Introducing Hamas - the new Likud

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=675451&contrassID=2

Presenting, the unthinkable.

Ladies and Gentlemen, may we introduce ... Hamas - the new Likud.

It's 1977 all over again, People of Israel. Once again, everything we knew, is wrong.

Sound familiar? The party in power, the only party which has ever held power, the party which made a people, has shown itself to be bottomlessly corrupt. It has long been unresponsive to crying social needs. It has proven incapable of making peace. It is ineffectual at bringing its people security.

There is no end to the cronyism, the economic inequality, the graft, the hidebound, unwieldy construction of interlocking, profoundly anti-democratic institutions.

Then one day, voters who have swallowed and suffered this for decades, revolt. Overnight, a virtual one-party system is overturned in a stunning victory by a lean, clean, dynamic rival, a movement long shunned for a violent past and an unbending, maximalist take on who should own the entirety of the Holy Land.

If the stage of history is often lit by irony, the proximity of the implosion of the Likud and the rise of Hamas may hold lessons for us, and for Hamas as well.

In 1977, the Likud of Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir was derided abroad - and by the left at home - as a group led by terror warlords, a movement with roots in armed wings that had engaged in bombings and cold-blooded shootings.

<cont...>

***

My comments: The Likud has certainly been quite a mixed blessing. On one hand, both the major withdrawals from non-Israeli territory were undertaken by the Likud. OTOH, they massively accelerated and deepened settlement building, helped sabotage the Oslo Accords in the mid-90s, and, I would argue, helped inflame tensions over the past 5 years, feeding a vicious cycle of tit-for-tat bombings and responses that completely destroyed the PA and made prospects for a lasting peace even worse.

So, if we're in for a new Likud period, only on the Palestinian side... well, I can only hope they'll perform more smoothly than Likud did for many years.

Even so, I posted this because I think it's an interesting analysis and considering that progress has, despite everything, been made under a Likud government, let's not get too hastily apocalyptic. Let's take a "wait-and-see" approach.

Personally, I think the cease-fire is likely to stand, although Islamic Jihad may well carry out some attacks now and then. Israel will probably accelerate construction of the fence. Kadima is likely to still win the election, given that the vast majority of people in Israel just want to get out; ironically, Netanyahu and the Right are now trumpeting the left-wing argument that any withdrawals must be negotiated because unilateral negotiations will embolden militants and terrorists who will take credit for driving the Israelis. In all honesty, I think that line of reasoning is essentially correct; and the truth is that militancy drove the Israelis from the territories is essentially true; Israelis are exhausted and don't want to continue shedding blood in defense of territory that is overwhelmingly populated by another people. The fence will likely be completed and a unilateral withdrawal from 85-90% of the West Bank including parts of East Jerusalem (see this link: http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/20060101faessay_v85n1_gavrilis.html?pagewanted=4 ) seems likely within the next few years. That's far from an ideal solution, but at this point, it seems like the least bad option.



Here's a map of the planned path of the map; it's possible that in a full-scale unilateral withdrawal, these borders will be modified and something more in line with what Israel claims was it's 2000 Camp David proposal will be enacted.



Perhaps it will give both sides a much-needed breather and the option of negotiations will remain for the status of the remaining 10-15% of the West Bank. Certainly, it won't solve the conflict; the status of the refugees, the remaining WB territory, the status of Jerusalem's holy sites all will be unresolved; still, it might remove both sides major grievances and allow for a more normal development in the region for the time being.

... and now he has it in Palestine.

It's an old story: be careful of what you want in life because you just may get it.

building, the demolition of homes. (See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x113126
This would have been a good policy last year, it would have been a good policy with Clinton (much of the expansion of settlements occured under Rabin and Barak, when Clinton was Pres.).

Maybe it is not too late to insist on justice. The US has no business financing what amounts to annexation and ethnic cleansing. We send billions of dollars to Israel, and maybe it is time to send it elsewhere. Let it be used to build water purifiers in Africa, or new homes in New Orleans, not to destroy homes in Silwan, Jerusalem, or the West Bank.

you support the Hamas with todays ideology? (..tomorrow maybe something else....), given the masssive turnout for them, which btw had nothing to do with israel, as every palestenian interviewed mentioned it was because of the corruption of fatah and the stolen billions.....

Perhaps we should withhold aid until they agree to comply with UN security council resolutions and sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and open their nuclear facilities to IEAE inspections. The double standard with Israel on this issue is a major impediment to effective political action against Iran's nuclear weapons program, and is therefore a threat to US national security.

...is the latter, when elected in 1977, assumed control of a nation recognized throughout the world, with a full military force and control over all its territory (and, of course, over other territory as well :-( ). Therefore, it had to be respected, even by those who derided it as extremist and led by former terrorists.

OTOH, with no land, no military control -- being, essentially, a government without a country -- there is no need to similarly respect a Hamas-controlled Palestinian parliament. Therefore, it is much easier to reject (or, at best, ignore) it as nothing but a terrorist-led organization. The world, the Arab states, etc., had no such luxury with Israel under Begin and Likud.

Is that the parties which became the Likud Bloc did indeed enter the political process, a quarter century before they were elected to form a givernment, as the civil heirs of murder-gangs, and proved quite unruly in the early stages of nationhood....

had ben slapped down hard befor they entered the political process; nor did they have the level of support Hamas' actions do.

There are great similarities. Also, saying that there are great similarities does not mean one has to believe both are exactly the same...

Violet...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/0,,337484,00.html

Hamas in Their Own Words


Posted: January 24, 2006


Ø "They have tried to pressure Hamas to abandon resistance and to abandon arms. They tried to pressure Hamas to abandon its strategic choice in Palestine, all of Palestine. They tried to pressure Hamas to recognize the legitimacy of the occupation. But they failed… We say Hamas will not change its constant principles."

(Ismail Haniyah, Hamas leader, at an election rally in Gaza, January 20, 2006, Reuters)



Ø "The constants and the strategy of Hamas do not change according to circumstances. Hamas will stay faithful to jihad, to resistance, to guns, to Palestine and to Jerusalem."

(Ismail Haniyah, Hamas leader, at an election rally in Gaza, January 20, 2006, Gulf Daily News, Bahrain)



Ø "Hamas is not hostile to Jews because they are Jews. We are hostile to them because they occupied our land and expelled our people…. We did not say we want to throw the Jews in the sea or feed them to sharks. We just said that there is a land called occupied Palestine. It was burglarized and it needs to be returned to the Palestinian people."

(Ismail Hanieh, Hamas leader, January 18, 2006, AP)



Ø "We do not recognize the Israeli enemy, nor his right to be our neighbor, nor to stay (on the land), nor his ownership of any inch of land. . . . We are interested in restoring our full rights to return all the people of Palestine to the land of Palestine. Our principles are clear: Palestine is a land of Waqf (Islamic trust), which can not be given up."

(Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas leader and candidate to the Palestinian legislative council, Palestinian TV, January 17, 2006, Newsday)

more...

Was that adl link meant for me, since I can't see how it relates to
the editorial cartoon from the Guardian? The comments from the adl aren't
informative in any way, I already know who Hamas are, & I can't see how
they relate to the Steve Bell cartoon. The cartoon doesn't eulogise Yassin,
or Hamas, or appear to me to be in any way supportive of them, so I'm at
a loss as to why you've posted those comments, which aren't relevant, really.

It is quite possible to be able to draw a cartoon of Yassin, or to find such
a cartoon humorous, whilst also have the view that Yassin was a villainous
old bastard, & that the tactics Hamas use are repugnant. It is quite possible
to hold the view that the deliberate killing of civilians is a war crime, &
that firing a US-supplied missile into a densely-crowded area in an attempt
to kill a nearly-blind quadraplegic is equally repugnant.

He was associated with Hamas. I provided quotes from Hamas. His proud 'tradition' of ripping thru Israel is still being upheld, after his death.

So, if the cartoon doesn't "eulogise Yassin, or Hamas, or appear to me to be in any way supportive of them..." what is its point? And how would it have eulogized Hamas?