One Peace Process, Hold the
Hamas
Five reasons to hold off on
Hamas
With one election, Hamas shocked the world by picking
up a solid majority in the recent Palestinian elections. What
this means for the possibility for peace in the Middle East is
uncertain, much like the fate of the ABC program executive who
greenlighted the Heather Graham comedy cancelled after one show.
But out of this uncertainty, there is one constant: people are
going to be arguing over whether America should deal with Hamas.
There are good arguments to be made on both sides. The conservative
side of the argument wants us to hold off on dealing with Hamas
because we're not certain they will deal honestly with us. And
after Oprah got burned over the James Frey book, we've learned
to be really careful before we sign onto something. The liberal
side of the argument says that since Hamas won, we have to deal
with them since they were elected and, thus, have some level of
credibility.
After weighing the options carefully over stiff drinks with Ted
Kennedy, I came to two conclusions. One, Ted Kennedy's idea of
a stiff drink is what most of us would call ethanol. And two,
we shouldn't deal with Hamas at all. Not even if we're down a
man in the UN Bowling League and we'd forfeit if we couldn't find
a last team member. Besides, I'm not sure bowling balls should
have fuses connected to them, not even if they help pick up 7-10
splits.
As you might have expected/feared, I have some reasons why the
US should not deal with Hamas.
1) They don't have a country. Try to locate
Palestine on a current map of the world. Not even Rand-McNally
has it. It's hard to be taken seriously as elected officials if
you can't even find a seat of power within the confines of a country.
And, no, a Lazy Boy recliner doesn't count. Trust me, I've checked.
Plus, being elected doesn't automatically give you an air of
legitimacy. I could get a group of people together and they could
elect me Pope, but that doesn't mean I get the keys to the Pope
Mobile. I would have to meet the minimum requirements, such as
being Catholic. Otherwise, I'm just an odd fellow with a penchant
for tall hats. Heck, I'm that way without being the Pope.
The same principle should apply to Hamas. Until they get at least
a two story condo on the West Bank and have an election that doesn't
resemble a student council election, they aren't a legitimate
country, thus we shouldn't deal with them.
2) They're terrorists. You can dress them up
in their Sunday best, put makeup on them, and give them a PR whitewash
that Barry Bonds would kill for (or at least take steroids for),
but Hamas is still a bunch of terrorists. End of story. Thank
you for playing. Here's your lovely parting gift. The sooner we
realize this fact, the sooner we can put Hamas in the proper context.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's discuss one
aspect of the terrorist mindset that will impact the peace process:
terrorists don't like peace and will never negotiate for it. Terrorism
operates on the threat of violence and the actual use of violence
to achieve their goals. Peace and violence don't work and play
well together. That's why you never see an Amish guy with an Uzi.
Another aspect to consider is what dealing with Hamas would do
with the War on Terrorism from a public relations standpoint.
We're already having trouble convincing a majority of Americans
that we're on the right side of this all-important conflict, and
dealing with Hamas is a sure way to make sure we lose the war
at home. (Now if only Fox would do the same to the crappy show
of the same name...)
3) The world wants us to make the first move.
Sure, the world wants us to open our arms to Hamas, and more than
a few people in this country agree. I think this is because the
world wants us to take the first step so that they will feel better
about it. After all, there's nothing worse than being the first
one to play footsie with terrorists. Well, except for being the
second half of "Seigfried and." But if we take the first
step, it opens up the rest of the world to follow suit. Whether
our critics like to admit it, they know we're the Big Kahuna.
Need to give something an air of legitimacy? Get us involved.
That's what got us involved in Kosovo, and it's a formula that
some world leaders have used and will continue to use as long
as we do what's expected of us.
But if we do what's expected of us in this case, we'll be playing
right into Hamas's hands. They need to establish some "street
cred" by being seen working with America on something, and
us treating them like a real country would do just that. Think
of it this way. We're Paris Hilton, and Hamas is Nicole Richie.
Hamas needs us to get some face time (and to get into the most
exclusive parties with all the really hot guys). If that doesn't
happen, Hamas is left to its own devices and we go on by ourselves.
4) Bill Clinton wants us to. Is this a partisan
answer? Heck yeah. But it's not without a purpose aside from taking
a cheap shot at the former President. In an attempt to shore up
his legacy, Clinton tried to bring peace to the Middle East by
having Israel and the PLO sit down and work out their differences.
A neat idea in theory, but it didn't quite work out because PLO
leader Yasser Arafat didn't want a peace deal with Israel. He
wanted to elevate the image of the PLO as a legitimate world power,
and Clinton helped that happen.
Let's also not forget that Clinton also gave us Madeline Albright
as Secretary of State. Sure, it was a nice gesture as far as a
groundbreaking move is concerned, but it doesn't exactly play
well in the Muslim community. In fact, shortly after Albright
was named Secretary of State, the Middle East buzzed with the
affront the Clinton Administration dealt them because in Muslim-controlled
countries, women are not often considered to be on equal footing
as the men. So, to have to deal with a female leader of the most
powerful country in the world was insulting to the Muslim countries.
And all because the Commander In Briefs (or Hillary, for that
matter) wanted a woman in a prominent role in the Clinton Administration.
And this is the guy giving us advice on how to deal with Hamas?
Waiter, check please.
My final reason for opposing our dealing with Hamas is very simple.
5) Hamas is too goofy a name to take seriously.
I know it's a personal thing, but I simply can't take any organization
seriously when you can add "and eggs" or "and cheese"
to the end of it and it sounds right. Not to mention, it's pretty
darn close to "hummus" which is also a food. In particularly
tough negotations, you don't want to be thinking about food. Plus,
the possibilities of the President mispronuncicating the name
would be a diplomatic disaster just waiting to happen.
So, as we can see, America should stand firm and not deal with
Hamas. The Middle East peace process is too important to be dealt
with lightly by politicians. Leave that to me.
And that's the Bottom Line.
|
