two articles from haaretz, from different political positions, both of which converge of the same basic theme: the naievte or ignorance of bush administration policy.
the term choice is obviously a political function.
Quote:
U.S. taken by surprise - Israel less so
By Ze'ev Schiff
Before the Palestinian parliamentary elections the United States and Israel had an argument about their outcome. While American intelligence predicted Fatah would win and the new Palestinian government would be able to disarm Hamas, Israeli intelligence argued that there was no chance of a significant Fatah triumph, that Hamas would increase its strength considerably and that Hamas would win up to 50 percent of the votes. The Shin Bet also thought so. In any case, it figured, Fatah would not be able to disarm Hamas.
Ultimately Hamas won 45 percent in the national elections and all the votes in the regional elections. The final result was about 60 percent.
One of the harbingers of Hamas victory now was its success in local elections a few weeks ago, a surprise for many.
On the eve of elections PA Chair Mahmoud Abbas asked the Egyptians to act to put off the elections. The Egyptians suggested postponing them by six months. Hamas said it would agree to a short delay, but not six months.
The Americans, certain of Fatah's victory, said it was better to hold elections on schedule. In retrospect it is clear that the Americans put more emphasis on the democratic process itself, rather than its outcome. The results will force the American leaders to shift their emphasis and take more interest in the possible results of democratic elections in Arab states that lack a real democratic heritage, and where radical religious circles wield crucial influence.
Israel's assessments of Hamas gains sparked debates about its future place. One debate in the office of Dov Weissglas, the prime minister's bureau chief, was entitled "What if Hamas Wins?" Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz also held a few debates on the possible outcome. One of them dealt with the possibility that Fatah, after losing the election, would attack Israel to cause a political shock that would disrupt the election results.
The Palestinian opinion polls all predicted a Fatah victory. The differences among them focused on whether Hamas would want to join the new government, and whether its people would receive ministerial portfolio.
|
source:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/675835.html
Quote:
Analysis: Wave of democracy pits Israel against 'Arab street'
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent
The Palestinian Authority election marks the beginning of a new period in the region that could be termed "the era of the masses." Henceforth Israel will have to factor into its foreign policy something it has always ignored - Arab public opinion.
Israel has always based its regional policy on arrangements and terror-balances with the Arab dictators. They understood force and Israel could do business with them. Their authority was seen as a barrier protecting Israel from the rage of the hostile rabble in the "Arab street." That was the basis of the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, Yasser Arafat and his heirs and the game rules vis-a-vis Syria and Lebanon.
But those days are over. The democratization process that U.S. President George Bush has triggered and the open debate promoted by Arab satellite networks are causing the old frameworks to crumble. The mass demonstrations that led to the Syrians being driven from Lebanon, the elections in Iraq and those in the territories are merely the beginning. As far as Israel is concerned, the worst stage will come when the democratic wave washes over Jordan, its strategic ally; Egypt with its modern army and F-16 squadrons, and Syria and its Scud and chemical warhead stores.
In the past year millions of Arab citizens have had their say. So did hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in the center of Beirut last March and the voters in the Palestinian Authority, who changed their regime democratically.
Granted, Hamas is an armed terror organization. But the international community agreed to its participation in the elections and respects its results.
Israel saw in Bush's democratization initiative a pretension of naive Americans who had no idea of the reality in the region. Israel still remembers the Shah of Iran, who fell from power after America reprimanded him for the infringement of human rights, and was replaced by a hostile regime seeking to annihilate Zionism and make atom bombs.
The Israelis warned the Americans that that unsupervised Arab democracy will bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power, not pro-Western liberals. But Washington refused to listen and insisted on holding the elections on schedule. The new reality requires both Washington and Jerusalem to reevaluate the situation, before the Hamas effect hits Amman and Cairo. In any case, it will be hard to turn back democratic change and resume the comfortable relations with the old dictatorships.
Israel will have to formulate a new foreign policy and strive for peace between nations, not merely with their rulers. And that will be much more complicated.
|
source:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/675990.html
it is hard not to see the claims concerning the bush administration policy toward this conflict in general, and toward these elections in particular as more or less accurate--the positions outlined in each of the above differ one from the other quite markedly--this should be obvious. in this particular context, i see no need to point out which is closer to my postion---but together they point to the appalling state of information available to americans about this conflict.
======
ustwo:
i explained my posts and how they work (again) in the "coming clean" thread...given that you participated in that thread, i doubt that you did not see them.
i also directed one at you, in which i tried to explain why your particular style of interacting with this space is most irritating.
but i think that you know full well how i play this game....so i see in your post above as more than a little disengenuous.