IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.â€
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:—
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.â€
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—
“We never pay any one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!â€
Rudyard Kipling
(in reaction to Marc Schulman’s post about the NYT editorial on relations with Hamas).
A beautiful post, Dave. It’s as true now as when Kipling penned it. Indeed, there’s nothing new under the sun.
I don’t get your post. The US, EU aren’t going to pay Hamas to go away, rather they are engaged in a strategy to further the big bang the US brought to the region. Undermining the Hamas government, at a time when it has been freely chosen by the people, to destabilize it and get corrupt Fatah back into power, is a sure way to shoot ourselves in the foot, and to slow down our push for reform and democracy in the region. We can withhold the aid we give to Palestinians, and cajole Hamas into changing its stance on Israel and terrorism, as we must. But to destabilize them covertly to have them replaced by the corrupt Fatah the people voted out, would demonstrate to all muslims that what we mean by democracy is “elect only those leaders we support,” or a foreign imposition on them, hardly democratic, in fact, it borders on Imperialism (we know what is best for you!). We do that, it would give Zawahiri’s argument about Western democracy promotion all the more weight. Remember, he has argued that the FIS in Algeria learned the hard way that democracy was only for the West. IN that case, we passively watched while the Algerian military prevented the FIS from taking office although it was elected by the population of Algeria, this led to a long Civil War and deep resentment for the West for having refused to defend a democratically elected government in the region. This is not what we need, or want at a time when we are trying to spread democracy and connectivity into the region.
You’re being too literal-minded, nykrindc. The point is paying tribute to poorly-behaved others without their altering their poor behavior.
Characterizing any reluctance of the U. S. to finance Hamas as “undermining Hamas†is placing responsibility on the wrong party. Hamas is self-undermining. Hamas has been freely chosen? Puhleeze. The situation in Gaza and the Left Bank is such that only parties with enough guns to survive do so. A prerequisite for democracy is that parties are free to organize without requiring firepower to protect themselves. Elections and democracy are just not the same thing.
Yes, that’s a pretty fair statement of my position.
Where have I advocated undermining Hamas (other than by refusing to pay them as you implicitly agree with) covertly or otherwise? I said “payâ€, I meant “payâ€. If we pay Hamas without requiring that they renounce their policy of ending the state of Israel, they won’t. In fact we should require more than verbal renunciation but specific active steps.
Characterizing any reluctance of the U. S. to finance Hamas as “undermining Hamas†is placing responsibility on the wrong party.
That’s my point. The article you cited acknowledged the US could not and should not finance Hamas or recognize it until it renounced terror, and its goal of destroying Israel. What your argument and the poem above are arguing is that it is arguing the opposite, that any American action to not fund Hamas is undermining it. The article was not referring to this aspect, but acknowledged that we couldn’t and shouldn’t do it barring Hamas changing. Rather, the article argued that the US and Israel should not seek to actively destabilize the regime (sabotage and such as a plan) to force Abbas to call new elections and get Fatah back into power. There’s a big difference between the two.
Hamas has been freely chosen? Puhleeze.
They were elected fairly, in an admittedly hostile environment. They were elected largely because the people were tired of the corruption and mismanagement that has characterized the leadership of Fatah.
Where have I advocated undermining Hamas
You didn’t, and I never said you did, but rather that your reaction to Marc’s post on the NY Times article which implied the NY Times article said that any such action as withholding funds was “undermining Hamas” and that we should not do it. I was disagreeing with that argument because I think the article he cites does not argue as such. Your reaction to it, seemed to be accepting that as fact, and is the reason for my response.