It's just not logical to expect elections alone to fix Arafatistan. The Palestinians are not a nation. They are just professional victims, dependant throughout their lives on charity from zakat plates, from the EU, from the UN, and from the US. They know that Hamas will keep killing Israelis, who in turn will kill Hamas goons, which in turn will keep the money coming in. Professional victims.

Posted by: Vancouver at February 2, 2006 8:04 AM

One election does not necessarily invalidate an entire concept. It's very debatable whether even systemic failure - leaving the Islamic world to its own devices and hoping it will implode - will wean the Muslim mind from its stultifying belief-system.
Having modernity imposed from the outside might be the only methodology that offers even a chance for evolutionary progress.

Hamas won't be in power forever. They will succumb to the same culture of corruption and ineptitude that undid Fatah. In one municipality in which Hamas won in the last election, local discontent resulted in a bucking of the national trends and Fatah winning both seats from that area.

I'm not saying for a minute that it is good that Hamas won or that there is no danger of a militarization of Palestinian society. I'm just saying let's not pronounce the post-mortem on the Democratic solution. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Let's see how it plays out.

Posted by: Cornelius at February 2, 2006 8:20 AM

this from Strategypage.com

Pacifying Palestine With Terror
The Palestinian election results have created a huge problem for Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas. As a mere militant group, terrorist attacks are something that fall into a gray area of international law – somewhere between military action and law enforcement. However, as the entity in control of the Palestinian Authority, these terrorist attacks that were brushed off by the international community would be taken very seriously. When a government of one country starts killing citizens of another country, it is generally considered an act of war.
Hence, Hamas has entered into new and much more hazardous territory. How well it navigates this depends on how fast its leadership matures.

Posted by: Rob at February 2, 2006 8:29 AM

Now Fatah can recast themselves as hardline terrorists. They can retake the moral lowground from Hamas by formally becoming the party of homicide bombers and murderers. Thus next election(?) they can be more electable to the people.

Posted by: JanuaryMan at February 2, 2006 9:39 AM

"Hence, Hamas has entered into new and much more hazardous territory. How well it navigates this depends on how fast its leadership matures."

-- from Stratgypage extract posted by Rob

As Robert (or maybe it was Hugh) posted elsewhere, the maturation of the Hamas leadership will go like this. Magically, a Hamas "splinter group" will appear, having an ominous jihadic title. The job of the splinter group will be to conduct ceaseless violence against Israel. The rest of Hamas will continue to handle the phony negotiations and the extortion of money from the West on behalf of the new Palestinian Authority. The Hamas leadership will deny any ability to control the splinter group, who, after all, are a "small minority of extremists." The EU will buy into this excuse completely, as will the USA.

Posted by: Stendec at February 2, 2006 9:40 AM

This is a marathon, not a sprint. Let's see how it plays out
--posted above

So far it is playing out well: the election of Hamas has proved Netanyahu correct (he opposed giving away Gaza on the grounds that it would embolded the terrorists). Thus when the fictional "international community" starts demanding territorial concessions in the West Bank, Israel has a solid case to refuse. Also, Israel has already announced it will deny the PA 55 million dollars in tax revenue, and this might very well precipitate further turmiol in the PA. Thus the unintended consequences of Bush's Wilsonian Idealism are benifitting Israel, and by extension, the West.

Posted by: Dhimmiwatch in Canada at February 2, 2006 9:44 AM

From the linked article:
"But it wasn't until after he had been narrowly re-elected in 1916 on the slogan, "He kept us out of war," that Wilson demonstrated what he meant.

In 1917, when Germany announced it would attack neutral shipping in the seas surrounding Britain..."
---------------------

What many may not be aware of was the farce of "neutrality". While Britain blockaded Germany, which of course led to "civilian" deaths, mostly by starvation, they also blockaded neutral American shipping to Germany. So much for BRITISH respect for the law.

And of course Wilson was an ANGLOPHILE, who lied to get elected and then broke the neutrality in favor of Britain. Sneaking in war material through the back door and playing games with finance.
The Germans KNEW THIS, and that is why they said screw-it, they're f-cking us anyway.

126,000 Americans were sent to their deaths, for what?? Hmm? Their pursuit of "life, liberty, and happiness" kinda got hijacked did'nt it.
What was the end result of WW1?? Think about it.
Republican Robert LaFollette was right. And Teddy Roosevelt turned out to be an a--hole along with Wilson.
So many myths and lies.
Utopian bastards. They've killed the USA. Now there's no stopping total elitist rule of the world, the Brave New World.

Bush continues the programing that produces a negative response to the word "isolationism". PRAGMATISM RULES. Truth and reality is dead.

Read how(and think about Islam):

"Attitude Channeling and Brainwashing"
by Robert L. Kocher

"In this installment we will examine a fascinating and very frightening area of psychology called attitude change. In applied forms it might be defined as what is commonly called brainwashing."
http://members.mountain.net/theanalyticpapers/

Posted by: kentim at February 2, 2006 7:30 PM

Most of us here know Bush and all the government institutions and the mass-media is giving us false information about Islam. We can think of all sorts of convenient excuses for it, like to prevent a backlash, or to prevent the billion muslims world-wide from joining the Jihad etc, etc.

But we know Islam already requires them to contribute somehow, depending on the situation, and we know what the foundational texts say. The question is; can we so dummify and pacify the Islamic world so they will no longer understand the original/correct/actual meaning of the texts?
Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea. Psychological manipulation based on behaviorist psychology is an extremely powerful tool for the control of societies, and mass-media is the ultimate facilitator.

The FACT is : there is no consensus(yet) about what reality and truth is. Who defines it?? Those in positions of power. Might make right. Yes, it does.

Posted by: kentim at February 2, 2006 8:10 PM

I'd recommend reading this cheap little book too. The focus is on utilization of scientific knowledge and technology. First published in 1965, the author did not seem to have an ideological bias. "Propaganda", by Jacques Ellul.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394718747/103-6309318-4719017?v=glance&n=283155

Posted by: kentim at February 2, 2006 8:50 PM

Of course, both Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald are intelligent enough to know that America is not a pure Democracy, but is, instead, a Constitutional Democratic Republic, based upon a Bill of Rights which was inspired by the Judeo-Christian tradition.

This is the project we have undertaken in the Middle East, though, we have called it Democracy out of expedience. And, you know it. If it wasn't, then, there would have been no discussion over what it meant to have a "law, inspired by Sharia."

And, it is true that we have not been as forceful as we should be in insisting on our concepts of human rights.

But, in conflating the idea of a Constitutional Democratic Republic with a pure Democracy, Jihad Watch has been less than honest.

Why don't you guys criticize on the level of your intelligence?

Posted by: pastorius at February 3, 2006 1:23 AM

You're talking about the OLD U.S.A., buddy. Saying something is true don't make it so, no matter how many millions of times it's said or how many millions of people wish to believe it.
In spite of all the (Marxist)Humanist whining about Bush and the war, he is guided by a Pragmatic Humanist ideological grounding.
Humanism is the LAW of the Land. The Constitution is just window-dressing and is only submitted to when convenient(useful).

The Bill of Rights WAS NOT THE BASIS of this nation, The CONSTITUTION WAS, the Constitution was a rigid and specific outline that describes the structure and mission of the republican government, the Bill of Rights were an afterthought ammended to that Constitution that was supposed to describe even more specifically that the government was to be restricted and restrained and made to adhere to it's very limited sphere of legitimate governmental activities.

To say that is still in effect is a laugh. The realization of it is less than funny. Of course the founders warned and warned about what has happened, but selective tunnel-vision only allows those in each opposition party to see the other as an enemy to the Constitution, while in fact they both are.

I'll bet not too many people even know what the word "soviet" means: Council.
I'll also bet that not too many people know that Marxism is not really about economics. Economics is only a means to a different end.

And now, after 100 years of "internationalism" and "interventionism', which during the Cold-War bcame a necessity(in order to maintain an American influence in evolving events), though American involvement in the 2nd WW is what contributed to the massive increase of power and influence of the Soviet Union and forced subsequent reactions to that fact.
One has to wonder, whereas Hitler had CONTINENTAL aspirations, and had no intention of turning the world nazi, the USSR from day-one stated that "world-revolution" was it's reason for being, and made no secret that it was actively working to subvert and corrupt the rest of the world with it's totalitarian ideology. But the West saved them TWICE. The first time in the early 1920's, when Lenin suckered the "capitalists" with his "New Economic Policy", and then in the 2nd WW.

It seems to me that the most prudent policy would have been to play both sides of the field, and let the nazis and commies destroy each other. Certainly STRENGHTHENING the Soviets to the point where they actually developed the power to destroy us was indesputedly stupid, or evil.

Posted by: kentim at February 3, 2006 7:17 AM