June 21, 2007
FAILING THE MEANS TEST:
Palestinian fantasy vs. reality (Augustus Richard Norton, June 21, 2007, Boston Globe)
IN JANUARY 2006, Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections. President George W. Bush had insisted on holding elections on schedule, against the advice of key regional allies. While US officials described the polling as "fair and secure," the Bush administration demonstrated that it loves democracy only so long as our friends win.In this case, it was hardly "our friends" who won, but Hamas. With the United States in the lead and plenty of arm twisting, the European Union, the UN secretary general, and Russia insisted that Hamas recognize Israel, embrace Oslo, and renounce violence.
The United States was intent to see the Hamas government fail. Not only did it work assiduously to block international funding, but it poured arms and money into militias controlled by the discredited nationalist forces that had lost the election. To add to the pressure, Israel refused to transfer tax revenues paid by Palestinians to the new government.
A prime beneficiary of US largesse has been Muhammad Dahlan and his Preventive Security Force, which was decisively defeated last week by Hamas. Dahlan, who is about as popular in Gaza as Ahmed Chelabi is in Iraq, is Washington's man.
The path from 2006 might have led in a different, more constructive direction if the Bush administration were not so captured by an illusory black and white approach to Hamas and similar Islamist groups.
As important as it is for democratizers not to fall into the trap of thinking democracy is an end in itself, they have to recognize it is the best means to the end. Failure to use it on Islamic parties is short-sighted. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 21, 2007 12:00 AM
President George W. Bush had insisted on holding elections on schedule, against the advice of key regional allies. While US officials described the polling as "fair and secure," the Bush administration demonstrated that it loves democracy only so long as our friends win.
By insisting on holding the elections on schedule, despite knowing (and being told) that the people who were not "our friends" would win? What a stupid, stupid article. Are we supposed to treat every government in the world the same regardless of their actions?
Posted by: John Thacker at June 21, 2007 8:10 AMGus, was Kerrry's Hezbollah specialist (due to his
previous tour with the UN group in Lebanona)He argues if the elections had been held a year later
the situation would have turned out better.
What is the end in itself?
Posted by: Benny One Six at June 21, 2007 3:17 PMIt's merely the political end, which is somewhat trivial, but governments are instituted to secure the Rights with which the Creator endowed men.
Posted by: oj at June 21, 2007 5:36 PMI thought classical liberal democracy was history's end. What's it now? Islamic Liberal Democracy?
Posted by: fred at June 21, 2007 7:55 PMThere's no difference
Posted by: oj at June 21, 2007 9:28 PM