fida mae

One of the really significant things about Hamas and the election was that Hamas did not include it's position on the destruction of Israel in it's election manifesto. I don't think they would have won as hansomely as they did if they had. 58% of the vote.

The Palestinian security forces were Fatahs private army. One of the first actions of the Hamas government was to replace them as the security force but they also offered to include them in a Palistinian army. That's significant and practical. I think while initially the hotheads may rage, longer-term the pragmatists on both sides will prevail. Just as they nearly always did during Yaraf's despotism.

George, thanks for the vote of confidence...I'm often wrong...

:-)

FIDA MAE

No need for "re-defining". In Keith's quote, "could" refers to a possibility not to an actuality, and within the context of my post with the many openings nascent democracy still had in the Middle East, the "watershed" COULD become actual.

Themistocles led the Athenians to a famous victory over Xerxes, the Persian, however he died in exile in Persia after fleeing charges of perculation.

George shows the courage of Themistocles.

The US and Israeli reaction to the Hamas victory shows exactly how much they really believe in democracy. For quite a while now it has been merely a smokescreen for the doctrine of "we're big enough to do what we like". All this guff about "exporting democracy to the Middle East" is simply cant, and is about to unravel in a most unpleasant way.

The only way that democracy can be effective as a management system is for it to be voluntarily adopted, by a people who understand its benefits and are aware of its drawbacks.

We seem to have convinced ourselves that there is something special about democracy that can of itself solve problems the allocation and withdrawal of power, and of oppression of minorities. It simply isn't so.

Democracy isn't perfect. And unfortunately, the example set by some of the world's most mature democracies is no glowing tribute to its goodness either.

Pericles, "The only way that democracy can be effective as a management system is for it to be voluntarily adopted, by a people who understand its benefits and are aware of its drawbacks"

You obviously have been a keen history student. Japan and west germany are successful democracies arn't they. They certainly didn't volunteer. where people get such crazy ideas (democracy has to be chosen) is beyond me!

the idea that the hamas election is either a plus for democracy, or that the west is being contradictory in not welcoming them is clearly ignorant. state's have legal (democratic) armies, not revolutionary movements. Palestine is not a state, it should not have an army, whether that of a party or that of a state (which it is not).

the idea that the west is being undemocratic by refusing to speak or be happy about the hamas election is clearly based on an ignorant understanding of how democracy works (the legal framework). These comments are more a condemnation of the school system these ignorant people were taught in.

the reason hamas is not welcome; they want us to accept them as a democratic movement, but their every speech and action shows they do not understand democracy at all. The west is bound to be taken as the bad guy by lefties who do not understand democracy and support hamas without understanding what they stand for. The lesson, get a real education system so the next generation of westerners actually understand the issues involved.

Yes of course, fide mae.

>>You obviously have been a keen history student. Japan and west germany are successful democracies arn't they. They certainly didn't volunteer.<<

Gee, it had completely slipped my mind that in the aftermath of WWII, reactionary factions in both Germany and Japan fought tooth and nail against democracy, with bring-back-Hitler resistance forces rampant in Bavaria, and we-love-Yamamoto bands of terrorists besieging Kobe.

You are right, I am not a history student, but even I know that the Japanese government in the first part of the twentieth century was based on the Meiji constitution of 1889, and their parliament was voted for - admittedly only by men over 25 until MacArthur got his hands on it. But democratic, it certainly was.

Meanwhile Germany introduced suffrage in 1867, and even women had the vote there since 1918, helping to democratically elect the Nazi party, as I recall.

Perhaps you were thinking of a different Japan and a different West Germany?

>>the idea that the hamas election is either a plus for democracy, or that the west is being contradictory in not welcoming them is clearly ignorant<<

My point was, and still is, that we cannot pick and choose the results we like or dislike from a countries democratic process, without being somewhat expedient on the notion of democracy itself.

>>the idea that the west is being undemocratic by refusing to speak or be happy about the hamas election is clearly based on an ignorant understanding of how democracy works (the legal framework)... the reason hamas is not welcome; they want us to accept them as a democratic movement, but their every speech and action shows they do not understand democracy at all.<<

Were the elections democratic or weren't they? If they were, the west is not being "ignorant" of how democracy works, simply objecting to the outcome.

If they were not, someone should tell Hamas, as they believe they have the legitimacy democracy apparently bestows on the winning party.