Article in Time - "Dealing With Hamas: Can the US Avoid It?"
Roger Cohen op-ed in NYTimes - "Middle East Reality Check"
Cohen urges the govt to follow Britain's lead and open talks with Hezbollah's political wing. The same should be done with Hamas' political wing. Both organizations have moderate political players (and provide social services and have major constituencies that support them...) Coopt coopt coopt.
It is important to see Hezbollah and Hamas for what they really are - mutifaceted organization with a militant wings fighting an occupation. (See Olivier Roy post below.)
He also reminds us that as long as Palestinians are divided peace efforts will fail.
Cohen mentions a most important point: "The 1988 Hamas Charter is vile, but I think it’s wrong to get hung up on the prior recognition of Israel issue. Perhaps Hamas is sincere in its calls for Israel’s disappearance — although it has offered a decades-long truce — but then it’s also possible that Israel in reality has no desire to see a Palestinian state."
Hamas could very well give up its advocacy of the destruction of the state of Israel if it is allowed at the table - they have already offered to do so in the past, to Jimmy Carter among others.
Sure Hamas officials say dumb, incendiary crap - but most important is - why do they use such rhetoric? (Frustrations of occupation and their treatment by international community. Shoot, if I won an election and was then cut off by the world I'd be pissed too.) AND, can the US and Israel be the bigger person (act like legitimate countries) and look beyond this hollow rhetoric?
Cohen also makes a nice point about war in Gaza:
"At this vast human, material and moral price, Israel achieved almost nothing beyond damage to its image throughout the world. Israel has the right to hit back when attacked, but any response should be proportional and governed by sober political calculation. The Gaza war was a travesty; I have never previously felt so shamed by Israel’s actions. No wonder Hamas and Hezbollah are seen throughout the Arab world as legitimate resistance movements."
Showing posts with label Hamas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hamas. Show all posts
Monday, March 9, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Olivier Roy is the man; Politics of Chaos in the Middle East is the book
Everyone should read Olivier Roy's book The Politics of Chaos in the Middle East NOW. It is amazing. (Also read his The Failure of Political Islam while you're at it...)
Usually a book makes one or two brilliant points throughout; this one has like 50. Here are the two I found most interesting:
1. He emphasizes the importance of political legitimacy - he believes in neither neocons nor in NGOS. Neither the top down democratisation/ state-building, (like what the US did in Iraq establishing a Parliament etc. in Baghdad), nor the bottom up run of the mill civil society building will work because these structures do not come from indigenous (and therefore legitimate) actors. Roy also points out that civil society building attempts divide local actors between those working with the western institutions and those that do not - driving a wedge among players that should be working together.
(Sidenote: I happen to have always been of the school that believes that as foreigners we can be effective in encouraging civic engagement/ indigenous participation, building frameworks within which local actors can thrive, building relationships with leaders and their constituencies, voter participation, training candidates, rule of law etc. Olivier Roy and led me to question this belief.)
2. Roy brings up the problem with how the US media and Bush administration use the terrorist label. To call every group that attacks innocent civilians terrorists is an oversimplification and does not reveal the nuances of these groups. If you dismiss groups as simply 'terrorists' you miss their motives and goals and if you do not understand their motives and goals how can you ever hope to prevent the attacks? Terrorist attacks can not be stopped by militaries and force - they will always win bc their tactics (no rules etc) will have far worse consequences than those of traditional militaries and states.
So Roy says you must take into account the purpose of the terrorist acts. Terrorism is used nowadays in two main areas: One, it plays a role in the nationalist movements (IRA, Basque, Tamil Tigers, Palestinians, Chechens) and then the global deterritorialised sort (AQ). Negotiation is possible with the former - their 'terrorism' is a means to an end, whereas negotiations with AQ are impossible and ineffective bc they attack the 'system' in general.
Applied to what is going on now, I would translate this section read 'Engage with Hamas.' I really hope someone in the Obama administration has read this part of this book and tells the Pres about it.
Usually a book makes one or two brilliant points throughout; this one has like 50. Here are the two I found most interesting:
1. He emphasizes the importance of political legitimacy - he believes in neither neocons nor in NGOS. Neither the top down democratisation/ state-building, (like what the US did in Iraq establishing a Parliament etc. in Baghdad), nor the bottom up run of the mill civil society building will work because these structures do not come from indigenous (and therefore legitimate) actors. Roy also points out that civil society building attempts divide local actors between those working with the western institutions and those that do not - driving a wedge among players that should be working together.
(Sidenote: I happen to have always been of the school that believes that as foreigners we can be effective in encouraging civic engagement/ indigenous participation, building frameworks within which local actors can thrive, building relationships with leaders and their constituencies, voter participation, training candidates, rule of law etc. Olivier Roy and led me to question this belief.)
2. Roy brings up the problem with how the US media and Bush administration use the terrorist label. To call every group that attacks innocent civilians terrorists is an oversimplification and does not reveal the nuances of these groups. If you dismiss groups as simply 'terrorists' you miss their motives and goals and if you do not understand their motives and goals how can you ever hope to prevent the attacks? Terrorist attacks can not be stopped by militaries and force - they will always win bc their tactics (no rules etc) will have far worse consequences than those of traditional militaries and states.
So Roy says you must take into account the purpose of the terrorist acts. Terrorism is used nowadays in two main areas: One, it plays a role in the nationalist movements (IRA, Basque, Tamil Tigers, Palestinians, Chechens) and then the global deterritorialised sort (AQ). Negotiation is possible with the former - their 'terrorism' is a means to an end, whereas negotiations with AQ are impossible and ineffective bc they attack the 'system' in general.
Applied to what is going on now, I would translate this section read 'Engage with Hamas.' I really hope someone in the Obama administration has read this part of this book and tells the Pres about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
