times this is another case of propping up corrupt, undemocratic regimes. that never ends up bad right? and im not saying at all that there are good options. but when 5-6 years ago there was an effort to make the presidents position in palestine less influential and give more power to the cabinet in order to weaken arafat and rice stressed the need for elections...was this administration so incompetent that it couldn't predict hamas winning?
I saw an article somewhere a couple of days ago that basically listed a number of times that people either suggested or told the Bush Administration that it would happen, but the Bush Administration laughed it off every time.
Sometimes we give people too much credit. Who would be stupid enough to elect a terrorist organization to any of their seats in parliament, let alone a majority? I guess the Palestinians, a few of the Lebanese, and maybe some other around the world, that's who. That is one of the fundamental weaknesses of Democracy, idiots have the same power of the vote as everyone else. Unfortunately, there are not really any better options out there.
You're missing three things here: 1) Most Palestinians do NOT refer to Hamas as "terrorists" (that's the Western designation, for the most part), rather as the "resistance". 2) Same applies to Al-Aqsa Brigade and Islamic Jihad, with the former being a full-fledged member of the 'other' party in the Palestinians elections: Fatah. So you see, both parties qualify under the same "terrorist" designation. 3) The last "free and fair" elections in Palestine were more so a referendum on Fatah's corrupt leadership than anything else; internal polls reflected that. It was no secret that the biggest reason Palestinians 'tolerated' Fatah over the years was that Arafat -- the embodiment of the Palestinian cause -- was still alive, but EVEN then many Palestinians were already speaking up against rampant corruption and cronyism within Arafat's circle in his latter years, all the while the average Palestinian was sliding deeper and deeper into poverty. You can argue that we're supporting the 'lesser of two terrorists', but in reality we're supporting the one guy whom we know for a fact is the 'readiest' one to cave in to the Israelis' demands; that would be Mr. Abbas, aka Abu Mazen. Wherever you stand on this, it's important to have the facts out there, because it's beyond me how Fatah -- the original Palestinian 'terrorist' group -- has suddenly turned into the answer to all of our prayers. I think it's just further proof of how schizophrenic this administration's foreign policy has been: one year it's the "Greater Middle East Initiative" with talks of democratization and the 'domino effect' from Iraq, and the next one we're back to "my son of the bit**" strategy in the ME. Anyways, Palestinian politics is small potatoes, at least compared to the very real possibility of a Hezbollah-dominated government in Israel's northern neighbor, Lebanon. May be then the three allies (Iran, Syria and Lebanon) can cooperate on their "peaceful nuclear energy" programs? God I love the ME
Give me a break man. The social infrastructure of Palestine and Southern Lebanon is non-existant. So guess who fills in the void? Who provides health care, food for the poor, schools, and other government functions. It sure as hell isn't the Palestinian or Lebanese governments. That's right Hamas and Hezbollah provide those functions. Don't give me this idiot crap. If you live in absolute poverty and the only people providing you any help are Hamas or Hezbollah, you damn well would vote for them too. Plus Fatah has been so overwhelmingly corrupt that they were due for a loss like this.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Whatever the Palestinians choose to call Hamas, they are at least aware that other people consider them a terrorist organization. Sadly this is true, however, there was no pressure from the West to vote only for Hamas or Fatah. Surely the Palestinian people could have found enough folk to fill their parliament without any of them being members of a terrorist organization. See response to #2. If the choices were Hamas or Fatah, then some of these reasons would be somewhat true. Even then, people should probably either boycott the election or write in a candidate. If you went to the polls and the two candidates on the ballot were a Nazi and an ax murderer, would you just pick one of them? No Western power outlaws other people from filling the void. The US isn't coming in there and busting up some charity group that is providing food and shelter to the poor. In fact, the US was sending quite a lot of money to the Palestinians until they elected Hamas (we shouldn't have been sending money to Arafat, who was certainly also a terrorist, but that is neither here nor there). People choose to let the terrorists buy them with those services. If they do so, they must live with the consequence of that (not so smart) decision.
thats a pile of crap. the only choice the people had was a corrupt useless regime or a people who gave them basic social services (which according to international law of occupation isreal was required to provide) and were uncorruptable. if this administration couldn't realize they were going to be elected, maybe they should hire some people who went to school and got an poli sci degree from a legitimate school.
The argument you make in your post though in many ways parallels what people in the rest of the world think about the US for voting GW Bush President.
