WP: U.S. Policy Is Big Loser in Palestinian Elections

[kskiska]

Saturday, January 28, 2006; A16

Standing in a sunny Rose Garden on June 24, 2002, surrounded by his top foreign policy advisers, President Bush issued a clarion call for resolving the deadly Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror."

This week, Palestinians gave their answer, handing a landslide victory in national legislative elections to Hamas, which has claimed responsibility for dozens of suicide bombings and desires the elimination of Israel. Bush's statement calling for new leaders was aimed at the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, but in the same speech he also said it was necessary to thwart Hamas -- formally the Islamic Resistance Movement -- and other militant groups.

The election outcome signals a dramatic failure in the administration's strategy for Middle East peace, according to analysts and some U.S. officials. Since the United States cannot deal with an organization labeled a terrorist organization by the State Department, Hamas's victory is likely to curtail U.S. aid, limit official U.S. contacts with the Palestinian government and stall efforts to create an independent Palestinian state.

More broadly, Hamas's victory is seen as a setback in the administration's campaign for greater democracy in the Middle East. Elections in Iran, Iraq, Egypt and now the Palestinian territories have resulted in the defeat of secular and moderate parties and the rise of Islamic parties hostile to U.S. interests.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701562.html

[wtmusic]

1. Hamas's victory IS democracy in the ME

* just didn't like the winner (and couldn't control the election).

[Canuckistanian]

2. No shit, Sherlock

US policy is as realistic as the Kingdom of OZ.

[ewoden]

3. What tripe

"More broadly, Hamas's victory is seen as a setback in the administration's campaign for greater democracy in the Middle East. Elections in Iran, Iraq, Egypt and now the Palestinian territories have resulted in the defeat of secular and moderate parties and the rise of Islamic parties hostile to U.S. interests."

Just WTF does the adminsitration want? First it's depose dicators. Ok they did that. Then it's elect new leaders through democratic processes? OK they did that. Now it's such a failure because a people freely elected the government they want.

Why don't Georgie and his buddies, just sail over there and cap a ball in some heads to get whet they want? Uh Oh, wait they already tried that in Iraq and look how that's turning out.

Eviol Simpletons all of 'em

[Wordie]

4. An article posted...

in the I/P forum says that the Hamas victory is far more a reflection of a Palestinian frustration with Fatah (in other words, with internal Palestinian politics) than it is a statement on relations with Israel...or the U.S. Hamas is seen by the Palestinians as very well organized and not corrupt, and that is apparently why they won. In addition, Hamas has an extensive social program, which has done much to assist Palestinians hit hard by the effects of years of occupation (Gaza is the place with the lowest per capita annual income in the world.)

I agree with the other posters who point out that this is what democracy looks like. It's also interesting to note that it was the U.S. who demanded that the elections go forward as scheduled, when Abbas wished to postpone.

[Trajan]

6. Shivers .... I dont go there ....

Its scary .....

[Trajan]

5. Laughs ....

Sheeesh ... what ever happened to love of FREEDOM Georgie ? ...

Maybe you need to beat the Palestinians to get them to do your bidding ....

[lovuian]

7. It has to be the biggest Loss to Bush and Sharon

what they were building is falling...

[Wordie]

8. The worry now...

is that Netanyahu will raise Israeli fears about what the results of a Hamas win might mean to Israelis. If he does so effectively to the point that he is voted in when the Israelis hold their elections in March, that would be scary.

[PhilipShore]

9. WP: U.S. Policy Seen as Big Loser in Palestinian Vote

Washington Post
U.S. Policy Seen as Big Loser in Palestinian Vote
By Glenn Kessler
January 28, 2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701562.html

The administration has long been criticized for being reluctant to get involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; even after Bush's 2002 speech, the policy drifted except for occasional high-profile speeches and events. But after Arafat's death in late 2004 and the beginning of the new presidential term, Bush vowed things would be different, saying he would invest "political capital" in ensuring a Palestinian state before he leaves office three years from now.

Despite deep Israeli misgivings, the administration late last year shifted policy and decided Hamas could participate in the elections even though it had not disarmed its militias, in contrast to rules set for elections in Afghanistan and Northern Ireland.

"There were eloquent speeches and praise for Abbas" but little else, said Robert Malley, director of the International Crisis Group's Middle East program, who was on President Bill Clinton's National Security Council staff. "There was an abstract faith in the idea that if you do the right thing, you will get a two-state solution.

The administration at the start of last year pledged it would take a low-key approach that would rely much more on nations in the region to carry the diplomatic burden. Officials were disdainful of the Clinton administration's deep involvement in the peace process, which they believed amounted to micromanaging. But over the course of the year, a top general was dispatched to help organize Palestinian security forces, former World Bank president James D. Wolfensohn was recruited to assist on the Gaza withdrawal and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in November personally negotiated the opening of a border crossing.