If Hamas must renounce violence, so should Israel

[King Tech Quadafi]

"We are stumped by the failure of our democratic concepts to gain a foothold in the Arab world," wrote Michael Bell, a former Canadian ambassador to Israel, in the Globe and Mail last week.

I wonder which "democratic concepts" Bell had in mind — apparently not the concept that people are free to elect the government they choose.

This is the most basic democratic concept of all. And it's clearly gained a foothold among Palestinian Arabs, who last month exercised their democratic rights by rejecting a corrupt government that had failed to advance the peace process, and electing the militant Hamas party.

Obviously the Palestinians failed to understand the subtle nuances of Western "democratic concepts." Just because the West urges them to elect a government doesn't mean they're free to elect a government the West considers unacceptable.

The New York Times reported last week that the "United States and Israel are discussing ways to destabilize the Palestinian government so that newly elected Hamas officials will fail and elections will be called again."

If only the Palestinians would get it right the first time, it wouldn't be necessary for the West to intervene in their democratic process.

Ottawa also made clear last week that Canada would withdraw financial support — unless Hamas renounced violence, recognized Israel and accepted previous Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements.

At first glance, this seems reasonable. But why are these demands placed only on Palestinians? Shouldn't Israel also have to renounce violence? As the World Council of Churches recently argued: "If violence is incompatible with democracy and with peace, it is incompatible for both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities."

As for recognizing Israel, Hamas has implicitly indicated a willingness do this — if Israel ends its occupation. Hamas official Khaled Mishaal told a Russian journal last week that Hamas would halt its armed struggle if Israel withdrew from Palestinian land it has occupied since 1967.

The lopsided nature of Ottawa's demands is striking, particularly since Israel already exists as a country, with secure borders and the unwavering support of the most powerful nation on Earth. Meanwhile, Palestinians, after 40 years living under military occupation, are essentially powerless.

This context is so often missing from mainstream commentaries like Bell's.

Bell purports to be urging moderation on both sides, but his notion of moderation consists of demanding the Palestinians renounce their resistance to Israeli occupation, while making no demand that Israel end its occupation.

He doesn't even mention that Israel continues to build settlements on Palestinian land and to construct a massive wall incorporating large chunks of Palestinian territory inside Israel.

Aren't these aggressive actions part of the problem?

If Palestinians are going to be required to renounce violence — as they should be — shouldn't Israel also be required to renounce violence, and to stop building settlements and walls on Palestinian territory?

Rather than belittling others for allegedly failing to grasp our "democratic concepts," we could begin by showing we grasp these concepts ourselves.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator. lmcquaig@sympatico.ca.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1140216612609&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

[I TO DA GEEZY]

Democratically electing a party that stands against democracy, should be a good lesson in Political Science for those dominated by a nondemocratic (and maybe even Parochial) political culture. Look how great it worked out for Germany, when Hitler was democratically elected.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

Democratically electing a party that stands against democracy, should be a good lesson in Political Science for those dominated by a nondemocratic (and maybe even Parochial) political culture. Look how great it worked out for Germany, when Hitler was democratically elected.

When are you going to stop using the Hitler "boogieman" possibility, as an excuse for pre-emptive war across the whole globe?  It's your leaders that are the most like Hitler, it's too bad you don't understand that.  The Isreali government is acting like Hitler right now, as we speak, they are still involved in a systematic campaign to eradicate the Palestinians; and it has been this way for more than half a century.   

[#11]

when are the two of you going to consider changing your hardcore views? probably never right? u guys argue for the same shit every time so we already know the outcome of this topic.

[King Tech Quadafi]

^ snap out of this hegelian discourse man. This isnt a conflict of x vs y....and both x and y have hardcore positions that require modification to achieve peace

we have Y shitting on X, and all we ask is that Y stop shitting on X. This isnt hardcore, its common sense

[#11]

yes i know both x and y have hardcore positions yet both x &y havent changed their hardcore positions 'that require modification to acheive peace'. u would know as in some cases u are y or x or whatever and u continue to bash the israeli right?
all im tryin to say is that whenever this whole israel/palestine issue comes up we already know which 2-3 people are gonna start debating.

[nibs]

Democratically electing a party that stands against democracy, should be a good lesson in Political Science for those dominated by a nondemocratic (and maybe even Parochial) political culture. Look how great it worked out for Germany, when Hitler was democratically elected.

i'm glad you mentioned hitler and nazi germany.  but you overlooked the true parallels, which is why hitler was actually elected.

a) the german state and peoples had been oppressed by the huge war reparations levied against germany after wwi.  the german govt was ineffective and corrupt.  you see the same thing with the palestinians, israel continues to occupy palestinian lands that were illegally siezed after the 67 war.  the gaza strip, west bank and jerusalem are entirely palestinian lands and israel's continued occupation of those lands is criminal.  fateh and arafat were seen as corrupted, and as having been willing to sell out the palestinian people by surrendering lands which israel had illegally seized in the first place.

b) hitler's platform was a platform of reform, an end to governmental corruption and inefficacy, and german progress.  these were hitler's immediate goals, but ofcourse his agenda stretched far beyond this.  hamas platform has been one of reform, social progress and an end to corruption.  hamas is fully expected to act on those immediate goals, but in addition they are looking to build a strong a palestinian defense force and people question whether they will try to gradually adopt sharia'la law; or continue to support aggressions against israel as well.

these are the real parallels.  in both cases, it was the larger world community that created a situation where an "undesirable" element was able to take power in an oppressed state.  israel and the u.s. are the reason hamas was able to take power.

i don't believe that hamas is remotely comparable to hitler; i hesitate to condemn hamas at all. hamas definitely represents a new direction in palestinian leadership.  fateh was willing to sell out the palestinian peole by surrendering portions of palestinian territories criminally occupied by israel.  hamas will not even recognize israel as a state, let alone surrender any territory.  fateh was corrupt, and dependent on both u.s. and european aid to exist.  hamas is apparently going to turn towards iran, other muslim states and possibly russia and ignore western threats to cut off aid.  western nations created this situation.

[J @ M @ L]

we have Y shitting on X, and all we ask is that Y stop shitting on X. This isnt hardcore, its common sense

Lately we've also been seeing a lot of people shitting on IGeezy... Nibs is enjoying this activity at the moment.

[I TO DA GEEZY]

 the gaza strip, west bank and jerusalem are entirely palestinian lands and israel's continued occupation of those lands is criminal. 

Here's the thing. West Bank was captured from Jordan. Gaza was captured from Egypt. Neither of these states is formally considered to be a Palestinian State. Question: Why weren't these territories considered under occupation, when they belonged to 2 other, NON-PALESTINIAN, states?

In my previous post, I made the only Parallel that was relevant for the matter. According to surveys in the Autonomy, about 70% of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas, are in support of a peace process with Israel. Hence, these people voted for Hamas, while disregarding it's platform regarding a peace process with Israel, while, most likely, favoring Hamas's economic platform. More importantly, this is a "party" that supports suicide bombing, hence, stands for the death of Palestinians and not only Israelis. I understand it takes time for people dominated by a non-democratic political culture, to adjust to democracy. And I think this is going to be a good lesson. After all, Hitler, who openly stood against democracy even prior to his election, was elected DEMOCRATICALLY.

[Don Rizzle]

There you go twisting the truth again.....The west bank and gaza were only occupied by egypt and jordan AFTER the end of the british mandate, Gaza was occupied by eqypt but u don't mention the palestinian government which egypt created, which infact was was set up as palestinian state with jureselum as the capitol. Jordan occupied the westbank until 1967 just like eqypt did gaza, however the only area acutally annexed by israel was east jerusalem which no other country has recognised, palestinians still consider it there capitol and are the majority there, israel has no right to this area.

hamas have been not been attacking israel with the truce clearly on the table israel should take the opportunity to work with hamas and engage in peace talks, once there is equality for palestinians there will be no excuse for hamas not to recognise israel and to renounce violence, until then why should they give up their right to self defence? Israel would never even consider that one.... its another david and goliath story, except this time goliath is armed to the teeth sitting in his armored tank stones can't hurt him.

[sharjiel]

There you go twisting the truth again.....The west bank and gaza were only occupied by egypt and jordan AFTER the end of the british mandate, Gaza was occupied by eqypt but u don't mention the palestinian government which egypt created, which infact was was set up as palestinian state with jureselum as the capitol. Jordan occupied the westbank until 1967 just like eqypt did gaza, however the only area acutally annexed by israel was east jerusalem which no other country has recognised, palestinians still consider it there capitol and are the majority there, israel has no right to this area.

hamas have been not been attacking israel with the truce clearly on the table israel should take the opportunity to work with hamas and engage in peace talks, once there is equality for palestinians there will be no excuse for hamas not to recognise israel and to renounce violence, until then why should they give up their right to self defence? Israel would never even consider that one.... its another david and goliath story, except this time goliath is armed to the teeth sitting in his armored tank stones can't hurt him.

the media plays a fuked up role...wherever i go ppl r like israel n palestine is like a boxing match!!
how can it be a boxing match when one is euipped with tanks n heavy artillery (israael) and the other is throwing stones at best (palestine)!!

Its funny how ppl frm diff gegraphical locations have diff opinions over the sitiuation!

[Real American]

Why would Israel finance a government that is commited to its destruction? Does that make any sense?