Problem With Democracy: Chooses the Wrong Party

[bemildred]

Robert Fisk, The Independent

Oh no, not more democracy again! Didn’t we award this to those Algerians in 1990? And didn’t they reward us with that nice gift of an Islamist government — and then they so benevolently canceled the second round of elections? Thank goodness for that! True, the Afghans elected a round of representatives, albeit that they included some warlords and murderers. But then the Iraqis last year elected the Dawa party to power in Baghdad, which was responsible — let us not speak this in Washington — for most of the kidnappings of Westerners in Beirut in the 1980s, the car bombing of the (late) Emir and the US and French embassies in Kuwait.

And now, horror of horrors, the Palestinians have elected the wrong party to power. They were supposed to have given their support to the friendly, pro-Western, corrupt, absolutely pro-American Fatah, which had promised to “control” them, rather than to Hamas, which said they would represent them. And, bingo, they have chosen the wrong party again. Result: 76 out of 132 seats. That just about does it. God damn that democracy. What are we to do with people who don’t vote the way they should? Way back in the 1930s, the British would lock up the Egyptians who turned against the government of King Farouk. Thus they began to set the structure of anti-democratic governance that was to follow. The French imprisoned the Lebanese government which demanded the same. Then the French left Lebanon.

But we have always expected the Arab governments to do what they were told. So today, we are expecting the Syrians to behave, the Iranians to kowtow to our nuclear desires (though they have done nothing illegal), and the North Koreans to surrender their weapons (though they actually do have them, and therefore cannot be attacked).

Now let the burdens of power lie heavy on the shoulders of the party. Now let the responsibilities of people lie upon them. We British would never talk to the IRA, or to Eoka, or to the Mau Mau. But in due course, Gerry Adams, Archbishop Makarios and Jomo Kenyatta came to take tea with the queen. The Americans would never speak to their enemies in North Vietnam. But they did. In Paris.

ArabNews

[AX10]

1. Hamas has been DEMOCRATICALLY elected.

This is VERY, VERY, BAD. This means that violence was chosen over peace.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. Did I miss something?

I didn't realise *peace* was on offer. I thought Hamas was elected in reaction to the corruption in the PA...

Violet...

[Dixie Flatline]

3. The Palestinian people have spoken

and now they must live with the consequences of their actions.

Hamas' first order of business will be to impose sharia.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/675804.html

[Tom Joad]

4. Not as you might think or imply.

"Abu Tir clarified that alcohol would not be banned and that it would not be mandatory for women to cover their heads when outdoors."
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/675804.html

So no, it will not be like Iran. Most of the Palestinians would not stand for that, and Hamas knows it.

[Scurrilous]

5. This is the voice of the Palestinians

<snip>

"Hamas's stunning victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections opens up a new era in the history of the Middle East. Though Hamas was always expected to do well, few anticipated that it would emerge as the dominant force in Palestinian politics.

And no one predicted that the hegemony of the Fatah party would be so comprehensively overturned. Hamas itself hinted throughout the campaign that it would be willing to serve as a junior partner in a Fatah-led coalition.

But winning a solid majority of 76 parliamentary seats means that Hamas is now in a position to form a government on its own. There can be no doubt over the legitimacy of the Hamas victory. An impressive 78 percent of registered Palestinian voters turned out. Impartial election observers vouched for the integrity of the poll.

There was little violence and no allegations of fraud. The world has long demanded democracy from the Palestinians. Now they have it.
What lies behind the Hamas victory is clear. The party was able to capitalise on huge popular discontent with the corrupt Fatah government. Hamas was also successful because of the group's record of providing educational and health programmes to poor Palestinians."

more

[pelsar]

6. its not democracy...

democracy is far more than mere voting....it involves civil rights for gays, women etc, its means the rule of law....it requires its citizens to follow the law of the land, without violence......the palestinians may or may not have begun the journey to a democratic system, or hamas may take their mandate and cut it short.....

[Tom Joad]

7. So by that definition, the "only democracy in the Middle East"- ain't

No guaranteed right to divorce for women. (Either party can ask for a divorce, but both parties must consent, usually it is the women who are the weaker party)
http://www.iwn.org.il/iwn.asp?subject=rellgion.mdb&id=133&cName=Family%20and%20Religion&topic=Main%20Issues

Minimal land rights for Palestinians (Most land owned by Jewish Agency, which will only give land to Jewish people, or Pat Robertson). Palestinian homes subject to demolition. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x113126
Palestinian crops are destroyed.

Indiscriminate violence used against Palestinian civilians.

Families split by discriminatory policies.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE150632004

Meanwhile,Israel has long had parties in govt that outright call for the "transfer" of the "Arab population".
The policies of the main parties, Labor and Likud, have resulted in continued loss of homes and land to Jewish-only settlements for decades. Institutionalized violence and ethnic cleansing. It ain't pretty. Maybe we can't call Israel a democracy either.

[pelsar]

8. its a percentage game....

my list of israels problems, and lack of true democracy is probably far longer than yours...but then the list that involves israels liberal society is far better than most of the countries in the world as well.

it aint pretty, but compared to the rest of the world, its shining, especially when one considers that is been at war since its birth.

________________

just on the side, i wonder what your going to do if hamas decides to go with shari law, put potatoes sacks on its women, hang homosexuals, stone women for being raped, etc.....still going to support the palestenian society?....quite the dilemma, support a facisct theocratic govt or not....

[Tom Joad]

9. Potato sacks? interesting that you bring that up!

I am supporting human rights, and people, not Political parties. In contrast, some on this board are supporting rightwing agendas, not people. Some can't even bring themselves to come out against the demolition of a whole neighborhood in Jerusalem. so be it.

Put potato sacks on women? That is an israeli military tactic, that you may be familiar with, done with both men and women. Usually these sacks have blood or vomit from the previous victim. The more rancid the better.

The link below says the practice has been illegalized. Law, and what is practiced, are two different things. There is no doubt it was practiced. Just as there no doubt it is practiced by US interrogators in Iraq. A lesson learned from the "US ally".

http://www.btselem.org/english/Torture/Torture_by_GSS.asp

On 6 September 1999, a nine-judge panel of the Supreme Court unanimously outlawed methods of physical force that were routinely used in interrogations by the General Security Service (GSS). This decision voided the interrogation guidelines previously in effect, which included the use of interrogation methods that constituted torture, including violent shaking, holding and tying the interrogee in painful positions, sleep deprivation, covering the interrogee's head with a sack, and playing of loud music.

The decision was made in response to seven petitions filed by human rights organizations on behalf of Palestinian interrogees. The organizations are the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual, and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel

The High Court decision ended legal torture of Palestinians in interrogation. Israel was the only country in the world where torture was legally sanctioned; the guidelines allowing torture were drafted by a governmental commission headed by a former Supreme Court Justice and were approved by a governmental committee. A Parliamentary committee and the State Comptroller were appointed to monitor implementation of these guidelines, and the courts were called upon to approve legal maneuvers to sanction them.

In their precedent-setting decision, the Justices stated that, "If the state wishes to enable GSS investigators to utilize physical means in interrogations, it must seek the enactment of legislation for this purpose." However, the Justices added that such a law, which would necessarily harm the liberty of interrogees, must be "befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required," as stated in Israel's Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom.

[pelsar]

10. which means?

so if hamas goes to shari law (which they havent decided yet at least publically), does that mean you will be found on this forum denouncing the palestenains govt? as much as you denounce the israeli govt (in fact have you ever denounced the palestinians for their lack of civil rights within their organizations...or is it israels fault they have kangaroo trials, execute "collaborators", drag bodies in the streets...)


and yes i am quite familiar with the sac on the head of prisoners in fact.

as far as the israel supreme courts decision...whats the problem? thats what happens in democracies, a balance between the miiltary and the civilian liberties, which is why btselem exists as do other groups for civil liberties in israel. (we call it democracy)