noteworthy wrote:
In an op-ed in today's Washington Post, Mousa Abu Marzook, a political spokesman for Hamas, explains their victory in the recent elections.

Alleviating the debilitative conditions of occupation, and not an Islamic state, is at the heart of our mandate (with reform and change as its lifeblood).

A new breed of Islamic leadership is ready to put into practice faith-based principles in a setting of tolerance and unity.

We do desire dialogue.

The Post describes the author thusly:

The writer is deputy political bureau chief of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). He has a U.S. doctorate in engineering and was indicted in the United States in 2004 as a co-conspirator on racketeering and money-laundering charges in connection with activities on behalf of Hamas dating to the early 1990s, before the organization was placed on the list of terrorist groups. He was deported to Jordan in 1997.

Note, as well, that "Paradise Now" has been nominated for the Oscar for Best Foreign Film.

the article has some fine words and Hamas can start by recognising Israel's right to exist
the US and the EU must talk to Hamas as the democratically elected party of the Palastinian people but despite the danger of Iran stepping into a financial breech we don't have to fund them without concessions. I as a British taxpayer object to the possibility that my money might be used to kill innocent Israelis.

Rattle wrote:
In an op-ed in today's Washington Post, Mousa Abu Marzook, a political spokesman for Hamas, explains their victory in the recent elections. Can we take this seriously?

Alleviating the debilitative conditions of occupation, and not an Islamic state, is at the heart of our mandate (with reform and change as its lifeblood).

A new breed of Islamic leadership is ready to put into practice faith-based principles in a setting of tolerance and unity.

We do desire dialogue.

The Post describes the author thusly:

The writer is deputy political bureau chief of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). He has a U.S. doctorate in engineering and was indicted in the United States in 2004 as a co-conspirator on racketeering and money-laundering charges in connection with activities on behalf of Hamas dating to the early 1990s, before the organization was placed on the list of terrorist groups. He was deported to Jordan in 1997.

Note, as well, that "Paradise Now" has been nominated for the Oscar for Best Foreign Film.

There's historic precedence for this. Everyone knows SinnFein is the political wing of the IRA, and this has been a bone of contention for some for decades. As Winston Churchill once said "To jaw-jaw is always better than war-war," and the political solution in Ireland has been better than the continued bombings and riots that characterized Ulster for years.

There is a seious problem in policy here. There is the statement that "we do not negotiate with terrorists," which conventionally meant, you take hostages, we aren't going to negotiate for their release. The current batch of asshats running Washington have extended this to mean we don't talk to them period. This is not an approach that has been taken before and one that ensures the "War or Terror" NEVER ends. At that level it is neither something that will reach a state of "peace" nor is it winnable.

Why did Hamas win so resoundingly? Because Fatah was seen as corrupt, and Hamas was seen as doing something. Until we have regime change in this country, we will continue to be seen by the rest of the world as the leading threat to global security. Not the Russians, not the Chinese, not even the Iranians or North Koreans. US.

There's historic precedence for this. Everyone knows SinnFein is the political wing of the IRA, and this has been a bone of contention for some for decades. As Winston Churchill once said "To jaw-jaw is always better than war-war," and the political solution in Ireland has been better than the continued bombings and riots that characterized Ulster for years.

I fully agree with this assertion. Having Hamas join the political process is way better than remaining a terror group. However, I have serious doubts that they can follow-through like the IRA/SinnFein did.

This article in Foreign Affairs tackles the issue. Its written by a Brigadier General in the Israel Defense Forces, so take that into account, but it makes some valid points about how its not likely to happen like it did in Ireland, and is likely representative of the Israeli and US State Department perspective.

The statement from Mousa Abu Marzook sounds good, but it also has that "telling you want you want to hear" propaganda vibe dripping from it. I'm not sure if it can even remotely be taken seriously, by anyone other than a Palestinian public at large, which may be in the process of being further marginalized, pushed into the dark, and manipulated for all we can tell right now.

I don't feel I have enough information to form a good opinion about if Hamas will de-radicalize. Since there is nothing I can do about the situation personally, I'm actually thankful to be only watching it play out, being able to keep a (somewhat) open mind, and not having to form a firm opinion. Being in the role of making decisions regarding these issues is impossibly tough if honestly holding to a pragmatic perspective.

There is a seious problem in policy here. There is the statement that "we do not negotiate with terrorists," which conventionally meant, you take hostages, we aren't going to negotiate for their release. The current batch of asshats running Washington have extended this to mean we don't talk to them period. This is not an approach that has been taken before and one that ensures the "War or Terror" NEVER ends. At that level it is neither something that will reach a state of "peace" nor is it winnable.

This situation, and other similar ones, will likely present a resolution to that policy problem. We may not negotiate with terrorists, but we do with controlling political parties. Since Hamas now has control of the PA, we will certainly negotiate with them. This can be used to provide incentive for extremist groups to get involved in the political process. The local political process can regulate to what degree disarming is necessary. The internal dynamics of a given nation-state can figu... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]

Rattle wrote:
Also, applying the term "regime change" to getting the Bush Administration out of the executive branch is downright _dangerous_, and basically asking to not be taken seriously. The "American Regime" has three branches, a legislative, executive, and judicial, plus a very powerful military and a myriad of agencies responsible for countless things we can't maintain our current level of society without. A "regime change" would require tossing out the leadership of all of those elements and replacing it. Currently, we are under a constant state of peaceful revolution. This process is far from perfect, as are all nation-state governments we've seen so far on this planet. Unless you have a better model, don't toss around language like that. You are using it improperly.

Actually I was applying it with irony/sarcasm. It was how we described what to do in Iraq which was a top to bottom snow job. Impeachment may be closer to the right line but doesn't work in this case. When you have pretty much the entire political part of the executive branch advocating torture, locking up people without trial, violating the laws on domestic spying (see the NSA mess) and conducting a foreign policy that amounts to "waging agressive war" impeachment doesn't work. Who do you replace them with?

When at the same time the leadership of the house is either currently under indictment, or under investigation relating to bribe taking in the Abramoff mess, that side of the fence isn't of help either.

Bluntly, the current administration has violated treaty agreements, among them the Geneva Conventions, violated domestic law (the NSA mess), done deliberate harm to the intelligence capabilities of the nation (the Valerie Plame fiasco which is still ongoing), violated their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution ("It's just a goddmned piece of paper!) and started a war with another country under false pretexts, which if someone else had used the same excuses for against an ally of ours we would be screaming for (or more likely shooting off the tops of) their heads.

Not only have they done all of these things, they have done so at best incompetantly and ineptly. Bin Laden is still out there. Last time I looked Mullah Omar was still out there. AlQ and the Taliban are making a comeback in Afghanistan and humorously enough to are herion exports. Iraq is an unmitigated disaster with the only bright side being that Saddam is out of power. The flip side of that of course is we've managed to create a second Shi'a theocracy in the middle east. In the meantime they have demonstrated that we are no better prepared for a disaster at home (Katrina) and turned what was looking like an opportunity to pay down the national debt into a few trillion dollars more worth of red ink further dismantling our abilities at home.

This presidency ranks right down there with Harding, Buchanan and Grant as the worst in the history of the nation. He has seized upon 9/11 the same way that LBJ seized on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, and has managed to take the greatest outpouring of world opinion after 9/11 and turn it into a festering ball of hate across the globe.

I don't feel safer today than I did five years ago, and my wallet is thinner.