Well, we see an unexpected "benefit" to the US-led attempts to "democratize" the Arab "tyrannies" in the Near East.

I'm wondering how this is going to be spun -- let's face it, this electoral outcome does not please the Israelis, which means it's not going to please the current administation, which, however palsy it may be with the perfidious princes in Saudi Arabia is light years more palsy with the zany Zionists and the lunatic Likudists.

Will Bush and the Neocons have any public second thoughts about democracy, representative government, the electoral process and popular sovereignty as a result of this not-unexpected but totally unwanted deveolpment?  Makes me think of Kissinger's comment that the US could not stand by and watch a Communist government installed via democratic means due to the irresponsibility of the electorate [this was said about either Spain or Portugal appx 1975 I think].

Another serving of egg-in-the-face for Bush and company.

-- Modified on 1/30/2006 5:00:13 AM

You are right. Bush is getting what he deserves. Unforturnately, the people of the US will suffer for his half-baked schemes.

You idiot. This has nothing to do Bush or the Neocons. This has to do with a terrorist organization with the avowed genocide of the Jewish people as their stated mission. And before you start with your befuddled bullshit about this being merely a political spat, take a good hard look at the Hamas charter. Its not just about the obliteration of the State of Israel, a sovereign nation, but about the genocide of the Jewish people.
I would believe many things of you, Xiaoming, but for you to have THAT much loathing of Israel you would support a group like Hamas surprises even me.
What's next for you? Cheer on the Iranians as they fire a nuclear tipped Shaheen missile at Tel Aviv? Give them your GPS location instead, please.
It galls me to think the only people who seem to agree with my take on the Middle East is the fucking White House.
And all the Second Coming of BUSH really wants, is to play an instrumental part in the maneuvering of the political and geographical landscape to insure the Second Coming of CHRIST so he can participate in the Mass Conversion of the 144,000 Jews who will ascend to Heaven on Chariots of Light, or Fire, or Titanium-fucking-alloy, and the rest of the Jews can go to Hell with the other Heathens, Heretics, and Hollywood Liberals.
You and that wanna-be Aryan asshole Funtime keep bleating on and on and on ad nauseum about a damned "Zionist Conspiracy", when the real truth of the matter is, the only conspiracy is the continued vilification and demonization of the Jews and Israel by those who seek Israel's, the Jews, and by that extension, MY ultimate demise.
What the FUCK is wrong with you? There are almost 6 BILLION people on this planet. About 13 million or so of them are Jewish. Thats barely .002 of the total population, or about half the Luddite population of Texas. So what the fuck are you so God Damned afraid of, and pardon me if I have no interest in sharing milk and cookies with you anytime soon.
Ah Sala'am Aleikum, Koohs Au'Muhckh.

Hopefully the US and the rest of the world will play hardball with Hamas renouncing their aim of eradicating Israel and genocide of the Jewish people.  If the US and rest of the world is not unified on this one, it is a huge problem.  Being a terrorist group and having that platform is one thing.  Now that they are a duly elected government, there are responsibilities that come with that.  I personally don't think that the scum in Hamas  can change, but they ran on a platform of cleaning up the corruption of Fatah and social welfare.  They did not emphasize their core beliefs in their campaign.  
 If Hamas does not distance itself from the stated aim of the destruction of Israel, it will guarantee that the hardliners will be back in control in Israel and it will get much worse for the Palestinians and there will be no further progress in achieving anything close to peace over there.

Palestine.

The next question seems to be whether they should expect that Hamas will change its policies because it has come into power.

If Hamas continues its policies, should the USA wait until it actually blows up some civilian, or should they take Hamas at their word?

Then, should the USA continue to regard terrorism (as commonly & currently defined, ie, surprise attacks on civilians not directly involved in conflict) as a threat to all civilization?

Or should they say, well, if a group is sufficiently uncivilized, they should get special dispensation to kill as many children without notice as they feel necessary?

What nobody seems to understand is that Hamas is carrying the water for environmentalists - it is very hard to imagine that Hamas will not go to war, and send as many of the carbon-based units to Paradise as they can.

WMDs have too many persistent effects.   I would recommend the Bush administration sell as many hand grenades as possible to the Palestinians, which should make the most people happy:  the US balance of payments will improve, the Palestinians will be overjoyed until they drop half of them and kill their own people.  The other half, I suppose the Israelites will be able to handle.   I have yet to see anybody throw a hand grenade 12,000 miles, so Americans should be OK.  And the Sierra club will be overjoyed to see the load on the earth lightened.

Even I would be emotionally satisfied to see everybody made so happy by so much bloodshed.   A few million gallons of blood can only make the soil more fertile.

So the logical advice would be, just do it.

-- Modified on 1/27/2006 10:04:07 AM

I could not advise anybody to drop their guard in the meanwhile.

I think it would be a very big mistake for any pre-emptive action until the Palestinian govt policy became clear, ie, the parties settle down and establish a policy.   Until then, invasion or other attack is likely to be a waste of resources.

Even though Hamas won (seemingly without corruption), free elections are ALWAYS a good thing. If nothing else it exposes what the majority of Palestinians think and therefore how they should be treated (with contempt).

Consider a few points...
1) The previous party (Fatah) are also terroists
2) Hitler came to power through free elections. No one ever seriously claimed that the elections were corrupt. Mr.Spock...should we then have capitulated into dealing with him as a rational government?
3) This is why we used to support puppet dictatorships. Years ago, in other coutries, a benign (towards the U.S.) dictatorship was deemed better than an alternative like this.

All in all, a free election is better in the long term. Just because so and so won we don't have to embrace them and there is always the chance that someday the wrongheaded electorate can right the situation.

1. A possible consolation? Recall the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, appropos of what point specifically  I forget, but I remember very well that entire summer of 1982 the catch phrase of Israel's supporters -- "terror now has an address."  Perhaps something similar might apply here?  Somehow, I don't think the Israelis are going to be reluctant to engage in any manner of preventive and/or preemptive military action. So, I say be prepared shortly for the predictable cycle of violence and counterviolence, accusation and denial, charge and countercharge, etc..  [All of which makes me wonder, as an American, as a non-practicing Roman Catholic, and as a skeptic of all religious adherents, exactly how I got pressed-ganged onto a ship of state so determined to run aground via the failed policy of supporting Israel, come what may]?

2. I have no fear of the Israelis -- you're written this several times and I'm not sure where you get that idea from.  What I DO fear -- and rightly so -- is what might befall the US by virtue of support of the policies of the State of Israel.  Do we finally have that straight?

3. In spite of your harsh words -- totally undeserved I might add -- I must give you very high marks for integrity.  Despite the fact that the White House is "...the only people who seem to agree with my take on the Middle East..." this has not kept you from beating in the brains of POTUS at every possible moment.  And in most cases, rightly so.  OR do I consider you an ingrate, constantly biting the hand [the Bush admin] that feeds you [your Likud buddies in Israel and the illegally occupied territories]?

4. No connection with your nemesis funtime69 and you know that.  You've got to stop trying to demonize ME by linking HIM to me.

Warmest...

PS. I also DO NOT believe that this is what Bush and the NeoCons had in mind re democratization, but as BizzaroSuperdude reminds us, be careful what you wish for.  As yet, the irony of all  this appears not to have penerated the mind of Bush and the NeoCons.  Well, there's plently of time to backtract, to retract, and to spin.  It's just a matter of waiting and following the news.

-- Modified on 1/29/2006 8:38:34 AM

I suggest you check your mailbox here on TER.

This is obviously a troubling development with no obvious solution.

In the longer term, we have to regard the spread of democracy (both political & economic, which seem incapable of separation in the long term) as positive; but you have to get thru the short term to make it to the long term, and I can't see that Americans have general responsibilities to any other nation; except as we specifically oblige ourselves.

The rhetoric of a minority is not always indicative of what they will do in power, when faced with different problems.  And it may be only a matter of degree between Hamas and Fatah, and they may just fight among themselves until they fatally damage each other.

Who knows?  But it seems that a state which actively supports terrorism as a policy is not one that can be tolerated for long.  The question would be, who does the dirty work of taking it out, and even more important, how should it be done?

Nations have a right to self-determination, and they have a right to self-defense.  If a nation decides to take up arms against another, and finds out that it's not as good with its fists as it thought it was, well, that's Mother Nature's way.  Probably best to get it over with, and let the fight go to the end.

I actually only read one or two, then got bored and aborted.

My direct response to you was ALSO rhetorical, but then I'm sure you recognized that being the logical being that you are.

"With a different White House – one committed to legitimate democracy, global prosperity and peaceful stability – the Palestinian election, while unsettling, would nevertheless present an opportunity to moderate a destabilizing militant organization.

With the involvement of credible, honest broker in the Middle East, a less desperate Hamas could reasonably determine that they have a better chance of remaining in power by disarming and dealing.

But the Bushies have always viewed Israel-Palestine as an unsolvable nuisance for Israel to contain as it sees fit, while they focus on unilateral moves elsewhere in the region.

Certainly, Bush did not do much to advance the peace process and give the current Fatah President tangible successes (though the Fatah government got $2M from us for election "help").

So, what reason did the Palestinians have to keep Fatah in power? What incentive does Hamas have to follow Bush’s dictates?

The same dynamic is present in Iran (to follow up on yesterday’s Iran post.)

The Bushies cite the Iranian President’s anti-Israel, anti-Semitic remarks and the country’s ties to terror groups as reasons to stay away from direct negotiations (though they acquiesced to European-led negotiations, as a way to stall for time while energy is focused on Iraq.)

But Iran has reason to believe Bush wants to take them out no matter what, especially since Bush rebuffed Iran’s “detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences[, which] acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations.”

So if you want to get Iran to stop pursuing nukes, get someone in the White House who isn’t hell-bent on a unilateralist foreign policy, someone who can make “renounce support for terrorism” a productive condition for talks, and not insincere posturing.

For Democrats to articulate their own foreign policy vision and strategy, on Iran and elsewhere, they need to explain how they would change our entire posture in the region.

How they would reject neoconservative goals of imposed influence on foreign governments via permanent bases throughout the Gulf, and instead, embrace the goals of true self-determination and the eradication of poverty.

By positioning ourselves as a positive force in the region that can be bargained with in good faith, we can say “renounce support for terrorism” to those in power and have it mean something."

Greetings, Spock.

  I wish to clarify some things. I do not dispute the election results that have brought Hamas to power. Quite the opposite, their ascension to power so convincingly proves that the election was untainted, otherwise Fatah and the Arafaties would have swept to a stunning victory.
The concerns are many. for starters, Hamas seeks the desturction of Israel. not a convincing patner for peace.
Secondly, the Hamas-Iran connection. Iran makes a bomb, do you really think they will send a missile when they can send a single suicide bomber of horrific proportions? There is no real border between Iran and Hamas. how long before the Iranians, if allowed to fully develop nukes, whisk a small nuclear package into the disputed territories, from where they can strike anywhere along the entire Mediterranean coastline. Especially Israel.

The Middle East just became even more dangerous.

Live Long and Prosper, Spock.

Yeah, and who knows?  Just as Nixon was said to be the only American President who had the credibility to open relations with the Peoples' Republic of China, and just as my nemesis Ari Sharon was said to be the only Israeli with the credibilty to talk about divesting Gaza and parts of the West Bank, perhaps the uncompromisingly anti-Irsrael credentials of Hamas will give THEM the credibility to reach some type of open political settlement with Israel. But I'm not counting on it.

And I'm sure the Israelis secretly do NOT want this to come to pass -- after all, where would they be finally if not constantly surrounded by a sea of Arab hostility?  I mean, their endless demands upon the US might meet a somewhat cooler reception if peace were to break out in that area. Enemies do have their useful purposes at times.

In the meanwhile, I think it's safe to say that the US will be the biggest loser re that electoral outcome.

Your hypothetical example demonstrates the wisdom of the Bush Doctrine here.  There can no longer be a separation between terrorists and the states that harbor or support them.  It reinforces the preemptive doctrine that has been so controversial.  Hamas should be given an opportunity to form its government, however, now that it is a government, the first order of business is that it MUST denounce its former position on Israel.  If not, it is a defacto declaration of war and should be considered so by all of the countries in the world.

1st, talk often loses in translation into action,

2nd, it's probably better to let them stick their neck out before we try to chop it off.

Had you been smart enough to leave your comment to the first paragraph, you might have gotten a complimentary, and "I-AGREE-WITH-YOU" surprise.
But no, you had to go ahead, and do that thing you always do, and toss in some stupid bigoted snide-assed diatribe that proves to me you really are nothing but a bigot and an idiot.

YOU FOOL!!! Check your recent history you cretin. Egypt and Jordan have both recognized and accepted the STATE of ISRAEL. They occupy a good portion of the Israeli border. here is also a growing level of commerce and trade between the two countries.
And your quote "after all, where would they be finally if not constantly surrounded by a sea of Arab hostility?" You fucking idiot, the answer is, they would be in a state of PEACE. Look at the peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt, in both cases. CONQUORED territory was returned to the vanquished. The FIRST and ONLY two times this has happened in human history.
But as long as the Arabs, or Palestinians, or Arafatist's, or whatever the fuck you call them  continue to spend their money on bomb belts used to kill innocent children instead of food, drink clothing and shelter, if they teach their children to spell, read, write, and learn, instead of training them that the JEW is the DEVIL who will EAT your YOUNG, there will not be peace, and you will continue to have an excuse to vilify me and my people.
So how about you kiss my Jewish ass and go back to reading your Fatwa.

Ah, Doc, there's simply no pleasing you, I have come to fear.  You are the self-appointed defender and avenger of Israel on this board.  No critical commentary goes unnoticed or unanswered. Woe betide the impertinent poster who might dare to disagree with your take. A fiery riposte is sure to come wing his or her way with sureness and dispatch. And more than a few of your posts contain some personal abuse as well.

Ok, my point -- where would the Israelis ultimately be...?  Well, I haven't noticed any diminution in the ongoing demands they make upon the US body politic even though, as you write, both Egypt and Jordan share borders with Israel, maintain some level of normal intercourse, etc...
So, as an American, I wonder where is my payoff -- when does Israel finally STOP being the spoiled stapchild of US foreign policy, whose every whim and fancy and caprice must be indulged yesterday?
I'm waiting with bated breath for the Israeli peace dividend finally to be delivered to these benighted and close-to-exhausted shores.  But it's nowhere in sight.

Doc, the personal abuse, it's so unnecessary.  Realy, you say more about yourself than about me and my fiobles and biases and possibly warped perspectives when you do this.  But that's your choice, and if that's how you want to be seem on this board, go to it and more power to you.