Democracy rules unless we say it doesn't

[stewart38]

This comment appeared in the Metro and got me thinking who decides at a National level who we should deal with :whistle:


----------------------
The Palestinians had a demorcratic election,with no fraud, and they elected a party the West doesnt want to deal with, Hamas.

Britain and the USA immediately state they will not speak to Hamas

Let me get this straight

George Bush and Tony Blair go to war and encourage demorcratic elections in unstable states but as soon as this happens and the people of a democratically elect a party Britain and the US don't want, they refuse to deal with them and threaten to cut aid

How utterly democratic
---------------------------

ps They have now found large oil reseves and BP are on their way as we speak

[azande]

BP or American fighter planes?

[LMC]

When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first send the Marines!

We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott,
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli,

What do we do? We send the Marines!
For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till somebody we like can be elected.

Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
O we hate that expression.
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!

Tom Lehrer, Send the Marines, c. 1950s.

Nothing has changed.

[Dreadful Scathe]

democracy isnt really that democratic, when was it ever ?

[stewart38]

democracy isnt really that democratic, when was it ever ?

At the polling station :whistle:

[Will]

Although I didn't vote for Blair last time, if the palestinians have a democratic right to vote in a party that refuse to talk to or recognise Israel, but instead have it as their mission statement to destroy the state of Israel, don't I have a democratic right to vote for a party that refuses to talk to a government that takes the position that Hamas have taken?

Just a thought.

[Dreadful Scathe]

At the polling station :whistle:
since when ? :) i'm scared if the majority get their way :)

[Dance Demon]

Although I didn't vote for Blair last time, if the palestinians have a democratic right to vote in a party that refuse to talk to or recognise Israel, but instead have it as their mission statement to destroy the state of Israel, don't I have a democratic right to vote for a party that refuses to talk to a government that takes the position that Hamas have taken?

Just a thought.

Never thought of that Will....good point:yeah:

[El Salsero Gringo]

This comment appeared in the Metro and got me thinking who decides at a National level who we should deal with :whistle:


----------------------
The Palestinians had a demorcratic election,with no fraud, and they elected a party the West doesnt want to deal with, Hamas.

Britain and the USA immediately state they will not speak to Hamas

Let me get this straight

George Bush and Tony Blair go to war and encourage demorcratic elections in unstable states but as soon as this happens and the people of a democratically elect a party Britain and the US don't want, they refuse to deal with them and threaten to cut aid

How utterly democratic
---------------------------

ps They have now found large oil reseves and BP are on their way as we speakWithout commenting on your examples, I don't see any contradiction; there's no obligation on this government, or that of the USA, or any other government, worldwide - to 'talk' to anyone at all, be they democratically elected or otherwise.

[David Bailey]

Without commenting on your examples, I don't see any contradiction; there's no obligation on this government, or that of the USA, or any other government, worldwide - to 'talk' to anyone at all, be they democratically elected or otherwise.
More to the point, the USA is currently the largest single donor to the Palestinian Authority - nearly $400 million dollars last year - and they're talking about withdrawing aid, rather than just "not talking" to them.

Obviously, that'll just make the Palestinians more extreme (!), but the USA does have fairly stringent federal and state laws preventing giving money to any organisation designated as "terrorist". It's not totally impossible to get around these laws with some creativity, but it's far from easy, and would be a major political risk.

Legally, the EU (the second largest donor) is a bit more flexible, but that still leaves the somewhat sticky question of whether it's right to pay (directly or otherwise) an organisation with stated aims and past methods as extreme as Hamas.

On the other hand, Hamas has kept quiet about the Israel-destruction thing recently, it's clearly willing to be pragmatic, it's been on ceasefire for a while now, and it's got a taste of legitimate power. All these things may represent an opportunity for a real peace process. And part of that process means dealing with people you hate, and making nasty squalid compromises for the greater good.

Also, did anyone else think Bush shouldn't ever be let in front of a camera in a crisis? The man clearly can't do impromptu leadership, he just looks like an idiot. OK, more like an idiot...

[LMC]

On the other hand, Hamas has kept quiet about the Israel-destruction thing recently, it's clearly willing to be pragmatic, it's been on ceasefire for a while now, and it's got a taste of legitimate power. All these things may represent an opportunity for a real peace process. And part of that process means dealing with people you hate, and making nasty squalid compromises for the greater good.
Unfortunately, there will still be some extremists who won't be satisfied with anything less than overnight change and who don't give a s*** about the greater good, only their own. Hopefully, Hamas will dissociate themselves from the extremists and continue to progress towards acting rather than reacting. Hopefully, "the West" will not associate extremism with Hamas as a whole.

But I ain't holding my breath :(

[El Salsero Gringo]

Hopefully, Hamas will dissociate themselves from the extremists and continue to progress towards acting It's rather difficult for Hamas to dissociate themselves from the extremists when in fact they *are* the extremists. The founding charter of the organisation makes rather chilling reading if you happen to be Jewish. If you want to read it for yourself (it's not long) just do a Google for "Hamas" and "Charter". It doesn't actually mention Israel, by the way, just Jews and what ought to happen to them.

[Barry Shnikov]

George Bush and Tony Blair go to war and encourage demorcratic elections in unstable states but as soon as this happens and the people of a democratically elect a party Britain and the US don't want, they refuse to deal with them and threaten to cut aid

You're missing the point. The US and Britain are simply protesting about Hamas' avowed policy of using violence to achieve their political goals and refusing to recognise the existence of Israel.

As we all know, this is the sort of policy and attitude that could never gain a foothold in Westminster and Capitol Hill.

[stewart38]

You're missing the point. The US and Britain are simply protesting about Hamas' avowed policy of using violence to achieve their political goals and refusing to recognise the existence of Israel.

.


I think the Iranian leader wanted Israel wipe of the face of the Earth but their bigger and have oil and bit of nuclear stuff:whistle:

[David Bailey]

It's rather difficult for Hamas to dissociate themselves from the extremists when in fact they *are* the extremists.
But extremists with a mandate, and (fairly soon) the political power that goes with it.

Which means ignoring them and hoping they'll go away is head-in-the-sand behaviour to me.


The founding charter of the organisation makes rather chilling reading if you happen to be Jewish. If you want to read it for yourself (it's not long) just do a Google for "Hamas" and "Charter". It doesn't actually mention Israel, by the way, just Jews and what ought to happen to them.
The PLO charter (http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp) isn't the most pleasant reading in the world. For example, Article 9 says that "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. " and Article 15 (correctly translated), calls for "the liquidation of the Zionist presence".

For that matter, the charter of the Irish Republic laid claim to Northern Ireland up until 1999, and Labour was technically committed to mass renationalisation up until 1994.

Charters are supposed to be inspirational and aspirational - recruitment tools, basically. What matters more is actions. And Hamas have been on unofficial ceasefire for about a year now.

The obvious path now is to get them to make the ceasefire official, get them to talk to Israel, get them to form a technocrat-led government, cross your fingers and hope like hell...

In the meantime, it looks like the EU has decided to keep the cash flowing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4663742.stm) for now.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Which means ignoring them and hoping they'll go away is head-in-the-sand behaviour to me.I don't think anyone is advocating 'ignoring' them.

For that matter, the charter of the Irish Republic laid claim to Northern Ireland up until 1999That is true - but it *didn't* say (as the Hamas charter does, in its respective terms) that judgement day will come only when all British people are dead, that killing British people is a religious duty, and that it is God's will that the whole United Kingdom must be "returned" to Irish rule. I think you might have had a slightly different approach towards negotiating with the IRA if it had.

Charters are supposed to be inspirational and aspirationalWell, quite!
In the meantime, it looks like the EU has decided to keep the cash flowing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4663742.stm) for now.Did anyone ever seriously expect different? :rofl:

[Dreadful Scathe]

I think the Iranian leader wanted Israel wipe of the face of the Earth but their bigger and have oil and bit of nuclear stuff:whistle:

Lets hope no nuclear stuff gets out. I always thought Iran was quite moderate for the middle east. :)

[ducasi]

Lets hope no nuclear stuff gets out. I always thought Iran was quite moderate for the middle east. :)
The Iranian people, on the whole are. Unfortunately they don't get to choose their leaders so much...

[Barry Shnikov]

Lets hope no nuclear stuff gets out. I always thought Iran was quite moderate for the middle east. :)
Iran has a very large deposit of uranium ore, I believe the largest in the Middle East. It's not immediately clear to me on what basis the US or Britain can reasonably criticise the country for seeking to caitalise on that natural resource by using it to genereate power.

Hold on! I know.

Some expatriate who gets paid a shitload of money by the CIA to tell them what they want to hear has probably told them that Iran intends to secretly build inter-continental ballistic missiles, secretly manufacture warheads and put them on the missiles, and fire them at the Continental US.

In 15 minutes.

[David Bailey]

That is true - but it *didn't* say (as the Hamas charter does, in its respective terms) that judgement day will come only when all British people are dead, that killing British people is a religious duty, and that it is God's will that the whole United Kingdom must be "returned" to Irish rule.
Clearly the IRA situation was much milder (on both sides) than the Palestinian situation. The IRA didn't suicide-bomb; the British didn't bulldoze homes or launch assassinations by rocket attacks. The violence and extremism of the terror situation there is something I thank God we've never experienced here, and I hope we never will.

But the IRA peace process did at least show us that peace is possible through negotiation. It's a messy peace, it's not just to the many victims on both sides, and it's far from perfect. But it's way better than it was.

What other option is there, apart from jaw-jaw?

[stewart38]

Clearly the IRA situation was much milder (on both sides) than the Palestinian situation. The IRA didn't suicide-bomb; the British didn't bulldoze homes or launch assassinations by rocket attacks. The violence and extremism of the terror situation there is something I thank God we've never experienced here, and I hope we never will.



When you get blown up by the IRA wether you a man or horse ,your still dead

Those being knee capped for looking at the wrong person may question how 'mild' it was

The IRA of course did try to use rockets

Wether the british had a shoot to kill who knows

go build a catholic house in a protestant area

the first 3 years were not fun to
---------------
In 1972, however, after three years of sectarian violence between Protestants and Catholics that resulted in more than 400 dead and thousands injured
-----------------

Peace starts when you start talking

[David Bailey]

When you get blown up by the IRA wether you a man or horse ,your still dead
I'm not denigrating the experience of any victim - and I know from some experience how much even "low-level" and "containable" terrorism (as it was described in the 1980's by the British government :rolleyes: ) warps an entire culture.

But the situation in Palestine is something far worse I believe, on both sides.