In response to Gershon Shafir's posting at Informed Comment Global: Sunday, February 17, 2008 'Transfer of Power' http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/02/transfer-of-power.html
Wherein it is suggested that Hamas would perhaps do better if they now moved towards a more 'civilian' model of governance. "If the study of revolutions was more widespread today, analysts would immediately pinpoint Hamas's lack of a theory of "transfer of power" from Israelis to Palestinians as a fatal flaw in its strategy. For a long time this lacuna did not matter that much. But ever since Hamas agreed to participate in elections and then stumbled into power and subsequently abandoned the path of democracy and carried out its putsch to gain full control of Gaza it is no longer possible to ignore its confusion." My comment on-site: "The main reason for Hamas's refusal to adopt such a political strategy is that its leadership is obviously weary and leery of the sell-out of Fatah and PLO and does not plan to advance a political strategy less it be "co-opted."" Right now, as I type this, The US government is supplying millions of dollars in high tech weapons to Fatah, and training hundreds of their "police" (that's what they call them naturally, but I am SURE they are not intended to serve civil functions on return, if they return) in Jordan. Israel, like the US, has OVERARCHING territorial ambitions in the region as the invasion based solely on lies in Iraq amply proves of US foreign policy and the "settlements" (civilian soldier bases), not to mention 'globalized' assassination squads, prove in areas along the tenuous and militarily contested borders with a number of their neighbors. I can not blame Hamas at all for maintaining a military model of governance. To do otherwise would be diplomatically and internally foolish, as Israel prefers to do their policymaking with their neighbors at gunpoint, and to do as you suggest would most likely cause the destruction of the Palestinian Islamic state. I'd also like to point out that Hamas's (also hizbollah's) social welfare system is far more efficient and humane than the model the US uses, as is apparent to anyone who has had a chance to compare. I work with residents in California USA who, despite needing aid of a social, psychological, or medical nature, are absolutely unable to "qualify", with funding often in short supply. There are people living on the streets in wheelchairs where I live... in a weathy nation. If that happens in Palestine, Lebanon, et al, it would be due to lack of resources, NOT the amoral and often unethical nature of the state as is the case in my country. I'd very much like to take the money spent on training the State department's Fatah proxy army spent on people under social duress in our country, and as a result, hamas would have more to spend on civil governance and systems as well just due to the fact that they wouldn't have to maintain a siege economy. If we're that great a nation, we should demiltarize in the region first, and insist Israel do the same. It's just as practical as your suggestion, and with a WHOLE LOT LESS risk for the Palestinians. C'mon all you 'big boys', with your nuclear weapons, take some REAL RISKS... You go first. In closing, I do believe you have it backwards. "MY COUNTRY (with Israel as client state in the Middle East)is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today! (--MLK Jr.) and it should IMMEDIATELY desist from that posture. Hamas is doing what is necessary to defend itself from a KNOWN aggressor state with major territorial ambitions, Israel, with a world-class bully (The U.S.) for a friend, and asking Hamas to simply turn towards civil social structures under those circumstances could only be described as foolhardy if they attempted it, and un-informed of the nature of the military state and foreign 'policies' of Israel and the US if suggested. http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/02/transfer-of-power.html
