Sweeping Hamas Victory in Palestinian Election
 

I must say that at first glance this does not bode well for peace in the Middle East. It's got all the ear-marks of a bloody end game. Any other thoughts on this?

And please, let's keep the discussion civil and respectful of others' opinions.

there's nothing you can do about it. it's what the people want. democracy at it's finest.

Well, it does seem that the Palestinian Authority can't be accused of vote rigging (or at least they didn't try hard enough).

That's democracy for you...

Yep... kind of makes this whole 'push for democracy' in the ME kind of stupid. I mean if the Administration hadn't been pushing for this, Abbas may have been able to make decent strides (assuming that Kadima was still in power). Now? Who knows. If we decide to 'punish' Palestine for the choice, the situation basically will return to late 90s level as Hamas decides to get aid and support from elsewhere.

Seeing as how we are trying to make Iraq decent, this was not needed. Maybe we should rethink the whole every ME country should be a democracy bit, eh? Maybe we should wait a a few years or decades before that? Hmmm?

The sad part is that we knew this would probably happen. Fatah was insanely corrupt and Hamas was the only group working for building schools and trying to bring some order to the country. The foriegn policy didn't even matter for most Palestinians... duh!

This will probably speed up peace over there, if you ask me, although getting there will likely be terrible.

Can you elaborate?

Not particularly surprising to me, about what I expected really except for the majority being a little bigger than I would have guessed. It is what it is, they're going to do whatever they were going to do win or lose anyway, and in the long run it may be as much a good thing as a bad thing.

I don't think it's a coincidence that since our invasion of Iraq all democratic elections in the Middle East have gone in favor of extremists (Hamas, Iran, the fundamentalists' parties in Egypt, etc...).

After the relatively straightforward international politics of the 20th century (stalemate, U.S. vs. USSR) what this new century needs is a new, more subtle, approach to foreign policy. It's a shame no one in the Bush Administration can spell the word.

Sure. All of the initiatives in the past 30 or so years, including recent ones, were destined to lead to nothing but more rhetoric and wheel-spinning. Now, the day is sped up when either Israel becomes the undisputed dominant military power in the area, or ceases to exist.

Not nearly as big a shame as the reality that the Bush Adminstration's detractors can't figure out how to properly interpret events at home or abroad.

Oh that's right, the fundamentalists are winning elections and the terrorists are getting no end of recruits because they just hate our freedom. It's all clear now.

now that was nice :)

Thanks for proving my point :)

Here's a hint for you, just to see if it might help (I know, I know, the chances are remote but I figure it won't cost anything to try).

1)Fish are fish.
2)Birds are birds.
3)Fish swim.
4)Birds fly.

Likewise. :)

Now we can back Israel in wiping out the Palestinians without looking quite as much like the aggressor. Diplomacy and concessions be damned. I wouldn't be surprised if Israel wanted this.

/cynical

As long as earth is here, this will not go away.

This statement can't be supported, like most times jon, you spout rhetoric without substance. Interpretation is an individual process, there is no "right" or "wrong" interpretation of anything, simply a point of view created based on said interpretation.

Your snide remark fails the bullshit test.

As for the quality of this administration, based on its record thus far it should go down in history as the single most flawed and failed administration this nation has ever seen.

i agree. which previous administration had the honor of that distinction?

I'd disagree here. If Hamas took power by force, then maybe there might be some justification (and even then, it would be pretty shaky). But in this instance, we actually would look hyper-aggressive and hypocritical, since Hamas assumed power via a democratic election...

I mean after Hamas acts like Hamas, not right now. If Hamas stays at the table, then no, that won't happen.

Well I know it wasn't William Henry Harrison... he only had 30 days. Not alot you can screw up in that timeframe...

You think the elections in these other nations were democratic? How many thousand candidates were thrown off the Iranian ballot again? It may have been an election in Iran, for instance, but it was much closer to the Soviet one-party model rather than anything in the Western world.

Bingo. Hence my take on it. The natural conclusion of this seems to be full-fledged war over there--whether we're directly involved or not, by the way. What are the odds that Israel accepts a Hamas-led government?

i can see Israel accepting a Hamas-led government. what i can also see is Hamas remembering their charter and making the first strike for war. i think this is what Israel wants in the end - a reason. retribution, at that point, would come swiftly and decisively.

You may be right, but I guess my overall point is that the situation just got a *LOT* more volatile, and the odds of the two co-existing are pretty low--regardless of which side strikes first.

Couple comments on this:

1. Depending upon how you define this, Israel already is the dominant military power in the area. :cool:

2. Undisputed? By the Muslim arabs? As long as Jerusalem is part of Israel, the state of Israel's very existence will be disputed. Military power or not.

3. Israel's existence is virtually guaranteed unless the U.S. makes a very radical shift in its foreign policy. Conventional warfare would be the only means for "removing' the Israelis and still retaining Jerusalem intact, and that would be suicidal on the part of any Middle Eastern nations or a coalition of them.

I forsee an escalation in gas prices. ;)

I agree with SkyDog, this may be the beginings of the next World War,a war in wich we would need to back Israel. I am not a warmonger, but I say if it comes, it comes, and America and t's alies will once again hae to rise to the challenge to defeat the Islamic facists of the the Middle East once and for all.

Wait, I thought this was why we were in Iraq?

Excuse me for the poor typo spelling, I'm going quickly and my key board sucks.

Close running between Warren G. Harding's administration or the Nixon administration. Which is interesting, since many of the power players in the current admin were members of the Nixon admin.

That's a bit of a hyperbole because the Iranians did have a very definite choice between a hardliner and moderates in guise of Khatami, as well as pragmatic moderates in the middle of those sides. They chose the hardliner, but had every oppertunity to continue Khatami's path (in the guise of Mostafa Moeen, who finished 5th in the first round) was available to them.

Iraq is only the first of many conflcts we will have in the middle east i the coming years. Step one was getting rid of Saddam, and hopefully disarming him, unfortnately his weapons seem to have been taken elsewhere. Any weapons such as these in the hands of either Saddam, or another Islamic fundamentalist or facist is a very dangerous thing for western civilization. The rougue states are also a problem. We simply can not allow these typesof nationsto posess WMD or nuclear capabilities.

Or... weren't there to begin with :D.

And I thought Step One was Afghanistan, or have we already forgotten about that country, as the Bush Administration seems to have done?

You keep saying that word. I do not think you know what that word means.

That's three comments, by the way....

Let me be clear by what I meant by "dominant:"

Things escalate to the point where either Israel makes a whole lot of glass in the desert, or an eventual Hamas-led coalition causes Israel to cease to exist.

Sarcasm?

I know what the word means, very well thank you, as for Afghanistan, we are still there, but just in another capacity. It is a much morelow key special ops type operation than what we are doing in Iraq. The taiban lives in caves and in the mountains...they are much more difficult to find.

Maybe, but the choice was akin to choosing between Coke and Diet Coke. Coke Zero, Cherry Coke, Diet Coke with Lime, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, and all other choices were excluded because the people overseeing things didn't want those other flavors in the mix.

Here, you meet the filing fee and the laws set by the state for eligibility, you can be a candidate for office, any office. There, you meet not only the law, but must pass the muster of the mullahs. I wouldn't be surprised that the hardliners won because a number of people stayed home and didn't vote out of protest of a lack of a fair choice.

You greatly overstate the case. Hamas as a governing entity will have to moderate its goals (see Sinn Fien) - it maintained its ceasefires with Israel, and has had prisoner exchanges with it before. What many don't get is that Hamas didnt win because of the infatida - it won because it provided better hospital services, better education, and a better standard of life in the areas where it governed - Fatah was corrupt to the core. The Palestinians were voting based on the government's ability to fulfill its basic obligations - something Fatah had failed to do. Ignore that at your own peril.

No, the Arab extremist groups, including Hamas, call for the murder of every Jewish man, woman and child in all of Palestine. It's in their charter.

Israel is a tiny country, a little smaller than the state of New Jersey. It wouldn't take a lot of warfare to do tremendous damage. I am sure these groups would gladly sacrifice Jerusalem if it meant destroying Israel.

I don't think America could or would act quickly enough to prevent this. Israel knows its fate is in its own hands.

Hamas won because Fatah was seen as ineffective and corrupt. Palestinians, by and large, would like to see Israel destroyed, because they've been told from birth that Jews have caused all their problems. But this election didn't have much to do with that. Palestinians just wanted the old, corrupt, Arafatless government gone. I'm surprised Fatah even scored in the 40s.

I don't see this as good news. Palestine receives a lot of foreign aid, and while America might stop chipping in, other countries won't. That's money in Hamas' pocket.

I don't see much changing in the near future, though. Hamas is aware that a lot of eyes are on them, and Israel has won some points internationally for leaving Gaza. If the level of violence is increased, the world won't be kind.

Btw- Money sent to Hamas has a hell of a better chance reaching the aid targets than money send under Fatah's rule ever will. Jim and I disagree strongly on the middle east, but too many people are ignoring the domestic implications of why Hamas won, in favor of percieved foreign policy ones.

You've got to be shitting me. Have you even spoken to anyone serving in Afghanistan? Roadside bombs, ambushes, mortar attacks, etc.... It's just not making the news like it is in Iraq (and isn't quite as prevalent as in Iraq), but it still happens.

Where do we disagree? Do you agree with the Hamas charter? Do you see Israel as the aggressor in 1948, 1967 or 1975? Do you think Israel has a right to exist? Do you think it has a right to go after those who attack, like we are with Al Qaeda?

Are you saying that Hamas (or whomever) would nuke Jerusalem to annihilate Israel? And if you're not, could you please elaborate on what you are suggesting in terms of "destroying" Israel.

Iranians sent a very clear message when they elected Ahmadinejad over Khatami. There's a pretty real difference between the two.

As long as we don't feel the need to but in, I'm not really concerned.

Of course they would. Read their charter if you have any doubt.

Like Jim, I don't think there will be much change in the near future. Though if Israel catagorically refuses to speak with Palestine because Hamas is the majority in Parliament, things could get very violent, very quickly.

Kinda funny, since "facist" isn't a word.