It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Could A Dictator of Palestine Be Better Than Hamas?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 07:52 PM
An Alternative Foreign Policy

Everybody knows that Israel could invade and conquer the whole of Palestinian territory tomorrow.
The trouble is what would they do with it? Sit there as they get attacked from every angle with every weapon ranging from RPG to the human body; is probably the answer, (and all this as take unprecedented amounts of international criticism).
So instead Israel has let the Palestinians have their own authority. It’s a way of providing a government without actually being one.

Trouble is this “democracy thing” doesn’t seem to be working too well. In Iraq it is probably only an election away from paying its full dividends of a pro-Iran, Iranian linked-backed government.
In Palestine the improvised (and often somewhat un Westernised) Palestinians have the history of successfully electing a corrupt Arafat (addicted to scooping some of the funding for himself that came for terrorist organisations; when people felt the need for terrorism) (in part thanks to his leadership-or lack of it).
Now they elect Hamas. This doesn’t seem to have been as bad as predicted; for the most part it has had a ceasefire, and when it has involved itself in terrorism it has been nothing compared tom its ability to do so. However it has got “hung-up” on the idea of accepting Israel’s “right to exist” (presumably because Israel doesn’t seem to recognise its or Palestine’s).
Also thanks to the near automatic blockade against by the international community (no doubt in part because of its bad past history, and they’re pro Israeli links) many Palestinian officials have not been paid; and this has led to riots against the late Arafat’s (corrupt) party Fattah (I believe it’s translatable as “Fatter”).

What Would A Dictatorship Look Like…
Recently we deposed a very Westernised dictator by the name of Saddam. He supported a vision based on modelling the Arab world on America (called the Ba’th Party Movement-ideology).
Though our reasons for removing him remain unclear; it has become extremely clear that he had certain “benefits”. Things like the fact the chaos resulting from our invasion of Iraq has probably already resulted in killing more than the 350 odd thousand people allegedly killed by his political oppression over 33 years of power.
Also it was possible to negotiate with him (as his unilateral disbarment of WMD’s in line with the 1991 ceasefire agreement turned out to have proved).
This is contrast to some the “Rag Head” ideologies followed by some of the members of Hamas; as well as some of the people now running Iraq (some of the other less known terrorists groups).

Besides all these religious fundamentalists; and anti religious fundamentalists have conflicting demands, and anyway it is undesirable to negotiate-strengthen religious fundamentalists.

I believe “Saddam The Dictator of Palestine and Iraq” would be a very good way of hitting two problems with one stone. Trouble is I accept it isn’t very likely to happen.
However is it not the case that we should be supporting any Arab movement that promises to Westernise the Arabs. And that the many nations of the West should be open to installing dictatorships (probably through secret service business) if the dictator offers (amongst other things) offers stability and westernisation.

I understand America, Britain, and Israel opposed the Ba’th party movement on the grounds it could make the Arabs too strong, and therefore in too much of a position to oppose Israel.
However Israel has nuclear bombs and westernised dictatorships (just like western nations) respect this deterrent effect. Westernised peoples-governments can often be reasoned with by other Western entities; Religious fundamentalists on the other hand do not always respect the threat of death (possibly even from a nuclear) and in any case they can hardly ever be reasoned with. And negotiations do take place; anything gained tends to be temporary; whilst anything lost-given tends to be a lot more permanent.
And supporting Arab Westernisation Movements would probably be a lot cheaper than supporting full-scale regime change with missiles, or other classic colonial style techniques for world domination.
Also supporting non-democratic westernisation movements means they are unlikely to affected by the protests of the religious fundamentalist-nutcase too much.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

new topics

log in