This week, there were two historic political events in the Middle East. In one, Israeli
voters chose a number of political parties for the next Knesset, with the ruling
Kadima party earning the most
votes. Kadima's agenda, as articulated by acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is
to seek negotiations with a Palestinian leadership that rejects violence. If no
such leadership can be found, Israel will unilaterally set its own borders.In
the other development, the terrorist organization Hamas formally assumed control
of the Palestinian Authority legislature. Due to Hamas' unwavering support for
terror and the destruction of Israel, the United States and Canada immediately
cut off
funding to the PA.
CNN's Amanpour on Hamas' New Government
Christiane Amanpour has penned a column with the title "From terrorism to
trash collection." She implies that merely by winning the Palestinian elections,
Hamas has moved on from terrorism to concern itself solely with municipal
functions.
The only problem with her theory is that there has been no evidence that
Hamas has indeed changed its views on terrorism. According to the new PA
Interior Minister,
Said Siam, "We will not put our sons in prison for political membership or
resisting occupation... resistance is a legitimate right."
Amanpour feels that the real reason the Palestinians voted for Hamas was
that:
During this year's election, Palestinians fed up with the rampant
corruption and lawlessness of the late Yasser Arafat's government turned
to the only alternative, Hamas.
So when people ask: "Why did the Palestinian people elect a terrorist group?"
The answer is because they see them as a lifeline.
Yet, as Robert Satlof of the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy points
out in the
Weekly Standard:
The problem with this view is that it has little basis in fact.
Other parties on the ballot offered alternatives to Fatah, including the
good-government Third Way, but Hamas won 74 seats and the squeaky-clean
liberals just 2. Indeed, it is an uncomfortable truth that an absolute
majority of Palestinians voted for parties publicly committed to the
destruction of Israel--Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine. To suggest that Palestinians were oblivious to the political
meaning of their votes is, as President Bush has argued in a different
context, the soft bigotry of low expectations.
It is disturbing to see a such a senior CNN
correspondent making excuses for the Hamas terror group, even resorting to
baseless claims that conflict with all indications.
E-mail CNN at:
http://edition.cnn.com/feedback/
The New York Times On Israel's New Government
In an editorial, the Times argues that Olmert's plan is doomed to failure because:
Whatever borders Israel fixes are not likely to get international
recognition, particularly if those borders leave Palestinians cut in half -- in
the West Bank and Gaza -- and unable to get from one part of their country to
another without going through Israel.
However, there have already been numerous proposals agreed upon in which Gaza would be connected to the West Bank
with some kind of link that does not necessitate either Israelis or Palestinians
crossing through each other's lands. The same type of links could be worked out
in other places to ensure contiguity for both peoples.
Respond to the editorial:
Letters@NYTimes.com
The media should not expect Israel to take actions that jeopardize its own
security. Instead the focus should be on explaining how Hamas has failed thus
far to transform itself from the party of terror to the party of trash
collection.