Crawl back to your shelter!
It was debated in the media, as is everything here in Israel, and the fact that the U.S. was strongly in favor of elections was fairly well known. Still, Hamas’s victory came as a total surprise. Israeli pollsters, Arabists and most intelligence agencies all predicted a comfortable Fatah majority.
Afterwards, there was a great deal of forehead slapping and chest beating.
My Guess:
If they barred Hamas from taking part in the elections, it would give Hamas further grievances against the Fatah-led government (This government isn’t legitimate!, This government is just a puppet of the US/Israel! etc.)., and they would probably seek to undermine it at every turn.
However, I don’t think the U.S. / Israel ever expected them to actually win.
To be fair to GWB: the palestinian people voted for Hamas, because NONE of the other parties ever did anything for the palestinian people-take the late Yasir Arafat-after receiving billions of $ (from the USA and the EU), all they had to show for it was a bunch of estates and bank accounts in Switzerland (Arafat’s wife walked away with >$60 million). So, just perhaps, HAMAS offered something, while the others offered nothing but corruption, misappropriation of funds, and poverty.
Not much of a choice.
Then, it makes more sense. But I must say I’m quite surprised. The Hamas victory came as a complete non-surprise to me, and somehow I had always assumed that mostly everybody expected it.
That was a little off, but Fatah would have done just fine overall if those idiots hadn’t split their votes - Hamas won 56% of the seats on 46% of the vote, due to Fatah and other secular groups running multiple candidates for the same position, while the disciplined Hamas ran one. At that Hamas’ 46% appears in some part to have been a protest vote against Fatah corruption and nepotism, rather than a wholehearted endorsement of the Hamas slate.
It was a stunningly inept campaign for everyone other than Hamas.
Following ** Alessan ** post, that might be what I didn’t get.
If indeed people expected a resounding victory of the Fatah, and even more so if there were actually good reasons to believe so (intelligence reports mentioned by Alessan, for instance) then it does make perfect sense to make sure that the Hamas won’t be excluded from the electoral process.
Yes, that’s what I thought was the main reason for the Hamas victory : non-corrupt, actually helping people in their daily life (even though their hard stance re Israel certainly played a role).
Thanks for the input.
Hamas builds schools and helps feed the people.They provide services the government can not or will not. America and Israel have been clear that they do not care about the civilians. They have made their lives miserable for 2 generations. Hamas will just get stronger if we keep up our present practices.
What like , What does not kill us , makes us stronger ??
Seriously , probably one of Israels objectives is to destroy hamas as a politically organization along with removing them as a military threat.
Will it work , who can say for sure now. However the fact that you have two souces of command coming from hamas, one from damascus and one from gaza itself suggests confusion as to whom is actually in charge.
Once Israel and whomever works out a ceasefire , its possible that your going to have a civil war/ palace coup in Gaza with the surviving hamas leadership.
Declan
I find it hard to believe that politcal strategist form Israel and the US didn’t consider that Hamas would win the election. I find it easier to believe that they knew and banked on it so that events could play out the way they are doing now.
Hmm, how about because if you bar a party that has significant electoral support, and indeed is the only serious opposition to the ruling Fatah party, the election would have about the same validity as the old Soviet ones?
The real question should be, “why did the USA/Israel insist on elections?” Because once you decided to have elections, Hamas had to be allowed to participate, otherwise holding the election would be pointless.
Sua
So, you don’t believe in the adage, “Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity”?
Yes, indeed, and Magiver’s comment is taking us nearer to the clue:
Newcomer’s comment too may be pointing toward the same clue:
And here’s the (somehow far-fetched) clue:
Madoff was of course a true **patriot **for making tens of billions of $ flow into the US economy from abroad – and moreover I bet that Bush was clever enough to pay him good money in advance for this fine service to the Nation (and that’s probably why it seems so difficult to get Madoff jailed).
Getting nearer to the clue by interpreting correctly what Magiver means may indeed not be only a bit cynical, but also dangerous to boot… which does not quite fit with your next statement (in bold)…or do you really think that it would be dangerous to boot an analysis leading to the insight that Bush’s foreign policy was merely idiotic instead of criminal?
After this slight contradiction in clearobscur’s comments, it may be time for a more analytical historical flash-back:
This sounds as if the USA were financing terrorism against Israel – and this may just have made it easier for EasyPhil to come to the following generic conclusion (in bold):
And this is Captain Amazing’s amazingly twisted comment to EasyPhil’s above conclusion:
Well then, just before I go ahead with my dangerous analysis, let’s get this double negation straight into a simple affirmation:
EasyPhil does indeed believe in the adage: “Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to malice” (which comes somehow close to the Arab adage: “Beat up your wife every day; if you don’t know why, she will know”).
Now let’s come to the point:
Was Arafat paid by the US government to act as Israel’s sparring partner to provide the Hebrew State – officially the homeland of the Jews, but actually a military stronghold near the Arab oil fields – an alibi to entertain a strong army in a permanent state of war-readiness?
Do I have to consider this deduction as being applicable by analogy to the role played by the Hamas (or a fraction of it) in the context of war crime created by Israel’s bombing of Gaza? Or is there maybe no need for any further comment?
Well, good guess – yet I don’t feel quite sure with the silence.
Maybe I was not explicit enough about the role of the Hamas being presumably the same as Arafat’s, i.e. to act as a sparring partner for Israel and getting paid for this by the US government so as to keep their military stronghold near the Arab oil fields fit and agressive for further strategic operations, as for example against Iran…
I can’t tell whether you’re whooshing us. If not, the answer is “no, America isn’t paying people to attack Israel.”
Of course not. America puts fluoride into their water so we can mind control them into attacking Israel.
Isn’t it obvious?
Still wondering why my comment caused the discussion to abort…
You have to consider the situation before the election: Fatah had been playing games for years in which it promised to work within the peace process, but looked the other way while Hamas would attack Israelis. This gave Fatah deniability, kept Israel from holding the governing party responsible, and allowed Hamas to escape the consequences of its actions to some degree.
So I imagine the thinking was that this situation had to be made overt - put Hamas on the ballot. If they win, and continue attacking Israel, then Israel is justified in going after the Palestinian government. If they lose, it’s a public repudiation of their policies.
I suspect part of the thinking as well might have been that if Hamas won, they would soon show themselves to be incapable of governing and intolerant of the habits of the people, and would lose popularity. After all, one of the biggest enemies of al-Qaida in Iraq was al-Qaida in Iraq - every time they gained control of a region they did things that made the citizenry hate them.