Hamas victory shows fatal flaw of Bush Mideast policy...

[jackbourassa]

The election of Hamas in Palestine and other recent election of hardline Islamic regimes in Iraq and Iran has shown the fundemental error in Bush's (and the DLC) reasoning when it comes to the middle east. The argument had been that "Democratic" regimes would be peaceful and more open to US ideas. However if the three recent elections should be used as an example, the exact opposite is true. In reality, democracy has opened the door for these hard-line anti-American groups to sieze control of their respective countries. Their gains make the US all the less safer.

It's time for American politicians to take a cold hard look at the situation in the Middle East as it is, and not how they want it to be. The Middle East is not European or American. They don't share the same values - or even historical perspective - as we do. They hate Israel. They hate America. They hate Christianity. They hate everything we believe in. Some are stupid enough to attack us through terrorism. Policy makers must accept that. By creating democratic institutions in these areas, we have only given them the means of taking power without violence. After all, weren't the Nazi's elected into office? We need to "contain" the threat. Kill those who bring us harm - like Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Not try to create something that doesn't exist and never has.

The problem in the Middle East rests in their attitudes about themselves and the world around them. They felt this way about the Europeans when they controlled everything and now feel the same about the US. Only the Muslims can change themselves. No bombs will do that.

To sacrifice thousands of our own young men and women, not to mention hundreds of billions of dollars, to give Islamic militants a foothold - if not outright control - of the middle east is the biggest strategic foreign policy blunder in US history. But worse, we limit our own ability to "respond" to any given threat or situation by remaining in Iraq. We have also put in peril everything we claimed to be protecting: our own Democratic rights, our own freedoms, our alliances, our economy, our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, global oil reserves, and now, even Israel itself. Bush's policy of "preemption and regime change" will only escalate the problems we face in the region. We need a new strategy.

I don't have any special insight on this, other than my own feelings. I just needed to vent a little. I know many of you may disagree with my opinions about "Democracy in the Middle East" but it needs to be said.

How do you guys feel?

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Honestly, the neocon boneheads didn't see this coming.

Well, back to the drawing board!

[Finder]

3. They want theocracies..religion is the opiate of the masses...

It is much easier to control and make a people believe the most outrageous things if they are believers.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. You'll never convince me that those guys had rule by

Jew hating islamic fundamentalists on the menu of acceptable options.

[Finder]

9. Read Strauss or Bloom. n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

20. Anymore I subscribe to the the theory that the face value

is the real deal. And you can just about predict the future. The guy behind the curtain stuff is bullshit, these clowns are winging it. Strauss is a historian, it's the past, the present is moving too fast it's all different, they don't know what the fuck they are doing anymore.

[jackbourassa]

29. And unfortunately...

They're taking the world down with them.

[Finder]

33. I respectfully disagree...

Straussian philosophy is the basis of much of today's foreign policy(brought to us by the PNACers.)

The ends are not as sinister as some imagine but the means are far from being lawful or democratic.

The reasoning behind allowing theocratic government is rather than having to sway millions, only a handful of clerics need to be bought or convinced. The plan is logical yet I disagree with the means, personally.

[applegrove]

25. Some say the whole "democracy" idea came about because Iraq

invasion failed and they didn't find the WMD they feverishly tortured people to tell them existed there. That would mean chalabi had quite nicely duped the neocons. And the neocons needed some new message.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. well, a few errors

they do not hate christianity. They simply view it and its heros as their own prophets, just not advanced enough. They view Robertson and his ilk with the same disdain that most americans do. They do not hate america, they hate our current leadership. Bill Clinton is still viewed as a friend. Even papa george is respected.

A small, very small group of Saudis who are about as evil as Robertson or poison snake baptists believe in terrorism. 99.999% of muslims cherish peace. besides there are more muslims that christians.


The only reason why there are fights is because of oil. nothing else. Look what oil has done to Sudan, with covert and overt US and US business help.

You are correct that the bushista doctrine is fatally flawed, in part because it puts Israel ahead of any and everyone else, including the US.

[jackbourassa]

6. It's flawed because...

The Bush Doctrine is flawed because, the neo-cons assumed that the Middle East would go the way of Eastern Europe in the late 1980s/early 1990s. They thought that "establishing" a Democratic government there would become the incentive for others to rise up to do the same. It was flawed because they listened to bullshit by people like Ahmad Chalabi and his ilk, who have proven time and again how full of crap they really are and how little they know about Iraq, the middle east, and its people. It's flawed because it assumed that given the US's (temporary) hegemonic position - no opposition would exist against an aggressive preemptive strategy.

These recent elections are the neo-cons worst nightmare.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jazzjunkysue]

14. Islam is on the march. Wow, George. You really blew it this time.

He's gonna protect us from terra. He's handed 2 countries to terrorists.

This was always his plan. Incite riot and then take over during the chaos.

There have to be a few honest americans working inthe white house tonight talking in hushed voices in the closet, asking themselves if this is really happening.

B** is going to ruin everything that is good in the world. And they are helping him.

[jackbourassa]

15. Another point...

The Hamas victory may embolden other terrorist organizations to become politically active in other "Middle East Democracies." The Taliban in Afghanistan? Hezbolla (sp?) in Syria/Lebanon? What about Egypt? Iran has already elected ultra-conservative Clerics and Iraq isn't far behind.

Shit, with successes like these in the "War against terra" who needs defeats!

[fujiyama]

27. .

.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msongs]

7. "They hate Christianity" - what goes around comes around nt

[Radicalman]

8. Bush Is Screwed

This is a great post. Let me add something from another slant. President Bush as said that the United States wants to spread God-given freedoms and democracy throughout the world. He has frequently equated democracy, particularly in Iraq, with "free elections." Mr. Bush 's problem, with the recent victory of Hamas in their free elections is that a group he calls "terrorists" was elected. Mr. Bush has always maintained the he won't "deal with terrorists." His critics are bound to say that the President can't have it both ways: Either he must renounce democracy and free elections or renounce his position on terrorism. If he renounces democracy he appears to support totalitarianism. On the other hand, if he renounces his stance on terrorism, he appears to be a weak, flip-flopping person, one of his major charges against John Kerry in the past Presidential election. In either case he is screwed. This is a problem of his own making. Mr. Bush, perhaps the worst President in the history of the United States, has often escaped these kind of difficulties by resorting to name-calling and loud-mouth bluster. What tactics he will use in this situation will be a test of Karl Rove's creative powers.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. As someone who has spent 20 years in the Middle East and tries

to follow and understand events and why they happen:

1. They do not hate Christianity

2. They do not hate America - they admire much about America. They hate foreign hegemony over the Middle East be it American, European or anyone else.

3. They have long accepted that Israel is around to stay but feel that any peace settlement should be based on international law and principles of equality

4. They certainly do not hate everything we stand for. They see a huge disconnect between the rhetoric coming out of America and the reality.

For those who would like to follow Middle East issues I strongly suggest reading regularly Juan Cole. I am anxiously waiting for his comments on the Hamas election which frankly I see as a result of primarily two factors -- First, Palestinians are simply tired of the PLO lead Palestinian Authority for a number of local domestic reasons.--And secondly most Palestinians in the occupied territories simply do not see any hope of a truly viable and independent Palestinians state:

Here is a link to Juan Cole:

http://www.juancole.com/

And here is a link to an excellent article to give perspective by Seth Ackerman title, The Myth of the Generous Offer

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

[clyrc]

22. Thank You!

I have lived in the Middle East for 2 and a half years now, and what you wrote is absolutely true.

[Douglas Carpenter]

35. I've work with Arabic and Muslim people of all types and nationalities

Palestinians, Egyptians, Syrians, Saudis and Gulf Arabs; Shiites, Sunnis and Christians. I have never been accepted anywhere with more open mindedness, kindness and respect.

[moondust]

40. Are you

of Arabic or Muslim heritage by any chance? (No obligation to disclose this, of course.)

[Douglas Carpenter]

41. actually no -- I'm a plain simple WASP

[clyrc]

43. It is so different over here than Americans are led to expect

And what a pleasant surprise that was.

[Ksec]

11. Gee, more incompetence from the losers and their GOPsupporters

Imagine that.

All that money and lives lost and they elect Hamas and elect a fanatic religious sect in Iraq which wll now be buddies with Iran. Smooth move you neoknuckleheads, and the republicans who put them in power with their undying support. I only hope youll get exactly what you deserve. (to be put back on the extremist fringe of politics where you were for fifty years before your short stay in the majority.)

[Skelington]

13. I think I'm alone in thinking,

Hasn't Hamas been extremely active in raising a full and complete generation of young men and women to ignore Israel as a country and people? Also, that only after the complete destruction of Israel can there be peace? Set aside the opportunity to point out the bush flaws which directly and indirectly have only stirred the pot in the Middle East. There is an extremely violent party, that thinks nothing of sending their children off with a bomb strapped to them, now they control nearly 3/4 of Palestine rule. This could turn out to be so much worse than another case of "bush's fault", open warfare could erupt over the Middle East and beyond. This could turn REALLY bad, REALLY fast.

Now, I hope to not be called names, and accused of being a "freeper".

[jackbourassa]

16. You're not a freeper...

But you can't ignore the fact that without Bush's strategy, this mess wouldn't exist. Israel needs to get rid of the West Bank and Gaza, not because it's what Osama wants or Hamas (which by the way i'm not convinced of, i'll explain in a second), but because of the old saying: "Demographics are your destiny." Very, very rapidly the number of Palestinian people living in these occupied areas is growing faster than that of the Israeli jews in Israel. Which means in 10 to 20 years, there will actually be more Palestinians living in Israel than Israelis.

Then what will happen? Then the campaign of Arafat will be replaced with the campaign of Mandela. Instead of asking for separation, the Palestinians will ask for equality. Then the majority Palestinian population will take over Israel from within, without firing a single shot. This is what Hamas wants in my opinion. This is why they destroy any chance for peace. They can destroy Israel without firing a single bullet. Then idiots like the Bush Administration say, "well we can't give in to the terrorists." In the meantime, they ignore every possible danger sign in front of their faces. I mean is it so difficult to believe that a majority population, long since subjucated by superior forces, would rise up and take over the country for itself once given the chance to do so democratically?

Hmmm....let me think, why does that scenerio sound so familiar? BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN IRAQ!!!!!!

The political clevages in the Middle East are not the same as in America or in Europe. There are no Democrats and Republicans, who despite disagreements have accepted similar worldviews (well until Bush was elected). The Middle East never had an enlightenment - as occured in Europe. There are no traditions of Democratic rule, as we would know them. They don't accept individualism as we do in America. The elections in Iran or Egypt are as close as you're going to get.

The reason I focused on the Bush Doctrine of preemption and regime change is because, like I wrote in an earlier post, it's rationale was based on a couple of assumptions:

1) That democracy would make the Middle East more stable and friendly towards the United States. And support terrorism less (presumably).

2) That by overthrowing Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, people would form an American-style Democracy.

3) That containment did not work and that the US's global hegemonic position enabled it to do as it pleased.

BUT CONTAINMENT DID WORK. Containment worked brilliantly in Iraq. Consider this: between 1979 and 1991 (the first 12 years of Saddam's power), he declared war on two different countries; and was at war for 9 of them. He had an entire chemical and biological weapons program. After 1991, when we defeated Saddam in the first Gulf War and established the containment policy (of sanctions, no fly zones, and inspections), he has not declared (OR EVEN THREATENED) war against anyone. His weapons program was destroyed. But no one ever said, that Saddam would not try to evade the containment strategy. That he wouldn't test the fly zones or wouldn't try to keep the inspectors out. Just as no one believed that the Soviets would not try to evade the containment policy during the Cold War. But just that when he did, we would "spank" him and set him straight again. NOT REGIME CHANGE! Even George Kennan (the author of the containment policy) acknowledged in 1946 that the Soviets would itself try to circumvent containment. But he argued, that when they do...we must "keep them in the box." Containment as a policy, he argued, was slow and deliberate and that we required "patience and vigilance". But it was a very effective strategy. But herein lies another false assumption of the Bush Administration's Bush Doctrine, that because there was no Soviet Union to place a check on us, we could do as we pleased regardless of foreign opinions or even national interest. Wars would be easy, given our military superiority. Despite statements to the contrary, it wasn't so much that containment no longer worked, but because we no longer had to be "patient" when coming up with foreign policy solutions.

As for the argument that Democracy would spread across the Middle East. This is now laughable. The people in the Middle East are not Americans. They don't want what we want. Because they like Coca Cola and Levi Jeans doesn't mean that they want to be like Americans. There are reformers there i'm sure. I'm certain of it. Maybe my first post was a little harsh in judging all Muslims as fanatical. But there are also EXTREMELY FANATICAL people living in these countries as well. They are not the Democrats to the governing elite Republicans. They want to overthrow Israel. They want to bring down the "great Satan" America. They want to kill all non-Muslim infidels. They want to convert the whole world to Islam.

That's reality. There are millions of bin Laden's there. They supported the Iranian Revolution. They voted for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iran's crazy President). They supported putting the clerics in charge in Iraq. They voted in Hamas in Palestine. They support Osama bin Laden now.

Democracy will not, and certainly has not, changed any of that. The whole Bush strategy is not only flawed...it is counterproductive to our own national interests. By invading these countries - we created a power vaccuum. Democracy just allowed the fanatics to seize power without revolution. Expect more. So in a way, the neo-cons did create something similar to what happened in Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War. Only it was the opposite of what they expected. Instead of putting in place pro-American governments, as they did in East Europe. They are created a society of fundamentalist inculcation. That is now spreading throughout the region.

They're not going to vote in Tony Blair in these countries. They're going to vote in Ahmadinejad and Hamas. How does that help us with terrorism?

The Bush Doctrine was flawed from the start.

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. this particular politicized brand of Islamic Fundamentalism is new,

relatively.

In fact its first major incarnation in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood was originally encouraged and to a large extent supported by both Israel and the U.S. partly as matter of cold war politics relating to the former Soviet Union; partly as a a counter force against secular Arab nationalist and Arab socialist influences. I would make a guess that they enjoyed Israel's blessing at an earlier stage with the hope that they would be a counter force against the PLO and other secular nationalist Palestinian groups.

In fact there was an excellent interview with Robert Dreyfuss on this subject on Thursday, 26 Jan 06 on Democracy Now.

Robert Dreyfuss, investigative reporter and author of the book "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam." He is a contributing editor at Mother Jones, the Nation and American Prospect.

Here is a link to both the interview transcript and the the interview for streaming to listen or watch:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/26/151252

snip: "And during these years, during that 20-year span, the Hamas organization was a bitter opponent of Palestinian nationalism, clashed repeatedly with the P.L.O. and with Fatah, of course, refused to participate in the P.L.O. umbrella. And just as during the ‘50s and ‘60s, the Muslim Brotherhood fought against the Nasserists, the Baath Party, the communists and the rest of the Arab left, in the 1970s and ‘80s, the Muslim Brotherhood fought against the Palestinian national movement. Now that's not even a surprise, you know. In 1970, when the king of Jordan launched his massive counter-offensive against the Palestinians there in that event called Black September, the Muslim Brotherhood was a strong supporter of the king and actually backed his effort, which resulted in thousands of Palestinians killed in a virtual civil war in Jordan.

So there's plenty of evidence that the Israeli intelligence services, especially Shin Bet and the military occupation authorities, encouraged the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood and the founding of Hamas. There are many examples and incidents of that. But there were armed clashes, of course, on Palestinian university campuses in the ‘70s and ‘80s, where Hamas would attack P.L.O., PFLP, PDFLP and other groups, with clubs and chains. This was before guns became prominent in the Occupied Territories."

snip: "And ironically, one of the great ironies of this story was that Ayatollah Khomeini, himself, who later became the undisputed dictator of Iran in 1979, ‘81, well, Khomeini himself was in the street with his mentor, Kashani, saying, “Down with Mosedeq! Bring back the Shah!” And so, while the Iranian Shiite religious fundamentalist movement was always suspicious of the Shah and certainly clashed with him repeatedly over the next 25 years, its prime enemy was communism and nationalism. And you even found, after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979, people like Zbigniew Brzezinski and our ambassador in Iraq now, Zalmay Khalilzad, both argued that Khomeini was a greater threat to the Soviet Union than to the United States and that Islam would destabilize Central Asia, would rouse the Muslims of the Central Asian Muslim republics."

Here is a link to both the interview transcript and the the interview for streaming to listen or watch:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/26/151252

[Finder]

34. Relatively speaking, the Crimean War which ended the Ottoman Empire...

needs to be studied. Sure there are a few different players but the stage is the same.

[mikelewis]

24. It could also turn out good, who knows?

Some of Isreal's leaders had ties or were active terrorists to some degree. So change is possible. Hamas will have to either settle things down and start making some real socio-economic gains or they're done as a political force. If they continue to attack Isreal, Isreal can then make it real tough on them. So this might actually settle Hamas and some of the other fundamentalists down for a bit. You never know.

[jackbourassa]

30. Dude, you've been reading the New Republic

I got that email today too. The New Republic (which of course is a DLC magazine) supported the war from the beginning. They're not about to begin admitting that they have no clue what they're talking about and the whole strategy was doomed from the start. Especially given the fact that the above mentioned strategy has led to the death of 2,200 US soldiers and has cost American taxpayers about a quarter of a TRILLION dollars. That's right with a T.

The New Republic makes the same assumption about Democracy that Bush does. That people in the Middle East think as we do about politics. The political clevages in the Middle East are not broken up between Republicans and Democrats, with some supporting a populist party and others supporting a free-market party. It's not based on economics at all. It's broken up between Islamic hardliners (those who are "strict constructionalists" on the Koran) and reformist moderates (who want to modernize the middle east). The problem, as these elections have clearly shown, is that the former has the upper hand. A "permanent majority" if you like. In Iraq, the clerics won the vast majority of seats in Shi'a provinces. They are fundamentalists like what we see in Iran. Has anyone ever bothered to ask Bush, why we consider what we do in Iraq to be such a success - and Iran such a tyrany, when in reality they have essentially the same system? The "moderates" won what 15 seats out of 165? In Iran, the moderates were wiped out. In Palestine, Hamas won a pretty comfortable size majority.

Part of the problem is that people in Washington - and the New Republic - are listening to Ahmad Chalabi, who told us that we would be met as liberators if we invaded. They would throw roses at our feet, etc. Problem is Chalabi doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. This is a guy who has lived in Britain for the past 25 years. How does he know what people think in Iraq. The fact that nothing went according to plan once we invaded, that there were no weapons of mass destruction - as he promised there would be, or that he and his party failed to win even a single seat (in fact they failed to break 1%) in the most recent election, should go to show that this guy has no clout in Iraq. He's just a bullshiter and Bush/Cheney fell for his bullshit. Actually, Chalabi and the neocons had formed a real nice bullshit echo chamber for years. The neocons were told that they needed to "save" Iraq. And Chalabi was told how he would one day make a great President of a free Iraq. After a while, I guess they began believing their own bullshit.

None of Bush's assumptions about Iraq have come true as of yet.

[IrateCitizen]

31. Hamas' success is a result of long-standing Israeli policy...

Israeli policy has been pretty consistent in marginalizing more mainstream political movements among the Palestinians over the past 40 years or more. When that happens, power always shifts to those movements that are more extreme in their outlook and that call for more extreme measures to redress their grievances. The majority of Palestinian people, with no political outlet through which to adequately redress their grievances, turned to more extreme outlets like Hamas.

Furthermore, the idea of Western "democracy" is hardly a pure one. Western "democracy" is limited to those elements that advance commercial interests first and foremost. That is why there is such a howl from Western sources when democratic processes result in outcomes not in line with the conventional wisdom, such as the recent gains by Hamas.

[bloom]

17. The thing of it is - the American people have been

under the illusion that our gov't supports democracies. They support whomever they think will do business with them, etc.

You need to read some Howard Zinn and people like that.

Who do you think orchestrated the coup (unsuccessful) in Venezuela.

You could also read - the "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"


This is not new.

[jackbourassa]

19. I have read Zinn.

n/t

[tyedyeto]

18. But....ummm...uhhh... they don't have a government yet.

According to the chimp-in-charge at today's press conference.

[Lexingtonian]

23. No, they're not simply brutes and barbarians.

The Middle East is a very much more sophisticated and sensible region of the world than you give it credit for. Its trouble is not lack of knowledge, its trouble is that its existing feudal/medieval society and social order first clashed with Modernity in the 1920s and 1930s in British-held Palestine. Europe and America had done so most of a lifetime earlier via Crimea, the American civil war, and the Franco-Prussian war.

All the feudally ordered societies that came under challenge at the time that were powerful enough to became socially closed societies, became xenophobic and excluded foreigners. China did this, Japan did so, Germany did so in 1933, Russia dropped the Iron Curtain, Spain got stuck in a time warp while Franco ruled, and so on.

Essentially, the story is that Modernity makes societies feel vulnerable to outside forces, indeed paranoid. And the clash with Modernity has the curious effect of a political reactionary movement that entails the Old Order recovering power, reliving their past, and trying to correct all the unsolved or badly solved problems of the society's past. There is a desire to close off the society and redress all mishandled historical issues of the Past, all the things that make the society feel fragile or weak in the face of global competition and global scrutiny/critique.

Enter the Cold War and the Bush/Nixon people. 'Democracy' is the lesson of the post-Agrarian, post-Industrial, Age and the Cold War. Monarchy and dictatorship are relics of the past. That's about the only thing that Right and liberal historians agree on as the lessons of the Cold War.

The Bush people are simply ideological idiots in a world where these two things, the trends toward democracy and Rightist encapsulation and conflict with Modernity, are only loosely related in cause and contradictory in the short term. They've never gotten their little minds around the big picture, if you listen to Condi Rice or Fat Dick or Dubya Brainfree. They come up with bizarre little ideological "ideas" and then are shocked when an increasingly democratized Iraqi political system simply leads towards civil war.

In the end, societies have to clean up their own internal dealings themselves. Outsiders only muddle things, as Americans did in Vietnam and now in Iraq. And Al Qaeda has, to a small degree, in the American version of revisiting and revising its middle past. And when that's done, when the old festering wounds are all cleaned up and healing over well, that's when democracy becomes genuine and Modernity- a slow erasing of importance of all nonessential differences between people- becomes acceptable.

Short version: Bush Administration = idiots doomed to fail, History and progress and civilization march on despite the Bush idiots' bungling and stupidity.

[jackbourassa]

38. Excellent response Lex...

n/t

[fujiyama]

26. Your second to last paragraph is especially striking

and speaks the truth to the foreign policy of the last fifty years - by supporting the House of Saud as an ally against the communists, and then funding fanaticism in Pakistan since the states' inception (and then later Afghanistan through both the mentioned nations), the US government encouraged and funded these regimes when convenient.

These are the results of US foreign policy biting us in the ass. Blowback is a bitch. Many argue that Osama did not work directly for the CIA. That may or may not be the case, but it's irrelevant. We helped the likes of him. We kept contact with them. Hell, looking at it, the US along with other European governments even established relations with certain known terrorists to avoid being targets themselves.

If Islamic nations do not want Democracy, it should be irrelevant to us. I really don't give a fuck about them. That's a cold statement, but it's the truth and most would agree with that but not admit it. But at the same time, I don't want to hear hypocrites in the US government claim they care. They don't either but they lie and claim they do.

The US govermment does not give a flying fuck about Americans' interests. It only cares about wealthy commercial interests...and 'strategic' (I hate that word now) military interests, to protect the former commercial interests (usually dealing with oil and gas).

As for Israel, it should be a self sufficient nation by now. It has a well educated population. They have a powerful military and a somewhat functioning democracy and legal system. But it's time to let them off the dole. But Israel isn't our biggest mooch. It's time to cut aid to the Israelis, but the Palestinians, Pakistanis , and Saudis, and a host of other nations that don't deserve a fuckin penny with oppressive dictators for heads of state.

The UN can function to take care of humanitarian crises when need be. They can dispense aid where needed. That's not this nations' job and neocons are living in the fantasy world by believing this messiahnical bullshit. They wear rose colored glasses but then again, I should remember that the rhetoric they spew is to get naive fools to agree with them (the Hitchens and the like). This is about energy and little else.

[DemonFighterLives]

28. Nominated

Good discussion here.
I think
What this means is that the Neocon agenda of beating the pulp out of the Middle East is a failed policy. You can't explain nuance to weapons manufacturers and oil men. Money and lives mean nothing to them, diplomacy is the farthest thing from their little minds. With the push for an attack on Iran, you could say that things are spiraling out of control instead of getting better.

A few years ago, I read a story about Israel needing water and everyone needs oil of course. Maybe, I'm too hopeful, but would sure love to see the world do a little more talking to work out the fine points.
Dropping bombs and occupying countries has never worked well in the past.

I don't know where I'm going with this, but the smash and grab policy is not working.

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. here are Juan Cole's comments

unfortunately because of contract arrangements Professor Cole's whole article is at salon.com which requires a subscription -- but here is a link to some of his main points

link:

http://www.juancole.com/


"But the president's attempt to dismiss the old ruling Fatah Party as corrupt and inefficient, however true, is also a way of taking the spotlight off his own responsibility for the stagnation in Palestine. Bush allowed then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to sideline the ruling Fatah Party of Yasser Arafat, to fire missiles at its police stations, and to reduce its leader to a besieged nonentity. Sharon arrogantly ordered the murder of civilian Hamas leaders in Gaza, making them martyrs. Meanwhile, Israeli settlements continued to grow, the fatally flawed Oslo agreements delivered nothing to the Palestinians, and Bush and Sharon ignored new peace plans -- whether the so-called Geneva accord put forward by Palestinian and Israeli moderates or the Saudi peace plan -- that could have resolved the underlying issues. The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which should have been a big step forward for peace, was marred by the refusal of the Israelis to cooperate with the Palestinians in ensuring that it did not produce a power vacuum and further insecurity. '

here is the link to the salon. com article:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/01/27/hamas/

this may require a subscriptions to read the full article

so here is a link to the daily kos review of the article:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/27/33838/7534



from the salon.com article

snip:

"So Bush is saying that even though elections are democracy and democracy is good and powerful, it has produced unacceptable results in this case, and so the resulting Hamas government will lack the legitimacy necessary to allow the United States to deal with it or go forward in any peace process. Bush's double standard is clear in his diction, since he was perfectly happy to deal with Israel's Likud Party, which is dedicated to the destruction of the budding Palestinian state, and which used the Israeli military and security services for its party platform in destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority throughout the early years of this century. As Orwell reminded us in "Animal Farm," some are more equal than others."

snip: "Bush implied that Hamas is dedicated to unremitting violence against Israel. And since 1994 its military wing has launched many suicide attacks against Israelis, killing hundreds of people, most of them civilians. But in fact it has observed a more or less effective truce for about a year -- indeed, as an important study carried out by the respected International Crisis Group pointed out, it has observed the truce far more reliably than Fatah. And Hamas' leaders have affirmed that they are willing to continue the truce if Israel refrains from aggressive violence toward them.

Despite Hamas' founding position that the Israeli state is illegitimate, violence is not foreordained. A Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, told the Associated Press that his party would continue what he called its year-old "truce" if Israel did the same. "If not," he added, "then I think we will have no option but to protect our people and our land." More fundamentally, even Hamas' charter could change. As the ICG points out, Hamas "has accepted the principle that there is no religious prohibition against negotiating or co-existing with Israel and that the provisions in its charter providing for Israel's destruction are not indelible." Even President Bush, in his measured response to the elections, seemed to hold out hope that Hamas would adopt a more pragmatic stance."

[DemonFighterLives]

36. Interesting

I heard today on Air America that the Hamas leadership is calling for Abbas to step aside.

[jackbourassa]

37. I think this story is about to become very big, very soon

n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. I asked a Palestinian coworker this morning what he thought of the whole

thing. He did not think it was a positive step at all. But he did believe that the election results were basically a protest vote; a protest against the Palestinian Authority for a number of local and domestic complaints and a protest against their situation where they are unable to keep believing that the Israeli government will ever accept a genuinely viable and truly independent Palestinian state.

I do agree that the Oslo Accord and the so-called "peace process" was doomed from the start and the wisest tactical move would be to shift their emphasis to a demand for Palestinian rights and equality. In fact the late Edward Saeed of Columbia University had been saying that for years. He had resigned from the Palestinian National Council largely in protest against the Oslo Accord.

[CJCRANE]

42. I think

you're overdoing it with the "they hate..." business but agree with your general point.

Conservative muslims are like conservative christians in that they're against "liberal" societies but I don't think that's what motivates international terrorism (otherwise they would've attacked Sweden, as bin Laden pointed out in his "October Surprise" '04 video).

It's certain American foreign POLICIES that most muslims don't seem to like and I would guess that they dislike Bush 10 times or 100 times more than previous US Presidents. Bear in mind that it's not just muslims that dislike Bush foreign policy - a majority of Americans, British, German, Spanish etc disapprove of it too!

on edit: changed "terrorism" to "international terrorism".

[Disturbed]

44. I loath the Neo Fascist Bush Junta.

That said, the 911 Attack was planned way before the Bush Junta was selected. The attack was in response to US Govt. policies of the last 5 US Admins., incl. Bill Clinton's.

The 911 Attacks did provide the Neo Fascists the perfect excuse to invade Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to make a deal regarding a pipeline through their territory. The invasion of Iraq was in the planning stages before 911 Attack, as was Afghanistan. The contgrol of oil, gas and water resources were the US Multi-Natls goals for many years. The Neo Fascists of this Admin. were in line with the Multi-Natls goals.

[NNN0LHI]

45. I don't trust "elections" which occur while under occupation

Lets see who these people would choose as their leaders while not under occupation and go from there. As it now stands now no one will win in any of these "elections" without the tacit approval from the occupier.

Don