Originally Posted by roachboy

jorgelito: the irony is obvious, yes? by moving to choke off the pa because hamas was elected to a majority the americans and israelis managed to generate a scenario in which the outcome they feared was the outcome produced. in the moderation-through-exercise-of-power scenario, nothing was given in advance but at least there was a coherent possibility that hamas would move in the direction you outline, that i outlined, that de soto outlined. one way of thinking about this is as a pretty colossal blunder. another way is that israel and the us prefer a radicalized hamas because a radicalized hamas reinforces the direction of their policies--which are not geared around any coherentpeace process, but rather are geared around the old sharon idea that if the pa is destroyed then there is no negociating partner so there can be no negotiations so there will be no palestine.

but maybe it doesnt go that far: maybe its more obvious in that the logic is more in front of us: maybe the us and israel are both thinking only in very short-term ways and at the forefront is the possibility of propping up internally weak regimes in israel and the us by creating the "security threats" that these governments can "respond to" and in responding legitimate themselves.