It never ceases to amaze and amuse how the media typically focuses its attention either on the extremist Hamas or Fatah, with little or no mention of any other party and their leaders. The Palestinian elections of last year, saw Hamas becoming the main political force which was trumpeted by the international media as the peoples natural response to Fatah mismanagement and corruption of the Palestinian Authority, and by default, the only “logical choice”.
But there were other parties for the people to choose from, and perhaps with a bit more international recognition of the far more moderate parties such as the Palestine Democratic Union (socialist, but better than Islamist) or the Palestinian National Initiative (that enjoyed a brief stay in the media spotlight) they (and others) would have enjoyed better success.
Here is a fresh break in the media’s tired cycle of “tunnel vision” reporting, the San Francisco Chronicle reports that one more new party called “Wasatia“, seeks to make a difference in the lives of the Palestinians.
“A new Palestinian movement being launched today is aimed at the moderate middle of Muslim politics. Wasatia — Arabic for “moderation” — is the first Islamic religious party to advocate a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a tolerant, democratic society at home. The new party is the brainchild of political science Professor Mohammed Dajani, director of the American Studies Institute at Al-Quds University in East Jerusalem. Dajani hopes to build Wasatia into a movement with a social and political wing that will eventually compete with Hamas for the votes of what he calls the silent majority of Palestinians.”
If this new party stays true to its word, then it does offer something better for the Palestinians, Israelis and the international community as an alternative to the current gang of terrorists presiding over the Palestinian parliament.
The Helsingin Sanomat reports in today’s foreign news section, that “Israelin hallitus jäämässä yksin hylkimään palestiinalaisten yhteishallitusta / Israel’s government is standing alone in its boycotting of the Palestinian Unity government”. This isn’t entirely the case, both the US and EU states are keeping in contact with (supposedly) “more moderate” representatives within the government, while continuing their boycott of Hamas in general. HS journalist Jussi Vuotila remarks at the end of the article that:
“Hanian ministeristö on kaukana ihannehallituksesta, mutta parempia vaihtoehtoja ei ole tarjolla / Hania’s government is far from perfect, but a better alternative is not on offer.”
That is no excuse to do business with an entity that is rejectionable by its own admission. No one is saying that the situation should be allowed to deteriorate to the point that people are becoming malnourished ect.. But choosing a terrorist/totalitarian extremist group to run a government should not be rewarded with recognition. Perhaps the current policy of boycotting the Hamas might induce the Palestinians to reconsider their choice in candidates in the next elections, giving the moderates a chance at improving their state of affairs.
The Palestinians do have choices, the question remains whether they will keep on making the wrong choices, and will the international community keep apologizing for them when they do? *L* KGS
Tundraman adds: I think that Helsingin Sanomat has been worse than usual these days:
- (1) Yesterday HS stated quite clearly in an Editorial that the three conditions put by the Quartet for accepting the PA government “can be considered to be somewhat unreasonable, as Israel itself uses violence as an occupier and has not been too pernickety about following agreements” (“Vaatimuksia voidaan pitää vähän kohtuuttominakin, koska Israel käyttää itse miehittäjänä väkivaltaa eikä ole ollut turhantarkka sopimusten noudattamisessa”).
- (2) Today HS has an article with a huge title: “The government of Israel is about to be left alone in rejecting the joint Palestinian government” (“Israelin hallitus jäämässä yksin hylkimään paelstiinalaisten yhteishallitusta”).
Following logically the point of yesterday’s Editorial, HS then goes on to explain how everybody else is willing to negotiate with the new PA gvt except Israel, and the article ends again by blaming the prospective victim for terrorism and worse:”..
“the no-attitude of Olmert means the continuation of the dead end and the strenthening of the gloomy threats associated with it. The lack of visions for the future feeds extremist elements” (.”..Olmertin ei-kanta merkitsee umpikujan jatkumista ja siihen liittyvien synkkien uhkakuvien voimistumista. Näköalattomuus ruokkii ääriaineksia.”)
This is really chilling.