Democratically Elected Terrorists
January 26th, 2006 | by Dr. Forbush |We are now in Iraq for the sole reason of creating a Democracy in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein is out of power. There are no weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi government is not harboring terrorists. So, the only reason left is for the purpose of nation building, something George W Bush said that he did not believe in during the 2000 presidential election. But, 9/11/2001 changed all that. We are now the world’s policemen and nation building is our top priority.
The United States has always said that Democracy is what the world needs. We fought Socialism, Fascism, Communism, and dictatorships (that disagreed with our foreign policy) wielding the big stick of Democracy for all. But, the people don’t always select the policy that agrees with the United States. When Iran elected a Political Party that didn’t like the British Oil companies stealing their oil the United States through the CIA sponsored a coup de taut that put a Royal Family in charge of the government. One would think that this would be considered a step backward. When the United States didn’t like the socialist policies in the Congo after a democratically elected leader took power the United States sponsored another coup de taut replacing that democratically elected leader with a dictator.
The words on the lips of US leaders has always been “Democracy for all,” but the reality of the situation always includes the caveat, “as long as the people agree with us.” Democratically elected leaders in Venezuela, Brazil and most recently Bolivia are openly disliked by the current administration. One would think that a little diplomacy could go a long way. One would think that a country that is trying to encourage Democracy would respect the will of the people by respect the leaders that they have chosen. But this open disdain for the leaders the administration doesn’t like openly displays the real disregard that the Bush administration has for Democracy. After all, the last two presidential elections were not about Democracy or the will of the people. Instead George W Bush and the people he hired to run his campaign were more concerned with deceiving the American people with lies and fear in order to acquire political power.
With that history, who would expect the Bush administration to respect the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections yesterday? Who really thinks that the Bush administration will respect the will of the Palestinian people? After all, the people chose a terrorist group to lead them. But, in the eyes of many people through out the world the American people did the same thing in 2004. The American people chose a leader that did not respect international law and invaded a sovereign country to further his own agenda.
The bottom line here is that the Palestinian people have elected a terrorist group to lead them. The United States of America has been shouting about the strength of Democracy in the Middle East on one hand and they have been shouting about the dangers of terrorism on the other hand. How will the Bush administration choose to handle this dilemma? The only valid way to do this is by educating the Palestinian people with truth. But, as I posted yesterday, we know that people respond to politics in an emotional way, not a rational way. So, how can people be educated with truth to appeal to their emotions? Can the Bush administration keep their Political Party in check and do the right thing? Or, will the radical right force the Bush administration to attack Hamas in some way in an effort to fight terrorism? And, will the American people care or even be aware of the issue of Democracy in the Middle East?
9 Responses to “Democratically Elected Terrorists”
By jerseymcjones on Jan 26, 2006 | Reply
SUR-PRISE, SUR-PRISE!
There’s yet another prediction coming true! I’d be proud of my prescience if it weren’t so tragic.
JMJ
By gindy on Jan 26, 2006 | Reply
“With that history, who would expect the Bush administration to respect the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections yesterday? Who really thinks that the Bush administration will respect the will of the Palestinian people?”
How should he respect their will? The Palestinians were free to choose whoever they want. They chose to be led by terrorist who have in their charter the goal of destroying the state of Israel and the Jews that live in it (it actually says that in their charter) . That is their choice. Their choice may come with consequences if they continue on their path of destruction. The positive thing about this is that people won’t be able to claim that the Palestinains don’t support terrorism(the purposeful targeting of woman and child civilians on school buses and in restaraunts) any more.
By Dr. Forbush on Jan 26, 2006 | Reply
Gindy,
The point here is that Democracy is the will of the people and American is pro-Democracy.
Also, America is anti-Terror! So, how can the Bush regime deal with this issue. Its a loose-loose choice. But we already know what Bush thinks about Democracy in real life situations. So, the Arab world will certainly learn that Democracy doesn’t work.
By tos on Jan 26, 2006 | Reply
Hamas provides social programs probably in an effort to gain the support of its citizens.That usaually works no matter how corrupt they are. It’s just another means for control and votes. Not that they have that much of good choice in parties any way.
By gindy on Jan 26, 2006 | Reply
“The point here is that Democracy is the will of the people and American is pro-Democracy.”
We are. And I see nothing wrong with that. I guess that there are two issues. Should the Palestinians be encouraged to accept democracy? I personally don’t think that matters with the Palestinians. They will be run according to Sharia law either way.
The second issue, in my opinion is was this election bad for the region and the US. I don’t think it helped. I am not sure it hurt. Now the Palestinian intentions are more transparent.
“It’s just another means for control and votes.”
Hugo Chavez does the same thing.
By tos on Jan 26, 2006 | Reply
Gindy-I was going to use Hugo Chaves as an example but you beta me to it.
By PhiloTBG on Jan 26, 2006 | Reply
Perhaps if we didn’t want terrorist organizations to develop into political majorities (trust me, we don’t), we’d encourage elections more frequently than once a decade.
I’ll be curious to see how Hamas deals with responsibility. Someone will have to step up and accept that they need to negotiate with Israel. If Hamas has any hope for making the lives of Palestinians better they’ll have to abandon their committment to the destruction of Israel. Mature governance is possible in any democracy and if Hamas is capable of understanding the extent of their responsibility for the welfare of their citizens. That’s not to absolve the Israel of the effect they have over Palestinian lives, but to remind Hamas that a government must be accountable to their citizenry. They cannot pass blame onto Israel (or the US) in lieu of actual leadership.
Mostly, though, this just scares me. Someone tell me how a Hamas-led PA will relate to Israel, America, and its own poplulation…
By Cranky Liberal on Jan 26, 2006 | Reply
Well, the other side of the coin is that often when groups that were terrorirst\freedom fighters (just depends on whose side your on folks) enter the poltical fray, they are forced to adapt their militant stance and become more diplomatic. I’m old enough to remember the thought of the PA (or better named the PLO) being a terrorist organization. Suddenly, when you are trying to get the garbage picked up and the police paid, blowing stuff up is MUCH less effective.
I’m not saying we should rejoice, but simply stating that in some ways it presents an opportunity if we are savy.
By OTTMANN on Feb 7, 2006 | Reply
Dr. Forbush,
You said: “Who really thinks that the Bush administration will respect the will of the Palestinian people?”
The will and goal of the Palestinian people is to kill all the Jews and take over Israel. By putting a known terrorist group in charge, they have solidified their true goal.
What part of that should be respected by anyone who wants peace?