http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6748811.stm
The conflict stems from Hamas winning the 2006 Palestinian elections. As a result, Israel, the United States, and the European Union, imposed sanctions upon the Palestinian Territories, thus suspending all foreign aid, upon which the impoverished Palestinians depend heavily on. The sanctions were coupled with the conditions that a resumption of aid will occur if Hamas fulfills the “Three Demands” of recognizing Israel, accepting agreements made by the defeated Fatah regime and denouncing violence. Despite the sanctions, and incidences of successful border prohibition, Hamas leaders were able to smuggle enough money into the Palestinian territories to maintain basic health and educational services. The defeated Fatah party maintained control of most of the Palestinian security apparatus. The US administration funded and armed Mahmud Abbas' Presidential Guard and Gaza-based Fatah warlord, Mohammed Dahlan.
The question that must be answered is: why did the U.S., E.U., and Israel give HAMAS a chance to effectively govern and essentially prove its legitimacy to the international arena? On many instances HAMAS unexplicitly recognized the now famous "THREE DEMANDS" of the United States. The U.S. should have been more diplomatic and allowed HAMAS to govern, as we all know, every politcian comes into office with high hopes and strong ideology, as we are all students of history, and then is forced to moderate his or her views with the hit of realism and pragmatism. HAMAS is no different, HAMAS senior leadership were not operating with the goals of establishing an Islamic State in the Gaza Strip, they were operating out of fear of being destroyed by the U.S. thus acted with complete rationality by ousting their enemies yet reassuring the masses that Shariah Law will not be implemented as policy.
HAMAS's popularity stems from its various services provided to the impoverished people of Palestine including: "Charitable societies, hospitals, dispensaries, kindergarten and schools, sporting clubs, elderly homes, zakat committees, computing centers, libraries, scholarships, legal aid, summer camps, and recreation facilities" (Mandaville 211). HAMAS in the eyes of the people is not viewed as the militant terrorist organization, the view that the propenderance of Americans understand, HAMAS is understoo as a multi-faceted organization, a community organization that actually cares for the people, and is not as corrupt in comparison to the PLO.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
US missiles hit Pakistan village
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2008/10/2008101672724503831.html
On the 16Th of October, the United States fired missiles to a village in South Waziristan, Pakistan. South Waziristan is one of the northern provinces in Pakistan which are essentially autonomous, and the United States and NATO believe is the safe harbor for supporters of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The United States also maintains the belief that Osama Bin Laden could be potentially in hiding within the mountainous north western provinces. United States missile attacks in Pakistan create extreme tension within the Pakistani domestic political scene. Moderates do not want to appear to be condoning U.S attacks in Pakistan, nor do they support the vigilantism exerted by militants within those provinces.
The Muslim parties use such attacks as evidence the secular, moderate central government is incapable of protecting Pakistan's sovereignty. According to Haqqani, " the Islamist worldview has become incompatible with the vision of modern Pakistan, the violent vigilantism of some Islamists has become a serious threat to Pakistan civil society and also promoted sectarian terrorism. Operating outside the rule of law, the Islamists have potential to disrupt the conduct of foreign policy especially in the view of their support for anti-India militants in Kashmir and the Taliban in Afghanistan". These groups have also been used as tools by the secularists as a means to create the atmosphere of a political zero sum game. For example, in Musharraf's reign, Musharraf had banned the PPP and the PML-N thus allowing the Muslim parties seize their personal record of seats, 11%, of the total parliament. The central government wants to portray to the Pakistani nation that their choice is between the central secular government and the extremists. Completely disregarding the remaining diverse field of political ideologies.
On the 16Th of October, the United States fired missiles to a village in South Waziristan, Pakistan. South Waziristan is one of the northern provinces in Pakistan which are essentially autonomous, and the United States and NATO believe is the safe harbor for supporters of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The United States also maintains the belief that Osama Bin Laden could be potentially in hiding within the mountainous north western provinces. United States missile attacks in Pakistan create extreme tension within the Pakistani domestic political scene. Moderates do not want to appear to be condoning U.S attacks in Pakistan, nor do they support the vigilantism exerted by militants within those provinces.
The Muslim parties use such attacks as evidence the secular, moderate central government is incapable of protecting Pakistan's sovereignty. According to Haqqani, " the Islamist worldview has become incompatible with the vision of modern Pakistan, the violent vigilantism of some Islamists has become a serious threat to Pakistan civil society and also promoted sectarian terrorism. Operating outside the rule of law, the Islamists have potential to disrupt the conduct of foreign policy especially in the view of their support for anti-India militants in Kashmir and the Taliban in Afghanistan". These groups have also been used as tools by the secularists as a means to create the atmosphere of a political zero sum game. For example, in Musharraf's reign, Musharraf had banned the PPP and the PML-N thus allowing the Muslim parties seize their personal record of seats, 11%, of the total parliament. The central government wants to portray to the Pakistani nation that their choice is between the central secular government and the extremists. Completely disregarding the remaining diverse field of political ideologies.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Talking Turkey: She's a democracy - no qualifiers
http://www.meforum.org/article/624
In an article written by the controversial Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, discusses the dangers in supporting Erdugan's AKP and how the nationalists and secularists will react to America's new support of the "Muslim Democracy" as stated by Bush and Rice. According to Rubin, the nationalists reject the notion of qualifying Turkey's democracy with the term "Muslim" proceeding it. They ask, how would certain Americans feel by being labeled a "Christian Democracy"?
"Belief that Washington supports the AKP is widespread across Turkey, from parliamentarians in the national assembly to storekeepers in provincial towns to university students relaxing in cafes. One prominent AKP member told me, "We are a Muslim party and Powell called us a Muslim democracy. We know he chooses his words carefully""(Rubin 1).
Rubin describes America's support for the AKP as a betrayal of the sacrifice the Turkish secularists and military have made to America, whether it be in Korea, the Balkans, and Afghanistan. U.S. support for AKP in Rubin's eyes damages the "special relationship" between Ankara and Washington, furthermore, the AKP is what it is today because of the secularist-nationalist pressure to pull the Islamists towards the center. Therefore, the type of democracy that exists in Turkey today can not be thanks to either the nationalists or Islamists exclusively.
Rubin states, "The AKP is a product of Turkey's tradition of secularism, and should be treated as such. At the same time, Washington should approach the AKP warily, for it may still be a Trojan horse. The Western face of Erdogan and the strict, bearded Islamists found in the provinces are two sides of the same party. The Turks are carefully dealing with the balance, but platitudes from officials like Powell threaten to upset it. It is one thing for opposition parties to whine that Washington supports the AKP. It is quite another thing when the ruling party agrees. "
Edward Said would be ashamed of such an excerpt, and declare orientalism on the top of his lungs. Bolded and highlighted are the outright orientalist tones to Rubin's statement. Somehow, that AKP could be the disguise for the creation of a new Caliphate based in Ankara that Muslim organizations all around the world would swear allegiance to. That was the code in which Rubin was speaking in.
However, it is important to note such orientalists fears, as stated in Global Political Islam by Dr. Peter Mandaville, "Others harbor fear that the AKP is full of "crypto-Islamists" waiting to pounce once the populace has been lulled into complacency" (Mandaville 128).
In an article written by the controversial Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, discusses the dangers in supporting Erdugan's AKP and how the nationalists and secularists will react to America's new support of the "Muslim Democracy" as stated by Bush and Rice. According to Rubin, the nationalists reject the notion of qualifying Turkey's democracy with the term "Muslim" proceeding it. They ask, how would certain Americans feel by being labeled a "Christian Democracy"?
"Belief that Washington supports the AKP is widespread across Turkey, from parliamentarians in the national assembly to storekeepers in provincial towns to university students relaxing in cafes. One prominent AKP member told me, "We are a Muslim party and Powell called us a Muslim democracy. We know he chooses his words carefully""(Rubin 1).
Rubin describes America's support for the AKP as a betrayal of the sacrifice the Turkish secularists and military have made to America, whether it be in Korea, the Balkans, and Afghanistan. U.S. support for AKP in Rubin's eyes damages the "special relationship" between Ankara and Washington, furthermore, the AKP is what it is today because of the secularist-nationalist pressure to pull the Islamists towards the center. Therefore, the type of democracy that exists in Turkey today can not be thanks to either the nationalists or Islamists exclusively.
Rubin states, "The AKP is a product of Turkey's tradition of secularism, and should be treated as such. At the same time, Washington should approach the AKP warily, for it may still be a Trojan horse. The Western face of Erdogan and the strict, bearded Islamists found in the provinces are two sides of the same party. The Turks are carefully dealing with the balance, but platitudes from officials like Powell threaten to upset it. It is one thing for opposition parties to whine that Washington supports the AKP. It is quite another thing when the ruling party agrees. "
Edward Said would be ashamed of such an excerpt, and declare orientalism on the top of his lungs. Bolded and highlighted are the outright orientalist tones to Rubin's statement. Somehow, that AKP could be the disguise for the creation of a new Caliphate based in Ankara that Muslim organizations all around the world would swear allegiance to. That was the code in which Rubin was speaking in.
However, it is important to note such orientalists fears, as stated in Global Political Islam by Dr. Peter Mandaville, "Others harbor fear that the AKP is full of "crypto-Islamists" waiting to pounce once the populace has been lulled into complacency" (Mandaville 128).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)