Journalist and author Dilip Hiro on the rise of political Islam in the Middle East:
"This [Palestinian elections] is but the latest manifestation of the rise of political Islam in the electoral politics of the Middle East, a development that - despite the Bush administration's endless promotion of democratic reform in the region - is causing deep worry among top policy makers in Washington.
"Last year began with Islamist candidates winning most of the seats in the first very limited municipal polls in Saudi Arabia and ended with the Iraqi religious parties - both Shiite and Sunni - performing handsomely in the December parliamentary elections. The official Iraqi results, announced on January 21, showed the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance winning almost 80% of the seats that should go to the majority Shiite community. Likewise the Islamic Iraq Party won 80% of the places to which the Sunni minority is entitled.
"In between these polls, in a general election held last summer, Hizbollah emerged as the preeminent representative of Lebanese Shiites, the country's largest sectarian group (which is grossly underrepresented in parliament). And in the first election for the legislative assembly not flagrantly rigged by Hosni Mubarak's regime in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood registered a nearly 60% success rate by winning 88 out of the 150 seats it contested. The Brotherhood certainly could have won many more, but its leadership deliberately decided to contest only a minority of seats in order not to provoke the regime of Egypt's pro-American president and so create a situation in which he might be likely to strike out indiscriminately against the opposition."
Sooner or later, the US and its Western allies will have to learn to deal with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. True democracy means accepting the will of the people, without interference or obstruction.
The West should be worried.
"This [Palestinian elections] is but the latest manifestation of the rise of political Islam in the electoral politics of the Middle East, a development that - despite the Bush administration's endless promotion of democratic reform in the region - is causing deep worry among top policy makers in Washington.
"Last year began with Islamist candidates winning most of the seats in the first very limited municipal polls in Saudi Arabia and ended with the Iraqi religious parties - both Shiite and Sunni - performing handsomely in the December parliamentary elections. The official Iraqi results, announced on January 21, showed the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance winning almost 80% of the seats that should go to the majority Shiite community. Likewise the Islamic Iraq Party won 80% of the places to which the Sunni minority is entitled.
"In between these polls, in a general election held last summer, Hizbollah emerged as the preeminent representative of Lebanese Shiites, the country's largest sectarian group (which is grossly underrepresented in parliament). And in the first election for the legislative assembly not flagrantly rigged by Hosni Mubarak's regime in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood registered a nearly 60% success rate by winning 88 out of the 150 seats it contested. The Brotherhood certainly could have won many more, but its leadership deliberately decided to contest only a minority of seats in order not to provoke the regime of Egypt's pro-American president and so create a situation in which he might be likely to strike out indiscriminately against the opposition."
Sooner or later, the US and its Western allies will have to learn to deal with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. True democracy means accepting the will of the people, without interference or obstruction.
The West should be worried.
20 Comments:
Bush and his gang foolishly believed that a 'fair vote' would usher in more rational leadership who believe in equality for the individual and religious communities. That is simply false and has now been proven. I see the State Dept is now trying to whitewash Hamas to make them more acceptable. I feel great to pay taxes knowing a few hundred million will help finance terrorists in the Palestinian terriroties attack the infidels. It's the way it should be. The infidels pay the jizya and plead for mercy.
Antony, perhaps you have heard of Neville Chamberlain? He had similar views to you.
As a Jew, could you deal/negotiate with Nazis or Hitler? Any rational response would be no. Why is Hamas different, they have expressed exactly the same aims?
adamo, you have selectively ignored salient points. It is official Hamas policy to kill non combatants and to eradicate the Jewish population. Exactly how do you propose to negotiate with that?
Adamo, you have a terrible problem with non-sequiter arugments. Irrespective of your view of America, we are talking about a Jewish state negotiating with a group that seeks its complete destruction. This has nothing to do with America. Your argument is an empty distraction. You again demonstrate that you are an Islamist stooge.
What do you compromise with someone whose raisen detre is your eradication?
"True democracy" according to Ant means dealing with Nazis. The paradox is that despite Hamas participating in an election, they have no desire for a democracy. If the will of the people is to enforce genocide, it is utterly pathetic as Ant claims that you should not interfere with it.
Its official, Ant is an idiot.
Yes, an inspiration. Just think of how far Ant could have gone with good judgement and talent? Must have been all those clicks from the League of Rights.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This is very interesting. By electing Hamas, it can be postulated that the will of the palestinian people is Genocide.
While this is nothing new, and what is taught in palestinian schools and preached in palestinian mosques is this same Genocide, it can now be confirmed by popular vote of the Palestinian people.
Of course, there are antisemites who will try to lull you into a false sense of security, just as they did in Germany, that this is not really the goal, that civilized people could never do that.
But we know better.
By electing Sharon, the people of israel stated that they wanted a leader that would more actively defend their lives and shield them from a people whose stated policy is Genocide.
It is not both ways. On one hand, there is the Israeli desire to save lives, on the other is the Palestinian Islamic desire for genocide.
Only someone full of addamo could consider them similar.
When someone is full of addamo, you should tell them. It is good for their soul to purge it.
Face it _01, I did you a favor.
That the palestinians cannot, at this time, fulfill their dreams of genocide does not mean we can sit back and laugh.
It is often an antisemitic ploy for some fool to tell us not to worry because our sworn enemy doesn't have the means to carry out his desires and fantasies.
The Nazi's didn't have the means in 1923 either.
Poor eddie, knows so much yet understands so little.
In 1923, the Nazi party was not in power. It did not have the means to commence the Holocaust.
The analogy is the Palestinian people, being arabs, have the same basic tools that the nazi party had in 1923.
I see your little friend is barking and sniffing up there again.
Many in the Zundel ranks bark the same refrain.
I'm admitting that eddie's analogy is ridiculous. I'm also admitting that you are full of addamo.
That you can't understand what is right in front of you is your problem.
Or is it a problem? Perhaps it's just a technique you learned from your mentor.
Mike, other than the arab army bit, fine post.
The Arab armies were a 5 headed fish, waiting to be bagged. Each ruler did not want to give up command thus it was in chaos.
Not to take anything away from the fighting Jews who had so much more to lose than the Arabs had to win.
And the Arabs had talked themselves into not comitting all the troops they could have.
They are as genuine a threat as the nazi party was in 1923. In ten short years, they began to have the means to put their genocidal plans in place.
The palestinians have the entire Arab world, and Iran, at their disposal if it means killing Jews. Even the Nazi's didn't have that much until much later.
And Iran seems to have quite the military-industrial complex that it seems more than willing to allow Hamas to share in. If it means killing Jews.
So much addamo, but so easy to sweep away.
Why is _01 answering for eddie? can't eddie deal with the same type baiting question your mentor feeds the two of you?
Something wrong with tit for tat? Or are only antisemites allowed to play that game?
No, you were answering for eddie. Kissing his ass isn't enough for you anymore? Playing pet antisemite?
You were 7 seconds too early.
Most antisemites are. You have to be a lot faster when you try to keep up with the big boys.
Go back to the minors as you're clearly out of your league.
Again, your assumption,, like most of your knowledge, is based on guesses and addamo.
The election of Hamas - an organization bent on the destruction of the Jewish state - is indeed disturbing for all peace minded individuals both in the Middle East and around the world.
However I can't help thinking the best vote-winner for the triumphant Islamist party was in fact the policies of the US and Israeli governments towards the Palestinian people. Just as the US ham-fisted approach in Iraq has driven more and more people into the arms of the extremist insurgents, the ability of Hamas to portray themselves to the Palestinian people as "resistors to the Isrealis" has obviously struck a chord with the electorate.
Because you think it doesn't make it true. Your approach is very simplistic and will work well with the younger groups of rabble rousers.
But the veterans know superficiality when they see it.
But your 'mob' approach is realistic as there aren't enough veterans to make a difference.
It beats me how people can defend the abuse of Palestinians and the resultant social dysfunction that must entail, and then demand that those people are paragons of virtue.
It's okay for Israel to use the worst kind of violence and aggression against Palestinians to maintain the occupation and its colonisation but it's not okay for the Palestinians to respond aggressively.
Personally I wish they wouldn't but human nature being what it is generally when people are maltreated they hit back.
It's like chaining someone to the fence and kicking them every day and then condemning them for responding aggressively to you.
The dysfunction exists on both sides of course and I am hoping to see Hamas say they will stop violence if Israel stops its violence. That would mean dismantling all checkpoints, removing all soldiers from the West Bank, disarming the settlers and controlling them, ending torture of Palestinian prisoners and basically ending Israeli aggression.
Israel won't of course but it demands Hamas does.
I'd like to see UN peacekeepers brought in but there's probably a snowballs chance in hell of that too since Israel does not want anyone knowing what they have been doing and what they continue to do.
The irony is that it was Israel which kickstarted Hamas in the first place. And now it has turned around to bite it. Just like Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden and the Americans. We human beings are slow learners.
Post a Comment
<< Home