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 figure out the specifics, as a global standard of any type is highly unlikely. This approach has been used in Iraq, and it seems to good effect.

I think all the recent comments in the media and elsewhere about how democracy is not the answer if groups like Hamas can come into power are completely out of line. I see the democratic process as still pushing along things in a better direction, no matter how it plays out. A fairly elected party at least can be successfully argued as having the support of the people, and therefore must be dealt with. This gives further inventive for extremist groups to politicalize. In this case, if Hamas doesn't play a good game, it will be the Palestinian people who lose... And since they put Hamas in the position to bargain, the accountability will rest in the right place and influence future choices.

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.

As far as Hamas goes, its going to be all about the followthrough. If they wind up as corrupt as Fatah, they lose the game. Some other group will rise to take their place, and hopefully have more merit. If they can actually pull the place together and get a working government that can negotiate in good faith, then good for them, they will provide an example for others to follow.

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.

If you want to get the current executive out, and see that in the future one like it doesn't occupy the branch again, there is a very simple answer. Its also something you'd need to do to achieve an actual "regime change".. Increase (or create) the constituency of people who support the people you would have occupy the government. . . Or get an _extremely_ powerful external force.

The reason Bush won this time around has nothing to do with people liking him. His team just got more people to the polls. Between 2000 and 2004, there was a ~13% rise in voter turnout. The Republicans just grew their constituency more then the Democrats. 43% of the population sure as hell doesn't get a "regime change". Think more like 70% to 90% for that, and a majority of them (including current military) running around in the streets practicing their natural right to bear arms against tyranny.

Hamas understands this. Look what angle wound up working out for them...

RE: What Hamas Is Seeking