[Peace-discuss] Chomsky on Hamas

[C. G. Estabrook]

[A comment from two months ago, on the election of Hamas to
control of the Palestinian Authority. --CGE] 


Press reports in Israel indicate that, as expected, the
[Israeli] government is delighted with the Hamas victory,
which enables the government to persist in its "there is no
partner" posture, enabling it to carry forward its programs of
taking over the valuable parts of the West Bank and ensuring
that remaining fragments left to Palestinians will be unviable
-- a second prison alongside of Gaza, decisions now explicit
with the announcement of the virtual annexation of the Jordan
Valley and steps to expel the population gradually.  

The US position is probably more complex.  Washington
doubtless welcomes the opportunity to carry forward the
Israeli plans for which it has provided decisive support.  On
the other hand, it is reasonably clear that Washington would
have preferred to pursue these policies within the framework
of a powerless Palestinian authority, reduced to weak
rhetorical gestures and discrediting the cause of securing
Palestinian national rights.  A genuine commitment to
realizing these rights was not one of the options.  The
non-option is supported by almost the entire world and by a
considerable majority of the US population, but that is
largely irrelevant, as in many other cases, and will remain so
until real progress is made at home in "democracy promotion,"
to borrow a fashionable phrase.

There is no way for Hamas to rely on Iran.  With US backing,
Israel completely controls the territories, which are
virtually insulated from the outside, and can cut off
financial flows.

More important for us than speculating about what Palestinians
can do under these onerous circumstances is to pay attention
to what we can and should do.  First, we should pay attention
to some important facts.  Deplorable and ominous as many of
Hamas's public positions are, we should bear in mind that they
are in crucial respects more moderate and forthcoming than the
official positions of the US and Israel.  That is clearly true
of US-Israeli positions until 2000, and in fact remains so if
we look closely.  A second point has to do with the more
general moral and political implications of the US-Israeli
plans (somewhat different tactically, but not much more, as
far as evidence is available).

On the moral implications, the plans were reported on Feb. 14
in the front-page lead story in the New York Times.  Two days
earlier, the Times published a blistering review of Osama bin
Laden's "morally outrageous" pronouncements, which reached the
ultimate depth of depravity in 2002, with a message that put
forth "the perverse claim that since the United States is a
democracy, all citizens bear responsibility for its
government's actions, and civilians are therefore fair
targets." The reviewer, law professor Noah Feldman, is correct
in describing this as ultimate depravity.  The Feb. 14 story,
and subsequent ones, have provided details on how the US and
Israel have adopted Osama's "perverse claim," descending to
ultimate depravity, and are proceeding to implement it.  The
announced plans are intended to impose suffering and
starvation on Palestinian civilians because they voted the
wrong way, and to ensure that others do not come to their
relief (the goal of a trip to the Middle East by Condoleezza
Rice, according to the Times).  We may also note that this is
nothing new.  Osama's "perverse claim" has been official US
policy for at least 45 years, often formulated in virtually
his words.

The political implications are no less clear and significant.
 The mantra that all right-thinking people are supposed to
chant is that the administration is guided by the President's
"messianic mission" to bring democracy to the Middle East. 
Inspection reveals that the evidence for this belief scarcely
goes beyond declarations of noble intent by the leadership,
while counter-evidence is massive.  We now can add more
counter-evidence.  The Bush administration refused to allow
elections as long as Yasser Arafat was alive, because the
wrong man would win.  That was not kept secret, and Arafat's
death was welcomed with joy because now the US could promote
elections that could be expected to come out the right way. 
As the elections approached, and it became clear that the
victory of the right man was not certain, Washington resorted
to standard techniques of subversion: as reported in the
national press, US aid was diverted to show pieces that could
be used to bolster the image of the preferred candidate.  When
subversion failed, the US and Israel at once proceeded to
undermine the elections, adopting Osama's doctrine (borrowed
from traditional US rhetoric and practice).

These I think are a sample of the matters that should concern us.

NC