Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Back to Hamas

This morning I got up (at 5:30! I hate it when the kid is teething!) had a nice breakfast, and, caught up in my own insomnia laced problems almost forgot that just last week I realized that perhaps those crazy prophets of the apocalypse (a misused term, but that will have to wait for another post) just might be right.

After my usual bowl of cereal I went downstairs to check my email and see if the world was still being lovingly held together by the duct tape of God's grace. Then I read this article from the Christian Science Monitor. Hamas says that it won't change its charter, which will perhaps force a battle of wills with the West.

And I thought that the biggest problem in the world was that my kid won't sleep right.

2 comments:

Sandalstraps said...

But will we (the West) be willing to wait that long before we do something stupid to try to force their hand?

Sandalstraps said...

Interesting. Brian's comment and my comment have now flipped. My first comment should be read as after his first and before his second. I wonder what other oddities await.

As for "something stupid" I mean anything that might escalate the situation. I'm not sure, however, that we would bear the entire burder for that hypothetical escalation, as Brian has a good point about none of our options being particularly "smart."

The least "smart" option would be to try to undermine or discredit what was obviously a legitimate election - though I doubt that's on the table. Another unsmart move would be to engage in a kind of war of words, like we have with the likes of Iran and South Korea, declaring them "evil." We might be right we when say such things, but they don't help.

I'm not sure that it would be wise to cut off all aid to Palestine. That approach failed to get "the people" to turn on either Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro, so I don't see why it would work here. Hamas clearly enjoys the popular support of Palestinians and any punitive action against Palestine for electing Hamas could actually help their standing. Clearly there is more emotion (and most of it is anger) than reason already, so why should we make an angry population more angry in the hopes of de-radicalizing them?