The New York Times reports today that the
I am not advocating caving in to Hamas. But the strategy is so incredibly shortsighted and so fraught with unintended consequences that one can only hope it will never see the light of day.
Why?
Because, as the Times story itself notes,
The strategy has many risks, especially given that Hamas will try to secure needed support from the larger Islamic world, including its allies
It will blame Israel and the United States for its troubles, appeal to the world not to punish the Palestinian people for their free democratic choice, point to the real hardship that a lack of cash will produce and may very well resort to an open military confrontation with Israel, in a sense beginning a third intifada.
Comprende?
3 comments:
This is precisely the same reasoning that informed Western foreign policy in the 20th century, and it's wrong, wrong, wrong!
How many times does the US have to learn that propping up corrupt and inefficient regimes, just in case they turn to the enemy for help (remember the USSR?) produces some very ugly side effects. America's Latin American experience should surely be a lesson.
European and American support for the ghastly Arafat and his heirs and assigns is currently being reported as having been deep-southed by the Widow Arafat and his henchmen to the tune of around $700 million, and maybe more. The Palestinians have received only a fraction, if any, of the financial aid given so far.
It's not rocket science to see the results. Take a look at photos of Palestinian towns.
The evidence is that Hamas have already started to sound out other donors, in case the Western tap stops running. It is also true they have been democratically elected. Now means have to be found to make them become world citizens.
Taking the advice of the New York Times is not the way to begin.
You fail to acknowledge that I say out front that Hamas is not to be coddled. But for two governments to openly suggest that trying to literally and figuratively starve a people is a viable manifestation of policy in the year 2006 is astonishing. The results of such a policy would merely cause "ugly side effects" of another kind.
There has to be a better way. This ain't it.
Finally, the Times was not offering "advice." It published a well sourced news story based on information that U.S. and Israeli sources were quite willing to impart.
It's drawing a long bow to assert that American and Israeli policy is to "starve" the Palestinians. If someone said that, you should quote your sorces.
We'll have this discussion again when you've read Sharansky.
Post a Comment