A certain amount of irony here. In what apparently was a free open democratic election the wrong candidate from the US point of view gets a majority.
It doeesn't seem to validate the administrations theory for democracy in the middle east.

ARE YOU CERTAIN OF THIS STATEMENT?

"We learned in the last U.S. presidential election that one has to tiptoe carefully through exit polls, which are often wrong and distracting,"

MY IMPRESSION WAS THAT THE EXIT POLLS WERE CORRECT AND THE VOTE COUNT WAS WRONG.

"It doeesn't seem to validate the administrations theory for democracy in the middle east."

Quite the contrary.

Almost evey middle east politics specialist in the US who has taken a serious interest in the policy dimensions of our 'democracy promotion" strategy has argued that allowing the process to include Islamist parties is the ultimate test and validation of the policy.

Whether or not you like it (or whether any other US citizen likes it) the fact is that we are going through a period in the M.E. when Islamist parties enjoy credibility. In many Arab voters' eyes they stand for:

**** financial transparency
**** anti-corruption
**** a social services orientation'
**** integrity
**** an avenue of escape from the quasi fascism that has marked most Arab regimes

The Islamist parties may not deliver on all of this agenda, but it is exhilirating to Arab voters to use their own voice to test them out.

It is a bit embarassing that the USG decided to put its thumb on the scales of electoral democracy in Palestine by financing elements of the Fatah campaign, but it is refreshing to see that Arab voters have sufficiently deep convictions not to be easily swayed by these campaign tricks.

My advice to all is "wait, watch, relax, and let democracy do what it does best: give folks a chance to find out if their political preferences are as good in practice as they are in rhetoric"

John Stuart

JohnStuart

Next on the agenda: Bush makes allegations of election improprieties.

Even a scurvy dog gets it's day. For the disaffected and the down-and-out, this stands as a seminal moment for any and all that have given up on the democratic process. Sometimes the process works even when the political masters have dictated otherwise.
The results of the Hamas victory will certainly change the equation and George Bush never say this coming. John Bolton must be spitting his morning coffee all over himself this fine morning.

Following Daalder's from critique, what worries me is that the European public does not believe anymore in Winston Churchil's saying 'that after exhausting all other possibilities, the United States will eventually do what is right.'

For example, in The Netherlands there's a more than lively debate on whether or not send troops to the Uruzgan province in Southern Afghanistan. There's a real chance that the Dutch will not go.

Now, 1200 Dutch special forces may seem like a token military force (e.g. compared to the military presence of the Brittish), the fact that one of the most 'Atlantic' countries and loyal allies to the United States over the past 60 years is seriously contemplating not joining a NATO mission for the first time in NATO history, shows how deep the rift between Europe and the Bush administration has become.

In order to secure broad political support for the mission, the Dutch government negotiated a 'historical' deal with the US government. Captured Taliban or terrorists would not be handed over to the US army but to the Afghan authorities because, and I quote our Secretary of Defense, 'this would ensure these people would be treated according to the rule of law.'

If it weren't so deeply sad, this would be the biggest joke in history: the Dutch trust the Afghan autorities more than the US government.

Hilarious, isn't it?

Bush wanted democracy, he got it. I've been laughing all morning.

I think Fatah will do a good job if for no other reason than their emphasis on throwing out the corrupt and the bought on both sides. Or should I say on all 15 sides. I'm rooting for them.

I'm with Al above. No one has shown me conclusively why the exit polls were wrong in November 2005...

Damn, we blew it! The US government should have been for Hamas, then Fatah would have won! Gotta use the reverse-psyche job sometimes. Damn!

Yeah Vachon, and Bush was laffing all the morning long when the Canadians elected a conservative PM that will be at Bush's beckoning call to wars never ending for Truth, Justice, and the American Way!

My understanding is that Hamas had two components,
a military component and a social component. The
social component set up clinics and other social
welfare groups, which the military component attacked
Israel. I've an avid reader, but no expert on the
Middle East. From what I recall, Hamas' win may
be the result of years of grass roots political
work.

It would be nice to think that Hamas will
mature into a political organization. However,
there is still the military faction of Hamas.
If this follows the history of Fatah, they may
form a splinter group if the rest of Hamas goes
the political route.

I was opposed to the war, and one (of many) reason was that I was certain that it would make Israel far less safe.

Just read this post by Eric Alterman:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

"If George W. Bush has had no positive virtues whatever as president, he at least has taught us that things can always get worse. So too, have the Palestinian elections. It would be hard to invent a worse result than a victory for the vicious, corrupt group of murderous gangsters and hucksters who run Fatah—read this brilliantly reported piece if you think that overstated—but a victory for Hamas is just that. The ironies abound, all of them painful. First off, it was the Israelis themselves who helped get Hamas off the ground as a potential alternative to Arafat. Second, they have shown themselves to be its most significant political supporter with their refusal to deal with the far more moderate and westernized Fatah, undercutting its ability to show anything for its public face of moderation and therefore pushing people into the arms of the relatively corruption-free, socially responsible Hamas. Third, while the reasons that the Palestinians support Hamas may have little to do with its professed desire to wipe Israel off the map—again—they genuinely provide real services and do not terrorize the population for their own material gain as does Fatah—the net result will be to give the Israeli hardliners the opportunity to further immiserate the Palestinian masses, putting off the day, even further into the future, when these almost infinitely abused people will ever be able to live their public lives with some dignity and, perhaps prosperity. It’s encouraging to see a genuinely democratic election in the Arab world, yes. But look what you get. This is one of the too-many-to-count fallacies in the insanely counterproductive neocon strategy in the Middle East, which I’m sure will only get worse. In the meantime, the short-term winner of this election is Bibi Netanyahu, which is bad news for all humankind.

I’m sure it is a reflection of my own cultural prejudices but for events like this, I turn to the coverage in Ha’aretz. I can promise you it will be fairer to the Palestinians and more knowledgeable than almost anything you will find in the mainstream U.S. media."

Steve, what makes you think that Fatah may have won the popular vote? Did I miss something in the various stories?

Either way you're right, the next move is the hands of Hamas.

Here is another point of view:
http://tinyurl.com/d5p6a

Hamas Win Makes Peace Possible

"Hamas, the islamist Palestinian group, has won a majority of seats in yesterday's election. The ruling Fatah has declared defeat and Prime Minister Ahmed Curia and his cabinet resigned.

Only 6% of a quarter million Palestinians in east Jerusalem could get to vote. But despite (or because of?) these illegal Israeli restrictions and an undercover U.S. funded Fatah campaign, the voters preferred a disciplined, social responsible, religious movement over a corrupt and chaotic secular party.

Like Uri Avnery I believe this to be a positive development for the Palestinians, the Israeli and the wider Middle East.

Let me explain:

Gaza is a big, isolated concentration camp and the West Bank is divided into Bantustans by zionist colonial settlements. Access to water is under Israeli control. Factually Palestine and Israel are one apartheid regime. Given this, there is no and never can be an economical and/or political viable Palestinian state.

But there is no sign that the Palestinians will ever give up their struggle or lose international support unless there is a sufficient and just solution. On the other side, it is baloney to expect that the mass-reestablishment of a Jewish population in Palestine after WWII can be rescinded.

Short of an reenactment of a shoa with opposite signs, the only viable longterm solution is a common state which includes Israel, Gaza and the West Bank into one nation and allows equal rights for everybody living there.

The Israeli election system gives undue power to small, radical religious parties, making Israel in effect a jewish religious state and comparable to islamic rule in Iran. Hamas on the other side is calling for a radical islamic state. The natural compromise is secularization of the government, policy and public life.

With Fatah such a solution would have been impossible. What could have been a compromise between a secular Palestinian and a religious state Israel but something ignoring the islamist side? Fatah, and Abbas as a U.S. selected President, would never be able to get their population's support for such a step. Hamas' win makes the solution possible.

On the other side a fractured Israeli government may not be able to compromise and keep its standing. In the coming Israeli election, Ohlmert's Kadima may now have the chance for a decisive victory, eliminating the need for a coalition with religious splinter parties.

What may look as a recipe for an even stronger stand off, a strong Hamas and a unrestrained, unilateral acting Kadima, is a precondition for negotiations that lead to sustainable solutions.

Bury the roadmap, which was ignored by all side anyway. The EU and the Arab league should up the financing of the Palestinian side for the promise of a sustained hudnah (truce). The roadmap partners should threaten serious sanctions for any unilateral steps by the Israeli government that would cement the conflict.

There is no escape from the logic of a one state solution.

South Africa has shown that peaceful solutions to apartheid are possible. To develop, they need pressure from outside and strong leaders with both parties on the inside.

Hamas victory has established one strong party. The other parts of the puzzle may now fall into their place."

I personally prefer to see a decisive victory than a coalition which would be even more difficult to deal with. Hamas has now to accept the role of the policeman in Gaza and prove to the Palestinians and the world that it can govern and provide it's people with a viable government.

Things in the middle east can only get better.

Ronnie

it appears to have been a hamas blowout.

The conventional wisdom was proven wrong in the Palestinian elections, and it may be proven wrong again in March when Israelis go to the polls. In both cases, there was an assumption that people would choose to maintain the status quo. I think the majority in both countries see that as unworkable, so they will vote for change. For those who are vested to the status quo ex ante, that will come as radical, unexpected change.

Only Hamas can make real peace with Israel, if it chooses to do so, and should Israel offer it in terms that the Palestinians will accept, which must include abandonment of a much larger percentage of the West Bank settlements then was the deal forced on Abbas.

With Sharon gone, maybe the Israelis will finally come the realization that tanks and dirty-tricks don't guarantee a livable peace. IMHO, the delusion of status quo was that Sharon and Abbas had arrived at a workable compromise. I'm not sure that Netanyahu is the man to lead Israel, but I think he will be the next one unexpectedly rejected. He represents a known demon, and that is just not acceptable anymore. The next Israeli PM will be one who people really believe is capable of change and who can work out a real deal. I don't believe that is Bibi.

Maybe, doom is not at hand.

Fatah is well known for corruption, and of course not making much of a difference. It would seem that the Palestinians have managed to throw out a corrupt government and thumb their nose at the US at the same time.

As are people in many other countries. Voters are discovering that they can work together to thwart US support of corrupt governments and even worse IMF policies. No doubt we'll be seeing a lot more of this.

Let's just hope that as these governments step up to the plate their brutish policies are left behind. And the US stops trying to influence votes and moves to cooperate with democratically elected governments before more countries turn against us.

Hal Lindsey is the only scholar that can tell us exactly what's to come next.

They're saying here on the BBC that Hamas seems as stunned as anyone over their victory. They don't seem to have any solid plans for how they intend to form a government. Maybe this will shake them up.

I can't help wondering if this is similar to the IRA after Sinn Fein became a legitimate voice.

Yesterday, watching the elections, we saw voters using paper ballots which were then stuffed into boxes in plain view of all. Maybe we should convert from Diebold to paper.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is the biggest issue in the Middle East; we can’t just say we won’t talk. We knew this most likely would happen, were we just not ready once again for Middle Eastern politics, have we no plan again for what is happening? We should have been better prepared for this outcome. We wanted Democracy in the Middle East, we have it. Now what do you do when it is not to your liking?
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com

I'd like to suggest that the last minute disclosure that the Bush regime was pumping millions of dollars into the Palestinian elections was the deciding factor that pushed people into giving Hamas a clear majority.

The people voted. And the Americans will be dealing with Hamas. They can't really refuse to, tho bluster and whatever else will be the cover. Intermediaries being rustled up as we all type...

Hamas will be forced to govern. That is a tall order given the circumstance. Governing is a very different position than having no power and being free to shout unworkable rhetoric and political slogans. If they cannot govern, they will be replaced. A real downside would be for them to consolidate power and turn undemocratic.

The worst outcome would be for Israel and the US to undermine them and prevent progress. That would surely lead to more violence.

Slightly OT, but I was wondering if the GOP funneled money to the Conservatives up north. Any evidence this happened?

Stop reading peoples opinions and learning the facts and educated assessments.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. They are no better than Fatah. The author who used the term "socially responsible" in regards to Hamas is either a Hamas terrorist or Dick Durbin.

This is a major setback for the Middle East and everyone really.

The US and Europe are going to dramatically rip back economic aid to the Palestinians, and thats their right. Democracy is a two way street, the Palestinians have the right to elect who they want, but they must understand who they elect.

I guess at least this talking point of the Republican party is factual. "Elections matter."
Eh good luck with that.