Hello hello again, readers. I have been AWOL as of late, but I wanted to share an interesting hobby that I have acquired before I return into my wine-induced slumber.

Reading college newspapers, especially the editorials, always provides a chuckle or two. I think it's something about the mix of idealism of change yet the laziness to enact change that just nails the irony bone in the right spot. Of course, there are those creative editorials that attempt to advance typical left-wing talking points; I guess there is something to be said for truly mimicking the national media, just it seems too easy to do on a college campus as those places generally are leftist echo chambers.

That said, I found an editorial today that even took the wind out of my sails. The race between "sad" and "mind-bendingly funny" is pretty close, so I leave it to others to judge.

The jist is that Hamas' rise to power isn't really so bad. So what? We have heard that a thousand times before in stories of Hamas' "pragmatism". No, what makes this great (and something that could only be pulled off in print on a college campus) is the stated position that Hamas and Israel are in fact very similar. The editorial, from the student newspaper of George Washington University, tries to toe a fine line -- both validate Hamas through comparisons with Israel, yet still twist facts to demonstrate Israel's villiany. Logically, that makes little sense, but don't worry. The author is a senior, majoring in Middle East studies, so I sure he just knows a more subtle version of the truth than we do.

I provide some of my point-by-point opinions behind the fold, but I leave you with a taste of what the editorial has in store...

While it refuses to recognize the state of Israel, there is a historical point worth noting: at the initiation of the Oslo process in 1993, Israel had not recognized the Palestinians right to a state. Even informal recognition did not come until Ehud Barak was elected prime minister several years later. A formal public statement acknowledging the right of Palestinians to a state was not made until Ariel Sharon became prime minister. In spite of this lack of recognition, the Palestinians pursued negotiations with the Israelis, hoping that a viable state would come in the final agreement. The precedent exists for engaging in negotiations without recognition at the outset. It starts with the statement:

In the past month there has been enormous controversy surrounding the election of Hamas to lead the parliament in Palestine.

What exactly is Palestine? I mean, I was unaware that Palestine existed. I even thought that part of the reason Hamas is as grumpy as it is was because no Palestine exists. Maybe the student attended the UN "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" on November 29, 2005, where a map of "Palestine" without Israel was openly displayed. Again, I will just chalk this up to more subtle truth gained by a senior level of study.

Before we all get worried about Hamas, just remember:

While Hamas' election is a setback, it is not the crisis it has been made out to be. Hamas has said it is prepared to negotiate with Israel.

To be fair, Hamas has always been willing to negotiate with Israel, and nothing has changed in their stance there. However, for you Star Wars fans, Hamas is a proponent of "aggressive negotiations" coined by Anakin Skywalker in Episode II as "negotiation with lightsabers." Hamas would be happy to "negotiate" ending their suicide bombing and violence if Israel would just fall into the sea. Very subtle!

Now, possibly the most twisted moment comes next, which was the quotation I noted before the jump. Where can one begin deconstructing that level of subtlety? I know I am not the best person for the job, but I can notice one thing: his assumption is that Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel is the same as Israel not recognizing the right of a Palestinian state over a decade ago. Does that mean Israel supported a policy of pushing the Palestinians into the sea? And again, the idea of Palestinian negotiations is somehow equated with Israel. Clearly, this student has not seen a football game recently -- he equated Palestinian/Hamas offense (blowing up civilian buses, starting websites for kids detailing the joy of suicide bombing, et al.) with Israeli defense. By this rationale, if a defense were to pick off an interception and run it back for a touchdown, it was really an act of the offense rather than a defensive stop. But I don't think GW has a football team, so I guess I can excuse that confusion.

And about the election:

It was this message - not a message of violence - that resonated with Palestinian voters. Hamas avoided violent statements because they know that most Palestinians want a negotiated settlement. Hamas has also largely respected a unilateral, self-imposed ceasefire since February of last year. This has led to a substantial decrease in the number of attacks against Israelis. The ceasefire shows Hamas' capacity to demonstrate restraint, despite claims to the contrary.

Did he just use the words "Hamas" and "restraint" in the same sentence? I don't have enough time in the day to rip that one a new one, so I will move on to the point about money:

A former head of Israeli Military Intelligence, General Shlomo Gazit [noted]... if traditional donors fail to fund the Palestinian government, funding will come from other, less palatable sources such as Iran.

So we should fund Hamas, even though they refuse to abandon the use of money towards their "military" operations (though, of course, there has been a ceasefire since last February, so one would think Hamas would be able to abandon ideas of new funding for those purposes... but I digress)? And does this mean that Iran is not funding Hamas now, because that would be a real news story? Hell, I would rather Iran flipped the the entire bill... maybe it would take some of the financial resources away from their "peaceful" nuclear program.

And finally:

While Hamas is not the ideal negotiating partner, the same can be said about Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, a former member of Likud (Israel's conservative and usually more bellicose political party). However, as Hamas has pointed out: you don't negotiate peace treaties with your friends; you negotiate them with your enemies.

Hamas is now equivalent to the current Israeli administration, because Olmert was formerly in a political party that did not bend over completely backwards to Hamas' negotiating style. I see. And I love giving Hamas the last word, as if they are wise sages of our time... but one cannot disagree with the statement, as it is a truism. Yet it all hangs on the definition of enemy. If Hamas ended its "aggressive negotiations," Israel likely would not have much of a problem working in good faith even with an "enemy" (as has been seen over the past years and years of acts with the Palestinian Authority); yet, let's consider what Israel would have to do in order for Hamas to start acting in good faith... probably nothing short of drowning themselves in the sea. You see, very very subtle!

Posted by: wineaholic at 10:01 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1233 words, total size 8 kb.