By Julian Ware-Lane / @WareLane
Following on from my top ten yesterday, here is a non-domestic list. Selecting only ten allows me to ignore all sorts of momentous events that will doubtless generate debate. I have attempted to go for game-changing events. Do you agree with my list?
Hamas' election victory
The victory for a terrorist organisation in Parliamentary elections in what is probably the major terrorist hot-spot in the world was bound to have ramifications. Not only did this give the Israeli government a headache, it demonstrated that democracy can be a far from perfect form of government at times.
Russia gas pipeline dispute
In the end this amounted to very little. However, it was a signpost to a future in which energy supplies will become crucial, especially as natural resources become scarcer. Russia’s spat with Ukraine threatened EU supplies, and laid bare our dependence on parts of the world where stability is an even scarcer commodity. I predict further energy disputes this century.
North Korea nuclear test
The spread of nuclear weapons seems inevitable. Nonetheless, it does leave one uncomfortable and feeling vulnerable. It also demonstrated the impotence of the West in dealing with some rogue states. North Korea may be part of the axis of evil; unlike Iraq and Syria it is untouchable at present. Watch out for Iran’s tests to come.
Kyoto
The first international acknowledgement that something must be done about climate change.
The George W. Bush Presidency
Began in controversy (remember those hanging chads?), followed by eight months when nothing seemed to happen; then came the Al-Qaeda attacks. Under the Bush Presidency the US became embroiled in two wars that still threaten to outdo Vietnam for longevity.
Benazir Bhutto assassination
Public life has its benefits; it also has its pitfalls. This truly shocking event showed the fragility of democratic expression in some places, and how a determined extremist can undermine legitimate government. As we are producing weaponry at an alarming rate I expect more of the same in the years ahead.
Mugabe versus Tsvangirai
In the Henry Ford election (you can have any result you like as long as it is a ZANU-PF victory) Robert Mugabe lost and won. The reluctance of Thabo Mbeki to influence his neighbours accounted for his eventual downfall. One of the by-products of Mugabe terror tactics is that my hometown has something like a thousand more Zimbabweans than it did a decade ago. Africa has long been the continent where stable government was a distant dream; Zimbabwe looked like it was going to buck that trend at one point. It now is the embodiment of that old cliché: banana republic.
China olympic torch protests
Despite an appalling human rights record, there were many brave enough to use the opportunity afforded by the Beijing Olympics to demonstrate disgust at China’s policy over Tibet. To me, this was a heart-warming event, and a reminder that the freedoms we enjoy have all been won by fighters and believers.
Obama
Less about what he has done and will do, and more about who he is and where he came from. Barack Obama’s startling victory turned eyes from gazing at the gutter to eyes that now gaze at stars.
Aung San Suu Kyi
Today’s Nelson Mandela. She embodies the saying "it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees". When we are faced with falling voter turnout at home it is sobering to think of what others will do for a fair vote. Will she ever be free? I am not optimistic.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
and in the 70s and 80s the ira was the same ( to a degree) It was only by engaging with them that we got to the peace we have now , The thing is when the people voted for hamas we had a small window to engage and try and change them , By isolating them we are not going to move forward and the palastions will feel they dont have a choice in democracy .
Danny
The comparison with the IRA is a standard and I have to say stupid comparison to make.
The IRA had political goals i.e. a united democratic Ireland free of British involvement. It had no desire to enforce views on anyone outside of Ireland and was committed to a democratic Eire.
I hated the IRA and its methods but it was nothing like what Hamas represents and you would i think deeply annoy McGuiness etc. if you compared them.
Hamas is but another face of a fundamentalist Islam that shows itself in Al Qaeda, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Finsbury Park Mosque, Abu Hamza, Iran etc. etc.
Give Hamas a 2 state solution and it will want Israel.
Give Hamas Israel and it will want a midle east Caliphate.
Give Hamas the middle east and they will want north Africa, southern Spain, the Balkans etc.
And so on until the Caliphate.
The IRA had defined and limited goals within its own "territory". Hamas and Islamic fundamentalists don't.
They already are isolated and you can't negotiate with them.
Happy New Year.
Actually, by contradicting Ricki you make her point for her. Like Hamas, the IRA affiliated itself with many left wing insurgency/freedom fighting/terrorist movements, from Libya to Columbia. You could say the same about Hamas. They may affiliate themselves with a raft of movements from Hezbollah to elements in Al Qaeda, but to say 'they are just another face of fundamentalist Islam' exposes your ignorance or short memory. You might as well say the 'IRA are just another face of revolutionary Marxism'.
Hamas have quite specific territorial and nationalist goals. They're not secular like Fatah, but didn't Irish republicanism go through its own splits between its religious and secular branches? Just as the republican movement had to 'do a deal' with the Loyalists in Ulster, Hamas will ultimately have to do a deal with Israel. That state, nuclear armed and with the most powerful military in the region, isn't going to go away.
I see nothing in Hamas' political statements that demands a Caliphate, run from either Jerusalem or Baghdad, so your preconditions for 'not negotiating' with them, have already been overcome. Recognition of the state of Israel is the key issue. There are rights and wrongs on both sides. Because of the Iranian connection, there is some holocaust denial in Hamas. On the other hand, it took the PLO decades to recognise Israel, but they did. And the key question of recognition goes both ways. Will Israel recognise that there were 700,000 Arabs (Christian and Muslim) ethnically cleansed in 1948? Will it accord the nearly 4 million Arabs in both Israel proper and the occupied territories, equal civil rights?
These kinds of questions vitiated the slow civil war in Ireland throughout the 20th century. These questions were ultimately solved politically. The kind of dismissive intransigence you opine does nobody any favours in the long run - least of all the Israelis.
The Hamas Charter makes very clear its position on the need for Islamic control across all regions and peoples starting with the whole of "Palestine" which by its own definition includes all Israel.
Hamas is a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy supporting group of terrorists.
Personally I'm full square behind Israel in never negotiating or giving an inch to them. The US is as well and will remain so, so Hamas can go do what the hell it wants and take all fundamentalist Islamic apologists with them.
Peter you are a supporter of Islam, I’m not in the slightest. Let’s not have this debate as it’s pointless.
The Hamas Charter makes unspecific noise about Muslim unity, in the same way the IRA did about Marxist revolution. Look what happened to the IRA.
And of course, I'm no supporter of Islam. As an atheist Brit why would I be? But I am believer in conflict resolution and religious tolerance. Kind of worked in Northern Ireland didn't it?
Fundamentalist Islam is not Catholic/Protestant Christianity.
Hamas is funded out of the same pot as all the other fundamentalist Islamic groups.
I don't support religious tolerance when the religion in question in its most fundamentalist form is a threat to my way of life.
I was in NYC for 9/11 and London for 7/7. Fundamentalist Islam is not the equal of the CofE type Christianity and it is not to be taken lightly or treated like it is a stray dog that can be domesticated.
To equate Northern Ireland with Palestine would really annoy all my Irish friends.
I thought you didn't want this debate. Having mischaracterised me as 'Supporter of Islam' don't misrepresent my argument as 'equating' Hamas and the IRA. My problem is your sweeping and uninformed generalisation about all these movements under the banner 'Fundementalist Islam'. About as misleading as 'Revolutionary Marxism' was for the Provisional IRA.
On 9/11 my then partner was heading to the Pentagon. On the morning of 7/7 I was just about to head to Edgware Road. Your point? I also remember, a couple of years prior to that, a large bomb being exploded in Ealing not far away from where my kids lived, and then outside their mother's workplace. Throughout most my adult life the IRA was called a terrorist organisation who we could never deal with, should refuse the oxygen of publicity, and could only be dealt with in military terms. Sound familiar?
There are branches of Islamic fundamentalism that pose an existential threat and cannot be negotiated with. However, from so-called Taliban tribal chiefs to Sunni leaders in Anbar, there are those who can be peeled away towards the road to political settlement. It's just common sense.
Unlike you, the American government does think it can talk and negotiate with Hamas, so mercifully wiser counsels prevail where it matters.
No, I don't want this debate, because I loathe Islam and what it stands for with a passion.
So I'll take the opposition side to it no matter where or when.
Given that we will never see eye to eye, so there is little point.
Interesting. So you loathe the works of Rumi or Omar Khayam, the Taj Mahal and the Alhambra, the mathematics and philosophy of Averroes and Avicenna? You loathe the mysticism of the Sufis? The famed tolerance and philanthropy of the Ismailis? Or did you just mean modern Islam? So, you just happen to loathe 1 billion people, regardless of their nuanced personal philosophies? Or is it just Turks and Indonesians you hate, both of which constitute two of the largest Muslim nations?
Come on Guy. Your ignorance is showing. Hate Salafist extremists all you want, but to 'loathe Islam with a passion' without regard to historical reality is just plain blind prejudice. By taking the fight to Islam in this fashion, you give succour and support to the fundamentalists.
That is a horrible thing to say.
The Hamas election victory was the chance to get peace in the regoin , Instead of shunning them we should have extended our hands and worked with them not against them , democracy is not perfect you say , I disagree , its what the people vote for so no matter who wins democracy is maintained which is good .
Danny
Hamas has a stated objective of destroying Israel and replacing it with an Islamic Palestinian state. It doesn't talk about doing that democratically it talks about doing it by force irrespective of the wishes of individuals
A follow up stated Hamas objective is the creation of a global Islamic Caliphate. Again it does not talk about doing this democratically but through force irrespective of individual’s views.
Should such an Islamic Palestine or Caliphate ever come about I'd suggest that "democracy" will not be playing much of a part.
You may want to "work with them", I do not, not under any circumstances.
Hamas and the seventh century desert Islam they wish to impose have no relevance to 21st century Palestine.
But then neither do the equally fundamentalist and intransigent Judaists currently engaged in their objective of a 'Greater Israel' - which is no more and no less than a Mugabe-style land grab, to use the wonderful term popularised by our friends in the 'Telegraph'.
There is no such thing as an imposed Islam. It is a contradiction in terms.
"But then neither do the equally fundamentalist and intransigent Judaists currently engaged in their objective of a 'Greater Israel' - which is no more and no less a Mugabe-style land grab"
Completely agree, they should be forced off that land at gun point by the Israeli army.
but..
"There is no such thing as an imposed Islam"
So the imposition of a fundamentalist Islamic society with hardline Sharia is in fact not a reality in any country then?
If given the chance, middle eastern populations would not want democracy and freedom of choice?
Convictions for apostasy and the sentences they carry are just another little misunderstanding on the west's part?
Fundamentalist Islam is a threat to western values and will not sit quietly minding it' own business. Pakistan tried that in the Swat valley and it didn't work.
So the imposition of a fundamentalist Islamic society with hardline Sharia is in fact not a reality in any country then?
That's not what I said, Guy. It's a Straw Man.
Imposition of 'hardline Sharia'h' or any other form is unIslamic: if Islam is about anything it is about consent and acceptance.
Fundamentalist Islam is a threat to western values
There's another side to that coin.
Western values, including representative democracy (ie the tyranny of the majority) - and above all the Western framework of absolute property rights and deficit-based finance - are fundamentally inimical to Islamic values.
Come to that, our current sociopathic Western values are inimical to the values of Christian and other Abrahamic tradition as well. It's just that Judaism and Christianity long since caved in to Mammon.
Woolly Western nonsense. Try reading what hardline Saudi "scholars" write, rather than believing that everything the MCB puts out describes Islam as a whole. I don't care how you think Islam should be applied, I care about how it is applied. Have a look at what Hizb ut Tahrir want. Have a look at what's happening to Copts in Egypt.
Lefty liberals who sanctimoniously explain how cuddly Islam is form one of the most dangerous groups in our society IMO. "Useful idiots" isn't the half of it.