Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
at this point, the question of whether hamas would have moderated as a function of being able to assume power after they were elected in a free election, and had been able to actually govern is kinda academic. i think they would have. i said it at the time, i say it again here. de soto thinks they would have. the reasons he gives are more or less what i thought at the time, and is basically what i put up in the last post. those reasons are supported with a large amount of empirical detail in the report that i had no access to--i just thought it logical.
but the present outcome is self-evidently a function of the choices made under the assumption that it made sense not to allow this moderation (real or potential) to happen at all.
it is a blunder of very significant proportions carried out by two politically weak governments in collusion with each other.
to my mind the united states and israel decided to allow gaza to starve and then become a battlefield because the respective administrations stood to benefit from the carnage politically.
this is reactionary realpolitik at its most foul.
|
Roach, the question of "what-if" is very interesting. Unfortunately, with political science, it is difficult to 'test" these theories or run tests. But it is still very interesting nonetheless. It is certainly possible that "legitimizing" Hamas would have had a moderating or civilizing effect. Some of the reasons include that actually running government and being responsible for parts of society that don't involve terrorist training camps would necessitate Hamas to act responsibly as the agent of power and authority. In other words, it's the whole with power comes responsibility theorem.
I still think it would have been possible for Hamas to come out smelling like roses if they had denounced terror acts, recognized Israel, and renounced their mission statement of wiping out Israel and risen up to the negotiating table. Instead, I think the whole "terror" act only helps Israel.
I believe to "beat" Israel or to close the negotaiting gap, you have to win the media war. Terrorists generally don't garner much sympathy. But if they had "played the game" perhaps they could have leveraged their new image with much better results and made Israel look like the bad guy (much more than it is popular to do so now). A non-violent, cooperative approach would essentially remove much of Israel's advantage. They would no longer have any excuse to withold funds or isolate Palestinian occupied Israel. External pressure would be enormous on Israel.
I think Hamas is shortsighted and played right into Israel's hands.