Published April 5th, 2006 by Future Atlas
Palestine under Hamas
Steven Erlanger recently offered some unusually forward-looking analysis of post-election Palestine in the IHT.
Principal points:
- Hamas takes a long view, and is likely to focus on a domestic agenda for now, maintaining a cease-fire with Israel.
- As the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’ “victory has enormous resonance for radical Islam everywhere.”
- The “peace process” of recent years is over.
- Hamas will not abandon the “right of resistance,” and fundamentally believes that Israel is on land that is irrevocably Muslim, precluding recognition of the state.
- That said, it might offer a long-term truce in return for Israeli withdrawal to its 1967 borders and the right of return for Palestians driven from their land in 1948, and for their descendants.
- “A long, hostile quiet may be possible” while the two sides “pursue parallel unilateralisms.”
Seth Fisher Says
Fantastic website.
Question: looking at past trends that yielded results, do you think the Napoleonic Wars perhaps had something to do with the shift in British (and thus American) thinking on slavery/racial equality?
Extrapolating from this, I’m wondering if perhaps the key to a turnaround in the Middle East would be for some sort of massive joint action — like a Saudi/Egypt/U.S./Iraq anti-Iranian ground war or something? I’m certainly not recommending this, but if Iran does become only a military option…?
Jun 13th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Future Atlas Says
Thanks for the comment. It is unclear what you mean exactly by “a turnaround in the Middle East.” If you refer to terrorism and instability, we would want to choose a course that would diminish the forces that stoke those things.
Invading Iran would drive up both, creating far more of the basic ingredient: angry people who believe that the West is cruel and violent and thus deserves violence.
In anything like the present situation, no one but the US would join military action, particularly a ground invasion. That should deter us, which would be a very good thing: a ground invasion would end in defeat for the US. Iran could not destroy any American unit, and we could occupy any chosen square mile of the country, but we would not be able to outlast the virtually united resistance of the 70-million strong Iranian nation. Consider the fact that the Sunnis of Iraq are straining US military capabilities, and basically fighting us to a draw, despite effectively being a nation of 5 million.
Jun 13th, 2006 at 10:29 pm