Search This Blog

Friday, April 07, 2006

Commenting "Who is against who?" - First Paragraph by El3en Elsehrya

العربية

First of all, this really is an amazing post. Its comprehensive style and abstract content make it such a unique post.

Second, I will comment only the first paragraph this time, then, I will comment the remaining ones later. This is so because there are many important issues implied in the post, thanks to the author.


The author's paragraph:


"Why Americans refuse to support Hamas despite being elected by the people and being “Democratic”? , in the same time they claim supporting democracy in the Middle East..!!! Is the united stats really against Hamas or it is merely trying to give Hamas more popularity? , so they guarantee that people elect it as long as the US is against the organization based on the fact that Palestinians will automatically elect whomever organization that oppose the US. Can any political analyst deny that the US is well aware of the fact that with-holding aids to Hamas will only increase Hamas popularity..?"



It is not an illusion that the USA knows that by ignoring and standing against Hamas the latter gains popularity in both the Arab and Islamic worlds. I think the American situation leads to one of two main scenarios:


1) The USA uses Hamas situation to achieve both hers and Israeli advantages.

2) The USA does not want any sort of solutions for the Palestinian-Israeli situation.


The first scenario:


By eliminating any diplomatic relationship with Hamas, thus, refusing any of Hamas proposals or plans, it gives the Israeli a great chance to operate individually, as there is no Palestinian political organisation whom they can work with. Substituting relationships with Hamas by extending relationships with Abo-Mazen to become their follower. This follower is not given a lullaby though. He is given a couple of threatening rockets instead. Given the chance, Israel claims more rights on land and in universal media. As time passes and with these typical Arabian conditions, these claims become rights.


As Hamas followers realise that they brought nothing to the Palestinian hands but only consolidated the Israeli rights, it becomes apparent to the Palestinians that the radical Islamic trend is not the appropriate choice. An impact which is overwhelming for many Arabs who already doubt any other trend. When this is combined with the past great failures of each Palestinian political organisation, it is evident to the Palestinians that the solution relies in any of the American, Israeli or Western peace proposals already refused former. But who knows? Maybe another fine proposal comes to light! Or will Israel work solely, surely with the USA, to achieve a customised peace treaty?


The second scenario:


As Hamas neither gains any of the Palestinian rights nor achieves any of the radical Islamic visions, the idea of the uselessness of the radical Islamic trend is now solidified. For there are no educational, scientific, industrial, political or societal growth plans in most Arab countries and if they are present in a country, this country is defined by the USA, the West or Israel as an economical drive for them or as a drive for political advantages, the Arab are, then, confronted with a pre-set game of fighting themselves. The game is that Arabs will be working on finding a solution for the struggle, with no set of organised or appropriate plans due to their lack of civilisation. I am not claiming that civilisation is the American and the European current state, however, they are well systematised – a thing which is absent in the Arab world. This is not the issue here anyway. Through the struggle and its conditions the Arab peoples will either become more ignorant and poorer and they will never show openness to the outside world, or with the American cultural penetration of the Arab world they lose their identity, which is already distorted.


Either ways, the USA supports and puts her allies of kings and presidents in power, but in the same time she brings them to the line too. The reason for this is that the struggle is their last remaining resort to enjoy ruling the Arab citizens, the kings' and presidents' sheep.


The second is more of a general statement, but it could, typically, be fitting for the Palestinians too.

The two scenarios are recursive and do overlap. The second also may be preceded by the first or it may be applied on its own right.


The most significant issue to realise is that any sort of international conflicts concerns power, which in turn, leads to associated rights, even fake or artificial ones. Also, any international conflict, usually, has ideological references. It doesn't matter which ideological reference is righteous. What really matters is how to defend your claims, so, eventually, they may become the standardised rights. Here is where power strengthens itself; power fights for more power – for more rights.


Power in this context is not of a hierarchical form. It roams around and only smart players make use of it. However, the game has rules, such as, wealth, public awareness, social orders in different countries and so on. For example, the most powerful country in the globe, the USA, became that weak in Iraq.


The claimed democracy is a game which is a tool used to yield more advantageous situations for the interest of the USA. It is a power game stems from an ideological and cultural background Which I will try to cover later.

This article is of a limited scope. It serves as a structural model of what might take place, however it does not take dynamic aspects into account, such as, other players. It would be too long to be a blog post.


In later posts I will comment the remaining paragraphs.


This is what I think. Let me know about your thoughts and give me feedback.


Let's Talk

العربية

4 comments:

El3en Elsehrya said...

Hey,
I agree with the analysis of why the US stopped Hamas Aids.
There are even more logistic reasons for that like for example the fact that Hamas is on the list of terrorsit organisation according to the current US administration which automatically impose a group of sequences including diplomatic boycott and non-acknowlegment by the administration.
This can explain why other countries Like Canada, and EU states decided to also to stop the aids.

My question was How did the US decide to take that action despite the fact that Hamas is an elected "Democratic" government ? in other words, the US administration decided to be dogmatically rigid with Hamas when she often times is felxible.

Your analysis introduce an interesting motivational analysis of the US actions.
But, let me be the devil's advocate for a second, what do you think about this situation, do u think that Hamas is a good choice and the US is just being unfair,or that Hamas is a terrible choice and the US is just right ?

Let's talk again....................

JasonSpalding said...

Did you know that the Gulf Cooperation Council of Nations Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates employee nearly 10 million migrant workers mostly for southeast Asia. Did you also know that the countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council have an economy growing at a rate greater that 6%? Did you know that the Palestinians have a workforce of 800,000 people? The Palestinians also have an unemployment rate of 67%. This mean that about 270,000 Palestinians are without work. But the Arabic Nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council employ 10,000,000 migrant workers. Why do the unemployed Palestinians stay living in a battle zone? Did you know that a trip from the Gaza Strip to Dubai is 2149 km or 1335 miles? The UAE has about 2,000,000 migrant workers. They also have a booming economy.

El3en Elsehrya said...

Interesting point to mention.
I guess this happens due to multiple factors:
1-Palestenians themselves, i do not know if they explore that route or not, cause I know palestentians working every where all over the globe.
2-The gulf countries generally prefer south asian workers becuase they cost less, very obedient in work and they are not generally trouble makers.
3-Some arabs fear that by giving too many chances to palestentians specially from the occupied terroteries, they might end up causing troubles to themselves as what happened in 1970 in Jordan when Palestenians became a large portion of the community and wanted more rights and more changes, even worse, people might think that by giving work opportuntites to palestenians, they are -in fact- helping Israel by changing the demographics of the region and providing surrogate home for Palestenians.
4-Isreal factor, cause I am not sure how easy to travel outside of those terretories

Boring Lips said...

In addition to what el3en elsehrya there are two other points: a) the quaity of education in Palestine and b) their sense of belonging.

a) The quaity of education in Palestine

As it was mentioned, there are so many Palestinians working all over the globe. However, many of those were educated in other countries rather than in Palestine. As working abroad while maintaining good income usually requires good quality of education. Not so many of those who live in Palestine can afford learning costs, hence, not so many have received education of good quality.

If they are to work abroad for low income rates, they will never be able to help the Palstinian people. In fact, they leave their land for no reason rather than the Israeli interest.


A) Their sense of belonging

I don't think that it is reasonable for someone whose country is occupied to leave it for a good job, if this job is available in the first place. I don't think that If The US is under occupation the American cetizans will leave it for good jobs elsewhere. It is not something they easily choose though, but their land is a very influential element concerning their common identity, their sense of belonging to their country.