Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “...By Definition, Also Still "Lesser"”

« Qvis Cvstodiet Ipsos Cvstodes | Main | NIE Assessment of Threats Inexplicably Fails to Include Democrats - Updated »

July 16, 2007

...By Definition, Also Still "Lesser"

Hatched by Dafydd

It goes without saying (but I will anyway) that Fatah -- the political party of Palestinian "president" Mahmoud Abbas -- is a terrorist organization. The dead giveaway is when a political party boasts a "military wing" (in this case, the al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade) that commits terrorist acts with the sanction of the party leadership.

So why on earth does President George W. Bush treat Abbas and Fatah as if they were serious partners in the "Roadmap to Peace?" Why does he babble about today being "a moment of clarity for all Palestinians?" And what does he mean by saying "and now comes a moment of choice?"

Believe it or not, there is a realistic and rational reason why that sort of fancification may be a very good policy for the United States to follow. Let me explain...

I said before that we know Fatah is a terrorist organization because it has a military wing, al-Aqsa, that commits acts of terrorism sanctioned by Fatah.

But this brings up an intriguing comparison to another conflict: Both the two major Shiite political parties in Iraq also have (or used to have) military wings: The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) -- recently renamed the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), the largest political party in Iraq -- certainly used to operate the Badr Brigades, which were pro-Iranian terrorists during the Iran-Iraq war; while the Islamic Dawa Party has a historical connection to the Mahdi Militia and its onetime leader, Muqtada Sadr.

And thereby hangs our tale: When the SCIRI changed to the SIIC, that signalled a significant change in their attitude. They have made serious efforts to rein in the Badr Brigades/Organization, successfully enough that it's been a long time since we've even heard from them.

Similarly, Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, once a close ally of Sadr, has by and large severed ties with Sadr and the militia he once headed (I consider his leadership dead since his failed attempt to return to Iraq and subsequent flight back to Iran).

Not completely; and Maliki still tries, now and again, to prevent Coalition soldiers from aggressively searching the Shiite slums of Baghdad. But in many very visible ways, Maliki has surrendered to the American demands that we be allowed to go anywhere, anytime, without warning -- and in concert with Iraqi army units (including those from Sunni areas) -- and that is why Sadr has fled Iraq: He knows he can no longer rely on his one-time ally.

This is why I added the caveat above that both parties "have (or used to have) military wings." Though both once did, and both once functioned as official terrorist parties (particularly in assassinating thousands of Sunnis suspected of collaborating with al-Qaeda), today they are clearly disassociating themselves from the militants: Badr is more or less defunct, while the Mahdi Militia has lost its Iraqi partonage and relies more and more on Iran. The separation is not perfect, it's not complete -- but it's unquestionably underway.

Similarly, as we saw in Anbar, Diyala, and Baghdad provinces, some Sunni terrorist-supporting tribes have likewise turned on their erstwhile allies, to the extent of actually going to war against them.

So what does all this have to do with Fatah? Simply this: The central point upon which the Bush administration hangs their policy of engagement with Fatah is that they are the lesser of two evils. As many sententiously point out, the lesser of two evils is still evil; but on the other hand, by definition, it's also still lesser.

Why does the president believe Fatah is the LOTE? Because the mere fact that they pay lip service to moderation indicates they understand the rest of the world does not support the idea of nakedly announcing the imminent destruction of Israel and driving the Jews into the sea. And even though Fatah's actions often belie their words, that still puts them one better than Hamas, which flatly and openly advocates the final solution to the Jewish problem.

If you like dueling aphorisms, here's one: Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. In the present instance, the mere recognition of the importance of international opinion as a check on overt aggression more than makes up for the clandestine nature of Fatah's continued attacks -- especially since everyone knows what they're really doing; they're not fooling anyone.

Another analogy: A man who commits murder by stealth at least acknowledges that what he is doing is evil by the rule of society, and he acknowledges that those rules are important enough for him to hide his activies.

But a man who simply walks up and brazenly murders his enemy without the least concern for society's reaction thereby tells us that he believes he is beyond good and evil as enunciated by society. He tells us that he doesn't give a fig what anybody thinks; he's just going to do whatever the hell he wants. That man is both more evil and more dangerous in my opinion, because he recognizes no behavioral limit whatsoever. Think of bin Laden boasting to the world about 9/11.

And our experience with Iraqi terrorist supporters indicates that when people recognize that something they are doing is shameful enough that they must hide it... then there is always the possibility that at some point, when concealment becomes impossible, they will stop doing it altogether.

Of course, there are several factors that make it much less likely that Fatah will ever reform the way the parties in Iraq have done (thus much less likely that the Bush "Roadmap to Peace" will actually work):

First and foremost, we're talking about Palestinians. Palestinian culture is uniquely violent, irrational, and fanatical; no other culture even comes close in terms of the perpetual war of all against all. (Some other countries have brief spasms of staggering chaos; but the Palestinian Authority's entire existence is one long, violent spasm.)

The Iraqis required a seminal event to wise up to their self-inflicted terrorist wounds: The invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party. There has been no such seminal event in Arafatistan.

The current terrorism in Iraq is now widely see among Iraqis as being the result of two outside forces: Iran and al-Qaeda. Thus, opposition to terrorism joins synergetically with nationalism. Palestinian terrorism, though financed by various outside sources, is quite locally driven by groups such as Hamas, al-Aqsa, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and so forth.

Iraq has existed as an independent and sovereign state since the early 1930s; they have experience with running a country: first a monarchy, then a republic, then a one-party dictatorship, and now a parliamentary republic again. By contrast, the Palestinians have never had to face the reality of running a country; like Blanche Dubois, they have always depended upon the kindness (or protection money) of strangers. Thus, like teenagers who have never had to work for a living, they make absurdist demands and enunciate grandiose schemes that they will implement as soon as they think they have the power.

These are all serious problems... but except for the first, each is surmountable and could change, and change rapidly, under the right circumstances:

A "seminal event" could occur if a new Israeli government actually fights back seriously against Hamas and al-Aqsa, inflicting such a devastating defeat on them that their worldview is shattered. While picking up the broken pieces, they may decide to leave some lying on the floor, including governance by terrorism.

Iran could begin to "cash in" its investment in the Palestinian terrorist groups by trying too overtly to seize control of Gaza and the West Bank. This could cause a huge reaction by more nationalistic Palestinians.

Countries giving aid to the Palestinian government(s) could follow the American lead and make that aid conditional upon behavioral change. While one can argue (as I do) that we don't go far enough along those lines, we certainly go farther than does, e.g., Saudi Arabia or even the EU; if countries start witholding funds from the PA, and if the latter turns to Iran or Syria for the missing funds, this could accelerate (3) above.

It's also unlikely that the Iranian pockets are infinitely deep; they have their own economic and political troubles. Eventually, the squeeze will force the PA either to start accepting their own responsibilities for running a sovereign nation... or they will collapse. Either would be an improvement over today.

Not much one can do about (1), but it's not clear whether this quality is implicate in Palestinian culture (in the David Bohm-ian sense of "enfolded") or grew from political necessity, given the circumstances.

In any event, Fatah seems much further along the "nation-building" curve than Hamas; and it makes a lot of sense to support the former at the expense of the latter. Too, even if it doesn't work, supporting one party and not the other in a dispute will inevitably fuel the civil war between the two of them, weakening both. Even though this may be a serendipitous side effect, rather than one of the prime reasons for the policy, I would still find it hard to believe that nobody on the Bush team has thought of it.

The alternative would be to label all Palestinian parties as terrorists and refuse to differentiate between them, thus ensuring their continued existence in perpetuity... or until the Millennium comes, and they are all somehow magically "wiped out" or ethnically cleansed from the region (by whom?). As I find that possibility even more remote than the chance that Fatah will moderate its behavior to more or less match it's public (non-Arabic) discourse, I think the Bush approach can be a useful, if rather minor, adjunct of a rational American foreign policy.

(Yes, Virginia: Sometimes lying is a better foreign policy than telling the strict truth at all times. That's why we have diplomats in the first place.)

I do agree the president seems to attach all too much importance to it; and there is little evidence that he has the realistic viewpoint I enunciate above. Still, whether through clever statecraft well-hidden behind Bush's poker face, or though inadvertently stumbling on the right policy for the wrong reason, I emphatically believe the Bush approach will work better, over the long term, both for us and for the Israelis, than would the approach advocated by many conservatives: adamant, angry confrontation with all Palestinian parties, without exception, all the time.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, July 16, 2007, at the time of 6:07 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2258

Comments

The following hissed in response by: West

Another analogy: A man who commits murder by stealth at least acknowledges that what he is doing is evil by the rule of society, and he acknowledges that those rules are important enough for him to hide his activies.
But a man who simply walks up and brazenly murders his enemy without the least concern for society's reaction thereby tells us that he believes he is beyond good and evil as enunciated by society. He tells us that he doesn't give a fig what anybody thinks; he's just going to do whatever the hell he wants. That man is both more evil and more dangerous in my opinion, because he recognizes no behavioral limit whatsoever. Think of bin Laden boasting to the world about 9/11.

That's some great philosophizing, there, with the small exception of the consideration of the victims - who are still dead or maimed.

I don't think killing someone and pretending to feel sorry about it makes a victim (who, as you stated, knows the perp to be lying) feel any better than unrepentant slaughter.

But maybe that's just me.

The above hissed in response by: West at July 16, 2007 8:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: Seaberry

Good post. OK, we’re getting back into bed with a former enemy, and there’s nothing new about that. ‘W’ is in charge, during a critical time, with very little support (Per MSM info), but I feel we have the right man in charge, and my support remains firm. I was back to the SWJ’s blog today, and want to add some of the points found there.

Dafydd: It goes without saying (but I will anyway) that Fatah -- the political party of Palestinian "president" Mahmoud Abbas -- is a terrorist organization.

Counter point (“Fighting for Faith”):

LtCol Peters: “A Maoist in Malaya could be converted. But Islamist terrorists who regard death as a promotion are not going to reject their faith any more than an ethnic warrior can—or would wish to-- change his blood identity.”

The Surge is looking good, and Dafydd points out, part of that plan involves getting in bed with a former enemy.

And thereby hangs our tale: When the SCIRI changed to the SIIC, that signaled a significant change in their attitude. They have made serious efforts to rein in the Badr Brigades/Organization, successfully enough that it's been a long time since we've even heard from them.

In Dafydd’s post, he points out the Palestinian’s are now divided, pretty much between Fatah and Hamas, and that “Fatah seems much further along the "nation-building" curve than Hamas…” Our choices are few, and I agree with Dafydd that dealing with Fatah at this point is basically all that ‘W’ can do at this time.

Dafydd: I emphatically believe the Bush approach will work better, over the long term, both for us and for the Israelis, than would the approach advocated by many conservatives: adamant, angry confrontation with all Palestinian parties, without exception, all the time.

Its Dafydd’s use of “long term” that I now question. LtCol Hoffman wrote “Fighting for Faith”, and points to LtCol Peters’s “Wars of Blood and Faith: The Conflicts That Will Shape the 21st Century.” LtCol Peters brings up seven points…here are three:

* Those enemies will use nuclear weapons, if allowed to possess them.
* Religious wars are impossible to prevent--because our enemies desire them.
* The Middle East is headed for greater chaos, and Israel may not survive.

I think the "Bush approach" in dealing with Fatah is only a short term solution, and eventually the Middle East is going to explode...so to speak.

The above hissed in response by: Seaberry at July 16, 2007 9:20 PM

The following hissed in response by: Seaberry

Dafydd: It goes without saying (but I will anyway) that Fatah -- the political party of Palestinian "president" Mahmoud Abbas -- is a terrorist organization.

Counter point (“Fighting for Faith”):

LtCol Peters: “A Maoist in Malaya could be converted. But Islamist terrorists who regard death as a promotion are not going to reject their faith any more than an ethnic warrior can—or would wish to-- change his blood identity.”

The Surge is looking good, and Dafydd points out, part of that plan involves getting in bed with a former enemy.

And thereby hangs our tale: When the SCIRI changed to the SIIC, that signaled a significant change in their attitude. They have made serious efforts to rein in the Badr Brigades/Organization, successfully enough that it's been a long time since we've even heard from them.

Dafydd: I emphatically believe the Bush approach will work better, over the long term, both for us and for the Israelis, than would the approach advocated by many conservatives: adamant, angry confrontation with all Palestinian parties, without exception, all the time.

* Those enemies will use nuclear weapons, if allowed to possess them.
* Religious wars are impossible to prevent--because our enemies desire them.
* The Middle East is headed for greater chaos, and Israel may not survive.

I think the "Bush approach" in dealing with Fatah is only a short term solution, and eventually the Middle East is going to explode...so to speak.

The above hissed in response by: Seaberry at July 16, 2007 9:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

West:

I don't recall opining whether stealth or brazenness made the victim "feel any better." I think I wrote that the latter is more evil and dangerous.

The victim, being dead, is not in a position to feel anything. But the larger society is certainly in a position to feel more endangered, and the felon can certainly be more evil or less evil.

The most horrible aspect of the culture of militant Islamism is the way they commit the most hideous and despicable crimes against Man and God without the slightest concern for concealing their deeds. In fact, they boast of them.

If I believed in demons, I would believe the hirabis were possessed by Moloch. Rather, I believe they have killed whatever "soul" was once inside and become conscienceless killing machines who worship only Death -- and whose god-favored ritual is human sacrifice.

They're worse than the Aztecs.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at July 16, 2007 9:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Seaberry:

There was nothing wrong with the commenting system. Movable Type is set up to put a hold on any post with too many links. "Too many" is currently set to "more than three."

Thus, if you have two links in your post, that equals four... because the system adds in the link on your name -- and the link on your name the second time (note that every comment here has the commenter's name both above and below the post). Since four links is more than three, the comment is held up awaiting my approval... which only happens when I sit down at the computer, get e-mail, notice that there are comments awaiting approval, and then have the time to approve them.

(I think I should up that to "more than five"; it should be easy to do.)

In any event, your comments were there; they were just sitting in the "unapproved" box, waiting for me to approve them, which I now have. (I approved both, not sure whether they were identical or not.)

In the future, it shouldn't be so bad; I'll up the link limit a bit. Anyway, your comments are now visible.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at July 16, 2007 10:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: Seaberry

Dafydd,

ahhhhhh...now I know, thanks. The two posts were identical so you could delete one of them.

The above hissed in response by: Seaberry at July 17, 2007 12:24 AM

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

Dafydd, I take your point about the "seminal event" but I think that a least one or 2 smaller seminal events have already taken place.
One was that President Bush produced the Road Map and completely changed the terms of the dialogue of the Israeli-"Palestinian" "peace process.
The other was that PM Sharon moved the settlers out of Gaza and concurrently, Israel built the fence--one of the main reasons the hirabah(?) killers have turned on each other is because there isn't an "occupation" anymore, at least not in Gaza, and they're not able to get into Israel any longer to continue the Intifada, so charity and unholy war begin at home.
I believe our giving them aid is conditional upon them foreswearing Islamist murder and recognizing Israel as a state.
This situation will be, as ever, riveting to watch.
I do hope someone's making popcorn.
One thing I pretty sure of is that Bush and his team know what they're doing and have "gamed" the various scenarios that may play out, like chess.

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt at July 17, 2007 1:09 AM

The following hissed in response by: Chris Hunt

You referred to Fatah as the lesser of two evils being lesser twice, when I believe the first should have been lesser two evils being still evil.

Good post.

The above hissed in response by: Chris Hunt at July 17, 2007 3:40 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I think Bush is trying to bolster Blair here as well.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at July 17, 2007 4:11 AM

The following hissed in response by: howardhughes

Dafydd seems to be juggling 5 or 6 ideas in the air at the same time and he may have dropped one. How about the simple fact that Hamas intends to infiltrate Fatah in the West Bank from Gaza. The ease with which Fatah was booted out of Gaza by Hamas does not bode well for Fatah's future in the West Bank. Securing Fatah's position in the West Bank deflects some pressure by both Hamas and Fatah againstIsrael. Thus the administration's decision to support (pay off) Fatah helps Israel and ameliorates further violence next to Israel. $275.million is cheap if it works.

The above hissed in response by: howardhughes at July 17, 2007 5:26 AM

The following hissed in response by: Roy Lofquist

Dear Dafydd,

I guess you missed it. The millennium did come a couple of years back. Most of the big problems were magically solved. Unfortunately the replacements are a bit bothersome.

Regards,
Roy

The above hissed in response by: Roy Lofquist at July 17, 2007 7:45 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Chris Hunt:

Oops, thanks; I corrected it.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at July 17, 2007 1:18 PM

The following hissed in response by: Seaberry

OT - National Intelligence Estimate (7 page pdf.)

The above hissed in response by: Seaberry at July 17, 2007 3:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: West

Daffyd, Thank you for the courtesy of a response.

I don't think you get my point.

Your response, in part:

I don't recall opining whether stealth or brazenness made the victim "feel any better." I think I wrote that the latter is more evil and dangerous.

Why? The people are still dead or maimed, the destruction is still accomplished, and the resultant chaos is still suffered by the innocent.

Does the motives and/or feigned public contriteness of the perps ameliorate that one single bit? It does not.

Let me make a parallel here. If the Democrats and liberals manage to force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, we are all too well aware of the death, destruction and chaos that will result. Even the NYT acknowledges it. Does the supposedly good intentions of at least some of the Democrats make any difference? No the evil will still be extant, the same people will die, the same damage will be done whether or not the people in power perform the act in good conscience or not. Although the actual death and destruction will be performed by others, the evil inherent in the enabling of this scenario will be the same.

The victim, being dead, is not in a position to feel anything. But the larger society is certainly in a position to feel more endangered, and the felon can certainly be more evil or less evil.

"Feeling endangered" is the absolute least of the damage caused by these acts, and compared to the other consequences is almost negligable. The 'felon' (in the case we are arguing, I would prefer 'terrorist') still performs the same acts - as before. Whether dead people feel bad or not is irrelevant - the main point, and the intrinsic evil of the act is that they are DEAD.

If the perps want to kill others, yet be so incompetent as to be unable to effect the same, they are still evil in their hearts, certainly, but the greater evil of the death and murder of innocents and destruction of society's wealth and security is not loosed upon the world. The greater evil is in the act, not the intention. And in the case we are arguing, the intention is exactly the same by both parties, one party merely has a little more consideration for appearances. That's not much of a concession - in fact none at all, merely a little more dishonest than the publicly unrepentant murderer. Remember, they are still both unrepentant, one just thinks it will profit him more to fake it.

Now, back to a sentence from the paragraph which I originally quoted:

That man is both more evil and more dangerous in my opinion, because he recognizes no behavioral limit whatsoever.

That would be true, if that public contrition that your 'lesser evil' man supposedly feels actually constrained his deadly activities in any way. But you yourself have pointed out that this public contrition is merely a front, and the deadly intent and actions remain unchanged. So the evil loosed upon the world by the falsely contrite perp is exactly the same as that of the unrepentant one.

The most horrible aspect of the culture of militant Islamism is the way they commit the most hideous and despicable crimes against Man and God without the slightest concern for concealing their deeds. In fact, they boast of them.

If I believed in demons, I would believe the hirabis were possessed by Moloch. Rather, I believe they have killed whatever "soul" was once inside and become conscienceless killing machines who worship only Death -- and whose god-favored ritual is human sacrifice.

They're worse than the Aztecs.

All that I agree with - but is irrelevant on this particular point.

regards,

West

P.S. I'm a regular, your insights and analysis' are always valuable, thank you.

The above hissed in response by: West at July 17, 2007 9:44 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

West:

I'm not talking about intentions, motives, or contrition. I'm speaking of the acts themselves.

Brazen murder is much more evil and dangerous to society than murder by stealth, for the same reason that killing a cop is much worse than killing a private individual: because it's an attack, not merely on a person, but upon the very concepts of law and society.

Identically, Hamas is far worse than Fatah because the latter admits that terrorism is bad -- but falsely claims it doesn't commit terrorism; while the former admits it commits terrorism -- and celebrates it.

Fatah is hypocritical; it thus implicitly affirms the virtue of peace and security, each person free to his own conscience, by the very pretense. By contrast, Hamas nakedly declares that nobody has a right to do anything but obey orders from Hamas (that is, from God) -- whatsoever is not mandated is prohibited -- and anybody who thinks differently will be butchered and sacrificed to Moloch.

Fatah members act like criminals; Hamas acolytes act like demons.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at July 18, 2007 1:53 AM