No Sympathy.

Hamas has officially taken power. The Western and Israeli response has been, or will be, a sort of economic warfare. Hamas will be deprived of most of its foreign aid, unless Arab countries can pick up the slack. For some time now, Israel has already been engaged in this sort of activity. Canada has officially ceased funding the PA. No doubt, America and many other Western nations will soon follow suit. Former president Jimmy Carter warned against such economic strategies. He fears that they ultimately will be seen as punishing the Palestinian people, which might make them turn even more against the West and Israel (I'm not sure thats even possible; they did vote in Hamas, after all). Carter had more to say:

"My belief is now Hamas wants stable, domestically-oriented policies in the government to deal with the problems of the Palestinian people... My belief is if they are treated fairly, they might very well be less likely to resort to violence...Eventually, they are going to have to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and resolve their problems with Israel in a peaceful way. No doubt about that. They cannot escape that international mandate which they have to fulfill."

It would be great to think that the weight of reality would eventually pressure Hamas to change, as Carter suggests. History however might suggest otherwise; this problem is 60 years old, and still Israel's right to exist hasn't been acknowledged. Even Hamas itself disagrees with Carter's evaluation:

Officials from Hamas have said they will not compromise their principles for aid, and that alternative funding could come from Arab and Islamic countries.

It is so absurd to hear people complaining about how bad the West and Israel are being towards the Palestinians right now. Who are we to deprive a legitimately elected Palestinian government of financial aid? Ask yourself this: who is being more rediculous here? Hamas is demanding that the West and Israel continue to supply it with money, even though it is a terrorist organization that remains dedicated to the destruction if its neighbor through violent means. All that Israel and the West are demanding that Hamas change the wording in its charter, to renounce violence and recognize Israel. If Hamas just changes the text on a piece of paper, the aid money will flow once again.

A controversial thing Israel has done is to withhold Palestinian tax money that Israel collects on the Palestinians' behalf. This is money that is, arguably, Palestinian money that Israel really has no right to hold. At first glance, this seems to be a legitimate Palestinian gripe. On closer inspection, it is nothing of the sort. Israel agreed to collect taxes on Palestinian behalf as part of an agreement reached in 1995 between the two sides. Hamas has refused to accept this particular agreement. Therefore, it is rediculous to expect Israel to continue to provide the money, considering the Palestinians no longer legally recognize the deal. Incidentally, Hamas has refused to acknowledge all past peace agreements made with Israel. That is why Fatah (the other Palestinian party that was beaten in the elections) has refused to form a coalition government with Hamas.

The peace process is going nowhere with Hamas at the reins. Ideally, the West and Israel would want to see the Fatah party regain power in the next Palestinian election. How can we expect to see Fatah regain power if we make it easy for Hamas to rule? Besides, as Hamas remains dedicated to the destruction of Israel, then a de facto state of war exists between the two parties right now. It is true that there currently is a ceasefire. However, as Hamas remains committed to its original charter, should I therefore conclude that Hamas really wants peace? Or should I conclude that Hamas is observing a ceasefire because they currently do not have the power to harm Israel in a meaningful way? If Hamas had the power, do you think they'd observe the ceasefire? Doubtful. Therefore, I see no reason why Israel should be expected to aid its enemy, or allow it to become powerful.

Incidentally, Egypt has proposed that the Israelis give Hamas six months to prove that it is committed to peace. If Hamas is still being stubborn in six months, then Israel would be "free to act as it saw fit". I personally don't think the Israelis owe Hamas anything at this point. However, should the Israelis follow this route, I believe ultimately people will give them more credit for at least trying.

Then, in six months, when Hamas refuses to change, nobody will blame the Israelis for doing what has to be done.

The Kiss of Death

The American Government sent a message to the Iraqi Shiite Ayatolla Sistani. In it, they ask Sistani to intervene to break the political deadlock in Iraq. Sistani, the ultimate leader of 60% of the Iraqis, is probably the most powerful person in the country.

Over the last year or so I've become a great admirer of Sistani. If Iraq is able to stabilize, I'm convinced that Sistani will be seen as another Ghandi-like figure. He has been dedicated to non-violence, he has encouraged democracy and the political process. He has been the main force preventing an all-out civil war in Iraq up to this point. However, he believes religious leaders should stay out of politics for the most part. In a time when many extreme religious leaders in the Middle East are so radical, and demand political authority, Sistani is one of a kind.

He is the reason we have had any success in Iraq at all, yet you barely ever hear his name in the MSM. I am thankful for that. You know how anti-Americanism works. If the Americans love someone, then most people in the Middle East probably won't trust them. A too favorable opinion of Sistani in American news could be the kiss of death; his followers may start to think of him as an American pawn.

Back to the issue at hand. America has asked Sistani to intervene to break the political deadlock. What if he was considering that already? Now if he goes through with it, will it appear that he is caving to US pressure? Will it look as if he is at all influenced by America? Sure it will, and it might undermine is authority. Thats the worst thing that could happen right now, a time when Sistani is the only cap that is containing the likes of the militaristic al-Sadr, and preventing a full blown civil war.

The Iraqi political process at this point is theirs, and theirs alone. The US shouldn't be appealing to anyone to break this deadlock. If the Iraqis are committed to democracy, they will get around it. If they fail to do so, then this fledgling democracy would have failed eventually anyways. We really shouldn't be invoking Sistani to do something, when he certainly knows better than some US bureaucrat what is best for the Iraqi political process; especially considering that by doing so we undermine his authority.

Stay out of it, America. The only thing we should be doing over there at this point is providing enough security and money such that the system doesn't collapse altogether.

Tear him to pieces.

KABUL, Afghanistan - Senior Muslim clerics demanded Thursday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces."

The really sad thing is that one of the clerics calling for this man's death is actually considered to be a moderate. Evidently the Taliban kept jailing him for speaking out against their extreme ways.

Why did we even bother to invade Afghanistan? We sacrificed US blood and treasure for this? Pathetic. Clearly, being concerned about these peoples' oppression was the wrong thing to do. We should have just destroyed the Taliban, and installed a dictator that was friendly to US interests. Democracy and religious fanatics don't mix.

Civil War in Iraq

There is a civil war in Iraq. Charles Krauthammer suggests:

What is the insurgency if not a war supported by one (minority) part of Iraqi society fighting to prevent the birth of the new Iraqi state supported by another (majority) part of Iraqi society?

By definition that is civil war, and there's nothing new about it. As I noted here in November 2004: "People keep warning about the danger of civil war. This is absurd. There already is a civil war. It is raging before our eyes. Problem is, only one side" -- the Sunni insurgency -- "is fighting it."

Juan Cole wonders whose criteria defines a civil war. Here is what Cole considers to be the most 'widely accepted social science measure':

"Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter's ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain." (Errol A. Henderson and J. David Singer, "Civil War in the Post-Colonial World, 1946-92," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, May 2000.) '

Sounds like Iraq to me. The important thing, as always has been, is whether or not the situation is at all manageable...whether anything is salvageable. Charles Krauthammer went on to illustrate this point:

"Now all of a sudden everyone is shocked to find Iraqis going after Iraqis. But is it not our entire counterinsurgency strategy to get Iraqis who believe in the new Iraq to fight Iraqis who want to restore Baathism or impose Taliban-like rule? Does not everyone who wishes us well support the strategy of standing up the Iraqis so we can stand down? And does that not mean getting the Iraqis to fight the civil war themselves? Hence the gradual transfer of war-making responsibility. Hence the decline of American casualties. Hence the rise of Iraqi casualties."

My own definition of a civil war varies slightly from these others'. I personally believe that a civil war might be defined as an attempt to gain control of a nation through the use of force in absence of all other methods. In other words, a civil war is what happens when negotiations fail. We aren't at that point yet.

The important thing is that the Iraqi government is existing and negotiating. As long as political progress is being made, even if slowly, then the situation is still hopeful. Ideally, politics as an alternative to violence will become more appealing with time, and this conflict will die down.

If it ever comes to be that there is no political route to pursue; if the Iraqi government fails or dissolves...then the only thing left is for the Iraqis to fight it out. That is my definition of a civil war.

Now we need Sudan's consent

to intervene in Darfur. God forbid that we wouldn't respect the sovereignty of a government that arms genocidal militias. The biggest failure of Iraq, is that our experience there may suggest to decrepit regimes that the international community won't stand up for anything. I hope someone proves them wrong.

But I won't hold my breath.

South Park censored???

A certain episode of South Park makes fun of Tom Cruise and his religious cult. Well, Comedy Central's parent company Viacom has caved into pressure from Tom and his buddies to ban the episode. Don't stand for this. Here is more info. Follow the link, read up, and send a few emails out.

Iran learns to talk shit; the UN is put to the test.

Iran recently said at the UN that it would inflict "harm and pain" upon the US if we work to impose sanctions via the Security Council. An Iranian diplomat was quoted as saying, "So if the United States wishes to choose that path, let the ball roll." That really sounds like something you'd hear just before a bar fight breaks out, not something you'd hear a nation say at the UN general assembly.

And at a bar, when a little guy goes and picks a fight with a really really big guy, you find yourself wondering what is worse: that the little guy is starting a fight, or that he is so stupid as to start a fight with someone who will obviously beat the crap out of him. And the Iranians wonder why the world doesn't want them to have nukes.

A great piece on the situation in northern Sudan can be found here. The UN is planning on sending a peacekeeping force of around 20,000 men to Sudan. Basically, those in the north are threatening the UN, telling them not to send those forces, as they will be attacked. These are the same people that have committed (or indirectly sanctioned) the rape, genocide, and other crime that has gone on in Sudan for a couple years now.

A group of poorly armed thugs are moving to thwart the UN peacekeeping effort. The question is, will the UN stand strong and true to its charter? I'm not going to hold my breath. Here is a situation where nation building is absolutely warranted. When a government shows itself to be either supporting of, indifferent to, or incapable of stopping genocidal activity, it no longer has a right to govern. The UN should assemble a coalition, invade Sudan, overthrow the government, and establish order. Obviously, the UN has not the military capacity, nor the political will, to make this happen.

However, private armies under UN sanction would have the military capability of such action. And such action would have no political fallout for UN member nations.

Hamas at odds with Al Qaeda?

It is incredible just how unpopular Al Qaeda has become. Even Hamas, another Islamic terror organization, now seems at odds with them. Al Qaeda had recently criticized Hamas for taking part in elections (which are supposedly secular non-Islamic things). Hamas responded:

"We are a movement that neither brands other Muslims as infidels, nor abandons them. We are a movement that lives with the people in a real world and try to attract them to Islam through wisdom and good advice."

"We call for following God's path with an open mind," al-Zahar said. "By adopting this moderate approach, which is initiated by the prophet (Muhammad), Hamas movement has succeeded in attracting voters to its programme of Islam."

Ouch. Not that I'm very fond of Hamas; I'll still consider them to be a gang of thugs until they renounce violence and recognize Israel. But, I like them a bit more than bin Laden's group.

More double standards

Come on, is Europe really going to jail someone for Holocaust denial?

The guy is an idiot, but he shouldn't be imprisoned for it. With double standards like these, its really hard for Europeans to justify the publishing of the Danish Muhammad cartoons.

Christian double standards.

Nigeria has a population that is roughly split between Christians and Muslims. After the Danish Cartoon fiasco, many Muslims in Nigeria began rioting. Over a dozen churches were burnt down, and about as many Christians were murdered by Muslim mobs.

Well, the Christians have retaliated. They began by burning Mosques, but murder soon followed. Christians have murdered dozens of Muslims in Nigeria so far (and vice versa). As the cycle of violence continues, the leader of the Nigerian Christians had this to say:

"may we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation" and that "C.A.N. [Christian Association of Nigeria] may no longer be able to contain our restive youths should this ugly trend continue"

This Christian leader is threatening to have his followers form lawless mobs that can vandalize and murder at the drop of a hat. Odd, I don't remember reading about that in the New Testament. Christians throughout the world should be condemning this violence to the utmost. They are so quick to condemn Muslims when they are violent. What kind of message is that sending, if they hold such double standards?

I think the lesson here is that the religious leaders on both sides equally suck. Human nature is the same, and being a Muslim or a Christian doesn't change that. Christians have a long storied history of violence (probably moreso than Muslims, actually). The only reason the West isn't as bad anymore is because it is so secular. Blah. I'm just in a bad mood because I'm hungry.

Message to the UN: Stop pretending to have principles.

One of the UN's founding principles is to prevent genocide. Obviously, the UN failed miserably in Rwanda (1994), and its bureaucrats swore "never again". As it turns out, that didn't mean they would intervene to prevent a future genocide. Rather, they simply wouldn't utter the g-word at the UN; if they did they would be legally bound to stop the genocide. This was the UN "solution" to the Sudan crisis a year ago.

Unfortunately, it just got worse. 200,000 civilians have already been killed, and the crisis has spread into neighboring Chad. This time around, the UN has promised to do what it was created to do:

"The United Nations Security Council has agreed to send troops to protect civilians, but they will take months to arrive."

Pending the imminent failure of the delayed UN response to accomplish anything of significance, we might continue wondering how we can really improve life in Africa. Well, I don't believe in being cynical without offering solutions, so here is one that I strongly advocate.

In 1989 there was a private mercenary company that was formed in South Africa called "Executive Outcomes". One example of their accomplishments was their being hired by the government of Sierra Leone to restore order in their country. For 20 million dollars/year, Executive Outcomes sent a force of 300 mercenaries (who had a combined battle experience of 5000 years or so). This force quickly pushed the rebels back into a corner of the country, restoring order. Elections were then able to take place.

The UN threw a fit and pushed Sierra Leone to cancel their contract with Executive Outcomes, and sent in a UN peacekeeping force in its place. The UN force was 18,000 strong, and costed 1 billion/year to maintain "order". According to Wikipedia, here is what the UN peacekeepers accomplished:

In terms of effectiveness, the UN peacekeeping force allowed the RUF to retake the capital twice while committing atrocities in its wake, and also stood helpless while a military coup led by Colonel Johnny Paul Koroma deposed the democratically elected Kabbah.

A private mercenary company, for 2% of the cost, was able to accomplish what the UN could not.

I know there will be concerns about having such powerful private enterprises in existence. It would be unsettling to think that a private company could overthrow small governments. However, legalized mercenary companies could easily be held in check. Mercenary companies such as EO could be required to act only under UN authorization. They could be banned from having weapons of mass destruction, and other powerful weapons of war. Other checks could be in place that would prevent a mercenary company from ever abusing its power.

The bottom line is that the UN needs some teeth. The problem with the UN is that it is inefficient and that it held in check by politics. Even when the UN does send military units, the soldiers from a given country are under that nation's control, and not under UN control. Further, there are political costs to UN intervention. For example, Americans don't want to see the bodies of American soldiers dragged through the streets, as in Somolia.

The only solution that I can see for the serious problems that Africa faces is to allow mercenary companies to operate under UN sanction. These private forces are cheaper and more effective. Further, they would not be constrained by the politics of command and logistics that the UN armed forces face. Finally, the UN would not be concerned with the political strains associated with loss of life for the soldiers. Mercenaries would be hired to restore order and allow elections to take place. If mercenaries are killed, people aren't really going to mind.

The Rwandan genocide was perpetrated by men armed with machetes and small arms. The Darfur genocide is being perpetrated by armed men riding camels. The solution is not to send in neutered UN forces at great cost to try to restore order. The solution is to hire a highly trained private company to go in under UN authority. These forces would make short work of the genocidal maniacs rampaging throughout the land, with none of the costs; monetary or political, associated with a UN force.

The principles of the UN oppose the use of armed mercenaries. Well, the UN is also principally opposed to genocide. Its time for the UN to get its priorities straight.

"Baghdad Burning"

An Iraqi blogger's account of the situation.

"No one went to work today as the streets were mostly closed. The situation isn’t good at all. I don’t think I remember things being this tense- everyone is just watching and waiting quietly. There’s so much talk of civil war and yet, with the people I know- Sunnis and Shia alike- I can hardly believe it is a possibility. Educated, sophisticated Iraqis are horrified with the idea of turning against each other, and even not-so-educated Iraqis seem very aware that this is a small part of a bigger, more ominous plan…

People are scared and watchful. We can only pray."

Rallying the Believers

Iraq's Grand Ayatolla Sistani is organizing a sectarian militia.

The purpose of the militia will be to protect Shiite holy sites, which have been under attack for the last several days. This move seems particularly out of character to me. Not once in the last two years have I ever read of Sistani even mentioning the use of physical force as a means to accomplish an objective. He has been as committed to nonviolence as Ghandi was. Further, Juan Cole seems to think that there is great risk in the establishment of militias, because they inevitably end up catalyzing more conflict than they prevent; I'm sure most Iraqis know this.

The most powerful force preventing an Iraqi civil war up to now (Sistani) has just made a tactical 180 degree turn. I don't find that to be very encouraging.

Iraq is cracking.

Shrine Bombing.

Someone has bombed what is probably the holiest Shia shrine in Iraq. The best comparison that I've read is that it would be like a Protestant bombing St. Peters in Rome. Al Qaeda is the usual suspect. Most of their objectives for Iraq have failed. The Iraqi people hate them, most Muslims in the Middle East have started to deplore their actions, they haven't driven the Americans out, and they haven't stopped the political process.

The only thing Al Qaeda has had any success in is their attempt to provoke a civil war. It hasn't worked yet, thanks to the Shia Grand Ayatolla Sistani, who has so far restrained his followers from responding. But I have to question whether even Sistani has enough influence to prevent a civil war after these latest events.

If Iraq can get through this in one piece, it can get through anything. Heres hoping.

Why is this news?

There are two explanations for the Cheney incident. Either the Vice President purposefully shot a 78 year old fellow Republican and friend, or it was an accident. There was no duel, so I'm going to go with the latter theory. Who cares how the news was released? People are acting like there was some conspiracy to cover the incident up. Why would he need one? It was an accident.

Maybe if certain groups of people spent their time actually coming up with real solutions to our problems, rather than blowing irrelevant incidents completely out of proportion, they might win more elections. Just a thought.

Game over for Al Qaeda in Iraq

The local population evidently doesn't appreciate it when you murder their leader. Ramadi, in the Sunni-Arab dominated Anbar province, has been a major stronghold for the insurgency. Al Qaeda in Iraq, led by Zarqawi, had much of the support of the locals up until lately. After killing local Sunni police recruits, and now their revered leader, the locals have had enough. They are turning on Al Qaeda. This doesn't guarentee that they will seek peace with the Iraqi government or America, but it certainly makes it more likely.

The Boston Globe doesn't get it

The Boston Globe recently ran an editorial concerning the Muhammed cartoons. The final paragraph:

"Depicting Mohammed wearing a turban in the form of a bomb with a sputtering fuse is no less hurtful to most Muslims than Nazi caricatures of Jews or Ku Klux Klan caricatures of blacks are to those victims of intolerance. That is why the Danish cartoons will not be reproduced on these pages."

The cartoons are offensive? You dont say! That isn't the issue here. The issue here is that we should be allowed to express an opinion without the fear of violent reprisal. If I drew and published Nazi-like caricatures of Jews, that would make me an asshole. However, I could still do it without fear of being attacked or killed in response. I find it ironic that the left has been making this huge fuss about Bush infringing on our freedoms lately, yet they are condemning the European newspapers for publishing these cartoons. Evidently, the freedom of speech is less important than the freedom to make international phone calls to terrorists without being wiretapped.

The threat of violence is becoming ever greater as well. These images from a protest in London are extremely disturbing to me. Some of the phrases on the protestors' signs read, "Be prepared for the real holocaust", "Europe you will pay. Your 9/11 is coming", and "Exterminate those who slander Islam". Seriously, who says these sorts of things?

There is no way that the West can back down on this issue. To do so would imply to those fanatics who distort Islam that massive threats of violence and protest will push the West to do anything. It is a slippery slope that we cannot start down. They can be oppressive and overly sensitive in their own cultures if they want, but they shouldn't be telling us how to act.

The US State Department issued a response. The US is condemning the cartoonists. Ideologically, I am strongly opposed to this statement, but strategically I am regretfully supportive. The US is deeply involved with four Muslim nations/groups right now; we are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, and negotiating with Iran and Hamas. Each of these precarious situations seems to be on a knife's edge. I'd hate to see this cartoon controversy push each of those situations over the bad side.

Andrew Sullivan posted a reader comment that I found comforting as well:

The State Department's comment on the Danish cartoons was brilliant. This is a European problem and we owe Europe nothing. The comment a) gave us a small chance to look good to Muslims (even if the comment was admittedly bullshit) b) allowed the focus of the anger to remain on the Europeans which will only reinforce the truth that Islamic extremism is a threat to the entire West, not just the United States and c) frankly, it was a nice "fuck you" to Europe. I LOVED it. Of course, given that it was the State Department, they probably had none of these things in mind, but hey, whatever.

A final thing I wanted to mention is this growing awareness that there are three particularly insulting cartoons that appeared out of nowhere. For example, one of them shows Muhammed involved in a sexual act with an animal. None of these three mysterious comics was drawn by the Danish cartoonists, yet they are being widely circulated around the Middle East with the original 12 Danish cartoons. I wonder where they came from? Who would benefit from such extremely insulting comics being included in the controversy? Perhaps, a group that wants to see the drama escalate into a clash of civilizations. Right-wing elements in Europe and Al Qaeda both have that goal...my bet is that an extremist group, potentially on either side, is behind them.

Hands off my Wikipedia!!

Now Wikipedia is being pushed to censor their entry concerning the Danish Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Wikipedia is perhaps my favorite website, and I'll be damned if its going to start getting censored by people who take life way too seriously. This will be a two part piece; I want to briefly support Muslims first, and the West second.

1) Where the Muslims went right:

It is already considered bad to depict the Prophet visually; to draw a cartoon that is making a mockery of him would be a slap in the face. In this sense, I understand the anger of Muslims worldwide who are infuriated that their Prophet is being slandered. Certainly, this isn't something that they are used to seeing. I would expect more consideration and tact from the Danes.

Parts of the Muslim response are acceptable to me. If the offense is so great, then the leaders of Muslim countries can recall their ambassadors from Denmark until the Danes stop insulting the Prophet. This of course has already happened with Lybia, Pakistan, and a couple others. It is certainly a reasonable option, although I personally think its a bit much.

In my opinion, organizing a boycott (started in Saudi Arabia) was a great idea and I encourage that sort of behavior. The language of the West is economics. If you don't like what someone says or does, you hit them where it hurts - the wallet. I've read that the boycott has been extremely effective. If it was to continue, domestic economic pressure might force the newspaper to apologize and refrain from insulting the Prophet in the future.

2) Where the Muslims went really really wrong:

My first big problem with part of the Muslim response is that they are demanding hate-speech legislation that would prevent such action in the future. Let me say that again. The Muslims in the Middle East want hate speech to be outlawed. Does this strike anyone else as extremely hypocritical? Where is the outrage when a Muslim leader calls for the eradication of Israel? Or is that not hate speech? What about when Jews are referred to as pigs, and Americans are referred to as dogs? It amazes me that they would presume to tell us who we can and cannot insult, when they certainly don't pull any punches regarding a group they dislike.

My second problem with the Muslim response is the most important. I take issue very much with the threats of violence that have been issued towards those that have insulted Islam. Some of these threats have been followed up by actual violence. I don't care what the cartoon depicted, you absolutely do not threaten people, not in the West, for having an opinion. You can threaten us because we support Israel, or because we install corrupt dictators to further our interests. Threaten us because we invaded Iraq, or bombed civilians in Pakistan. But do not threaten us for having an opinion. Attacking our (alleged) imperialist tendencies is one thing, but directly attacking our freedom of speech is quite something else.

The Europeans agree with me. Newspapers all around Europe are re-printing the cartoons out of spite, to prove that they will not be intimidated.

My conclusions? Had those in the Middle East pursued a purely diplomatic and/or economic route, I would completely side with them and also call for the Danes to be more considerate. Unfortunately, I cannot take that position. I will not take that position, because I don't want those few Muslims who have threatened or perpetuated violence to think their methods at all worked. I want the message to those in the world who would act in violence to be clear - we will not be intimidated into silence, not now, not ever.

Iran to the Security Council

Russia and China have agreed to send Iran to the security council. I am excited to see the international community come to a consensus that will hopefully help keep the world safer. Yet, this whole drama isn't over. The international community needs the will to impose the kind of strict economic sanctions that will really hurt the Iranians. Unfortunately, those are also the kinds of sanctions that will hurt the rest of the world - an Iranian oil embargo will drive prices way up.

The world needs to choose between sky high energy prices, perhaps causing an international economic recession, or letting a religious fanatic acquire nukes. Kinda makes one wish we weren't so dependent on oil? Maybe thats something we should keep working on.

It probably didn't help the Iranian cause that the rest of the world just found damning evidence that Iran is pursuing nukes. Some people, amazingly, have expressed doubts as to whether Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons; I hope this clears things up for them.

Hamas bites off more than it can chew.

An interesting perspective that I saw on TV over the last weekend was the suggestion that perhaps Hamas didn't really want to win a majority in this election. Rather, it is more likely that they sought to win a significant number of seats, but not enough that they would be leading the government. With Fatah still leading the government, Hamas could run its big mouth, criticizing Fatah and Israel while not having to back up anything it said politically.

Fortunately, Hamas did win a majority. And my word usage here is quite deliberate - I believe this election outcome will ultimately be a good thing. Most Palestinians want the peace process to move forward, but it seems that Israel (rightfully) is not going to have any exchange with a government that seeks its destruction. Additionally, the international community is going to slow or cease aid altogether, without which the Palestinians will not survive. Hamas has even started begging for that money.

The bottom line, is that by winning a majority, Hamas will be confronted with a major dilemma. In either case, the West and Israel will be better off, although the Palestinians will be better off only in one scenario. Ideally, Hamas would choose to renounce terrorism and decide to recognize Israel's right do exist. By doing these things, international aid would continue and the peace process would move forward. If there was any question as to whether giving up on violence would be the best for the Palestinians, this move would make it obvious.

On the other hand, Hamas could choose to continue to utilize terrorism and cling to their platform of seeking the destruction of Israel. If Hamas chooses this route, the flow of money to the Palestinians dries up quickly, and the peace process ceases. The Palestinians will suffer, and everyone will know who is responsible. The credibility of their methods diminished, Hamas would predictably be beaten by Fatah in the next election.

Don't get too hopeful that Hamas will choose the route that benefits everyone, though. What more concerns the Hamas leadership: the well-being of the Palestinians, or the destruction of Israel? My money is unfortunately on the latter. I pity the Palestinian people, as they will be the ones who suffer as a result.