...that I enjoyed the Benn article, and I know that I will also enjoy (probably more) the diversity of responses to it...posted here.

If Hamas won the elections, I belive it had to do more due to the fact that it provided social services to the Palestinians than because its refusal to recognize Israel. Most Palestinians have to come accept Israel's right to exist.

At a time when Arab anger against the Western world and its allies is at its peak (The Iran nuclear issue, Iraq, saber rattling against Syria, and we didnt really need those provocative drawings at a time like this), it wouldnt be wise for the Israeli govt to potray itself as the torturer of Palestinians. It would be wise for Olmert's govt (should he win the election) to adhere to the Oslo accords and give Palestinians their land (and if they cause any more trouble after that, then to deal with them appropriately).

As always with Salon, the only analysis we get og the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that of an Israeli. When it comes to this issue, Salon wouldn't know diverse points of view if they kicked them in the face. Salon is flat out biased toward Israel regardless of the actual facts.

That sais, the article is OK, but presents only one point of view and is clearly biased. If we are to examine the issue fairly, we need other points of view. How about breaking long tradition and have just one article by a Palestinian - Hanan Ashrawi would be a good start.

Israel will now unilaterally declare its borders - ethnically cleansing even more Palestinian land in the process - and the US will kiss its ass and call it peace.

If DZ considers even Salon regulars like Juan Cole (and the Salon artists who illustrate some of his artices) to be biased toward Israel, I really don't think that DZ is going to be very satisfied with anything DZ reads on this site.

Lebanon has long held contested elections that have led to the defeat of ruling parties. The long-time existence of Lebanese democracy seems to be frequently overlooked, particularly by defenders of Israeli policies ("but it's the only democracy in the Middle East!").

And yes, the "confessional system" in Lebanon has undemocratic elements, but given the deep divisions between groups, distributing power in this way (guaranteeing some power to Christians and Muslims alike) may be the best achievable system.

Salon deserves praise for publishing anything, from any point of view, about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Look at other online publications, even blogs like dKos, and you'll see that the extreme partisans -- on both sides of the conflict -- have effectively ended any debate on the subject. Like DZ, they immediately screech out claims of bias. The writer -- and, by extension, the publication -- is without exception either anti-Semitic or a Zionist stooge of AIPAC. There can never be any middle ground.

I nominate these people, on both sides, for Olberman's Worstest People in the World. By making it so unpleasant for most people even to think about Israel or Palestine, they've done a great job of sustaining and supporting all the bloodshed for over half a century!

They ran a much more efficient campaign. Fatah barely campaigned at all while Hamas hired buses to pick up people and take them to the polls. They're almost as organized as Republicans. And while the West imagines they won on a 'throw da bums out' platform, Palestinians understand that violent attacks work. Their view is that a decade of Oslo did nothing and a few short years of murder and mayhem drove the Jews out of Gaza. And there's more to follow.

The problem that Hamas will experience is that they have, maybe 20-24 months of flags, slogans and an acceptable level of atrocities to make the Palestinians lives in face better. Beyond that they will be shown to be the same kind of corrupt criminal enterprise as Hamas.

Moreover and this is crucial - Hamas really is a Sharia inspired Islamic fundamentalist organization. They repeat this in clear words over and over. Many Palestinians in fact may not desire to live under the Taliban-lite. And so the Palestinians, being more secular and mobile than most other Arabs in the middle east generally, will experience the biggest brain-drain they have ever seen. This will have a tendency to leave the least skilled and most fundamentalist Palestinians behind. Which of course is wonderful for the daily flag burning/rocket attack but frightfully short of what's needed to keep the lights on, the infrastructure running and capital investment flowing in.

The problem with this analysis is that it misses the central issue for the Israelies. Prime Ministers Sharon and now Olmert did not take Palestinian President Abbas seriously becuase he too was unwilling to live up to the PA's agreement to confront the terror factor. The Israelies have had enough games. Consequently, the writer ignores the history after Arafat passed on Camp David 2 where he got everything he wanted from Barak and instead started Intifada 2. After that, the Israelies said that's it. Tit for tat.

Until the PA stops the terrorism -- whether Fatah or Hamas they are just creating the conditions for Israel to act unilaterially. At the next round of violence...it's end game time.

This is an interesting summary of the situation. It is interesting to ask how things will unfold with Hamas in power. Hanan Ashrawi was intereviewed by the BBC. She is associated with the "Third Path", and was elected to the parliament. The corruption inherent in Fatah is coming to light within the legal system. She has managed to position herself away from the Islamic extremists and the corruption. There is some nascent political moderation that believes fairly strongly in reform. Do people like Ashrawi see the future more clearly than American pundits?

If the whole thing just doesn't collapse, it's not an entirely bad situation, just a very fluid one. The New York times says that the Bushies are somewhat resigned to an Iranian Nuke. It's another one of those "What other option" situations?

Everyone knows there is tremendous resentment in the Islamic world. Having some outlets for the resentments can't be all bad.

The West, or Israel, can't control any of this. It can react. It can form security zones, make security guarantees. It can try to disentangle itself from Mideast oil.

The world has to be resigned to a very frustrated Islam expressing itself. The reaction to the cartoons demonstrates this. Ultimately, the only way Islam can express itself is with economic success. It's hard to remain in 'revolution' mode if economic issues are destroying a society. So you try to temper the revolutionary zeal, and a leave a bridge to economic advance with the West.