Hamas wins big in Palestinian elections.
Confidential message from me to Fatah: when you let yourself become the tool of a corrupt, nepotistic wanker just because this wanker happens to be a charismatic figurehead you can expect this sort of backlash after the wanker dies.
Confidential message from me to Israel: put together a government soon, because you’re going to need one.
If Mahmoud Abbas ever had a chance to prove his chops as a reasonable mediator between Palestine and Israel now would be the time. The last thing we need is for the next few years to be more interesting than they already are.
***Update***
Hamas won an outright majority. Maybe the difference between Hamas and Fatah is tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think that it’s their plan to show that a ‘peace process’ can run in reverse.
my cat
A corrupt, nespotistic wanker…charismatic figurehead…they have one of those too?
srv
Ariel’s legacy is complete. By trying to drive the PLO out in the 80’s, he helped create the vacuum for state-sponsored fronts like Hamas and Hezbollah to fill. Ignore solving the real issues, pound on a relatively weak enemy, and someday you might wake up to something worse.
DougJ
There’s a lesson for the Republican party there.
demimondian
Oy, veh’s mir.
Let’s not overstate how much Hamas won here: Fatah holds a majority, however thin. Given how venal Fatah has been, that seems like a pretty strong repudiation of the core of Hamas.
demi “pollyanna” mondian
Zifnab
But what’s their policy on Social Security reform?
stickler
Well, curiously enough, Hamas has actually done quite a bit in the field of “social security”, if that includes hospitals, health care, and doctors. They didn’t just get votes because they want to destroy Israel. And Fatah is fabulously corrupt by comparison. (Give Hamas time and money, though, and they’d probably be able to give Fatah a run for its money in the corruption department.)
The right question to ask, though, is: “Why is this any of our business? Why are America’s interests in any way dependent on the outcome of an election in Palestine?”
Because the answers tell you an awful lot about the current state of the Pax Americana.
ppGaz
“Light ’em up.”
A BJ poster, who shall remain unnamed.
—//
Okay, that’s one perspective. Another is …. when you have two large demographics each thinking and saying that God wants them to have the same land that the other demographic thinks and says that God wants them to have …. what do you expect is going to happen?
DougJ
You certainly can’t divide it. It’s God’s land after all. We all saw what happened to Ariel Sharon when he tried.
Pablo
Democrats, take note.
Gray
“Let’s not overstate how much Hamas won here: Fatah holds a majority, however thin.”
This is sooo some hours ago. Now Haaretz is reporting Hamas holds the majority. They won big on Gaza and several Westbank cities.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/674336.html
PA cabinet is resigning, Kurei too.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/675252.html
EU will work with any peaceful admistration(??? Hamas? Peaceful?), US demands recognition of Israel first (Hamas? Recognition? Maybe in 10 years…)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/674865.html
Well, seems like the shit hit the fan. I guess that palesinian protest voters wanted to give Fatah a warning sign that it really has to fight corruption and several other problems. But too many voters had this idea (like germans 33), now they will have a Hamas administration, and this is the road to islamisation. This can get scary.
Israels politics are to blame, too. They were bear responsibility, too, that the PA never became a uniting force for the palestinians. It would have been possible to give the PA some minor successes in negotiations, especially in the checkpoint handling. But Sharon and his cronies never really accepted Kurei as a partner for negotiations. Now they will reap what they sowed. Difficult times ahead…
Gray
“You certainly can’t divide it. It’s God’s land after all.”
Ha! GougJ, don’t forget, only jews and some hardcore christians see it this way. This claim doesn’t mean s*** for Muslims. And remember, since some madman had some weird dreams in the 19th century many US citizen believe that theirs is “God’s own country”. Which vision is true? Fact is, you can’t create realistic politics based on such religious fanatism.
Gray
Hamas victory, cabinet resignation is on CNN now, too:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/26/palestinian.election/index.html
DecidedFenceSitter
Damn you Gray; I was going to pop the at least “Fatah holds a majority, however thin” bubble. (Not picking on you Demi, I just know there were a lot of those comments out there).
It is definately going to be interesting. And why is this important? Because an American ally may or may not become the enemy of another state. And while Hamas could and used to have been a terrorist organization, it is now the State; and States can declare war on each other.
Which could get ugly/ier.
Slide
Democracy. It’s what Bush is all for in the Middle East. What is that old saying about getting what you wish for? Imagine if Bush was sucessful and we had true Democracy in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc. Would that really be better for US interests?
And if Bush refuses to work with the duly elected goverment of the Palestinians what message does that send to other Arab states? Oh, we’re all for democracy as long as WE like the results?
moflicky
I predict a happy face will be implanted on Hamas by many in the media and bush will be criticized for withholding earmarked palestinian funds from a terrorist organization.
I further predict Hamas will call a hudna or truce and “denounce violence”, causing all of europe and the leftys here to demand the spigot be turned back on, saying this proves Hamas is turning more “moderate” and can be negotiated with.
Expect another full blown intifada within months of that.
Slide
Democracy on the March
Yep, democracy. Freedom on the march.
moflicky
I’m really not understanding what the big difference between fatah and hamas is. despite their ‘official’ pronouncements, fatah never was serious about curbing suicide bombing and armed resistance. They even had their own wing of terrorists – the martyrs brigade.
most of the reports I’ve heard is that the vote for hamas was in protest to the corruption of fatah.
when all you have to choose from are giant douches and shit sandwiches, sometimes the shit sandwich gets elected.
I suppose you think the pals would be better off with a kind and benevolent dictator in charge?
Gray
Slide, good points, 100% ack. moflicky, good points, too, it may happen this way. But what exactly are you complaining about? It’s been in GWB’s might to press Sharon to make some minor concessions to Fatah so that they could show the voters that they were delivering something. Fatah couldn’t claim the Gaza withdrawal as their victory, for the palestinians it looked as though Hamas with their Kazam rockets accomplished that. There were only two realistic choices for the palestinian voters, it was either corrupt, incompetent Fatah or terrorist and fundamental islamic, yet socially active, Hamas. And I suspect that the PA made the disastrous error of rigging the polls in Fatah’s favor. If the polls would have shown a Hamas lead, I guess many protest voters would have thought twice.
The cards are on the table now and the US has to deal with the schizophrenic situation that it officially promotes democracy while at the same time is against any negotiations with Hamas. I’m curious how this deadlock will end – they seem to be backpedallling a bit now in claiming that Hmas has to recognize Israel first. Dang, maybe hell will freeze over. Maybe Hamas will become the Sinn Fein of palestine, but this is a very shaky maybe.
Again, GWB and Sharon didn’t do anything to prevent this. moflicky, what do you think id the right way to handle the “situation” (pun intended) right now???
Gray
moflicky, true, it’s been a bit like a vote between scylla and charybdis for palestinian voters. But I still think the more secular Fatah would have been the better choice. At least they have some politicians who try to move towards a moderate policy. Hamas used moderate slogans during the campaign, too, but that may be the same kind of election-only spin that Dubya used. Unite, not devide, ha! Really, Fatah with it’s countless divisions and militant groiups still would have been a difficult partner for any peace process, but probably better suited than Hamas.
moflicky
Gray,
I’m just a neo-con troll. how the hell should I know?
Seriously though, just a few initial thoughts:
#1 – This is a perfect time for a full accounting of the PA. No former Fatah official should be allowed to leave the country until his bank accounts can be audited, starting with Abu Mazen. We should fund this effort. The biggest lesson we could learn from the Arafat days is that funding the PA is like burning money.
#2 – no new money to Hamas unless and until they officially recognize the right if israel to exist – even if it’s only lying and posturing.
#3 – #1 should uncover enough money to keep them going long enough to discover which way they’re leaning, and what sort of people emerge from their ranks to lead.
#4 – open up quiet, under the radar channels to feel them out.
#5 – hold on to your balls tightly. it’s going to be a rough ride.
moflicky
Gray, I’m not sure I agree. Which is worse? someone who publicly shakes your hand and takes your money, while inserting the dagger, or someone who shows you the dagger?
I think maybe your idea of the meaning of the word moderate is very different than mine.
Paddy O'Shea
Good to see that Generalissimo Bush’s faith in the special magic of elections is paying off so well for us. First Iraq elects a Parliament that can’t wait to get in the sack with Tehran, and now Hamas?
The Delusional Duce has in a relatively brief moment in time sent decades of sound American Middle East policy up in smoke.
If George W. Bush says something good is about to happen, run for your life.
Gray
moflicky, I believe that at least some Fatah politicians are really desillusioned about accomplishing anything by terrorist actions. Of course, only among palestinians this will count as a moderate couse. And at the same time it’s true that they don’t have the power to control their miltant party members. Yet, imho they are the only ones who are really working on the peace process and who managed to get some support on this way. But I would love to be proven wrong, in the meaning that Hamas evolves as a serious political force proposing realistic plicies.
I’m curious how the new administration will turn out. I’m sure it will very soon become as corrupt as Fatah, but will it be able to make concessions for peace? They built a dedicated party base by decades of terrorist actions and hateful campaigning. Even if they want to move towards a kind of understanding with Israel now, will their base allow it? I have serious doubts.
Gray
Wapo has woken up and has a good story on the outcome of the election, along with some interesting quotes from palestinians. Check it out:
link
Stormy70
But I thought the left has been screaming for a Palestinian state. Well, now Hamas will have to run one. They are already fighting a low level civil war, and maybe, once all the terrorists kill each other off, any actual moderates left will pick up the pieces. Israel should be prepared to go to war if the state next door attacks them, and they should aprise Hamas of the consequences. You broke it, palestinians, you bought it. My sympathy for their plight blew up in the last intifada. When you start blowing up children for your political cause, then you have lost me.
Gray
moflicky, if you’re really a neocon troll, you might be interested in what right-wing Jerusalem Post (of Richard Perle infame) writes. You may recognize the author, too. His surprisingly thoughtful column doesn’t share your indiference towards Hamas, though:
link
Gray
“When you start blowing up children for your political cause, then you have lost me.”
So you’re not with Israel either, Stormy, since they invented the WoT by shooting rockets at alleged terrorists, often killing children nearby (a method the US is copying now)?
Just asking…
Stormy70
Collateral damage is different from deliberately targeting women and children. I blame terrorists for using them as their human shield. The tactic pays off for the terrorists, since the left does have a history of ignoring a few innocents dying if it is in support of a cause the left believes in. See Communism. Got a break a few eggs, apparently. Only the left coddles their terrorists long after their sell-by date.
Houstonboy
Gray
Yes, you are right. Those damn Jews who refuse to live in a 2-state solution. Those damn Jews who are the cause of the rise of Hamas.
Damn the Jews. Oil will now spike to $100/barrel.
I can smell a Jew hater from all the way down here.
Gray
“Those damn Palestinians who refuse to live in a 2-state solution. Those damn Palestinians who are the cause of the rise of Hamas.
Damn the Palestinians. Oil will now spike to $100/barrel.
I can smell a Palestinians hater from all the way down here.”
Strange that your sentences make some (not much) sense after exchanging the one group for the other, boy? And you may play the holocaust card as often as you want, this doesn’t hit me. Being against right wing likudists and fundamentalist settlers doesn’t make me a jew hater. If you’re for a one state solution, pls tell us hows it gonna work. Don’t forget, palestinians would have the majority in a unite democracy. Do you want to expel them to Jordan? Well, afaik israeli politicians signed a treaty with Jordan that excludes this “possiblity”. So what? Just dreaming?
TallDave
This was a referendum on Pali corruption. The choice was between incompetent, corrupt terrorists and somewhat more honest terrorists.
The Palestinians spend their lives steeped in hate propaganda, from cradle to grave. Any who speak out against the illogic of requiring Israel’s destruction risk being murdered as “collaborators.” The Arab proxy war against Israel has never ended, and it won’t as long the current regimes remain in Iran and Syria.
I feel so sorry for the Pals. They’ve never known true freedom, and probably never will in my lifetime. Most will never even know what freedom is.
This is an illiberal democracy, but one can hold out the hope the democratic process will push Hamas toward some kind of sanity.
Stormy70
Didn’t Jordon butcher their last batch of Palestinians, or do they get a pass if there are jews around to blame it on?
Gray
Stormy, why don’t you look for infos instead of posting your prejudices?
“Refugees and internally displaced persons:
refugees (country of origin): 1,740,170 (Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA))
IDPs: 800,000 (1967 Arab-Israeli War) (2004)”
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/jo.html
TallDave
Not just Jordan. The Palis are treated as subhumans by every Arab state.
Gray
“U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday and voiced continued support for him after his Fatah party lost to Hamas in an election, a presidential aide said.”
link
To little, to late…
RonB
You’re insane. That’s all I can say after that bucket of crap you just posted. I’d love to think you aren’t for real, but you may well be.
The only thing I can find resembling reality in your post is
Steve
I thought democratic elections were supposed to be the road to progress in the Middle East. Perhaps, not so much.
What is most depressing is that Ariel Sharon had the immense courage to go against his own party and do what he believed had to be done for the peace process, and it seems like there’s absolutely no inclination on the other side to reciprocate. Someday the Palestinians are going to need to come up with a real leader.
TallDave
Funny how no one thought there needed to be a state of “Palestine” until the Jews had a state there. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.
So the Arab states tell the Palis “Hey, go ahead and leave Israel. We’ll drive the Jews into the sea and then you can have their land.” And suddenly all the Palis voluntarily living in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc., became “refugees.”
Gray
TD, pls check some history books, especially about the time of the british mandate over plaestine.
RonB
There’s a heap big problem with the two state solution…how will the Palestinian Arabs deal with the idea that there will never be a contiguous territory for them? Acceptance of this fact is a huge key to the deal. Who in Pallie politics will accept this…who indeed will survive broaching it…
TallDave
I thought democratic elections were supposed to be the road to progress in the Middle East. Perhaps, not so much.
Elections are a start. I don’t think anyone promised they would instantly transform the Mideast into the Midwest.
TallDave
Gray,
Please ask the Jordanians why they didn’t allow the Palis their own state.
Gray
I don’t have to, TD, I read about that a few weeks ago in a history book :P
TallDave
And the reason was…?
The Other Steve
Democracy is flowing through the land!
Isn’t it great!?
TallDave
OK, since apparently your history book doesn’t have the answer, I’ll tell you the reason: they don’t give a rat’s ass about the Palestinians or their state. They only started asking for a state after the Jewish immigration in the 1930s made it clear there was going to be a Jewish state. It’s a made-up issue to stoke pan-Arabist sentiments among their own population, to distract them from the fact they have no rights and generally live dirt-poor lives.
Gray
TD, I’m concerned about the situation in the middle east. The rise of fanatic islamism poses unpredictable dangers for the western world. Cause I want to know about the historical reasons and the mentality of the arabs, I read books about Israel (especially Jerusalem), Palestine, Iraq, Iran etc. whenever I stumble upon a good one. Don’t you, too?
Steve
Right, well, do let me know when we turn the corner.
Gray
“And the reason was…?”
Oops, misunderstood your question, TD. As I said, there are countless books about the topic. I don’t think you can summarize the jordanian position towards the palestinians in 3 sentences.
Gray
“They only started asking for a state after the Jewish immigration in the 1930s made it clear there was going to be a Jewish state.”
Hmm, sorry, but this is utter nonsense imho. I suggest you start with books about Lawrence of Arabia.
Dave Ruddell
Well, can you try? I’m curious to actually hear someone give an answer. After all, from 1948-67, there could have been a Palestinian state in the West Bank, except Jordan didn’t allow one. Why is that? TallDave posits racism (or something) against the Palestinians by the Jordanians. You got anything better?
TallDave
Steve,
Right, well, do let me know when we turn the corner.
Well, Lebanon is free from Syrian occupation, SA and Egypt are slowly granting political freedoms, Iraq has a free press, civil rghts groups, elections… it’s a start. According to Freedom House, 2005 was the best year for freedom in decades.
Gray,
I don’t think you can summarize the jordanian position towards the palestinians in 3 sentences.
Sure you can:
No Palestinian state, unless it means killing all the Jews. And then, maybe. But probably not.
demimondian
Racism is certainly part of it. Another part of it was that Jordan thought that Israel might actually go away, and was holding out for dominating all of the former British mandate. Yet another part of it is that everybody — including Israel — benefits from the Palestinians as a rootless, economically dependent labor force.
So, three reasons: bigotry, diplomacy, and self-interest. Usually, that’s enough to keep almost anything from happening.
TallDave
TallDave posits racism
I wouldn’t say racism, unless it’s racism against Jews. They just don’t particularly care; the Palis are just a pawn in their little game of Arab nationalism. These aren’t consensual democracies we’re talking about here, but depostic dictatorships whose main concern is staying in power despite the decades of evidence that they don’t deserve to rule. The best way to do that is appeal to nationalism and scapegoat someone.
It’s not a mistake that Mein Kampf is still popular reading among these people.
ppGaz
Whoda thunk the TD-demi coalition here would … be apparently so right?
Has the world turned upside down?
Next: Darrell and Paddy admit they are the same person.
But all seriousness aside, TD and demi, with the exception of the absurd “freedom is on the march” gratuitous marketing nonsense, this conversation about the ME is quite interesting and informative thanks to you guys.
Matthew J. Stinson
TD is right on this.
Denying Palestinians a right to be citizens when they could’ve been absorbed into Arab countries after the war has always been a tool used by the Arabs to foment radicalism. “We’d like you to be citizens, of course, but in your own country, not ours.” Mass murder has been the response when Palestinians push too strongly for political rights within an Arab state like Syria or Jordan. What’s more, even in countries that aren’t bordering Israel directly and thus did not take in a mass of refugees, Palestinians are treated as a disposable population. Witness Kuwait’s expulsion of all Palestinians after Desert Storm. Did Palestinian workers deserve to be treated like garbage because Palestinian radicals elsewhere supported Saddam? The Arab sense of injustice is only pricked when an Israeli harms a Palestinian, and never registers when Palestinians are victimized by other Arabs.
Tim F.
Gray,
I’ve edited a few of your links down to hyperlinked text because long links bork the margins.
ppGaz
Okay, since we are on a roll here … can someone shed some light on how and why we (the US) ended up with what appears to be such a lopsided approach to the Middle East; that is, pro-Israel? And how and why we seem to act as if that is a good position going forward?
retsesivi
Regarding Tim’s original post:
1. It’s very convenient pinning all of this on Arafat, but the issues run much deeper. The main reason for the rise of Hammas, is the inability of the PA to improve the life of the Palestinians. In this, Israel had a major role. While Fatah is definitely corrupt (not, of course, by Halliburton standards, but corrupt none the less) I believe the biggest issue here is that the Fatah are seen as “sell outs” that tried to negotiate with Israel but weren’t able to deliver on their promises. When your leaders are completely powerless to help you it’s tempting to turn to the more “pure” opposition – the ones that kept fighting and never negotiated with the enemy (and make no mistake about it. The Palestinians consider Israel as their enemy). Much like the Israelis did four years ago, they decided that the negotiations path does not work and it’s time to try the hardliners.
2. Israel has a government, and it’s fully functional. All of this is an internal Palestinian issue and none of it is going to affect Israel in the near future, especially since Israel was not negotiating with the Palestinians anyway, and the entire Israeli “peace plan” is locked somewhere in the wounded brain of a man in a coma.
3. Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) couldn’t even be a mediator between himself and Israel. He was constantly shunned by Israel, perceived as weak, and Sharon even referred to him as “a chick who hasn’t grown his feathers”. Israel does not now, and did not in the recent past, have any interest in negotiating with the Palestinians, be it Hammas, Fatah or the Gaza branch of Amnesty International.
I think this latest development is worrisome, but it’s not as alarming as some people see it. The Palestinian society never gets the credit it deserves as the most democratic society in the Arab world. They made their protest vote and voted to stop the pretense of negotiations between equal parties the Fatah maintained. It’s not well known that the Palestinians also consistently supported non-violent resistance and a two state solution (while, acknowledged, at the same time supported suicide bombings. Contradictory? yes. Genuine? I believe both sentiments are). They just didn’t see the Fatah bringing them any closer to that goal. It’s time to put some stock in that “Democracy” mantra the administration keeps spouting, and see where the Palestinians are going. I, personally, believe in the vitality and common sense of the Palestinian society and think that eventually, they’ll head in the direction of a viable two-state solution. However, they’re not the only ones that can bring that about — they’re not even the main actors in this Saga.
Steve
Hello, we’re talking about the Palestinians here.
The point is that free elections can lead to the election of warmongers and terrorists, just as they can lead to the election of more reasonable leaders. I notice you didn’t mention Iran on your list of 2005 election developments, for some strange reason.
“Spreading democracy” in the Middle East may do wonders for the personal sovereignty and empowerment of the man on the street, but if it leads to the election of terrorists and people who hate America and want to push Israel into the sea, can we truly say that “spreading democracy” has advanced our national interests?
Gray
“Denying Palestinians a right to be citizens when they could’ve been absorbed into Arab countries after the war has always been a tool used by the Arabs to foment radicalism.”
Sure, that’s one aspect of it. But who created the problem of palestinian refugees in the first place? The British, the Germans, and all nations who voted for the partition of palestine. Just look at the map that was drawn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
Isn’t this really a bad joke???
Gray
To come back to the topic: The only encouraging sign is that the palestinians really seem to have embraced democracy. It has been a surprisingly quiet campaign, the elections were reasonablky fair and the transition of authority seems to be running relatively smooth, at least compared to other examples in the middle east. It looks as though the palestians really believed Dubya’s rooting for democracy…
TallDave
Steve,
Hello, we’re talking about the Palestinians here.
Hello, the original statement you took exception to was:
Elections are a start. I don’t think anyone promised they would instantly transform the Mideast into the Midwest.
The point is that free elections can lead to the election of warmongers and terrorists,
Sure, but warmongers and terrorists can seize power by force too, whereas it’s quite unlikely a nondemocratic gov’t will govern well or protect people’s rights. So I’m not sure that’s an argument against democracy, unless someone is claiming democracy is infallible. As I think Churchill said: “Democracy is the worst possible form of gov’t, except for all the others.”
I notice you didn’t mention Iran on your list of 2005 election developments, for some strange reason.
Iran’s elections so rigged they can’t be called democratic. They aren’t even as free as Palestine’s, and by some reports were widely boycotted.
Zifnab
America supports Isreal because Isreal supports America. It’s the same reason we support Turkey and Jordan. We have military access to Isreal, we fought the Cold War side-by-side with them, and Isreal is the only country that we can be absolutely certain won’t go horribly Islamic Jihadist on us in the next ten years. I mean, there’s other stuff about the second coming of Christ and Revelations and the secret Jew Gold of King Solomon, but from a realistic perspective Isreal is the West’s last stronghold in the Middle East.
TallDave
But who created the problem of palestinian refugees in the first place?
The Arab states who told them “Just leave for a little bit, and when we kill all the Jews you can go back and claim the land.”
searp
I’d like to suggest a proxy for the effectiveness of our Middle East policies: energy prices. These are politically neutral but responsive to political problems.
I put a large chunk of my pension money into energy funds last summer. More at the end of December. They have gained 10-12% so far this month.
We have to pay for freedom, unless you are of the investing class.
ppGaz
Fully expecting to be set upon by those who know this subject better than I do …..
Doesn’t that all basically translate into “oil?”
By that I mean, without oil, why would we want to get in between these people?
Darrell
How in the world do you go from
to “Doesn’t that all basically translate into “oil?” Oil wasn’t even mentioned or hinted at.. except by you
ppGaz
Try to follow, Darrell. It was a question.
How do you make sense of the subject blurb without oil?
Where else in the world does the US plant itself and stake its interests in such places and between hostile nations … without a profound imperative. What would be the imperative in the Middle East?
ppGaz
Another way to look at this, Darrell, since you are (by history) pathologically unable to see anything outside of your own tightly nailed box of ideas …
Are you going to argue that oil is not a major, if not the primary, motivator in American policy toward the Middle East? Seriously, are you going to take that position? Because if you are, I’d love to see you explain it.
searp
PPGaz:
Not only is oil a major (“the only”) motivation, but if you look at energy prices, well, I’d say we goofed.
My pension fund is loving it, but if we had a sane policy I could make sane investments.
ppGaz
Yes, well, the next few years may prove that to be the understatement of the still-new century.
WaMo has done some good work on the production peaks, and there is a good piece today in DKos on the subject, with special attention to some of the top ten oilfields and their production woes.
I expect that $75-and-up oil is going to get product coming out of North American (Canadian) tar sands, but not until we undergo some painful fits and starts and transition periods … with some wild energy price swings along the way. We won’t run out of oil any time soon, but we are still going to wish — desperately — that we’d had a responsible set of energy policies the last 25 years or so.
Four- and five-dollar gasoline are political forces that will cause regime change in this country. And … there’s no reason to think that these excursions are not inevitable.
Fasten seatbelts and keep your hands inside the ride ….
Dave Ruddell
I’m not sure how US support for Israel correlates to oil. I mean, there is all that crude the Israel exports everyday…
I would think that if the primary motivation was oil, the US would have abandoned Israel a long time ago, given the hostile attitude the oil producing nations in the region have towards Israel.
ppGaz
Well, you could be right … or not. My original question upstream remains unanswered if you are right … because there is no way to make sense of the reply I got unless you boil it down to “oil.” Darrell and his idiotic knee-jerk reactions notwithstanding, there is no way to explain our policy there … without the oil. Without the oil, the last 60 years read like a bad practical joke.
Steve
Our overall Middle East policy is, obviously, largely based upon the need to keep the world’s primary source of oil accessible. Despite Darrell’s knee-jerk reaction (“mustn’t admit to the liberals that we care about oil!”) I can’t see anything wrong with that. Without oil our economy grinds to a halt. We certainly have a national interest.
I think the story of Israel is a little different. My understanding is the nation wouldn’t even exist except that Truman decided we were going to put our weight behind it and we have been the chief defender of its right to exist ever since. To me, it’s a moral imperative. 3/4 of the world’s Jews live in the US or Israel so, uh, there’s not a lot of love out there if Israel weren’t around to serve as a homeland. Doesn’t mean Israel should be our overriding priority but I have absolutely no problem with it being an important part of our calculus.
Darrell
Exactly.. Which is why ppgaz’s “question” was so nonsensical.
ppGaz
.
No, it’s why the unexplained policy is nonsensical.
The blurb you cite can only be taken to mean that the answer I got earlier was exactly backward.
So what is the correct answer? Why does the US policy seems so lopsidedly in favor of Israel’s position in the region? Why is it apparently anti-Arab wrt to Israel?
What have we accomplished with 60 years of this policy?
Dave Ruddell
I assume that some of it was good ol’ Cold War proxy fighting, although the USSR was fairly supportive of Israel in the very early days. Obviously that motive no longer applies.
Darrell
Well, for the reasons stated above, namely because Israel has been the only stable democracy in a region of despots. Doesn’t that make sense to you?
Darrell
translation: “It’s all about the oil!” Of course, Steve doesn’t address the obvious question, which is if it really was all about the oil as he asserts, why then did we not abandon Israel long ago?
ppGaz
Nope. There is only one immediate imperative in the region. And all of that is under the control of the Arabs, the people who despise Israel.
Oil is the only motivator there. Otherwise who would give a flying fig about the region? What rationale would there be for taking sides there? Cold War? Why would our Cold War adversaries be interested in the region if no oil were there? “Cold War” is code for one thing: Oil.
Explain to me why we have a strongly pro-Israel policy in a region where our entire economic interest is in the countries that mostly consider Israel a threat to their interests.
What’s the catch?
Darrell
International terrorism is rooted in the middle east in case you haven’t notice. That’s one huge reason why why we’re involved. And taking Israel’s side does us no favor with the largest oil producers in that part of the world. I’ll have to look it up, but I believe something like 4 out of the 5 largest suppliers of oil to the US are not middle eastern countries
ppGaz
WTF are you talking about? I’m questioning a 60-year policy. When did “international terrorism” become a factor? When we were hiring Saddam Hussein to be a goon for us against Iran?
Duh … ergo my question. So what was our reason for our policy in 1975 again? You know, when we were having the Shah of Iran over to the East Room for state dinners with him and his entourage of babes?
C’mon Darrell. Seriously, tell me something I didn’t already read in the Reader’s Digest.
Pooh
Darrell, stop queering the thread please, (tangentially, ppG, stop antagonizing him, this is approaching a reasonable discussion of the Israel-Palestine issue. Which is rarer then a snowball in Mississippi on these here intrawebs)
ppG, support for Israel can be broken down, AFAICT into several distinct components, in no particular order
1. Moral imperative from not dealing with the Holocaust sooner.
2. Religion – I’m not sure Jews or Christians here would have been happy ceding Jerusalem to the Muslims.
3. Oil
4. Cold War logic, related to 3. Nice to have a proxy in the region. Especially when that proxy has demonstrated itself to be somewhat badass.
5. Inertia
Darrell
Fuck you “Pooh”.. I answered reasonably, but loons like you come in with pure personal attacks rather than respond rationally to my arguments
Darrell
Yeah, we can see how support of Isreal ties in well with #3 Oil, given Israel’s vast oil reserves. You really seem to ‘know’ what you’re talking about
ppGaz
Uh, he wasn’t here when I started the line of inquiry.
So far, I’ve gotten these ‘answers’:
a) Israel is the only stable democracy in the region
b) It’s not the oil
c) It’s the oil, but not really because … Israel doesn’t have any oil, so …. forget the oil …
d) Why do we have to talk about the oil?
Darrell is basically going with b and d, which are classic Darrell … but have NOTHING TO DO with my question.
Pooh
Israel lets us bring military force to bear, allowing us to influence the region, which is important because of Oil. A friend in the neighborhood so to speak. I don’t see this as an especially controversial point.
ppGaz
Following your number scheme:
1. Makes a sideways kind of sense, but if the present pile of crap in the Middle East is the result, then this imperative has outlived its usefulness a long time ago.
2. See #1, only more so. What the hell do we care about the religions over there? What did we care in 1975? 1955?
3. Yes, but it’s oxymoronic wrt to Israel. They have no oil and piss off the nations that do have it.
4. The Cold War is over. Are we stuck in 1983?
5. Now we are getting somewhere. See my #4, #2 and #1.
We cozied up to Saddam Hussein, the murdering thief, and to the Shah, another murdering thief, to protect our oil interests. We’re too proud now to have a policy over there that is openly and honestly about the oil?
Is our entire foreign policy just based on the most dishonest possible choices at any given moment?
Darrell
Actually, you’re assertion that we support Israel because of oil is ridiculous on it’s face. ppgaz seems to find your ‘insightful’ analysis controversial as well
Exactly. Israel has no oil, and support of Israel pisses of the nations that do have oil.
Pooh
ppG, I wasn’t taking a position on whether they were good (as in wise, policy-wise) reasons.
As far as #3, having a unquestionably friendly base for military operations should we need it in the oil producing states near those states, is arguably a good goal. We can disagree on the facts, but it’s not unreasonable on its face.
Steve
Since you’re making up statements for me, you can make up an answer to your own question too.
There is no way you can seriously dispute that our Middle East policy is largely based on the need for oil, and when I say “largely,” I mean largely. It’s a major issue. It’s certainly not the only thing we care about.
If you actually want to dispute my statement, then make the case. Don’t bother with rhetorical question, just make the case.
The real issue here is that you have a knee-jerk partisan response requiring you to deny that we care about oil, which is just silly. I’m not making a “blood for oil” argument so stop pretending that I am.
Darrell
Talk about making up statements, nice strawman claiming I “denied” that we care about oil. I see you still haven’t answered my question. typical of a dishonest hack like yourself
ppGaz
Yes, it’s an arguable thing. Although, I don’t see it as being enough to explain 60 years’ unquestioned loyalty to the interests of Israel in the region, wrt the hostility enjoyed by Israel from its neighbors. And mainly it’s the “unquestioned” part that bothers me. I have never seen the thing put to Americans in a way that opens the door for an American posture based on our own democracy. Any suggestion that fully supporting Israel is open to question gets attacked as “anti-Semitic” and that sort of bullshit.
So we are not allowed to challenge support for Israel, and we are not allowed to suggest that it’s all about the oil.
So how does a “free” country make choices under conditions like that?
No matter how I slice it, 60 years’ ME policy coupled with 60 years’ dysfunctional energy policy = One Big Clusterfuck.
searp
Didn’t used to be unquestioned support. We have been propagandized for a long time about Israel. A good friend, yes, an identity of interests, no.
I’d say the interesting question is how and why our policy evolved to the point that we are identified so closely with Israeli policy. I don’t have an answer, but it was clearly not always so.
Darrell
Prior to middle east terrorism, we needed and received their support during the cold war. They were the only stable democracy in that region. But even so, keep in mind that the US was not always alone in its support of Israel. It was France, not the US, who primarily armed Israel up until 1967 (or was it 1972?)
Agreed
Steve
Which question? The one where you asked why we would do such-and-such if it was all about oil? Well, kinda hard for me to answer since I don’t believe it’s all about oil, and I never said any such thing.
So, let’s be clear, do you believe oil is a major issue in formulating our Middle East policy, or don’t you?
ppGaz
You know I get very nervous when you agree with me …..
Darrell
I do not believe oil is the reason for our support of Israel.. which is the topic of this discussion
moflicky
Write it down RonB, bookmark it, whatever.
The happy face is already being drawn.
moflicky
Exactly. Sharon will be very hard to replace as well.
ppGaz
I think we agree again.
Goodbye, cruel world.
{ bang }
Darrell
Hah. And vice versa too. I’m a pretty staunch supporter of Israel, but I think it’s entirely fair to question the amount of support we give them courtesy of US taxpayers
Darrell
That is funny. But no fifth of Wild turkey before the ‘bang’?
moflicky
one of the Steves said:
oooh. Iranian democracy. an oxymoron where the mullah’s are concerned. the opposition party is barred from running or imprisoned before the election.
hell, even Sean Penn saw through that sham.
Steve
My original statement was
After much bitching, calling me a dishonest hack, etc, it now seems that Darrell actually agrees with my statement, but that he wasn’t addressing my point since he thinks the whole discussion is about Israel. Well, fine, but why call me names when you don’t even disagree with me?
I never claimed that our Israel policy has anything to do with oil. In fact, I said pretty clearly that I believe our support for Israel was originally grounded in a moral imperative, although obviously it’s a more complex issue than that. But sheesh, you know you love arguing on the Internet when you’ll invent entirely made-up statements (“Steve says our Israel policy is all about oil!”) just so you have someone to argue with.
moflicky
I have to agree with others who’ve said this is one of the best discussions seen around here in a long time.
Do we really have unconditional support for Israel? Are all of the camp david meetings and pushing for a two state solution simply photo ops for benefit of the rest of the world?
I agree that oil has no bearing on the relationship. a military proxy in the region maybe, but if that’s the case we haven’t used it much. most of our actions in the region have deliberately excluded israel’s help for obvious reasons. We have plenty of bases in the various emirates (Qatar, UAE, Oman) around the arabian peninsula. Up until around 10 years ago, we had a significant presence in Saudi Arabia, but not so much any more. Bottom line, we’ve never lacked a presence there.
Pooh’s reasons for the relationship are pretty good, but he did leave out the biggest, imo. they are a stable pro-US democracy. yes, we can do things for altruistic reasons as well as for oil.
also, don’t forget, the US has more jewish citizens than any other country in the world.
Gray, re. the David Horowitz story in the Jtimes:
I wouldn’t expect anything but inflamed and alarmist rhetoric out of Israel for some time now. They’re posturing, wringing hands, lowering expectations. But they’re not frightened. They will handle the situation whomever is in charge of the pals. If Hamas decides to be Hamas, Israel has a built in excuse to halt negotiations. This is not an untenable position for Israel. it is for Hamas.
For that reason, I don’t see this as the disaster that others may. Hamas is the party that will need to change.
ether
I wish I would have caught this thread earlier, but did anyone mention that both Fatah and Hamas are arms of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Pooh
Mo,
I agree, this is a good discussion.
Agreed, there’s a certain degree of chicken and egg there, but agreed. Though I would say describing Israeli internal politics as stable might be a bit of a stretch.
I think it was mentioned upthread, but the ‘unconditional’ part of out support was driven for a long period by clever use of the “Anti-Semitism” card on the part of the Israel lobby. Within this specific context, given the moral imperative (which, being of Jewish descent if not faith, I think I get), that card is especially strong.
I really don’t know enough about the history to say what we should have done differently, and when, except for saying that not condemning the Gaza and West Bank ‘settlements’ in the strongest terms (and, if neccesary, acting upon that condemnation in a meaningful way) was an error both geo-politically and morally.
The Other Steve
Honestly, I think the biggest mistake the world has made with regards to Israel is running in and yelling “STOP!” everytime they got into a war with their neighbors.
It’s given the Arabs false hope, and they do not realize that they have lost and just need to get over it and move on with their lives.
That’s all I have to say about that.
The Other Steve
Agreed. Frankly I do not see this as a surprising thing, or necessarily a bad thing.
Hamas has been in control of what happens in the Palestinian Territory for years. Fatah and Arafat were nothing but paper tigers and had no control over Hamas. Now there is a unified voice. Israel can talk to political Hamas, and political Hamas is responsible for what military Hamas does. In a sense this makes it simpler.
Further, I think Hamas may be in a position to control what other groups do within the territory. If someone is out of line and tries to go rogue, they will crush them. Which is something Fatah was incapable of doing.
It all depends on how Hamas responds.
The main impact this may have is on Israeli politics. Netanyahu appears to be using this as an excuse to promote fear and get himself elected. We’ll see how that plays out. Sharon is partially responsible for the Intifada, as he was campaigning in 2000 he provoked the Palestinians in order to generate a climate of fear so he could win. Such actions are bad.
Pooh
Hilzoy has a great post up at ObWi. Gary Farber (who is massively pessimistic, generally) takes a slightly (ok, significantly) longer view to find a silver lining. And brings to mind a good quote to remember:
AlanDownunder
No opinion here about how Hamas will turn out as a government, as opposed to a resistance movement. But I have an opinion about how much Hamas was helped by US & Israeli policies – lots. Just like the Bush administration’s actions helped bring about electoral wins for less-welcome candidates in Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, Bolivia and, not least, Iran.
moflicky
Pooh,
agreed.
neither side of that conflict has the uncontested moral high ground. but then who does, in ANY conflict lasting more than a year or two? Israeli sins in that conflict didn’t start with the settlements – it’s only the latest “most egregious”.
We’ve taken sides, and I think our involvement is more of a catalyst for good rather than bad, even though we ‘favor’ the israelis. we have a lot of good reasons to favor them, few of them with imperialist, racist or religious overtones.
A lot of water has run under that particular bridge, and I’m not confidident that many on either side is interested in making things better for both. institutional memory can be a good thing, but it can also damn you to failure.
moflicky
a final thought
meet the new boss….. same as the old boss…….
eeeyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
apologies to pete townshend