"I was happily marching along in the wintry sunshine, holding high the Gush Shalom emblem of the flags of Israel and Palestine side by side. We were approaching the line of armed soldiers that was waiting for us, when I suddenly realized that I was surrounded by the green flags of Hamas.

Ordinary Israelis would have been flabbergasted. What, the murderous terrorists marching in line with Israeli peace activists? Israelis marching, talking and joking with the potential suicide bombers? Impossible!" - Uri Avnery

http://www.counterpunch.com/avnery01232006.html

I read somewhere that the US wants Hamas to disarm as one of the conditions to recognize them. Did they miss the point... Hamas is now the army of a democratic state.

This is something that will have most governments spending sleepless nights wondering how to respond. Unfortunately, many are using this to gloat over the predicament the US finds itself in. Reality is that a whole heap of countries, India included, are in the same boat.

I feel that no matter what, an honesdt electoral verdict must be respected. Like it or not people will have to deal with Hamas. Refusing to accept or deal with Hamas now, would in my opinion be a grave mistake. Just like the IRA, there has to be a political wing of the Hamas and now on it may be the one that calls the shots. It is worth remembering that Hamas has respected the cease fire fairly well inspite of a few exceptions - so there is hope. Besides having the responsibility of running an administration which improves the lot of the people of Palestine will help it to realise that government is not just about suicide attacks and waging a war on Israel. Should they fail in this, Hamas will face the same humiliation and defeat as its predecessor.

As to the question of whether 'does a militant group obtain legitimacy through elections and thus the right to sit at the world table (legitimate government at war), or does it forfeit this right because of its violent means (terrorist organization despite the will of the people)?'
I think this question should have been considered before the elections and it was for the people of Palestine to decide who should represent them in a free and fair election. I think it would be a grave misjudgement not to accept the reality of the situation now. After all, the Brits didn't refuse to talk with the IRA and the Sein Fenn and the result is there for us to learn from.

Kavita,
"The hate arafat and his men, and talked about how it was Hamas that was taking care if their day to day needs, including health care. the elections have proved that."

This is a familiar scene the world over. In Pakistan and POK, it was the militant organisations that were first off the block immediately after the earthquake. Uninhibitted by red tape and bureaucratic fumbling they were already providing relief and simultaneously taking pot shots at US helicopters air lifting relief. They were building up grass root support.

From my own experience, specially in Gujrat and Saurashtra, it was always the RSS cadres which were there immediately following any calamity in the area over many decades. Saurashtra had perennial drought and famine like conditions prevailing for years and it was always the RSS grass root workers who were there first providing and organising relief. The poor and needy don't care about idealogy, they want support and immediate help forthcoming. The re-election of Modi is actually proof of the enormous political goodwill built up by the Sangh Parivar over many many years in that state. The result was not a surprise to the people of Gujrat. The question we need to ask ourselves is why the 'good guys' don't realise this?

LOL lets make it three in a row.

Dave,

Coming back to the question about militant and terrorist organisations gaining legitimacy through elections. There is an interesting similarity that may emerge in India and Kashmir.

The Hurriyat (A conglomeration of two dozen odd separatist groups, a lot of them financed and supported by Pakistan) have always refused to take part in and in fact forcibly attempted to enforce boycotts of elections in Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian Government has always maintained that if the Hurriyat has the support of the population it claims and is to be believed in its claim that it is the true representative of the people of Kashmir, it should not shy away from contesting elections. The hurriyat is also known for its patronage of the so called 'boys' whom it controls and who have been involved in terrorist activity.

My point is, should the Hurriyat decide to contest elections and should they win, what would be the response? I'm sure the Government will talk, in fact it already is even though it is well aware of its militant connections.

Dear Dara,

The Indian govt. is already talking to the Govt. and if the Hurriyat contested and won elections, the Indian govt. will accept the verdict and give them their seat on the table. There will be no predicament.

The predicament only appears when you refuse to walk your talk. If you hold a democratic process as the final arbiter of throwing up a legitimate representative, you better respect the representative.

Otherwise, you can brand every state that disagrees with you a "rogue" state.

A huge part of the problem is that "civilized" people think that democracy is God's gift to mankind. I don't think I have read a single decent critique of democracy ever in recent times. I tried to google the passage from Socrates where he expresses his utter contempt for the system but was unable to find it. In truth it is a deeply flawed system and should not be treated like it is something sacred. Now we have a democratically elected hate group legitimately elected to power and it amazes me that people think that this should be honored just because it is "democratic". What a sham. This is the same type of story where you have the ACLU defending the KKK just out of some dogma about free speech. Typical soup that comes from normative thinking.

I'm glad for the Palestinians since they got what they wanted but that's a completely different story.

Divya,

You're absolutely right about Democracy being imperfect. Majority rule can be mob rule and it's one of the reasons that the U.S. system is not and never has been a democracy. Although imperfect, it has a series of checks of democracy (the Bill of Rights) that limits the ability of the people to vote away the rights of others. Of course, it still happens, but it is more difficult. Most democratic systems are not truly democratic. Most countries that we call democracies are actually representitive republics.

Since you mentioned the KKK, I have to say that the ACLU should protect their freedom of speech. Because if their freedom of speech is not protected than someone can arbitrarely come along and decide that YOUR speech is incorrect and that you should not be able to say what you think. You see my point? I am fearful of a government that sets up a speech code, because someone has to decide what is okay speech and what is not okay speech. If that's the case then the group who's in power can decide what gets to speak. Scary in my humble opinion.

PLUS, I would much rather have morons like the KKK spewing their garbage out loud so people like you and I and others can counter it with our thoughts and ideas. Moronic ideas grow in the dark and tend to wilt under the light of open scrutiny.

Peace,
Scott.

Scott - You make a valid point and I'm glad you brought it up. I know Canada tried restrictions against hate speech and shortly thereafter there were other issues that people wanted to extend speech restrictions on so this can go on and on to no end. My point is slightly different. There are enough racists out there - in the Senate, Congress, law, and the general public who probably genuinely side with the KKK. Why must the ACLU get involved in the matter? Let the KKK find their own lawyers among their own racist set to deal with their problems. The ACLU needs to balance rights of free speech with racial bigotry. One is not more important than the other. I certainly have lost all respect for that organization as I find them too dogmatic and totally lacking in common sense.

I agree with you there Divya. The ACLU in my opinion picks some odd battles. They seem to be very interested in some of amendments and not others.

Peace,
Scott.

Divya and Scott,

I agree with you both but I also would like to differ on a couple of points. Democracy may not be a perfect system, but what are the alternatives? Dictatorships? Monarchy? We have been there done that and they didn't work. Agreed that mob rule could be bad, but people have an option to throw out a regime they didn't like in a democracy. There are many flaws in the present systems of democracy, and I am sure we will improve upon them. Corruption and dynastics are obvious ones, and they can be remedied with some thought.

I would also like to differ from the skeptics that Hamas is necessarily bad for the peace process. I wonder why nobody is looking at history. Most radical groups, when given an opportunity to rule, have become much more pragmatic and more realistic. Take the case of IRA, Lankan LTTE, even India's own BJP or for that matter Likud Party in Israel. When Ariel Sharon and his predecessor Netanyahu were elected people said the peace process is dead. On the contrary, at least Sharon proved to be very good for the peace process. I think the most radical of the people have the luxury of taking a moderate stand on issues when they have the power while the so-called moderate ones don't. Political expediency truimphs the reasonable and the right. Happened many times in the past and will happen again.

Let me go out on a limb and make a prediction. Hamas will be excellent for the peace process. If Sharon has gone one step, they will go three and reach the logical conclusion of the present peace process. If the Palestinian people have elected them, I don't believe it is just for the rhetoric and the violent techniques. Hamas has done much better social and grassroots work than Fatah and that disaster called Arafat. People are not foolish, they can see the difference between the real good and the evil.

Therefore America should stop meddling in the elections in places like Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Pakistan and let people elect true representatives. If Palestinians are wrong, they will find out in a few years and then they will change their mind. That way Hamas will not remain an unknown angel that it is now.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Well said, Divya!

I agree Ravi with both your view of Democracy and with Hamas. Only time will tell what can happen here.

My problem with democracy is a problem with PURE democracy. I am a great believer in representitive government(like the US, Britain, Canada and India) as a check on pure democracy.

My comments were basically aimed at the "catch 22" that Bush Administration finds itself in. I find Daves original post quite an interesting one.

Peace,
Scott.

Hi Dave

Thought provoking -- thanks, to Intent for creating a space where issues like these can be discussed rationally, and to you for your post.

I'd been thinking about this since Friday. I personally think that real democracy is a successful and beneficial style of governing, perhaps the only style that will work effectively for countries with very large, disparate populations (as well as for countries with smaller, more homegenous ones).

My instinct says that Hamas' victory is really a victory for the Palistinian people. The Palistinian people chose the government they'd prefer to have currently. This is exactly what democracy is all about. The Palistinian people have the power to dismiss Hamas, too, assuming Hamas plays by the rest of rules of the game, in accepting that the people who elected them can get rid of them, as well.

That Hamas' victory was made possible by Hamas accepting the rules of a game they did not create, can only be extremely grating to the Bush administration, and to others as well. But what did they expect? Anyone with a bit of sensitivity towards the history of the area could have prdicted this outcome, at this moment in time.

It will be interesting to see if Hamas continues legitimize itself. It must give them great satisfaction that they've been so successful at playing by the rules just now. It really will depend on the top players at Hamas, and how much of their past history of violent acts has been expression of being in the outsider position.

People who become involved in politics want control and power above all. Individuals choose this or that method to achieve power. In the past, Hamas chose violence to confer legitimacy of purpose upon themselves, because they had no power at that time, and believed they could only build it through fear and attempting to inspire admiration. But their goals were still power and control. Now that they have real power and control, their political dynamics will shift, and perhaps their methods, as well. I hope they will see the political benefits of dropping the tool of violence.

When I think of Hama's victory, I try to put it into a long perspective. For example, what did world think of America right after our revolution? I'd guess that there was a lot of fear in the monarchies around the world, when they saw this upstart rebel country overthrow its master by force, and perhaps plenty of raving, in the presses and social circles of the time, about how evil we all were here. The revolutionary Americans did not leave this country and bring down other governments. Their goal was to improve life for their people. My one hope for mankind, including Palistine's people, is that the vast majority of individuals worldwide feel compassion and gentleness towards others, and that, over time, those qualities will prevail on earth.

Cheers, Heather

Hi David Hall

Sharp observation!

Cheers, Heather

Divya,

Your comment about democracy is thought provoking in some respects. My opinion is that as a total concept there is not much fault in it. There certainly are drawbacks and it is not perfect but then I doubt if anything left to human implementation can be faultless. An exhaustive list could be made of the imperfections and imbalances it creates. In spite of that I feel the greatest failure has been in implementation.

An important one according to me is that, and this is with my feelings about how it operates here, is that the political party is equated with nationalism. It tilts too much towards building and glorifying a party rather than the nation. Everything and everyone is focussed on how a particular idea will go down with vote banks and supporters. The result is that the hard option is almost never exercised. Taking tough decisions is restricted to mere rhetoric.

That is why determined and well intentioned activists often succeed. The pity is that most of them will never enter the political arena because they are simply not thick skinned enough. Those that can survive are too often the ones who are in it for themselves.

As to dealing with Hamas, much as I accept the dicomfiture, one cannot merely turn back and simply cry halt to pushing the peace process forward. This has not been a take over like the Taliban or some dictator. Hamas joined the political process and succeeded, that deserves to be recognised. I agree with Heather and Ravi.

Slowing down aid and taking a tough posture are understandable and may perhaps get the message across that the world expects better of them. Personally I feel there is hope. They have already said they will continue the truce even though that has been qualified by saying that they do not accept Israel - I think that is posturing too. Time will tell.