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