April 16, 2007
NOT THAT THE DARK PRINCE EVER MET AN AUTHORITARIAN ARAB HE DIDN'T LIKE:
Hamas Calling for Peace (Robert Novak, 4/16/07, Real Clear Politics)
I arrived in Jerusalem again April 3, two weeks after Hamas brought the more moderate opposition Fatah party into a new National Unity government. The Los Angeles Times had just run a remarkable op-ed column by political independent Salam Fayyad, finance minister in the new government who lived in Washington for 20 years, served as a World Bank official and is well respected in the West. He wrote that the Palestine Liberation Organization's 1993 acceptance of Israel and disavowal of violence is "a crystal-clear and binding agreement" that "no Palestinian government has the authority to revoke." He added that the unity government's platform "explicitly" pledges to honor all PLO commitments.Over dinner in a Ramallah restaurant April 4, Fayyad told me he offered his column simultaneously to several major American newspapers to get this story out quickly. But do his Hamas colleagues accept his reasoning? Fayyad made clear he was not flying solo.
Just before my trip ended, the Palestinian Authority at long last put me in touch with an official who was no low-level bureaucrat. Nasser al-Shaer was deputy prime minister in the all-Hamas regime last Aug. 19 when he was seized in an Israeli raid on his home in Ramallah and held for a month without charges or evidence.
In his ministry office April 7, he looked nothing like the shirt-sleeved, tie-less Shaer photographed when he was released last Sept. 27. Holder of a doctorate from England's University of Manchester, he was dressed in a stylish suit. More telling than his appearance was what he said.
When I asked whether Hamas agreed with Fayyad's formulation, Shaer said it did not matter: "We are talking about the government, not groups." He said Hamas was no more relevant to Palestinian policy than the views of extremist anti-Palestinian Israeli Cabinet member Avigdor Lieberman are to Israeli policy. Unexpectedly, Shaer expressed dismay that "previous attempts at peace were ruined by suicide bombers. Now, we look forward to a sustained peace."
While avoiding Israel-bashing, Shaer conjectured: "I don't think the Israeli government wants a two-state solution. Without pressure from the president of the United States, nothing is going to happen." That sounded like a plea for help from George W. Bush. But will he hear it if Elliott Abrams does not listen?
Except that Hamas is the more legitimate repository of the general Palestinian will, at least until the Israelis release Marwan Barghouti. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 16, 2007 12:00 AM
One enters a world of hurt under the banner of 'the general will'. Constitutions exist because the 'general will' is oftimes misguided by those with the worst motives. Evil exists no matter how the majority defines it.
Posted by: at April 17, 2007 8:00 AMThe general will is the Constitution.
Posted by: oj at April 17, 2007 7:33 PMNo, the constitution checks the general will.
Posted by: at April 18, 2007 7:48 AMNo, the constitution checks the general will. The concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat for example is directly tied to the Rousseauian belief in the general will. Anything can be justified by the idea when the scholars/intellectuals are in charge. Democracy is meaningless without the procedural protection of law to guard the rights of all.
Posted by: at April 18, 2007 7:51 AMThe point being we aren't democrats and therefore don't have a democratic constitution. The Constitution is the general will and vice versa. Were it otherwise we'd get rid of it.
Posted by: oj at April 18, 2007 10:52 AM