Scheuer Defends Hamas
It is remarkable what some former CIA folks believe. For example, head over to antiwar.com and you can find the CIA's first bin Laden hunter, Michael Scheuer, defending Hamas and chastising the U.S. for not embracing the terror group's recent electoral victory. No, I'm not kidding.
Late last month Scheuer wrote:
The Palestinian election could have been the break in the Middle East that America has needed, but so far Washington's bipartisan governing elite has kicked that gift horse squarely in the chops. The from-all-reports fair and democratic election of Hamas should have been a U.S. propaganda triumph, as well as a chance for Washington to exit the morass of Palestinian-Israeli affairs. An aged, incompetent, and putridly corrupt PLO was democratically defeated by Hamas, an organization well-versed in delivering many government services. In this scenario, the United States had a golden opportunity to show respect for a culturally compatible democratic process in the Muslim world and to detach itself from the snare of an endless war in which it has no interest. After 30-plus years of America exposing itself to steadily increasing danger and expense because of the infantile inability of Israelis and Palestinians to live together, we had a chance to walk away and let the cards fall where they may. True, it surely would not have been fair to both sides to do so; after all, the Israelis have a conventional army and a large, undocumented array of weapons of mass destruction, while the Palestinians have AK-47s, the less-than-mighty Qassim missiles, and a steady supply of martyrs and rocks. Life is always tough, however, and the elimination of one or both sides would have no discernible impact on life in North America.
Scheuer never says anything about Hamas being a terrorist organization. Why would he? It gets in the way of another opportunity to launch into an anti-Israel screed. Scheuer argues that:
(1) Israel has no strategic value to the U.S. and if the Israelis and the Palestinians "erased each other from the face of the earth tomorrow, it would have no notable impact on America."
(2) The idea that Israel has a "right" to exist is "goofy" because the same argument wasn't applied to the Soviet Union, for example. "States exist," Scheuer writes, "because they can defend themselves against predators, produce a viable economy, and prevent terminal, internal societal rot."
(3) I'll quote most of his third "argument" because no summary can do it justice:
A government is only legitimate, and can only be dealt with, if it renounces violence and recognizes the right of all states to exist. In practice, this means that Palestine's new Hamas government must unilaterally disarm in the face of a demonstrably brutal enemy – backed by the unqualified support of the world's only superpower – and willingly turn its back on a duty (jihad) that it believes derives from God's word. In commonsense terms, this sort of voluntary national suicide and mass apostasy seems a bit much to ask and, even more, to realistically expect to achieve.
Got that? Israel is the "demonstrably brutal enemy," while Hamas would be committing "voluntary national suicide" if it renounced terrorism. If I thought it required more than two brain cells to debunk this nonsense, then I would. But, I don't. So...
Late last month Scheuer wrote:
The Palestinian election could have been the break in the Middle East that America has needed, but so far Washington's bipartisan governing elite has kicked that gift horse squarely in the chops. The from-all-reports fair and democratic election of Hamas should have been a U.S. propaganda triumph, as well as a chance for Washington to exit the morass of Palestinian-Israeli affairs. An aged, incompetent, and putridly corrupt PLO was democratically defeated by Hamas, an organization well-versed in delivering many government services. In this scenario, the United States had a golden opportunity to show respect for a culturally compatible democratic process in the Muslim world and to detach itself from the snare of an endless war in which it has no interest. After 30-plus years of America exposing itself to steadily increasing danger and expense because of the infantile inability of Israelis and Palestinians to live together, we had a chance to walk away and let the cards fall where they may. True, it surely would not have been fair to both sides to do so; after all, the Israelis have a conventional army and a large, undocumented array of weapons of mass destruction, while the Palestinians have AK-47s, the less-than-mighty Qassim missiles, and a steady supply of martyrs and rocks. Life is always tough, however, and the elimination of one or both sides would have no discernible impact on life in North America.
Scheuer never says anything about Hamas being a terrorist organization. Why would he? It gets in the way of another opportunity to launch into an anti-Israel screed. Scheuer argues that:
(1) Israel has no strategic value to the U.S. and if the Israelis and the Palestinians "erased each other from the face of the earth tomorrow, it would have no notable impact on America."
(2) The idea that Israel has a "right" to exist is "goofy" because the same argument wasn't applied to the Soviet Union, for example. "States exist," Scheuer writes, "because they can defend themselves against predators, produce a viable economy, and prevent terminal, internal societal rot."
(3) I'll quote most of his third "argument" because no summary can do it justice:
A government is only legitimate, and can only be dealt with, if it renounces violence and recognizes the right of all states to exist. In practice, this means that Palestine's new Hamas government must unilaterally disarm in the face of a demonstrably brutal enemy – backed by the unqualified support of the world's only superpower – and willingly turn its back on a duty (jihad) that it believes derives from God's word. In commonsense terms, this sort of voluntary national suicide and mass apostasy seems a bit much to ask and, even more, to realistically expect to achieve.
Got that? Israel is the "demonstrably brutal enemy," while Hamas would be committing "voluntary national suicide" if it renounced terrorism. If I thought it required more than two brain cells to debunk this nonsense, then I would. But, I don't. So...
posted by Thomas Joscelyn at 12:01 AM
<< Home