A Dark Victory

SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATES

The radical Islamist movement Hamas win the Palestinian elections. A Dark Victory for the rest of the world.

Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia and his Cabinet ministers submitted their resignations Thursday as the Islamic militant group Hamas appeared to have captured a large majority of seats in the Palestinian elections — a shocking upset sure to throw Mideast peacemaking into turmoil.

"This is the choice of the people. It should be respected," Qureia said. "If it's true (the results), then the president should ask Hamas to form a new government. For me, personally, I sent my resignation."

Yeah right. About 25 masked gunmen from various factions held a joint news conference this Tuesday in Gaza City to announce they would be unarmed during the balloting. "Everyone agreed to keep the election process moving in a smooth, clean and honest way in order to create the fundamental basis for a political partnership," These people really are crazy.

The Palestinian elections have amounted to deciding which one of the terrorist parties the Palestinians will vote for. Which method of killing do the Palestinians prefer? Disgraceful.

Al Jazeera predicted Hamas would show strong gains: "Hamas's corruption-free reputation and extensive charity network mean its popularity is rising among Palestinians." It's hard not to be cynical, but 'extensive charity network', really. Translated, this should read, money and celebrations, complete with candy for all, in jubilant and joyous memory of yet another suicide bomber who has successfully accomplished another 'holy' mission, killing innocent Jewish civilians, children and all.

Hamas has won more than 70 seats in Gaza and the West Bank, which gives it more than 50 percent of the vote, and forcing the new government into the uncomfortable position of adding Hamas to its cabinet when most peacebrokers consider them part of the problem.

Although apparently rejected by Fatahs there seemed to be talk of a coalition between the two, so perhaps they can start killing each other off whilst continuing to bomb the Israelis. Charming state of affairs indeed.

Already violence has marred the period before the elections, with militants taking over government offices and threatening poll workers. Much of the unrest was carried out by gunmen linked to Fatah, apparently fearing losses to Hamas.

Fatah has also been riven by internal divisions, which turned deadly Tuesday. Fatah gunmen shot to death Abu Ahmed Hassouna, 44, a party leader in Nablus after he told them to stop shooting at campaign posters on his house, relatives said. It was the second politically motivated killing of the campaign.

These people hate being contradicted. Hamas formed out of a singular hatred and philosophical determination to annihilate Israel, and giving them power only hands them better weapons with which to carry out those aims.

Perhaps this election will finally convince the United States, if not Europe and Russia, of the folly of continued efforts on "road maps" and the like. Gaza showed that Fatah cannot govern a state, and the West Bank just elected bloodthirsty terrorists almost to a Parliamentary majority. These people want war. They will not settle for half the land when they believe a war will bring them all of it. In the end, it may be better for the world to let the two sides fight their war in order to make them both sick enough of the consequences to start selecting leaders that want peace and plan for it. If all the Palestinians understand is death and martyrdom, then let them have their fill of both.

There is of course no chance now of Hamas ever being compelled to disarm. Hamas has a stated aim, and has the fervent following even down to young children, and the arms to pursue that aim.

But, what happens when civil war breaks out in autonomous Palestine? When Palestinians start to kill each other on a wide scale? What if Hamas gains the upper hand, which they have the means to do? Israel evacuates any remaining Israelis in Palestinian lands and hunkers down at home....and then what of our 'Arab League' of friends?

With Hamas in control, what choices will they have to make? Egypt has no love lost for Hamas. They are already a direct threat to Egyptian stability. The Egyptian people, after their recent round of elections aren't going to permit Hamas in charge right on their border, they have more important matters to deal with and a rabid Hamas encroaching into Egypt is not something desired by most Egyptians, from Mubarak on down. Likewise Lebanon.

Jordan cannot be happy with the results today. King Abdullah is probably awake right now contemplating his options, and counting how many countries he has to grovel to, in the proud manner of his father.

Despite their own brand of Wahabi fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia, the Saudis are not going to allow Hamas such a foothold, either. Right now the major aim of the Saudis is to keep things under a tight lid at home to maintain the Royal Family control of the nation. Hamas threatens that control and raises the level of discomfort. Hamas is also closely identified with Iran and our friendly Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad, which brings bright new options to both sides. Will they openly provide aid to Hamas, essentially invading Palestine by proxy, something the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will not condone?

And guess who will be the important subject to discuss.

A Trojan Horse? Let's not forget, Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem see themselves as the citizens of a future Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, but as it is, they all happily carry Israeli identity cards.

Will the Arab League stand back, contain the violence that may spill out of Palestine, keep it within the Palestinian borders, and wait until the dust settles and the bodies counted?

Moderate" Palestinians, and there are quite a few in the professional ranks, are going to be hostage to Hamas in very short order. If I were a Palestinian with means I would head to Dearborn tonight and sit this one out.

Over to you...

Michelle Malkin: President Bush addressing the Palestinian elections:

I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And I know you can't be a partner in peace if your party has an armed wing...I will continue to remind people about what I just said...I've talked to Condi twice this morning. She called President Abbas...
The United States does not support political parties that want to destroy our ally, Israel...

Siggy: "Remember this: The Hamas leadership have employed a shrewd strategy. They have created and supported terror groups that use violence to pursue and advance their goals. That leadership then 'distances' itself from the violence and presents itself as 'reasonable' and 'legitimate' alternative.

Instead of building free institutions that serve democracy, Hamas has shown itself to be a cruel and evil leader. Opposition is intimidated or killed on a regular basis. Women are subject to the most abhorrent of treatment. It is said that you are known by the friends you keep. That same Hamas leadership has forged ties with groups like Hizbollah and despotic regimes like Syria and Iran- and share in their long history of vicious hate and bigotry."

Sister Toldjah: "Jimmy Carter - who seems to be mystified as to why Hamas would even be labelled a terrorist organization."

You have to laugh at this man, who recently came pretty much on top of every blogger's list of "The Ten Worst Americans Of All Time", when I posted the challenge.

John Stephenson:  "Kofi Annan congratulated the Palestinian people for electing a terrorist organization to represent the will of its people? I wonder if the Palestinian State he speaks of resembles the map at the U.N. that pre-dates the formation of Israel as a state. This is definitely a giant step backwards in the peace process in the Middle East, not that there was any real progress in that area anyway…but still."

Doug @ Below The Beltway: Democracy Is The Worst Form Of Government, especially when it results in an overwhelming victory by a terrorist organization.
[...]
Acknowledged perhaps, but most certainly not respected. The mere fact that someone was voted in by virtue of a democratic election does not mean that their election is in any way legitmiate or worthy of respect. People certainly wouldn't make that claim with respect to Hitler's victory in 1936, and it shouldn't be made when the winning party is the party of the suicide bomber.

If nothing else, this puts the prospect of real Middle East peace even further on the back burner than it already was. With Ariel Sharon out of the picture, Israel doesn't seem to have a stomach for making concessions anymore, and they certainly won't want to deal with a Palestinian government headed by people who send men and women into nightclubs in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem with explosives strapped to their chest.

Pamela @ Atlas Shrugs has a list of atrocities committed by Hamas. What peace process indeed.

My friend Patrick Belton @ Oxblog is live bloging from Ramallah, brave boy that he is: "That was not supposed to happen....The mood here, so recently jubilant, suddenly is somber. In Ramallah we are promised a press conference at 7, with final results, and Hamas has said it will declare its intentions after. Does Hamas continue to moderate in its now desperate need to keep foreign aid flowing? It may still yet form a coalition, to provide internationally palatable, unbearded, faces for Europeans and Americans to talk to. Khaled Mashaal has telephoned Abu Mazen to offer a coalition partnership; while Saeb Erekat indicated Fateh would go into opposition, Nabil Sha'ath said Fateh leaders would meet at 5 to determine their future."

I just saw the Fatah chief negotiator Saeb Erakat on BBC news looking extremely aggitated, in fact absolutely furious, basically saying, "who is going to negotiate peace with terrorists, and expressing his astonishment at the Hamas result", whilst Bibi was taking the opportunity to have a little dig at Sharon, by saying that Israel's withdrawal effectively rewarded Hamas' terror and led to today's landslide victory. He said it was up to Hamas now to denounce their terrorist agenda, otherwise Israel will have to defend itself.

At last a voice of reason from the great Gerard van der Leun: "Over the years, I've had (as we have all had) discussions without number concerning the "problem" of Israel. I'm almost always on the short end of this endless stick since my position is that, at the end of the bloody day, the only thing that will bring peace to the region is the sword.

People hate this kind of thinking because they all have a large investment in "peace" and the use of "dialogue" to achieve it. And there are many, many instances in the world and down through history where this is, indeed, the correct and only route to take.

But Israel vs. the Arabs isn't one of them."

UPDATE: It is always useful to be reminded of the Hamas Charter, for those of you that may think we can still negotiate peace with these people:

"Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious...The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised...

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times...

It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned...

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kassam and his brethren the fighters, members of Muslim Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Muslim Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1968 and after...

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: 'The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him...'
Resisting and quelling the enemy become the individual duty of every Muslim, male or female. A woman can go out to fight the enemy without her husband's permission, and so does the slave: without his master's permission...

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with...

The day The Palestinian Liberation Organization adopts Islam as its way of life, we will become its soldiers, and fuel for its fire that will burn the enemies...

The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion... It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions...

We should not forget to remind every Muslim that when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that 'Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women.'

Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Muslim people. 'May the cowards never sleep.'"

My friend Jeff Goldstein tells it like it is: “Palestine”—for all the recent good will shown it by Ariel Sharon’s Israeli government and the deference of the Bush administration—was not prepared for any such shift in ruling philosophy.  They are a culture raised primarily on hate (via schools and TV) and a sense of deferred entitlement, all of which has been consistently reinforced by an international press hostile to Israel, and by a leftist academic ethos that for years has excused the barbarism, corruption, and obvious (and directed) scapegoating of the Jewish state under the guise that victim politics and the absense of whatever pet utopian theory of workable social and geopolitical organization they’ve in their minds knitted together from the various fraying strands of hardcore fundamentalist religion, soft marxism, grievance marketing, and a particularly pernicious brand of identity politics has yet to swaddle the region in a magic blanket of peace and rapprochement."

Memeorandum features A Dark Victory here.

More @ the Pajamas Media round up, Power Line, Jihad Watch, Gateway Pundit, lgf, Outside The Beltway, Vital Perspective, The Belmont Club, A Blog For All, The Moderate Voice,  Ace of Spades HQ, Publius Pundit, Political Pitbull, National Review, Austin Bay Blog, The Heretik,  The Cafeteria Is Closed, Dean's World, The Counterterrorism Blog, Roger Simon, The Uncooperative Blogger, Obligatory Anegdotes, Rhymes With Right, Blogher Alpaha7, Tel-Chai-Nation,

Related on ATB:
The Myth Of Palestine
Sharon Is Out And Hamas Is Still Out

Comments

[Nick]

the picture you have on top isn't of Hamas, it's of Hezballah, you greened theh pic so it wouldnt show the
bright yellow colors that represent Hezballah, instead of Hamas's green.

[Kenny Pierce]

MarcH,

[grinning] Thank you. Not a very difficult set of honors to win, I'm afraid...it wasn't exactly Hannibal I was up against.

[MarcH]

Ken,

The honors go to you. I now see that one can bore down through the links on your comment of January 31, 2006 at 09:04 PM to locate the items I cited in my last comment.

When do you want to start sowing with salt?

[Kenny Pierce]

Alexandra,

IMHO, Carthago delenda est.

[MarcH]

Other duties have prevented me from replying at greater length to P. Readers are probably already aware that, in addition to relying on light-weight sources, his statistics on Palestinian Arab Intifada casualties have been spun to convey a false message.

The statistics are analyzed by Israel’s Institute for Counter Terrorism (http://www.ict.org.il/) in a well known study, “An Engineered Tragedy Statistical Analysis of Casualties in the Palestinian - Israeli Conflict, September 2000 - September 2002” by Don Radlauer. The study is described as “an in-depth look at the Palestinian and Israeli fatalities of the current Intifada. Based on thorough research using Palestinian and Israeli open sources, the study provides a breakdown of those killed by age, sex, and combatant status.”

B’Tselem’s position on this matter was “fisked” by CAMERA/Frontpage in “Mis-reporting Palestinian Fatalities By Tamar Sternthal Camera.org, July 8, 2003 (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8792)

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

I gather that your answers to #4 and #5 are "no."

Since I did not address these questions, this are your constructions, not my answers.

When I wish you to represent me, I will pay you. Until then, kindly refrain from claiming you know my stance.

Wikipedia (your source, and I might add that, with due regard to my own reputation as a sensible person, the only reason I would ever refer to the highly unreliable Wikipedia as authoritative is because you yourself accept its authority)

Don't get me started on this - I wrote a four page analytical evaluation of the Wikipedia a while back. Since then I've seen stuff in the library periodicals suggesting its accuracy may be approaching that of conventional encyclopaedias, with several important caveats.

[Kenny Pierce]

P,

I seem to have omitted a link. Here is the article that explains B'Tselem's "clarification."

[Kenny Pierce]

Phoenician,

Last chance for you to start acting like a grown-up. I could not possibly have been more clear that I was trying to find out what you believed, not accusing you of believing anything. I could not possibly have phrased my questions more politely or less accusingly.

I gather that your answers to #4 and #5 are "no." If this in accurate, you are welcome to clarify your position.

Which part of "...were not involved in any hostilities when they were killed,..." are you having problems reading?

The phrase "were not involved in any hostilities when they were killed" was originally quoted by you with reference to the report from B'Tselem, which concerned "these 603 children" with no reference whatever to identify which 603 children those were. The phrase to which I myself had referred, had reference to the separate report from the Palestine Section of Defence for Children International, which concerned 595 children and excluded any children killed in the last year and a half. There was no particular reason to assume that the two sets of children are the same children (much overlapping was likely, but its precise parameters were left unspecified), especially since the last time I checked 595 and 603 were not equal to each other. It would appear that I have read your comment rather more carefully than you have yourself.

Furthermore, I would seem to have read your original source more carefully than you, or at least to have looked up the background with more diligence than yourself. The very phrase to which you refer turns out to have required what Wikipedia (your source, and I might add that, with due regard to my own reputation as a sensible person, the only reason I would ever refer to the highly unreliable Wikipedia as authoritative is because you yourself accept its authority) calls "a clarification by B'Tselem that the term 'did not participate in hostilities' may include individuals killed while next to those participating in hostilities, thereby acting as a 'human shield.'"

I would think that people who cite studies that use deliberately misleading language, would be well-advised not to use scornful phrases such as, "Which part of yadda yadda do you not understand?" The answer in this particular case happens to be, "Actually, I understand it much more clearly than B'Tselem ever intended for me to."

It was sensible of you to at least seemingly accept that Hamas's actions are terroristic and indefensible, since the very next words in the Wikipedia article whose authority you implicitly accept by quoting it (even though Wikipedia admits that the article is unreliable), goes on to say, "The first acts of Palestinian violence specifically targeting Israeli children were committed in the 1970s...All killings of Israeli children by Palestinian armed groups have been committed in deliberate attacks against civilians, which have been widespread and perpetrated as part of a publicly announced policy to target civilians."

If you can't or won't answer questions 1 through 3e straightforwardly and politely then I will regretfully conclude that you're a troll, after which absolutely nothing else you say will get a response from me -- which, I realize, you probably consider a promise rather than a threat.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

1. Do you recognize a moral distinction between (1) killing noncombatant children as a matter of strategy, (2) taking military actions that unintentionally, but negligently, result in the deaths of noncombatant children, and (3) taking military actions that unintentionally and non-culpably result in the deaths of noncombatant children?

Which part of "...were not involved in any hostilities when they were killed,..." are you having problems reading?

You might like to check out news articles such as this, this, this, or this.

I have made no defense of Hamas's terrorism, nor have I mentioned "Jews" - my comments were about Israel. I find it amusing that you attempt to paint me as either (a) hating Jews or (b) defending terrorism - it says a lot about you.

But that doesn't detract from what the real exchange. Someobody stated that Hamas were "monsters" for drafting children to carry bombs, I stated that Israeli soldiers shot bullets at other people's children, this was challenged, I provided proof.

Deal with it.

[Kenny Pierce]

Phoenician,

To clarify:

1. Do you recognize a moral distinction between (1) killing noncombatant children as a matter of strategy, (2) taking military actions that unintentionally, but negligently, result in the deaths of noncombatant children, and (3) taking military actions that unintentionally and non-culpably result in the deaths of noncombatant children?

2. Do you recognize a moral distinction between killing children who are not engaged in violence themselves, and killing children who have actively entered into violent and potentially deadly combat? (That is, do you believe that children can forfeit their noncombatant immunity by engaging in combat?)

3. Do you recognize that:

3a. "...as a result of Israeli air and ground attacks" would mean "as collateral damage," albeit potentially negligently?

3b. "...during assassination attempts..." also would mean "as collateral damage," albeit potentially negligently?

3c. "...when Israeli soldiers opened fire randomly..." also would mean "as collateral damage," albeit with an apparent presumption of negligence?

3d. "...as a result of injuries sustained during clashes with Israeli military forces..." does not address the question of whether the children in question were actively engaged in attacking the Israeli military force?

3e. "...13 Israeli children were killed by Palestinian civilians..." does not address the question of the nature of the act that took those children's lives, and therefore cannot, on the evidence you have so far provided, be classified as to the morality of the act of killing?

4. Do you believe that if Israel can be shown to be more evil than Hamas, then that will establish that Hamas is not in fact evil?

5. Is it your contention that Hamas does not sponsor the deliberate killing of Israeli children as a means to inducing Israeli parents to yield to Hamas's agenda?

If you could be more clear on the precise nature of your views, that would make it much easier to know whether, and in what respect, the rest of us agree with you.

Please note that I have not yet begun to argue for any of these positions; I am clarifying your views, not presenting my own. But by all means, if you want to argue that the proposition I provide is wrong, whale away at it. However, I am not particularly interested in any attempts to prove that I and other American Jew-loving warmongers are hypocrites, and if you wander off into irrelevant accusations along those lines I will pretty much ignore said ramblings, as the question of whether or not I am a jerk has nothing to do with the moral analysis of the deaths of children in combat.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

P's charge is a shameless and disgusting lie. Israel (along with the U.S., U.K. and other western nations) goes to incredible lengths to deploy its armed forces pursuant to the Laws of War. Israel, more than any other nation, has sacrificed its soldiers due to its strict rules of engagement which place a premium on protecting innocent civilians.

Uh-huh.

"During the first Intifada, 237 Palestinian children were killed by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) [2]. On 13 September 1993, the Oslo accords were signed, marking the end of the first Intifada. Between 13 September 1993 and the beginning of the Al-Aqsa (second) Intifada, 44 Palestinian children were killed by IDF soldiers, and another 10 by Israeli civilians. During the same period, 13 Israeli children were killed by Palestinian civilians [3].

Since the beginning of the violence of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, there have been 603 Palestinian children killed by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights monitoring group, reported that of these 603 Palestinian children killed, 529 (87.7%) were not involved in any hostilities when they were killed, with ambiguous data on another 31 children.

According to the Palestine Section of Defence for Children International, of the "595 children killed [by 30 June 2004], 383, or 64.4%, died as a result of Israeli air and ground attacks, during assassination attempts, or when Israeli soldiers opened fire randomly" and "212 children, or 35.6%, died as a result of injuries sustained during clashes with Israeli military forces" [4]."

You were saying?

[MarcH]

P wrote above:"As opposed to Israel drafting teenagers to fire bullets at other people's children?"

P's charge is a shameless and disgusting lie. Israel (along with the U.S., U.K. and other western nations) goes to incredible lengths to deploy its armed forces pursuant to the Laws of War. Israel, more than any other nation, has sacrificed its soldiers due to its strict rules of engagement which place a premium on protecting innocent civilians. This is obvious to anyone who reads the accounts of Israeli soldiers killed trying to stop bombers at check-points. The Israeli rules of engagement clearly require that their security forces take steps which place them in greater danger, rather than risk identifying an innocent Arab as a bomber. This is also demonstrated by the Israeli decision to clear the terrorist haven of Jenin with infantry (who could identify and protect Arab civilians) rather than artillery or air-strikes (fair-minded readers can read, A Psalm In Jenin, an awe-inspiring account of the discipline and humanity of Israeli soldiers in this battle, http://www.beyondimages.info/b97.html0 ).

The fundamental truth of this conflict is that Israeli soldiers (like their American counterparts in Iraq) place themselves at great risk to protect innocents. Hamas, and other Muslim terrorists, are notorious for gleefully targeting innocents and then hiding among their own children to save their miserable skins.

A word about the Israeli draft. Although Israel does have a draft it doesn’t have to press-gang it’s young people (as P’s comment implied). Each year IDF authorities are overwhelmed with volunteers for the most elite and risky units.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

As opposed to Israel drafting teenagers to fire bullets at other people's children?

Hamas is an organisation which has political goals, which operates charity and social services for political reasons (and, you'll have to grant, in part, due to Islamic obligation), and also violently opposes Israel. Part of this violence involves a tactic that seems to be more effective than any other available to it - suicide bombers. Repulsive, but effective.

Hamas is also distinguishable from the PLO in that it consistently stands up against Israel and is considerably less corrupt. It is also more popular with the Palestinians for precisely those reasons.

[MarcH]

Re: Phoenician's one word question ("And?") above.

(And) The monsters of Hamas use these "charity" networks to recruit children to carry bombs to destroy themselves and other children. What more do you need to know?

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

AND as far as Hamas and their "goody goody" charity work, Puuuuullleeeeezzzz get a clue about it's motives...it has used its charities to strengthen its own standing with palestinians and to recruit supporters for it's own agenda.

And?

[MarcH]

Alexandra,

I am not hopeful that the Arab world will cold shoulder Hamas.

Consider Egypt as an example. Prior to the Israeli disengagement Egypt turned a blind eye to smuggling into Hamas dominated Gaza and even engaged in direct contact with Hamas (giving them increased legitimacy in some quarters) .

Reasons for this may have included,
1. Appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt;
2. Increasing Egypt’s prestige in the Arab/Muslim world;
3. Increasing Egypt’s importance in the eyes of the US and Western world as a force which could control Hamas/Gaza (thereby justifying international pressure on Israel to allow the deployment of more Egyptian military to the Sinai and additional [unnecessary]U.S. military aid to Egypt; and,
4. Maintaining Egypt’s influence in the Sinai/Negev region. I have read that Egypt has never renounced its claims to the Negev region of Israel.

Caroline Glick, writing in the Jerusalem Post today (01/27/06) (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1137605925643&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull discussed this matter:
“The policies of the Egyptian government and domestic Egyptian political developments constituted Hamas' first regional rationale for believing that if it were to win the elections, it would also be able to rule. Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak's decision to hold official contacts with the Hamas commanders, under the guise of continuous negotiations towards a cease-fire with Israel - contacts which have been ongoing for the past five years - granted Hamas political legitimacy as an independent actor both in the Arab world and in the EU (which officially sponsors the negotiations).”

[Jeff Durkin]

A few thoughts on the election.

First, it demonstrates the folly of confusing democracy (as a functional system of governance) with voting. Without the institutions and cultural traditions - including an electorate that would reject a party that advocates perpetual war with a stronger neighbor - that allow a democracy to function, than voting becomes an exercise in populism. The Administration has repeatedly said that any culture can become a democracy. While true on an individual level (there is nothing inherent in any person that makes one for or against a democratic form of government) there are cultures that are not suitable for democracies. One category of those unsuitable categories would be anarchic pseudo-states run by a collection of corrupt politic figures and murderous terrorists.

Second, this also demonstrates the folly of advocating a Palestinian state before there is anyone around suitable to run it. This was true when we were dealing with Arafat, it remained true with Abbas and it now is even more obvious. As a general concept or long-term goal, the two-state solution is fine. However, with the current state of the Palestinian people (poor, angry, gripped by a mythological vision of golden past and believing that they can kill their way to a better future), the current Palestinian leadership (more suited to run a criminal enterprise or a guerilla war, not to being founders of a new country), with a region that is hostile to Israel (which necessitates continuous repressive policies and violent action by Israeli security services, creating a state of instability in the OTs) and with a socio-cultural environment that seems to be on the verge of complete collapse, the "raw materials" necessary for the creation of a new country are lacking.

Third, like it or not, we unfortunately will have to deal with Hamas as quickly as possible. Why? Because a worse scenario is not a terrorist state Gaza and the West Bank; the real nightmare scenario is terrorist state in Gaza and the West Bank being fully supported and completely beholden to Iran. Which, if we completely cut off relations and aid, is the most probable outcome. Of course, this may happen anyway, even with engagement from our side; but that will be guaranteed if we cut off all contacts and assistance. This is, of course, a horrible position to be in: having to give aid and recognition to terrorists who are attacking a valuable ally. However, that is the only hope we have of moving Hamas' goals and policies towards something we and the Israelis can live with (literally in the latter case. Of course, we may decide that it does not matter, that not dealing with Hamas is worth more than heading off the creation of an Islamist proto-state run from Tehran; but I doubt we will. I wouldn't be surprised if we (the US and the EU) find some excuse for maintaining ties and aid to the PA. We may even get into a situation where the US is using European proxies to funnel money to the PA; but the result will be the same. Of course, this assumes that a) Israel doesn't just conduct massive redeployment of forces into the OTs to wipe out the new Hamas government or that Hamas, Fatah, IJ and the rest don't start a full-scale civil war.

Fourth, we (and this includes the EU) should end any opposition to the completion of the Israeli security fence (which, interestingly enough, has its own website at: http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/default.htm). It has become even more important that we support Israel in protecting its citizens, particularly since a full-scale civil war is possible in the OTs. Further, full separation might allow any elements in Hamas that want to tone down the violence and concentrate on running the PA (assuming such elements exist) the excuse they need to call off further attacks; i.e., they can say that Israel is unreachable and that, therefore, it is acceptable to cease launching attacks. I realize that hoping for moderates among a gang of killers is a big leap; however, this is certainly not impossible. One of the things that brought Egypt to the bargaining table with Israel in the late-70s was the realization that they were never going to eject Israel from the Sinai by force. Therefore, they had the necessary excuse to compromise.

[Alexandra]

Liquid,

Well first and foremost Orlando Bloom is a hunk. LOL!

Secondly, I love epics.

I love the moral aspects of the story, the courage and sacrifice, the human relationships which involved many aspects which are very different today, but most amazingly many which have not changed since 1180.

I am always amazed by the level of cruelty and the savage disregard for human life and dignity, and yet interested in how the element of honor is there with the undisputable mark of respect for one's peers. Such as the moment when King Baldwin rides up to Saladin and the two men face each other in the middle of the battlefield, with the might of their armies behind them, and having agreed terms, Saladin offers to send the King who is riddled with leprosy his personal physician. They curtly nod to each other, and there is that old fashioned mark of respect which transcends the battle field, and makes me sigh every time. Their word is their bond.

I guess I am an incurable romantic, as they quite often slit each other's throats in the next moment....

Although very violent, I always enjoy the visuals of Ridley Scott's epics.

Unfortunately of course, the historical element of the movie and the fight for Jerusalem has been altered to suit the script, but then I am unusually forgiving in these instances as I always give the artist considerable latitude.

[Liquid]

What did you enjoy about Kingdom Of Heaven?

[Alexandra]

The post I have written today The Lesser Of Two Evils responds to one of the comments here, and I guess is an ongoing discussion along the same lines.
I didn't want to upset our friend the Phoenician, so I gave the Fascist theme a little break, and chose a photograph from a movie I rather enjoyed called "Kingdom Of Heaven", which deals with a lot of the issues we face today.

[Huan]

By now we all know Hamas has won an out right majority in the Palestinian election. I believe this is a favorable outcome for the following reasons:

1. Had Fatah won, they still would not have been able to reign in Hamas' violence. Thus nothing has changed with a Hamas victory.
2. Hamas still is not strong enough to win against Israel. This political victory does not strengthen that.
3. Hamas now must be accountable for their actions, this is a new pressure on them. Will they be able to deliver for the Palestinians a better life?
4. If Hamas continue to work toward the destruction of Israel, this then will essentially be a declaration of war between two states, thus allowing a freer hand for Israel to act, and for the US to cut off aid.
5. If Hamas does not perform, they will be replaced by the Palestinians.
6. The world is better off interacting with a representative power of the Palestinians and thus hold the Palestinians themselves accountable to their elected government. No longer can they claim oppression as do the Saudis, Egyptians or most of the Arabs now.

In addition: Israel should negotiate with Hamas now. After all, if you do not negotiate with your enemy, who would you negotiate with for a diplomatic peace? A military victory will always remain an option.

[Couch Blogger]

It's a strange world.

[Kenny Pierce]

O thou who must be destroyed,

In the interest of sharpening your debating skills a tad, I would like gently to point out that the "bedfellow" line of attack is one you would be much wiser to avoid. After all, while my "bedfellow" and I do share a major premise (democracies do not do evil things unless a significant percentage of the voters are evilly inclined), still our minor premises differ radically (his: America has behaved more evilly than any other nation in history; mine: Hamas has explicitly evil aims that have now been implicitly endorsed by the majority of those Palestinians who chose to vote). What my bedfellow and I have in common is a single major premise about the fact that democracies tend to reflect the character of their active voters. But what my bedfellow has in common with your side of the aisle is a long laundry list of shared talking points.

Myself, I don't think that makes you his buddy, but then, I'm not the one trying to validate the tactic of creating guilt by tenuous association.

BTW, like I said, let me know if you want to play hardball.

[Kenny Pierce]

D. Ox,

She seems more like a Sasha to me... [chuckling evilly]

Kenny

[Kenny Pierce]

My dear Carthagenian,

You appear to wish to play the game of let's-try-to-make-the-other-guy-look-like-a-stupid-jerk. That's not really a game I have much use for but you seem to be extremely eager for a round or two, and when other people badly want something I generally try to be obliging. However, as an experienced father of eight, I find myself compelled by sheer force of habit to say gently...

Are you sure you want to go there?

[D. Ox]

Dear Alexandra, (can I call you Alex?)

The rise of these, excuse my French, bastards, to power was as predictable as the chances of a snowball in hell.

The vision of Hamas is psychotic, they are psychos. I knew palestinians when I was in Paris as a student. They were all psychotic, not merely neurotic.

Franz Fanon be damned. The psychotic behavior of these folks is THEIR fault. They are responsible, stop passing the buck you frickin' jerks. (Sorry, dear Baronessa)

Let's hope for the best. Let's hope Hamas will change their ways.

Duh, duh, duh, fughiddaboudit!

[Liquid]

Just like the islamic salvation front did in Algeria, Hamas wants to use elections to further the group's nondemocratic goals. The result of their democratic achievement via votes still has to prove that it has democratic principals which is going to be difficult for Hamas since in the past it's motives were to always spoil anything to do with PEACE.

AND as far as Hamas and their "goody goody" charity work, Puuuuullleeeeezzzz get a clue about it's motives...it has used its charities to strengthen its own standing with palestinians and to recruit supporters for it's own agenda. Hamas won't change...because the radical islamist will use them like never before now. A koran in one hand and a hamas flag in the other...I bet sharia law will be enforced on a strict matter next. Woe to the Christians that live there! They will probably be forced to pay a dimmi tax. Let the world open their eyes to what is about to take place... Everything their two forked tongues have said about wanting peace and that Islam is peace will play out on a stage now for everyone to see.

[Stefan]

Well, nobody said democracy was pretty!! This is a very important lesson for those who think “Democracy” is the same as “Just Society”. In order for a democracy to be “Just” you need “moral agents” (i.e. citizens who are “self-governed by a sense of morality) to plug-in to it. It is kind of like “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Democracy is in many ways an indifferent system. If we voted to reinstate slavery it would have been done democratically but it would make us an “unjust democracy”. And so Hamas will rule the Palestinians…legally. OK, so be it. We will cut off ties and aid unless they reform and we’ll see if they like their choice. If all Hamas can deliver to its people is war with Israel then their people will be crushed. If Fattah seeks to regain power then it must reform and provide an alternative....this could be healthy in the long run provided Hamas doesn’t close up the democracy shop from here on out or start a war in the mean time. It is up to the Palestinian people to live with their choice and learn from their choice. We must be vigilant and condemn Hamas’ actions but not the fact that they were elected. Freedom is a scary thing and if we seek to unleash it in the Middle East we must hold on to our seats and keep our heads clear and cool because it will be a hell of a bumpy ride!!!

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

When we see a nation that has fallen into general depravity, and we declare them unfit for democracy, we reject not democracy per se, but the right of evil and hate-filled persons to pretend that their evil and hatred is validated by the fact that more voters are evil and hate-filled than are virtuous and well-meaning.

Why does this rhetoric seem familiar? Oh, right...:

"Some have the impression that you are a reasonable people. But the majority of you are vulgar and without sound ethics or good manners. You elect the evil from among you, the greatest liars and the least decent and you are enslaved by your richest and the most influential among you, [...]"

Not to mention this:

"(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

[Long list of particulars elided]

(a)The freedom and democracy that you call to is for yourselves and for white race only; as for the rest of the world, you impose upon them your monstrous, destructive policies and Governments, which you call the 'American friends'. Yet you prevent them from establishing democracies. When the Islamic party in Algeria wanted to practice democracy and they won the election, you unleashed your agents in the Algerian army onto them, and to attack them with tanks and guns, to imprison them and torture them - a new lesson from the 'American book of democracy'!!! "

Nice bedfellows you keep there, Kenny, But keep labelling entire nations "evil" if you disagree with them - it's so much easier than trying to understand their viewpoint.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

It's hard not to be cynical, but 'extensive charity network', really.

Yes, really. In the West, people only hear about their terrorism, but they *also* do considerable charitable work. And, strangely enough, the Palestinians and Lebonese don't view violence aimed at Israelis in quite the same light as Americans do.

2. When the people we don't like get elected but we know they are sufficiently constrained by the decency of the voting public, and effective constraints of law, that they won't be able to exploit their victory to do horrifically unjust things to other people.

Uh-huh.

[Kenny Pierce]

Well, I could have saved everybody a lot of time if I had run across Emanuele Ottolenghi's observations twenty minutes earlier. She clearly (a) reads the situation exactly the way I do and (b) has gone further down the line of thinking out and expressing her opinion. I wholeheartedly endorse her comments, to which I have nothing to add.

[Kenny Pierce]

The victory of Hamas is a "dark victory" in the sense that it exposes the complete moral bankruptcy of the Palestinian people as a whole (though certainly not of every single individual Palestinian). But I don't think it's a bad thing for the world. Hamas now has no excuses. Neither Egypt nor Jordan wants anything to do with them, and now every time Hamas commits an act of terrorism, Israel will be fully justified in retaliating against the new Palestianian state. For Hamas, after all, runs the state, and what Hamas does now, the Palestinian state does. Hamas is now in a terrible position because if the Palestinian state fails, they will take most of the blame; but the only way for the Palestinian state to succeed is for the Palestinian state to abandon the war on Israel -- which war is Hamas's whole raison d'etre, and which step, if taken, will completely discredit Hamas in the eyes of their fellow insane Islamofascists. They are, in my opinion, in a thoroughly lose-lose situation, and I can't think of anyone more fit to find themselves there. I think that Hamas was horrified to wake up and discover they had won a majority.

Furthermore, I can't imagine what the Palestinians could possibly have done that would have strengthened to a greater degree the perception that the Israelis have both a prudential obligation and a moral right to build the rest of their wall. The Palestianian state is now run by an organization that has explicitly sworn to destroy Israel by any means necessary and exterminate her citizens, and they were put there by popular vote; all the ignoramuses who have spent years babbling about "peace in the Middle East" are going to have one helluva time now keeping from facing the fact that the last thing Palestinians want is peace -- unless, of course, we're talking the sort of peace that comes after a successful campaign of genocide has left you unencumbered by persons who might fight back. If Hamas does not immediately renounce its war on Israel, Israel would in my view be perfectly justified in declaring that, while it will for the time being observe a cease-fire, still a state of war exists between Israel and the Palestinian state, and Israel reserves the right at any time to terminate the cease-fire unilaterally. They wouldn't even have to fire a weapon -- all they'd have to do is shut off the power.

I have suspected for over a year now that Sharon's expectation and hope all along was that the Palestinians would, as soon as they got that state of their own that they've been clamoring for, promptly proceed to elect Hamas into power, thus revealing the true colors of the Palestinian people. Too bad he's not able to see it -- and I hope he had already communicated to the rest of his team, what the next Israeli move was to be as soon as the Palestinians dove with irrepressible, headlong enthusiasm straight into the trap he had set for them.

[Liquid]

Oke, let's remove them from power like we did with Allende in Chili. We only like democracy when the people we like get elected. Posted by: Doris Day
-----------------------

Que Sera Sera... What good is democracy for people that do not want peace and their only goal is to destroy Israel?
____________
____________
____________

This kinda shit happens when you occupy Arab soil under even shittier pretenses..Now watch this drive. Posted by: Tweety
--------------------------

This kinda shit happens when some of those under the curse of Islam are finaly given a chance with democracy to prove to the world that they really want peace and choose a peaceful loving government and yet they choose to go head strong on their mission to vote in those that have been and will continue to be on a path to destroy their neighbors. It's been an exposure of what is really in their hearts isn't it? How does one hide their motives now? It's pretty out there now due to their votes isn't it? Actually IMHO, it gives Israel more strength to strike back now doesn't it? Que Sera Sera when you are a terrorist at heart you choose to have terrorist represent you right?

[Kenny Pierce]

This kinda shit happens when you occupy Arab soil under even shittier pretenses.

Actually, this kinda shit happens when you have large numbers of Arabs who have been deliberately shaped from birth to be enslaved to soul-damning hatred. Whether you occupy their land or not. Nice going with the whole begging of the question of whether the land in question is rightfully "Arab soil," too.

We only like democracy when the people we like get elected.

Actually:

1. When the people we like get elected, we like both democracy and the present results thereof. I couldn't tell you what that feels like as I have never voted in an election in which I genuinely liked, admired and trusted the politician who managed to finagle the most votes.

2. When the people we don't like get elected but we know they are sufficiently constrained by the decency of the voting public, and effective constraints of law, that they won't be able to exploit their victory to do horrifically unjust things to other people, then we moderates continue to like democracy even though we dislike the results thereof -- because we know that the alternatives to democracy are generally speaking even worse than democracy.

3. When a facade of democracy is subverted by realities of intimidation and fraud, there is no true democracy either to like or to dislike.

4. When the voting public is largely given over to hatred and evil, then democracy simply ensures that that hatred and evil will be given free reign, in which case democracy has become a tool of injustice. The Founding Fathers, unlike the overwhelming majority of non-classically-educated liberals, and apparently unlike Fool of the Century candidate Woodrow Wilson, had read with attention their copies of Aristotle's Politics. Therefore they knew that democracy in the hands of an irresponsible or temporarily deluded majority would cease to be a tool of justice and would become a means of injustice. As a result, they were careful not to create a pure democracy.

When we see a nation that has fallen into general depravity, and we declare them unfit for democracy, we reject not democracy per se, but the right of evil and hate-filled persons to pretend that their evil and hatred is validated by the fact that more voters are evil and hate-filled than are virtuous and well-meaning.

Hamas's victory, in my opinion, means either that the Palestinians are as a people enslaved to hatred and that they have forfeited any claim they might have to a right of self-government, or else that the elections were in some way rigged. If the first, then the Palestinians have no right to be a democracy. If the second, then in rejecting the legitimacy of Hamas's leadership we would be not rejecting democracy, but defending her.

And if you deduce from this that democracy is not a fundamental human right, but is instead simply a tool for the protection of human rights, which in some cases is counterproductive...well, you just figured out something that Woodhead Wilson apparently never did, despite the extremely generous hints provided by Aristotle and the Founding Fathers.

[Doris Day]

Oke, let's remove them from power like we did with Allende in Chili. We only like democracy when the people we like get elected.

[Liquid]

find comfort today in...
"And we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
as today we understand...
Since the devil moved in and has now won the palestinian election, one can be assured that it being the opposite of good, that Hamas will in all things work for the evil of those who support it and voted for it, who have been called according to the serpent's purpose! Jan 26:2006

[MarcH]

Alexandra,

Your titles and illustrations for the Pope Benedict and Hamas pieces were wonderful. It’s funny how the radical Arab and Muslim movement "activists" and "youths" seem to stick out their hands like that when they have stretch break. It almost looks like … naaaaah, couldn’t be. I disagree with some of your conclusions on the Hamas election. Hopefully I’ll have time to write a comment tonight.

Tweety wrote above: "This kinda shit happens when you occupy Arab soil under even shittier pretenses." So, on Planet Tweety, a defensive war by a small nation, out numbered at least 5 to 1, against three large countries pledged to annihilate you is a sh*tty pretense. Stick to cartoons.

[Tweety#3]

This kinda shit happens when you occupy Arab soil under even shittier pretenses..

Now watch this drive.

[Snippet]

One of the arguments against democratizing Iraq (aside from the poweful argument that it could not be done) was that Arabs can't handle democracy.

This is an argument that Arab autocrats have been making to prop up support for their regimes - "Don't like us? The alternative's worse, so just keep those checks coming (sucker)."

This is an argument that I think is half right. Arab's MAY not be ready for democracy, but we're beyond the point where blocking democracy (as we were in fact doing before Mr. Neocon decided to change things) is the lesser of two evils.

I really don't know where a democratized Middle East is going in the long run (we can safely rule out a positive short run), but the support-autocrats-because-the-alternative-is-even-worse method of "managing" the Middle East, with its inherent hypocracy and heavy baggage of Things We Dare Not Admit in Public, is toast. Burnt, black, charcoaly toast. Good riddance.

Interesting Times.

[Kenny Pierce]

Not if it means saying, "Oh, you know what, I admit that I was fundamentally wrong about Palestinians' moral superiority to those damned kykes," they won't. Which pretty much rules out all of Europe and most of American academia.

[jeff stiles]

Well, the "good" news here is the world will finally see what these groups do when they're in actual governmental control of a country. Maybe the leaders of the free world will finally stop praising all factions as equals, and the true lovers of peace and freedom can get our support.