I was thinking about this today. Is the U.S. going to disregard the new Palenstinian government if terrorist organization members are elected? We must.

I think we're being a little too snuggly-snuggly with Palestine. I can't figure out why. It's been that way since I've been cognizant of the goings-on of the world.

Whar's that fuckin' hare when you need him?

I AM NOT DEFENDING THAT JACKASS JIMMY CARTER, at least not in general, but in this specific case he does have a point. Radical groups that obtain political power often -- not always, but quite often -- soften dramatically in a relatively short period of time. Part of it probably is the recognition that they could lose the real power that they actually now have if they continue to pursue their fantasy. Another reason is that the stakes are higher. If it changes from "terrorists elements within Palestine attacking Israel" to "Palestine attacking Israel", that lets Israel take the gloves off. Also, and perhaps most importantly, I think just being part of a bureaucracy deadens the radical impulse. Hell, it deadens everything.

(Before I get flooded with counterexamples, note that I specifically said this is not always the case.)

Jimmy Fucking Carter. Worst. President. Ever.

Um Bob? Did you hear many complaints of corruption against the Taliban? Or Saddam Hussein for that matter. Last election he got 99% of the vote. I may have missed it but I don't remember hearing about the soft, snuggly side of either of these two examples.

Just asking not flaming.

Jimmy Carter is history's greatest monster. At least Neville Chamberlain only signed away one Sudetenland. Carter has spent a lifetime traveling the globe, seeking out any little Hitler he can find and giving them someone else's land or election. The man is positively compulsive about it. Jimmy Carter shows up in the newspaper giving in to Fascists, terrorists, Communists, and assorted mass-murderers and thieves that I didn't even know existed before he dry humped them for the cover of Time. Fuck that guy. He's more than a national embarrassment, he should be tried in the Hague for aiding and abetting war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Yeah, terrorists took over the government of Iran in 1979, and look how well that worked out. Oh, um, I mean ...

As I said, Jack Straw and lmg, it doesn't always work out that way. If the elections are corrupt, then it's less likely to, obviously.

And it doesn't apply in cases where power was seized. I believe both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein fit in that category.

I'm a big supporter of Israel, but some Israelis before and during the founding of modern Israel were terrorists by any reasonable definition of the word. They had to adapt when it came time to actually govern. IRA members that came to power in Northern Ireland likewise became a lot more moderate. Similar examples could be found in Latin America.

I'm not saying that we should hand every two-bit terrorist the reigns of government and all will be well. I'm just saying historically when radical groups win legitimate elections they often moderate themselves.

It's probably foolish to hope for the best in the Middle East though.

If it changes from "terrorists elements within Palestine attacking Israel" to "Palestine attacking Israel", that lets Israel take the gloves off.

Nice point, Bob. Do you think that maybe that was part of the plan when Isreal moved out of the Gaza Strip? Get as many of the terrorists together in place and let 'nature take its' course, so to speak?

Hamas differs from other Palestinian organization only in that they are more open in saying what they really mean. I think the elections are a good idea in that there should now be an end to this illusion that the Palestinian people really want peace and the problem is just a corrupt Palestinian authority. Hamas openly calls for utterly destroying Israel in their charter. If the Palestinian people vote for them they are voting for open genocide against Israel and this should be noted openly. If Hamas wins, Israel and the US should recognize that a state of total war exists between the Palestinian people and the people of Israel, and Israel must then fight a total war.

In some parts of the Muslim world, in the public's imagination religious parties are considered to be less corrupt and less corruptible than secular parties. Add to this the fact that religious parties engage in some community development work: building schools and hospitals and whatnot (to serve the community, win PR points, gain support/respect, use funds for terrorism, use resources for terrorism). Insidious but effective.

Does this mean we should be somewhat pleased Hamas is in power? Absolutely not. Religious parties also tend to be less tolerant of deviation, less prone to negotiate, and more prone to steamrolling over reality. They're also difficult to elect out of power - they use religion as a plank for support. "A vote for Hamas is a vote for Islam/Palestine/integrity/etc." - very easy propaganda, especially as they have not been in power to be corrupted. Once in power, I think it will be a matter of which personalities prevail and what each personality wants.

In any case, both the US and Israel must remain very cautious. Hamas has a number of objectives that go against the interests (and even security) of the US and Israel. With Hamas in power, civil war also becomes more likely - hopefully (for the US and Israel), their concerns with Palestinians will keep them busy enough not to go after the US or Israel, unless they use action against the US or Israel as a way to galvanize support on its side against secularists.

There will never be peace in the Middle East. Never.

It never ceases to amaze me that terror apologists bring up Menachin Begin and the Irgun.

If the PA wants to be serious about, oh hell, anything at all dammit, they need to have their Altalena moment.

Israel did. And they chose the correct path.

Thanks, Dave, for the link. I had heard of "Altena" a few times but never knew what it was referring to.

I doubt Palestinians will relinquish the use of terrorism. Too many states, organizations, and networks have a vested interest in perpetuating Palestinian terrorism. If the PNA did take action against terrorists, it wouldn't stay in power (if even alive) for very long. Popular tolerance for/acceptance of the use of terrorism plays a big part. The terrorists have too many apologists (there as well as here).

You're welcome Mushiloon.

I guess we see it differently, Bob. You could make a case that every gov't reached power through some sort of force. Even ours obviously.

I agree that some tend to moderate their behavior once in charge but I would submit that it is the exception not the rule. The big difference with Hamas is that their agenda goes way beyond self-determination. They are commited to the destruction of Israel and that will not change, ever. They are a militant, terrorist organization and first and political party a distant second.

A little-acknowledged problem with many arguments from moral equivalency is that, often, one side includes me. Devil-may-care evenhandedness toward two opposing sides amounts to devil-may-care evenhandedness as to whether I prosper or suffer. That's a problem.

If they are removed from the list because we are considering them a government-controlling party, then in their elevation, can they not be held more responsible for acts committed in their name, and financed by government money?

The equivalency thing only goes one way, just in case you haven't noticed.

No appeaser ever says, "Hey, those terrorists do some really bad things--why don't we do them too!"

It's always, "Maybe they decapitate people and blow up children, but we used to do some pretty bad stuff and get called terrorists for it too."

Anyone want to hold their breath until Carter remarks about how we should recognize Israel's annexation of everything they've settled because of all the bad guys who won't recognize Israel's right to exist?

"Israel's annexation of everything they've settled" - thank you for being precise, Nicholas. People think the Israelis are land-hungry, which it not entirely true. Israel has no desire to annex Palestinian-inhabited areas. They just want the areas where they settled and developed. It heartens me to know others recognize this.

OT: Those Israelis have an uncanny ability to make the desert bloom.

Yeah, too bad about those greenhouses.