Thursday, May 04, 2006

Jospin, his forgetting the lessons of history, and the laughter it brings.

Taking exception to the EU policy on cutting off Hamas, Lionel Jospin writes in Libération. He also seems to have not learned that it takes both a carrot and a stick to use Palestinian financial dependency on the EU as a motivator to be peaceful enough to deserve a state.

Perceptive as ever, he also forgot that unanimity and speaking with one voice was what the whole “EU experiment” was supposed to be about. The difference between exceptionalism of this sort and “agreeing to disagree” is basically treason.
« It is necessary to maintain European assistance to the Palestinians. This is just as the president of the Republic said to the Egyptian and Palestinian presidents. He is right. But one wonders then why prior to that he let his government before adopt the position of the European Council, which was exactly the opposite of it.

Undoubtedly is will take delicacy to define the position properly. Hamas remains on the lists of the terrorist organizations, it does not condemn the attacks perpetrated in Israel, it does not recognize the existence of this State, and its notion of the relationship between the religion and state is opposite ours’. To grant them our assistance could, according to some, seem like recognition of this or an acceptance of its standards and its methods. Hamas, in spite of the international pressures, did not agree to yield to our preconditions. Would it no otherwise be necessary to help the new Palestinian government, in spite of what it is and with the risk of contradicting our values because of the very precarious living conditions of the Palestinians? »
It is precisely because they are so destructive and abhorant that this needs to be done acutely so that it ends as quickly as possible. What other non-military alternative is there? Wouldn’t a non-military solution to the situation, say, SANCTIONS be what the garden variety leftist want FIRST?
« Would such a situation be at least likely to lead Hamas to change its positions, in particular with regard to Israel? In the short term, on foreign policy to be effective, and without anything in exchange, nothing does not make it possible to discount it. What can make evolve/move Hamas, it is time. It is the logic of the responsibilities, they are the governmental constraints, it is the inevitable cohabitation with Israel in the exiguity of the territories already obtained or disputed: on the questions of water, provisioning, work, safety. Reality [of leadership] can lead Hamas to change gradually. It can also lead the Palestinians to ignore Hamas in the next election. »
So, no disincentive can ever be used with Hamas, right? So do what they want, and they’ll do what you want, right? DON’T EVER withdraw your funds from a situation that you find morally repugnant even if it’s for the larger good of the Palestinians because leading by example is irrelevant, right?
« Is this what we want? We hoped for democratic progress in the Middle East, but when free elections took place in the Palestinian territories, the result was not what we wanted. »

And this man wants to be President? Pluralism means the large poweres don’t always get what they want, but the root of the word is still PLURAL. Hamas’ ugly habit of killing off Israelis, Palestinian Christians, Gays, and anyone else they would need to, like get plural with is reason enough for even a Socialist to hold the line.The fuse is lit!

No comments: