Hamas landslide reveals more about left than about Palestinians Jan 31, 2006 by Dennis Prager It is a sad day for humanity when a people choose to elect terrorists as their leaders. But for those of us who believe that clarity is the prerequisite to moral progress, the landslide victory of the terrorist organization Hamas in Palestine has a silver lining. First and foremost, it proves what people who perceive reality have been saying for decades: The great majority of Palestinians -- like the majority of Arabs elsewhere and like vast numbers of non-Arab Muslims -- want Israel destroyed. Even granting legitimacy to the argument that the complete moral, financial and political corruption of Fatah was partly responsible for the Hamas victory, those who voted for Hamas did not find that organization's terror, religious celebration of murder or charter calling for Israel's destruction an impediment to their vote. It is true that in 1933, some Germans who voted for the Nazis did so out of anger at the Versailles Treaty and because of the economic chaos that engulfed their country. Indeed, it is widely agreed among historians that Hitler played down anti-Semitism in the Nazis' electoral campaigning. But every German voter was aware of the ferocity of the Nazis' Jew-hatred. And, whatever the case in 1933 Germany, in 2006 Palestine, Hamas has never played down its anti-Semitism or its support for continuing terrorism. So the Palestinian vote reveals the falsity of the worldwide Left's view of the Palestinians as committed to peace. It likewise reveals the falsity of the Left's belief that Palestinian terror is supported by a small minority of the Palestinian population. That is one reason why the Bush doctrine -- we need to spread democracy everywhere possible, including, or even especially, in the Arab world -- is so valid. You cannot deal with any problem in life -- from the most personal to the most macro -- by engaging in wishful thinking and denying reality. Thanks to this election, the mask has been removed. When given the opportunity to express themselves, most Arabs and many Muslims elsewhere support terror and seek the annihilation of Israel. That is why the Hamas victory is such a defeat for the world's Left -- university professors, news media, socialist parties, the European Union, the United Nations, "peace" activists, editorial writers, and all other apologists for the Palestinians. A personal anecdote will help illustrate this. Two years ago, thanks to the Hoover Institution at Stanford, I spent a week lecturing at the university. Coincidentally, Israel's Independence Day fell during that same week, and pro-Israel students asked me to speak at their rally honoring Israel. In my remarks, I mentioned that the primary reason for the Arab-Israeli conflict was that the majority of Palestinians wanted Israel destroyed. A woman who introduced herself as "a peace activist" walked over to me afterward and said I was wrong, that, in fact, the majority of Palestinians wanted peace with Israel. I asked her to go over to the Arab students who were attending a counter protest against Israel and ask them if they accepted the right of a Jewish state of Israel to exist. I bet her $5 they would say "no." She took the bet. Fifteen minutes later, she came back to me. "Well, who won the bet?" I asked. "I don't know," she responded. "What do you mean you 'don't know'? What did they say?" "They all asked me, 'What do you mean?'" Though not one Arab student answered "yes," she still didn't get it. This peace activist, like other "peace activists" and just about everyone on the Left, lives in a state of wishful thinking. As director Steven Spielberg, commenting on the Arab-Israeli dispute, recently told Time magazine, "The only thing that's going to solve this is rational minds, a lot of sitting down and talking until you're blue in the gills." On just about every issue, the Left lives in a childlike fantasy realm. Their views are expressions of what they wish for, not what actually is. Here is a small sample: -- Support for terror represents a tiny sliver of the Muslim world. -- All cultures are essentially morally equivalent. -- The United Nations is a wonderful institution and the best hope of mankind. -- Men and women are basically the same. -- It makes no difference whether children are raised by a loving man and woman or by two loving parents of the same sex. -- Violent criminals in our society are pushed into crime by socioeconomic circumstances, not because of their own flawed characters and values. -- War is not the answer. The list of leftist positions based on a rejection of reality is as long as a list of leftist positions. That's why it is often said that "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged." But that, too, is wishful thinking. After some initial cognitive dissonance, the Hamas victory will have little or no impact on most leftists. The day after the Hamas landslide, the Los Angeles Times editorialized, "Most Palestinians, like most Israelis, want peace." Sure they do. Just not with Israel.
He makes eminent sense. Surely you don't object to that, do you? Or are your views limited to those of the NY Times?
Do you really think this makes any sense? We invaded Iraq, lost thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to remove the mask?
Yes. Do you really believe Iraq was invaded in order to illustrate the Left's folly? Do you really think that makes any sense?
Of course I don't believe that, Prager does - according to him Bush doctrine of spreading democracy in the middle east is valid because even though we get democratically elected ugly terrorist regimes in charge of ME countries "it reveals the falsity of the Left's beliefs". In other words the only positive outcome of Bush doctrine is that it "reveals" that the left is wrong about muslims/arabs/palestinians but that's what makes the doctrine valid. That's Prager's logic which according to you "makes eminent sense".
Whoa. I think that the right may have been as surprised by the Hamas victory as the left. I think you give Bush and his gang far too much credit by assuming that they knew this whole democracy initiative in the Middle East was just going to be a eye opener to reality rather than a step towards conciliation. Forgive me, but that just sounds like someone trying to justify a bad trade. Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for the democracy thing. Just don't try using the "I told you so" schtick. dddooo's post at the bottom of page 1 of this thread is a good one.
So which is it? You just contradicted yourself and/or simply don't understand the article. Prager believes that Iraq was invaded in order to illustrate the Left's folly? Show me where in the article he states that. No, that is all in YOUR words that "the only positive outcome of Bush's doctrine is......" You are incorrectly subscribing your personal beliefs to Prager. What makes eminent sense to me about Prager's article is that, among other things, it reveals the gaping holes in the Left's argument that only a few Palestinians and Muslims support terror and that the majority are committed to peace with Israel.
I'm not trying to use the "I told you so schtick," and neither is Prager. Where do I, or Prager, state that the Iraq war was "just going to be an eye opener to reality rather than a step towards conciliation"? His post IMO is wildly erronous in its assumptions, but you're of course entitled to your opinion.
He believes that the Bush doctrine "reveals the falsity of the Left's beliefs". Iraq IS the Bush doctrine or at the very least its centerpiece. That's the only thing he's talking about - bush doctrine is right because it proves that the left is wrong. There is no other theme in the article. First of all only small percent of the left in this country thinks so, they are wrong and in this respect Prager is right but it does not validate the bush doctrine of spreading democracy in the Middle East, if anything it completely destroys it.