Democracy in Mideast just gave U.S. Hamas. What Now for Bush and his ideas

[DuaneBidoux]

I've always said that we would rue the day that the populace got a vote in the Mideast because it would sweep in governments across the region hostile to American interests.

Am I anti-democratic as a result? No, but democracy is a mature form of government and I don't think one can just suddenly have a democracy in a swift stroke after a dictatorship. Look at the struggle it took to make America into a democracy (and I'm not so sure about that anymore).

This is big shit and should be dominating the news and DU conversation.

[Malikshah]

1. Uh....Hamas has its own fish to fry

The entire world does not revolve around US interests....

[ewoden]

2. What it portends to me is that there is gonna be a shift in

who is influential in Mid-East politics. The US is now on record, even Jimmy Carter spoke to this point today, that it is not gonna deal with Hamas. Well, there are quite a few other major Governments who will use this to their advantahge. I can see the Russians, Chinese, and some European states embracing the Hamas government. They'll cultivate mid-east favor, pointing to the US as having an obvious hypocracy in its claims of supporting democratic self determination, yet withholding normalization of relationships to self-determined democratic governments not of US liking.

Israel should be getting very nervous about this. A persecuted democracy within their midst, supported by world governments.

[KyuzoGator]

3. U.S. Military aggression in the Middle East gave us Hamas.

Let's make the distinction.

[bigjohn16]

4. Thats why we should lead by example and not by force.

We can't bomb them into our way of life.

[1620rock]

5. Ha ha a Hamas democracy....

...there, we broke it. Are we happy now? :crazy:

[tonka023]

6. can anybody confirm this?

I heard mention on a news program that Bush had said
something to the Palestinian people before the election
concerning electing a responsible government, and that
swung vote even more towards Hamas, and the Israelis
asked him not to stick his nose in. Is that true, has
anyone else heard that?

As far as the poor Palestinian people electing Hamas, I
imagine it was out of desperation. They had tried to
work through settlements with the Israelis, only to
have more of their land taken and be oppressed every
day. That's not to say it's not going to make things
worse, but who can say how it'll turn out in the end.
What they had wasn't working.

[ConsAreLiars]

7. The neocon sabotage of the Clinton-era peace process ensured

the eventual supremacy of Hamas. The vote is more evidence of the natural consequences of telling Sharon (during the 2000 Republican convention) that his hardline stance would be supported and that the PNAC agenda included a military solution to the "Palestian Problem" ("regime change" in the Arab nations). I haven't been following internal developments within the Palestian movement, beyond the occasional 10 seconds on CNN, but I was amazed to hear today and yesterday that ANYONE, much less "all the experts," was surprised by the vote. It seemed obvious that Fatah had been rendered ineffective in defending Palestinian human rights, and more or less useless as a result.

As for your belief that "democracy is a mature form of government." Well, there are many mechanisms for establishing a system of laws and government that reflect the poplular will and common interests -- many types of democracy. I don't think a system in which money buys votes can really be called a democracy in any true sense of the word, even though that is the form of rule now dominant what you seem to regard as more "mature" nations.