Is this what the neocons mean by democracy?

Does democracy mean, you can elect anyone you want, as long as we approve? There's a word for that, boys. It's called "empire." A lot of neocons are embracing the concept. Try it on for size.

he United States and Israel are discussing ways to destabilize the Palestinian government so that newly elected Hamas officials will fail and elections will be called again, according to Israeli officials and Western diplomats.
The intention is to starve the Palestinian Authority of money and international connections to the point where, some months from now, its president, Mahmoud Abbas, is compelled to call a new election. The hope is that Palestinians will be so unhappy with life under Hamas that they will return to office a reformed and chastened Fatah movement.


Paul Hue said...

Tom: First, you seem either to not understand the definition of "empire", or you have invented your own. Here is the basic definition of empire, and all subsequent definitions are variations of this one: "A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority."

Second, supporting democracy indeed does not mean supporting every result of democracy. Should Poland have supported the German people's election of Adoph Hitler? Your view, shared by many Bush opponents (including Pat Buchanon) perplexes me. What if the Palistinians (or Idahoans) had elected executive leaders who pledged to enslave all blacks, institute an international Fugitive Slave Law, and invade Cuba? Would you and Nadir support that government?

Endosing the concept of democracy for all nations certainly does not require embracing all results of democratic elections. The Palistinians have used the democratic process to elect a slate of leaders. Do you support democracy? Americans elected Bush. Do you support Bush? Nadir just devoted super bowl weekend to ousting Bush from office prior to the end of his term.

By the way, I know what Pat Buchanon advocates in place of democracy for "those people": dictatorships by people who do not interfere with the prosperity of the US. What to you and Nadir propose instead of democracy? "Whatever the people want"? Is that your anser? That is what democracy *is*. Any mechanism that formally ensures that "the peoople" collectively get "what they want", that is democracy.

Are you daring to suggest that Bush should have violated his pledge to support democracy for the Palistinians simply because he should have known that they would have elected leaders who would have opposed Bush on such issues as preserving Isreal? Had Bush six months ago stopped supporting democracy there, you would have criticized him for that. But he supported democracy, and you taunt him for getting Humas. I thought that Bush controlled the world. Why didn't he use those powers (which, by the way, weren't strong enough to plant fake WMDs) to rig the Palistinian election?

I think it is logical and consistent for Bush to support democracy in Palistine, and to work against a democratically elected Palistine leadership that pledges to eradicate Isreal.

Paul Hue said...

The short answer to your question: Yes, this is what the neocons mean by "democracy": an organized process by which the people elect a government, and new officers peacably take office from previous holders. If Palistinian voters elect people who pledge to eradicate Isreal, those leaders won't be able to get funds from the US, though.