PDA

Bekijk Volledige Versie : Why are Rice and Ban abiding by boycott of Hamas?



Spoetnik
26-03-07, 14:29
A dangerous masked ball

The rules of decorum are binding: Welcome - to the U.S. Secretary of State and United Nations secretary-general, who have come here, and to the German chancellor, who is due next week. But the rules of logic are no less binding, and we must ask: So, why have you come?

All three have declared that they are coming here to further a solution. But this whole show, we must tell them, is no more than a ridiculous masked ball: In their pointless and fruitless visits, they only perpetuate and entrench the conflict that most threatens world peace.

The fact that all three boycott the elected Palestinian prime minister predetermines that there is no chance for progress. This blind trio is looking in the wrong place. If they really wished to contribute, they would have to do two things: meet with Ismail Haniyeh and pressure him to recognize Israel, and meet with Ehud Olmert and pressure him to put an end to the occupation. Without these two elements - nothing will move forward.

Advertisement

It is hard to understand how once again Israel manages to coerce the international community to dance to its tune. After it dragged the world into a futile boycott of Yasser Arafat, it now drags them into a boycott of Haniyeh, and thus only serves the desired aim of the government, which holds the key to ending the conflict: to reject any negotiations.

Europe and the United States must understand that the Palestinian unity government has created a partner. They must also understand that it is impossible to make peace with half the leadership and that it is precisely the presence of Hamas in the government that will ensure that every solution reached can be implemented.

Boycotting the elected prime minister only because this is what the rejectionist front in Israel and Washington want is an act of folly. A visit to the Palestinian Authority while boycotting the prime minister is pointless.

Democracy is an exalted value for the United States. Yet, when the PA became the only place in the Arab world in which free elections were held, the rest of the world turned its back on it. What does the world wish to signal to the Palestinians? That elections are a just mechanism, but only if the results are predetermined? This is a blatantly anti-democratic message for the budding Palestinian democracy. It is also a negative message with respect to nonviolence: Hamas, which adopted a cease-fire, is not receiving any political return.

If it is possible to understand this boycott visit of Condoleezza Rice, the mother of the boycott doctrine, and also perhaps that of Angela Merkel, whose country needs to tread carefully concerning its policies vis-a-vis Israel - it is impossible to understand the boycott on the part of the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Who appointed him to boycott an elected prime minister? Was there a decision by the UN General Assembly that the world should boycott the unity government? Is this how an honest broker behaves?

It is no less revolting that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is playing along with this charade. If he were a leader of some standing, he would tell his guests: "Ahlan wa sahlan [welcome] - but no boycotts." And he would say: I also have an intense debate with my prime minister, but that argument needs to be settled with dialogue, not by boycott. You wish to meet with me? Then also meet with Haniyeh. You want to invite me to Washington? Then include my senior partner.

In the absence of a courageous stance, Abbas appears to be a weak leader. Perhaps not a chick, but surely a puppet - just like Israel and the U.S. wish him to be.

This is all the more true regarding the economic boycott. Those who want to see political progress need also to seek improvement in the inhuman living conditions in the territories. The world has to dull the pain of the occupation. By preventing aid to the Palestinians, the boycotters become full-fledged accomplices to the injustice of the Israeli occupation. An ostracizing world cannot make any demands of Israel when it comes to occupation.

Israel should be the main interested party in ending the boycott. If it truly wished for peace, it should have welcomed the establishment of a unity government, and it should encourage world leaders to meet with its leadership. Whom does the boycott - which is pushing Hamas into the arms of Iran - serve? Not Israel and not the chances for peace.

Today, when the red carpets are being unrolled in Ramallah and Jerusalem, it has become clear: This is a dangerous masked ball.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/841841.html

In nederland zullen we helaas geen van dergelijke kritische columns vinden in de kranten.

Maarten
27-03-07, 15:50
Geplaatst door Spoetnik

In nederland zullen we helaas geen van dergelijke kritische columns vinden in de kranten.
Zeg dat wel.
De Nederlandse steun aan het Apartheidsregime en de Argentijnse Junta was nog kinderspel vergeleken bij wat er hier gebeurt.

Ban Kimoon prijst zichzelf in éen keer de prullenbak in.
Dat is de man die verantwoordelijk is voor de implementatie van de VN-beginselen.
De man maakt de VN en diens vredesbeginselen nog irrelevanter dan ze al waren.

Soldim
27-03-07, 16:47
Geplaatst door Spoetnik
Democracy is an exalted value for the United States. Yet, when the PA became the only place in the Arab world in which free elections were held, the rest of the world turned its back on it.

Moet een regering automatisch altijd zaken doen met elke andere democratisch gekozen regering?

Maarten
27-03-07, 17:05
Geplaatst door Soldim
Moet een regering automatisch altijd zaken doen met elke andere democratisch gekozen regering?
Misschien niet. Maar sinds de vele eeuwen van barbarij tussen volkeren werd dus het VN-systeem voor de vrede ontwikkeld. Een van de hoofdbeginselen is dat je praat. Wie niet bereid is tot praten, wil geen vrede aldus het idee.
Zelfs met allerlei dictators werd altijd gepraat bij conflicten, gewoon omdat ze het land vertegenwoordigden. Het gaat namelijk om het gedrag tussen de volkeren, niet over hoe een volk zichzelf georganiseerd heeft.
Nou kan er wel eens een uitzondering zijn, als een dictator echt een notoire rotzak blijkt te zijn.
Maar daar is geen sprake meer van als het gaat om een democratisch gekozen regering en een democratisch gekozen president.
Als Israel, de VS of Europa dus geen voorstander zijn van praten, en dat niet als eerste op de agenda hebben, dan willen die ook geen vrede. Zo simpel ligt dat.
Je kunt het westen maar het beste afrekenen op zijn eigen normen, denk je ook niet?

Soldim
27-03-07, 17:13
Geplaatst door Maarten
Maar daar is geen sprake meer van als het gaat om een democratisch gekozen regering en een democratisch gekozen president.


Haider, FPÖ?