I wrote a column for Tuesday’s CSM about the Hamas victory. (It’ll be up on their website tomorrow evening, and I’ll link to it then.)
In researching it I came across some good reporting from the SF Chronicle’s Matthew Kalman, from Ramallah, and the FT’s Harvey Morris, from Gaza.
I was also intrigued by Haaretz’s recent report that around half of Israelis said their government should negotiate with a Hamas-led administration. (Can’t find that link now.) This report by Ian Black in today’s NYT gives a snapshot of the multidimensionality of (Jewish) Israeli attitudes. Certainly, they look much more nuanced and more potentially hopeful than the hard line the Olmert government evidently feels it needs to uphold at present. (Though I also saw that Defense Minister Mofaz had described Hamas’s behavior since the election as “reasonable.”)
Israeli blogger Imshin has also had some interesting reactions to the Hamas victory: here and here. Including, in that latter post, this:
- As the hysteria continues, I can’t help thinking ‘What do we want from the Palestinians?’ They did what was right for them. I probably would have voted for the Hamas too, if I were in their shoes. The corrupt, thieving Fatah had it coming.
How long were people expected to tolerate such chaos, such anarchy?
I wish I were there– in both countries… but I’m intending to be, soon. (Gotta finish this work on the Africa book first. It really is a project I believe in deeply.) But the big bottom line for me right now– as so often in the past– is that the Israeli-Jewish public seems noticeably more realistic and nuanced in its reactions than their PM…. And a thousand times more realistic and nuanced than Israel’s ever-hysterical “amen corner” here in the west– and I so far include Bush and Blair in that category, and probably a lot of other EU leaders, as well.
The only way for the neocons to talk to the members of their “axis of evil” appears to be what they call “transformational democracy”. That is, if they will agree to deal with Hamas, it is for the benefit of undermining it. Needless to say, this is exactly what Hamas expects from them.
This is how it look like with Iran.
WaPo. Robert Kagan. It’s the Regime, Stupid
“And a thousand times more realistic and nuanced than Israel’s ever-hysterical “amen corner” here in the west– and I so far include Bush and Blair in that category, and probably a lot of other EU leaders, as well.”
Wow, I never knew that Helena would give Pat Buchanan a guest spot on her blog. Who knew?
I don’t think the Israelis or their supporters are hysterical. Just disappointed. And some are claiming that it’s really a good thing. It’s not a good thing. Hamas is very likely to lead the Palestinians into a war which will create many Palestinian deaths. And if there is no war, they will have to explain why the economy isn’t growing and how they are going to fulfill the expectations of getting more land from the Israelis.
If Hamas kisses up to the international donor community they are going to fracture their base.
And anything the Israelis or the Palestinians say between now and the March elections in Israel is just political talk. The reality comes after.
Certainly, they look much more nuanced and more potentially hopeful than the hard line the Olmert government evidently feels it needs to uphold at present.
Keep in mind that Olmert leads a caretaker government and that there’s an election coming up in less than two months. That reduces Olmert’s room to maneuver, especially since Netanyahu is playing the Hamas victory for all he’s worth. After the election (which, according to the latest polls, Olmert seems as likely to win as before), there will be more freedom for compromise and work-around.
Right. The election was what I was alluding to there when I wrote about EO feeling “he needs to uphold” a certain line.
Arabs and the rest of the world do however get a bit fed-up of being told they “have to understand” Israeli toughness in the run-ups to Israel’s frequent elections. It would be kinda nice to think that Israelis might reciprocate and “hold back” when the Lebanese, Palestinians, or others are having elections. But for some reason it doesn’t seem to be a reciprocal proposition?
This time around, let’s hope for calm, calm, calm… instead of bombing distant nuclear facilities (1981), launching a really nasty new escalation in Lebanon (1996) or anything else Israeli governments have felt “obliged” to do to prove their toughness during domestic election campaigns. And for the vigorous structuring of the incentives offered to EVERYONE for a speedy final settlement, from here on out. No more pandering to territorial maximalists on either side!
It would be kinda nice to think that Israelis might reciprocate and “hold back” when the Lebanese, Palestinians, or others are having elections.
I don’t recall any Israeli provocations during the run-up to Lebanon’s last election, and Israel mostly left things alone during the Palestinian campaign. I’m willing to be corrected if I’m wrong, but as far as I know, Israel hasn’t reacted precipitately to election-year rhetoric from its neighbors.
In any event, part of the problem with Israeli politics lately is that Israel has been in election-year mode ever since the Gaza withdrawal was announced. The March 28 election will finally clear the political air and usher in a stable government, which will have more freedom of action than any coalition since 2003 (and possibly since Rabin).
I’d argue that, given the current situation, Olmert is acting responsibly in maintaining the status quo and avoiding military escalation, and in hinting (through Mofaz) of a more reciprocal relationship after the election. He’s also continuing to act against the West Bank settler outposts which is itself a sign of good faith. If Olmert wanted to pander to territorial maximalists, he now has a golden opportunity to do so, and the fact that he isn’t taking that opportunity is a positive sign. Believe it or not, I’m starting to feel fairly good (albeit still apprehensive) about all this.
Actually, me too, for the reasons I articulated a little bit back here, last week. Which included this:
Actually, I’m a little bit hopeful about the way things may be going. Hamas is a steady, disciplined force that has a strong record on keeping its commitments. (Unlike Fateh.) Okay, so they’re not in “the peace camp” yet. But there have been some signs that could change. And the news from Ehud Olmert in Israel is also fairly encouraging. Olmert has declared himself in favor of negotiations to resolve the conflict, rather than pure, bullying unilateralism as favored by Sharon. He’s said some interesting things about Palestinian rights in Jerusalem. He’s continuing to crack down on the inflammatory extremists amongst the settlers…
Which is why we need calm, restraint, and vision from everyone in the “internatinal community” right now.
“It would be kinda nice to think that Israelis might reciprocate and ‘hold back’ when the Lebanese, Palestinians, or others are having elections.”
like when the suicide bombers held back in 1996 when public opinion polls had Peres ahead of Netanyahu?…and, again, in 2001 when they cost Barak reelection at the hands of Sharon?