the Palestinian administration. Sorry, but that's just bs.

If the major powers and Israel aren't prepared to accept the results of democratic elections in the middle east, they should quit screaming their lungs out about how we need more democracy in the middle east.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 7:30 am Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:

Quote:
"I wonder what Putin would say if we invited the Chechens here and talked to them"

No *beep*.

I don't think it's BS. The elected party is calls for the destruction of Israel. I think cutting them off is a bad tactic, but I don't think it's BS. And I'm not sorry.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 7:50 am Post subject:

Kuros: Sorry, that came off as a bit belligerent. Upon reflection, yes, it is perfectly legitimate to criticize a country for its choice of foriegn invitees. I would be the first to protest had Ariel Sharon ever been invited to Canada.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:28 am Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Kuros:

Sorry, that came off as a bit belligerent.

Upon reflection, yes, it is perfectly legitimate to criticize a country for its choice of foriegn invitees. I would be the first to protest had Ariel Sharon ever been invited to Canada.

Okay. But yes, I don't agree with the whole expanding democracy thing in the Middle East, either. It hasn't done so much good has it?

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:57 am Post subject:

Quote:

On the other hand wrote:
Kuros:

Sorry, that came off as a bit belligerent.

Upon reflection, yes, it is perfectly legitimate to criticize a country for its choice of foriegn invitees. I would be the first to protest had Ariel Sharon ever been invited to Canada.

Okay. But yes, I don't agree with the whole expanding democracy thing in the Middle East, either. It hasn't done so much good has it?

No, not really.

And I'd like to contextualize my earlier remarks somewhat. I guess what I'm pissed off about is that we've got all this "tear-down-this-wall"-style rhetoric calling for democracy in the middle east, but then as soon as the Palestinians elect a regime that the US, Israel etc don't like, Rice is demanding that all nations cease sending funds to the Palestinians. Kinda sends a mized message, I'd say.

Okay, so Hamas probably isn't the ideal choice, and whether or not Russia should hold high-level summits with them is something we can debate. But to hear Rice, Bush et al tell it, the Number One Issue In The World right now is the lack of democracy in the middle east. So surely the Palestinains are at least owed a nod of commendation for even bothering to hold elections at this time. But the anti-Hamas rhetoric emanating from some quarters these days sounds to me like a sly attempt at de-legitimizing the election results.

yoda

Joined: 19 Jan 2003
Location: Incheon, South Korea

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:15 am Post subject:

Quote:

Okay. But yes, I don't agree with the whole expanding democracy thing in the Middle East, either. It hasn't done so much good has it?

There are the formal institutions of democracy and then there are the cultural institutions of democracy. Unfortunately, the cultural institutions of democracy take a lot longer to take root. The formal institutions can be written over night.

However, I would argue that having the formal institutions in place is a step in the right direction even if it doesn't seem to do much good, because, over time, people will become accustomed to the idea a plurality of power centers (party A or party B). People will become accustomed to the idea of criticizing their government. People will become accustomed to asking for what they want. You seem worried that Hamas was elected, but it was an expression of dissatisfaction with Fatah more than anything else. As long as the formal institutions are in place, Hamas can also get the boot. Besides, do you really think it is in Hama's interest to be Israel's enemy number one at this point? Yes, they will talk tough to curry political favour at home, but I really doubt Hamas will be attacking Israel with so much to lose. I doubt the leaders of Hamas wish to go into hiding, just as they achieve formal power. Israel may actually see some peace. May, that is. Unfortunately, it is now in the interest of Fatah to provoke Israel into removing Hamas.

canuckistan
Mod Team

Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:43 am Post subject:

In mushing Muslim unrest, the Russians are just like the Chinese--no room for legal or human rights niceties.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:48 am Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:

Okay, well now I agree with you entirely. Yes, mixed message, indeed. Although Bush has been consistent in applauding the movement of democracy in Palestine since he specifically mentioned that as an accomplishment in his State of the Union address. Of course, this consistency only frustrates me more, since I am against this entire movement for democracy in the ME, not least because it seems to be powering extremists from Hamas, to the Muslim Brotherhood, to Ahmedijehad.

Quote:

However, I would argue that having the formal institutions in place is a step in the right direction even if it doesn't seem to do much good, because, over time, people will become accustomed to the idea a plurality of power centers (party A or party B). People will become accustomed to the idea of criticizing their government. People will become accustomed to asking for what they want. You seem worried that Hamas was elected, but it was an expression of dissatisfaction with Fatah more than anything else. As long as the formal institutions are in place, Hamas can also get the boot. Besides, do you really think it is in Hama's interest to be Israel's enemy number one at this point? Yes, they will talk tough to curry political favour at home, but I really doubt Hamas will be attacking Israel with so much to lose. I doubt the leaders of Hamas wish to go into hiding, just as they achieve formal power. Israel may actually see some peace. May, that is. Unfortunately, it is now in the interest of Fatah to provoke Israel into removing Hamas.

Okay, let me say I disagree with almost all of this nevertheless well written post. First of all, I don't buy that the election of Hamas was strictly an expression of dissatisfaction with Fatah. Even if it sincerely was, and it would be hard to suggest that many of the people who voted for Hamas were not attracted by their belligerent policy message or by other aspects of Hamas (their militacy, their armed power on the street), how naive would the Palestinians have to be to believe an explicitly Islamic party is going to clean up the corruption? Look at Saudi Arabia, whom are admittedly secular leadership but nevertheless have let Wahhabist influence help set up Sharia law. Look at Iran. Look at the Taliban!

Secondly, I do believe that it is in Hama's interests to be Israel's number one enemy at this point. It clearly is a position that won them popular support. Also, I think Hamas has a number of advantages, including the idea in the West that we should be open to what Hamas actually does. Israel is not helping the situation by refusing to talk directly to Hamas. No, Hamas is in a strong situation, and the more oppressive the Israelis get, the more backing they will have in the ME already rubbed raw by American misdeeds (Let's not even talk about the invasion of Iraq, Abu Ghraib and the torture scandals alone seem like enough of a case for legitimate ME complaint), and the more they will embarass America for trying to push a peace process AND democracy in Palestine.

Thirdly, are you actually seriously forecasting peace in Israel-Palestinian relations now? What, after so much violence, now extremists on one side have gained power, and this is supposed to end the violence? I also take it that the current election of Hamas is good for Likud, considering that most Israelis associate Hamas with bombing their relatives, friends, or at least fellow countrymen. At least admit the probability that many Israelis will see the situation as I do, even though you probably still hold to your present optimism about the situation, and would 'screw it up' for a supposedly reformed Hamas.

I also have serious doubts about democracy, both in and of itself but particularly in the context of current Middle Eastern affairs. Let me leave alone my personal doubts concerning democracy in general, and focus particularly on the imposition of democracy in the ME at this time under these circumstances. It doesn't help that it is being pushed from the outside, and inconsistently if I may so. America doesn't look good promoting democracy in Lebanon while denouncing Iran while supporting Musharref in Pakistan while supporting limited and in many ways insufficient reform in Egypt. Meanwhile, it helps even less that America is taking the time to give approval to individual parties that are for liberalism, which under the above contexts of necessary hypocracies (yes, I agree the hypocracies are necessary if we are to pursue other goals in the ME at the same time), in addition to the Abu Ghraib and torture scandals, are acting as a kiss of death for the very parties America explicitly supports while invigorating parties like Hamas which are explicitly anti-American.

In other words, the policy is completely wrong and it is all going to hell in a handbasket, and OTOH is right to be frustrated with American policy (altho I suspect after reading my post he may not agree with why I personally am frustrated with the policies).

yoda

Joined: 19 Jan 2003
Location: Incheon, South Korea

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:37 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Secondly, I do believe that it is in Hama's interests to be Israel's number one enemy at this point. It clearly is a position that won them popular support.

I think it is in their interest to talk that way, to maintain that support at home. How many dictators around the world talk belligerently towards the US for that very reason? But talk is cheap. There is a difference between appearing to be enemy number one and being enemy number one in fact. I think they will refrain from doing anything to provoke Israel other than talking. They want to hold power, and, militarily, Israel could always remove them at will (force them back into an underground movement). This assumes that their political movement is a rational one. Our problem is that we see suicide bombers and we only see foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics. Suicide bombing is something Hamas has used and here they are at the top of Palestinian politics. It was a strategy that succeeded for them. (Do I need to qualify that it is an abhorrent morally repugnant strategy?) I think we have to get past looking at them as crazy and irrational and ask what are their real objectives not their publicly stated objectives. They are after all composed of some pretty educated people. I think the real danger is other underground movements following their footsteps and exploiting instability to gain local power. The view from the top is much different than the view at the bottom. But, yes, this is just speculation.

I don��t think Western nations have to publicly accept Hamas however. Our governments have their own internal power politics calculus to go through. Getting in bed with Hamas is pretty much political suicide. But there are official channels and there are back channels. And it��s through the back channels that any real cease-fire will be arranged and maintained.

Behind every fanatical crowd chanting death to America are some clearly calculating individuals who are gaining local power and presitge.

Anyways, I don't think we'll have to wait very long to find out if there is any merit in this prediction. And remember, I am not saying there will be peace, I am saying Hamas will try to maintain peace (despite what they may say), while the other factions will try to disrupt the peace.

Quote:

present optimism about the situation

No. Unfortunately, I am not very optimistic. I agree that the election of Hamas will probably polarize Israel as well.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject:

Quote:

how naive would the Palestinians have to be to believe an explicitly Islamic party is going to clean up the corruption? Look at Saudi Arabia, whom are admittedly secular leadership but nevertheless have let Wahhabist influence help set up Sharia law. Look at Iran. Look at the Taliban!

Kuros:

I'm not sure if your examples in the second sentence back up the point implied your rhetorical question in the first. When I hear that Palestinians voted for Hamas to clean up corruption, I assume it means financial corruption. But your second sentnece doesn't really prove that Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc are financially corrupt.

If corruption was the main issue in the election, my guess would be that a lot of Palestinians just said to themselves "well, Fatah is corrupt, Hamas is the alternative to Fatah, let's vote Hamas". Again, that's IF corruption was the main issue.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:08 pm Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that Saudi Arabia or Iran or etc pursued bad fiscal policies, but I am suggesting that there is a lot of abuse of public office for private gain.

You're probably already familiar with this Transparency Ranking. You'll notice Saudi Arabia comes in 70th with a 3.4 corruption rating, and Iran at 88th with a 2.9 rating. Although I will admit that both would be an improvement over Palestine's 2.6 rating and 107th rank.

Yes, you're right, my post at that point didn't make too much sense.

Yoda wrote:

Point well taken.

Yoda wrote:

Our problem is that we see suicide bombers and we only see foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics. Suicide bombing is something Hamas has used and here they are at the top of Palestinian politics. It was a strategy that succeeded for them. (Do I need to qualify that it is an abhorrent morally repugnant strategy?) I think we have to get past looking at them as crazy and irrational and ask what are their real objectives not their publicly stated objectives. They are after all composed of some pretty educated people. I think the real danger is other underground movements following their footsteps and exploiting instability to gain local power. The view from the top is much different than the view at the bottom.

Okay, this is very fair. But when I look at Hezbollah, I don't think, 'hrmmm, well, they opposed Israel to gain popular support, and certainly their violence succeeded, so it does make sense that they did it. But what is their real aim?' I mean, the real aim of Hezbollah seems to be the expulsion of Israel from Syria/Lebanon by any means necessary/available/actionable.

I want to make clear that I am not falling into the trap of not taking Hamas and their objectives seriously. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to come to the conclusion that Hamas are a collection of realpolitikers who are using pro-Islamic and anti-Israeli rhetoric as a front. If you know something I don't, however, please inform me, because I've basically been following the mainstream media on this one.

Yoda wrote:

I don��t think Western nations have to publicly accept Hamas however. Our governments have their own internal power politics calculus to go through. Getting in bed with Hamas is pretty much political suicide. But there are official channels and there are back channels. And it��s through the back channels that any real cease-fire will be arranged and maintained.

Behind every fanatical crowd chanting death to America are some clearly calculating individuals who are gaining local power and presitge.

Well, the reason I disagree with Israel's current posture of not resuming talks is because I think tactically it would be advantageous to at least appear as if they were talking for peace. I mean, Arafat worked this angle for years, appearing to be sincere in talking for peace, meanwhile at the same time sabotaging it while also buying time to establish the Palestinians as a national entity in the global consciousness. However, if Israel is not going to hold discussions, it is kind of messed up what Russia is doing.

Yes, getting in bed with Hamas is political suicide, but publically taking the posture you are, while believing otherwise, might be a bit more subtle. However, I am not intimate with the current political climate within Israel so I can't say for sure that what I am suggesting is a politically available option.

Again, I want to re-emphasize that while you are right, there probably are some pretty clever people manipulating the masses on this one, that also doesn't mean that they want peace with Israel or that they think it would be politically expedient to at least not rock the boat with violence. Perfectly clever people can overreach, and there are certainly occasions in history where bold moves contrary to the status quo (in this case the status quo would be a tense semi-peace between the two sides punctuated by the occasional act of extremism) have been made, and there are even occasions where they have paid off. In other words, it may not even be overreaching should Hamas set off a well orchastrated wave of violence, although it would be problematic enough if they contained their attacks to a limited scope or simply kept the peace while they continued to educate young minds that peace with Israel is impossible and Islamic rule and the commitment that goes with it is preferable to any secular rule.

Yoda wrote:

Anyways, I don't think we'll have to wait very long to find out if there is any merit in this prediction. And remember, I am not saying there will be peace, I am saying Hamas will try to maintain peace (despite what they may say), while the other factions will try to disrupt the peace.

No. Unfortunately, I am not very optimistic. I agree that the election of Hamas will probably polarize Israel as well.

I think I understand. Of course, I think what really went on here is simply that there was little popular support for Mahmoud Abbas' moderate position and path to peace and reconciliation with Israel. The Palestinians elected a party, that as you say, cleverly petitioned them with a fiercely popular platform: the very existence of Israel in the long-term is unacceptable. It probably didn't help that Fatah was still corrupt.

As for Hamas stoking the Fatah into violence, that is a possibility, and I'll even concede that Fatah may strike of their own volition without prior provocation by Hamas. And, let's not rule out Israeli meddling, after all, Israel was in a sense at least condoning Hamas 25 years ago very cynically as an alternative to Fatah. However, you are right, we shall all see what will happen very soon.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe