• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

“And when the Committee says to “report your income,” that could mean anything!

‘Museums aren’t America’s attic for its racist shit.’

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

One of our two political parties is a cult whose leader admires Vladimir Putin.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

You cannot shame the shameless.

Joe Lieberman disappointingly reemerged to remind us that he’s still alive.

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

Take your GOP plan out of the witness protection program.

… gradually, and then suddenly.

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

RIP Zandar. We are still here fighting the stupid, now in your honor.

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

Putin dreamed of ending NATO, and now it’s Finnish-ed.

The revolution will be supervised.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / Hamas Update

Hamas Update

by John Cole|  January 28, 20069:14 am| 37 Comments

This post is in: Foreign Affairs, War on Terror aka GSAVE®

FacebookTweetEmail

This was entirely too predictable:

Hamas and Fatah gunmen exchanged fire on Friday in political turmoil as the long-dominant Fatah faction was threatened with a violent backlash from within after its crushing election defeat by the Islamic militant group.

***

Some 20,000 Fatah supporters took the streets in angry protests across the Gaza Strip, burning cars outside the Palestinian parliament building and firing rifles in the air. Some Hamas posters were ripped down by the crowd, which burned tires in the streets.

***

The militant al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, part of Fatah, issued a statement threatening to “liquidate” the faction’s leaders if they changed their minds and joined a Hamas-led administration.

It will be interesting to see how they blame Israel for this. Meanwhile, reports are seeming to reject what we thought we knew about why voters rejected the Fatah ruling party:

The interviews here seemed to belie suggestions that Palestinians did not really think through their vote for Hamas, that it was an angry and instinctive vote to punish Fatah.

Nearly to a person, they said they had considered the risks, like international isolation or an end to hopes of negotiations with Israel for a Palestinian state. In the end they decided that the balance went to Hamas, which has no reputation for corruption and whose history of resistance might even help make a deal with Israel.

“People, when they chose Hamas, they knew they would face many challenges,” said Fadia Barghouti, 33, an English teacher whose husband is in an Israeli jail under suspicion of being a Hamas leader. “The return of the Israeli Army. Financial problems.”

“But they elected Hamas,” she said. “They respect Hamas. They hate Fatah. They want perhaps a real state. The Israeli Army left Gaza because of resistance, not because of agreements.”

I thought they were rejecting the corruption of the corrupt Fatah, and these interviews seem to suggest that is not the case- they were voting for conflict.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Good Grief
Next Post: Gay Rights/Microsoft »

Reader Interactions

37Comments

  1. 1.

    Bill Arnold

    January 28, 2006 at 10:57 am

    The important question is – how did Hamas achieve an absolute majority? They did so in part because many voted rejected the incompetence and gross corruption of Fatah. Some of the base voted for continued conflict.

    Israel has a problem here. It has been dealing with Hamas with methods that include political assassination of the more violent segment of the leadership (let’s call it that, rather than the euphemisms, now that Hamas has won an election) and jailings. It will be extremely hard for the two to engage. The surprise of the win is still fresh in my mind, but I don’t see any real solution other than a heavily fortified border.

  2. 2.

    ppGaz

    January 28, 2006 at 10:57 am

    they were voting for conflict

    Heh. In a world where words trump reality, and appearances are everything (am I misjudging the world of “communications?” Begging your pardon) ….

    Israel hasn’t “voted for conflict?”

    The people of both Israel and Palestine apparently believe (apparently, because they say they do) that “God” has ordained that they occupy the same land.

    The situation would be viewed as crazy if it were fiction, but it’s not fiction. It’s also not fiction that adherents of the bellicose American policies in the region were clapping for “democracy” after the Hamas election, as if “democracy” practiced by crazy people were a solution to the insanity.

  3. 3.

    Jay C

    January 28, 2006 at 11:44 am

    Speaking of “appearances” and “reality”: it’s statements like this one:

    “But they elected Hamas,” she said. “They respect Hamas. They hate Fatah. They want perhaps a real state. The Israeli Army left Gaza because of resistance, not because of agreements.”

    that REALLY get me shaking my head in sadness and depression for the chances of anything resembling “peace” in Israel/Palestine. Israel left Gaza because they wanted to, on their own hook, because they simply didn’t think occupying the place was worth wasting resources on: neither because of “resistance” or “agreements”. But, while it does (I hate to say it) sound like a classic prejudicial remark: statements like Ms. Barghouti’s seem to illustrate that “Arabs” DO prefer to live in fantasylands of their own devising(and ones predicated on violence, at that) rather than deal with the “realities” – especially political ones – of the world as it is. Sad, sad, sad.

  4. 4.

    The Other Steve

    January 28, 2006 at 11:53 am

    I agree with Jay C.

  5. 5.

    Pb

    January 28, 2006 at 12:05 pm

    um.

    Fadia Barghouti, 33, an English teacher whose husband is in an Israeli jail under suspicion of being a Hamas leader

    You know, having a spouse being held in jail on suspicion by a foreign power, and having the current government apparently unable to do anything about it… that’s not a bad reason to vote them out, I’d say.

  6. 6.

    ppGaz

    January 28, 2006 at 12:17 pm

    statements like Ms. Barghouti’s seem to illustrate that “Arabs” DO prefer to live in fantasylands of their own devising(and ones predicated on violence, at that) rather than deal with the “realities” – especially political ones – of the world as it is.

    Luckily, we live in a reality-based country.

    { long pause }

    Okay, our ruling party makes up its own reality, but it’s still reality, right?

  7. 7.

    Steve

    January 28, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    Seriously, we voted for the more militant party in 2004, and people are like “what’s wrong with that, it’s in our national interest?” But no one else gets the right to vote in their national interest, because they’re not special like us.

  8. 8.

    Richard Bottoms

    January 28, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    John, I wonder why no one is asking how such a stunning victory was completely unforseen by the Bush Administration.

    Hamas’ stunning victory underlines the contradictions and hypocrisies in Bush’s Mideast policies.

    The stunning victory of the militant Muslim fundamentalist Hamas Party in the Palestinian elections underlines the central contradictions in the Bush administration’s policies toward the Middle East. Bush pushes for elections, confusing them with democracy, but seems blind to the dangers of right-wing populism. At the same time, he continually undermines the moderate and secular forces in the region by acting high-handedly or allowing his clients to do so. As a result, Sunni fundamentalist parties, some with ties to violent cells, have emerged as key players in Iraq, Egypt and Palestine.

    http://www.despardes.com/articles/jan06/20060126-hamas-wins.asp

    WASHINGTON – Standing in a sunny Rose Garden on June 24, 2002, surrounded by his top foreign policy advisers, President Bush issued a forceful call for resolving the deadly Israeli-Palestinian conflict: “I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror.”

    This week, Palestinians gave their answer, handing a landslide victory in national legislative elections to Hamas, which has claimed responsibility for dozens of suicide bombings and which desires the elimination of Israel.

    Bush’s statement calling for new leaders was aimed at the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, but in the same speech he also said it was necessary to thwart Hamas – formally the Islamic Resistance Movement – and other militant groups.

    The election outcome signals a dramatic failure in the administration’s strategy for Middle East peace, according to analysts and some U.S. officials.

    http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060128/1037076.asp

    You put these stupid motherfuckers in charge.

    When you are ready to do something about it instead of wailing about Mother Sheehan and others who dare metntion this band of fools are seriously in need of beeing impeached, get back to me.

  9. 9.

    Anderson

    January 28, 2006 at 1:40 pm

    these interviews seem to suggest that is not the case- they were voting for conflict.

    I have no idea how this conclusion follows from what Cole quotes. They acknowledged that conflict would likely follow, but they voted for Hamas because Hamas seemed like a real group and Fatah like a trough for the elite pigs to feed at.

    As commenters have implied, was anyone who voted Bush in 2004 “voting for conflict”? Guess so.

  10. 10.

    scs

    January 28, 2006 at 1:47 pm

    Sorry, but my conspiracy alert is on Code Red. This just seems too convenient. First, that Hitler-type guy was elected in Iran. He was a complete long-shot and a surprise. Then the Shias do much better than expected in Iraq. Also a surprise. Then Hamas wins much bigger than expected, despite all previous estimates.

    Something fishy is going on here. How do we know that Iran and Syria are not conspiring to rig these elections? Remember the truckload of fake ballots that were supposed to be caught coming from Iran? If these countries set their minds to rigging the elections, it wouldn’t be that hard or high-tech to do, especially if they have some willing locals to help them out. A few bribes, a few fake ballots, and voila, anyone they want is elected. How are we to really know otherwise? Jimmy Carter? We are still arguing over Ohio, let alone able to figure Palestine.

    The Iranians are probably laughing to themselves at the fools game we set up over there. They are thinking, “Allah, how simple this is… we are sweeping to power and we didn’t even have to fire one sho”t. I say go easy on the elections until we can actually fully monitor them.

  11. 11.

    Richard Bottoms

    January 28, 2006 at 2:36 pm

    Sorry, but my conspiracy alert is on Code Red.

    What conspiracy.

    How long are we going to assume our enimies are stupid. Some of them actually went to universities, studied history and politics, and are qutie capable of setting their own goals. Even when those goals aren’t in the best interest of the United States.

    I have a news alert for the White House: Sometimes the bad guys win and having Jesus & George Bush on your side doesn’t mean you’ll always get the outcome you want.

    Perhaps we should have been dumping some of those truckloads of cash squandered in Iraq onto the Palestinians. When you have a job you are less likely to out dying for Allah.

    While we were crying about no partner for peace, Hamas was running clinics and paying the unemployed a stipend.

    Is rhere some reason we weren’t over there doling out our own tasty greenbacks? Oh yeah, we were busy shoveling it into a furnace in Saddam’s old place.

  12. 12.

    scs

    January 28, 2006 at 2:43 pm

    Is rhere some reason we weren’t over there doling out our own tasty greenbacks?

    I know Hamas had support, but as far as I know, all the opinion polls showed them running way below Fatah, I think like at 30%, and now they have 70%? Also in Iran, the new President was very very low in the polls previously, I think like 10%, yet somehow he won too. Something seems strange to me.

    But I guess you have a point. If we were too stupid to figure out that these elections may not have been a model excercise and that we should have been out there with our own bribes, then maybe we deserved to lose. To the victors the spoils I guess.

  13. 13.

    Richard Bottoms

    January 28, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    I know Hamas had support, but as far as I know, all the opinion polls showed them running way below Fatah, I think like at 30%, and now they have 70%?

    I seem to recall opinion polls electing John Kerry over president dumbass. Gosh, maybe people don’t tell pollsters the truth anywhere?

  14. 14.

    scs

    January 28, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    Gosh, maybe people don’t tell pollsters the truth anywhere?

    Yeah, could be. I know I kept it under my hat I was voting for Bush. Didn’t want to be run out of town.

  15. 15.

    neil

    January 28, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    Hamas is strong and decisive. Hamas will take the necessary steps to defend the country, instead of laying down when the French raise a fuss. Hamas knows what it stands for — it does not take one position one day and another the next. Hamas is a friend of religious people and won’t let the government interfere with people expressing their faith. Hamas knows that the circumstances demand behavior that would be called war crimes if other people did it. Hamas will do whatever it takes to defend its people from foreign aggression.

    All those photo ops of Hamas clearing brush really did the trick in this election, I think.

  16. 16.

    Richard Bottoms

    January 28, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    This was entirely too predictable:

    Except by the neo-con nitwits running the show at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    I can’t tell you how much I appreciate you voting them back into office.

    I know I’ll never hear you say “I was wrong to vote for George Bush.” Worst president. Ever.

  17. 17.

    scs

    January 28, 2006 at 3:01 pm

    I know I’ll never hear you say “I was wrong to vote for George Bush.”

    You’re right, I won’t. Still better Bush than President Kerry any day. And I still support the Iraq war, which is one reason I voted for Bush in the first place.

  18. 18.

    Pb

    January 28, 2006 at 3:02 pm

    scs,

    How do we know that Iran and Syria aren’t rigging *our* elections? The sad fact is, we don’t–that’s why we need verified voting in this country (and perhaps others as well).

  19. 19.

    scs

    January 28, 2006 at 3:07 pm

    How do we know that Iran and Syria aren’t rigging our elections? The sad fact is, we don’t

    You know, you’re right, we don’t. It’s time to step up election monitoring all over the world. As they are becoming more common and relied upon, they are also becoming a way too convenient way for unscrupulous types to seize power. The mullahs are rubbing their hands in glee and saying to themselves- ‘yes please bring on more Democracy. It will make life simpler for us so we can seize more power.’

  20. 20.

    Richard Bottoms

    January 28, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    Still better Bush than President Kerry any day.

    Otherwise we be llosing two wars, with 2200 dead soldiers, 15,000 injures, the deficit in the Trillians, the economy slowing, and disaster preparadness at its lowet ebb.

    Russia would be clamping down on freedom, Hamas would be elected to power, Iran would be close to nuclear capability, as well as North Korea, and our borders would be as pourus as a sieve.

    Oh wait…

  21. 21.

    Richard Bottoms

    January 28, 2006 at 3:14 pm

    Trillions, preparedness, injuries.

    Must. Spell. Check. Before. Hitting. Send.

  22. 22.

    scs

    January 28, 2006 at 3:15 pm

    Better than Saddam ordering up some Ruskie nukes after the sanctions were lifted and then making out his Christmas Wish list for us.

  23. 23.

    srv

    January 28, 2006 at 3:18 pm

    Then the Shias do much better than expected in Iraq. Also a surprise.

    I don’t know who you’re reading that you thought this was a surprise. Alot of people were in denial, maybe, thinking Allawi and Chalabi would win big, but if you read John’s cousin Juan once a month, I don’t think you’d be surprised about the Shias doing well.

  24. 24.

    scs

    January 28, 2006 at 3:24 pm

    I don’t think you’d be surprised about the Shias doing well.

    I mean, we knew they’d do well, but perhaps they did a little too well. They won a much higher percentage in Baghdad for instance, than they’re supposed proportion of the population, as compared to Sunnis (forget the exact numbers now.)

    You know what I was wondering, why does every new system set-up have a Euro style parliamentary system rather than a system more like our own? Where you vote for a senator or Rep from each district? This would seem to cut down on fraud as each race would be individual, rather than voting country-wide for a party. Who decided this?

  25. 25.

    Aidan Maconachy

    January 28, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    With Arafat gone, Fatah has gradually been adopting the style and language of international diplomacy. However, in doing so they appear to at least some of their people to be frauds and cheats. How truthful these accusations of corruption actually are, is another matter.

    The great skill of Arafat, the consummate performer, was to pose as the great revolutionary while brokering on the international scene with the best of them. He was never seen without his scarf and a victory salute. By contrast Abbas and his crew seem too gentrified for the hard core disaffected elements.

    In N. Ireland a similar trend has been playing itself out. With the peace accord and the end of violence, you would assume that the catholic Republican vote would be going to moderate catholic politicians such as the SDLP. No actually – the votes are going increasingly to Sinn Fein, the political wing of the former IRA.

    Outlaws have a strange appeal for people. In Germany Joschka Fisher, the former Defence Minister, had long standing ties with the anti-American intelligence community in Germany during the 60’s/70’s. Stern photographed him in his hey day beating up a policeman. Despite his outlaw associations, Germans were keen to give him a leg up at the ballot box.

    This Hamas development is a very worrisome prospect for Israel. I don’t believe that this organization will change its fundamental position vis-a-vis Israel, although it may pretend to in order to acquire political and diplomatic leverage.

    If we see the rise of Netanyahu, the tensions are bound to escalate.

  26. 26.

    Richard Bottoms

    January 28, 2006 at 4:01 pm

    Better than Saddam ordering up some Ruskie nukes after the sanctions were lifted and then making out his Christmas Wish list for us.

    Yes, if this were a Tom Clancy novel I’d be worried about that fantasy rather than the reality of North Korea actually having them and Iran about to.

    You know what I was wondering, why does every new system set-up have a Euro style parliamentary system rather than a system more like our own?

    Uh, because their ethnic minorities weren’t slaves (like my descendents) when the system was being decided. Our system was based on white land owners decding things.

    A parlimentary government means coalitions among minorities must be formed in order to govern.

    Here we told Toby to shut the fuck up and get back to work.

  27. 27.

    srv

    January 28, 2006 at 4:01 pm

    You know what I was wondering, why does every new system set-up have a Euro style parliamentary system rather than a system more like our own? Where you vote for a senator or Rep from each district? This would seem to cut down on fraud as each race would be individual, rather than voting country-wide for a party. Who decided this?

    Because the US model was not particularly democratic – our founders worried that some states with higher populations (the north was more populous than the south) would lord over them, so their had to be a balance between “state” and “population”.

    And some founders saw the senate as a more high-brow, long-thinker club that wouldn’t be swayed as much as the “commons”. We didn’t even used to vote for senators, they were elected by the state legislators.

    As far as less fraud, our congressional races have always be fraud-ridden, even today. And would you rather vote for a “list” that had met some standard criteria, or vote in a district that was gerrymandered by your opponents? Our system is bad enough in that it favors two parties, but with gerrymandering you effectively end up with one.

    We’d be way, way more democratic if we had more parties in congress.

  28. 28.

    scs

    January 28, 2006 at 5:02 pm

    As far as less fraud, our congressional races have always be fraud-ridden, even today

    A parlimentary government means coalitions among minorities must be formed in order to govern.

    That might be true about the congressional races and fraud, but I think better to make the fraud evil-doers work to commit fraud for hundreds of candidates rather than make it one-stop-shopping for fraud on a nationwide level. Keep them on their toes.

    As to the the minority coalitions, I’m not sure if that’s always a good thing. Parliaments always seem to be in a perpetual state of confusion to me. They always have to make these strange alliances, when the votes over, you’re not always sure who won, the president can’t always pick the cabinet, they always have these no-confidence votes. I think it’s better to make these minoritiy parties fold into bigger parties, because these minority parties seem to be ‘minority’ for a reason- not too many people like them much.

    No I think the Founding Fathers had the best system, slave owners though they may be. Besides slavery didn’t really effect the system at the time anyway because slaves wouldn’t have been able to vote in either system then. But I do think they were on to something when they didn’t exactly trust the masses.

  29. 29.

    The Other Steve

    January 28, 2006 at 5:17 pm

    Sorry, but my conspiracy alert is on Code Red. This just seems too convenient. First, that Hitler-type guy was elected in Iran. He was a complete long-shot and a surprise. Then the Shias do much better than expected in Iraq. Also a surprise. Then Hamas wins much bigger than expected, despite all previous estimates.

    My god, you are incredibly naive.

    Extremism wins elections. You should know that, you voted for Bush.

  30. 30.

    scs

    January 28, 2006 at 5:26 pm

    Extremism wins elections. You should know that, you voted for Bush.

    I think it’s not too hard to see that with symbols like Sheehan, Bellafonte and Galloway, the current Dems are the extremists today. (Okay half-kidding- don’t have a cow) But sorry, polls are accurate within a certain percentage, or should be. Even Bush was only trailing by a couple points in the polls, not 30 points, come on. When it gets to 30 points, we should start to question. I think everyone else is naive in that they are too willing to believe these elections were on the level, much to Iran’s joy. Although I don’t know what you do about that now anyway.

  31. 31.

    scs

    January 28, 2006 at 5:33 pm

    Okay just to back up my claim, I just did a quick search and found this by Al Jazeera in December – hardly a right wing outlet.

    Al Jazeera Link

    The ruling Fatah faction has a strong lead over Hamas six weeks before the Palestinian parliamentary election, a new opinion poll shows.

    In findings published on Monday, a total of 37% of voters questioned by Bir Zeit university said they would vote for Fatah, against 20% who opted for Hamas while a further 13% said they would cast their ballots for independents or smaller parties. …

    The findings are roughly in line with a poll released on Sunday by the Ram Allah-based Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research which forecast that Fatah should win 50% of the vote against 32% for Hamas.

    Come on, get real. Fraud was surely committed. The only reason no one’s talking about it is because no one knows what to do about it now.

  32. 32.

    srv

    January 28, 2006 at 5:44 pm

    Bush was only trailing by a couple points in the polls, not 30 points, come on. When it gets to 30 points, we should start to question. I think everyone else is naive in that they are too willing to believe these elections were on the level, much to Iran’s joy.

    So we can give George a humongous spread and it isn’t suspicious, but in the Arab world, we need another measure? Two simple explanations for those elections:

    1) Per-capita, a higher percentage of Shia in Baghdad voted than the Sunni. This shouldn’t be surprising.

    2) Reformists who had made some progress against the clerics in Iran saw themselves bitchslapped after GW started ranting about the Axis-of-Evil. Alienated citizens decide not to vote this time, but the fundamentalist base show up and vote in a “wacko”.

    If you want to look at real under-representation, look at the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

  33. 33.

    scs

    January 28, 2006 at 5:53 pm

    So we can give George a humongous spread and it isn’t suspicious

    Sorry, a couple of points for George is not a humongous spread. It’s called “the margin of error” usually. But a 40 point swing for Hamas, 6 weeks before the election, from 30% to 70%? Pleeease. I don’t care about the turnout. It strains incredulity. But, as to your point about differing voter turnout- I suppose it’s “possible”. But I think just as possible that Iran and Syria did a little vote buying. I mean it just makes sense. Why wouldn’t they do that? It’s simple and effective for them and they aren’t that stupid to turn down this opportunity.

  34. 34.

    scs

    January 28, 2006 at 5:57 pm

    I mean it “strains credulity” above. And remember that personal meeting Iran’s Pres had with Syria’s Pres a week or so ago? I can just imagine what they talked about.. “So Assad, the vote rigging scheme, is it in place?” “Sure Amadejad (or whatever his name is) It’s all on schedule.”

  35. 35.

    srv

    January 28, 2006 at 6:33 pm

    Sorry, a couple of points for George is not a humongous spread.

    You were talking about only getting suspicious if there had been a 30% difference. And I was talking about your earlier references to Baghdad and Iran – although the same sources used for your Dec. reference show it getting alot closer:

    Jan 14th

    Jan 26th

    No doubt Fatah members agree with you, and it’s certainly possible, but I’d also wager that alot of long-time Fatah supporters might be afraid to publically say they’ve flipped (you know, that can get you killed over there).

    All that said, these exit polls aren’t alot farther off than those in Ohio…. Makes ya wonder.

  36. 36.

    Pooh

    January 28, 2006 at 6:38 pm

    I have no idea how this conclusion follows from what Cole quotes. They acknowledged that conflict would likely follow, but they voted for Hamas because Hamas seemed like a real group and Fatah like a trough for the elite pigs to feed at.

    That’s what I took from the quote also. Well said Anderson.

  37. 37.

    Kimmitt

    January 28, 2006 at 9:30 pm

    because they simply didn’t think occupying the place was worth wasting resources on: neither because of “resistance”

    Um. Not to nitpick, but isn’t resistance what makes it expensive to occupy an area?

    That said, voters weren’t asked to choose between cleaning up corruption and a more peaceful policy, so it isn’t obvious which one was more important. Certainly, if Hamas gets brought to the table, we may end up with a “Nixon goes to China” moment.

    In all honesty, it’s good to have a government which does represent the governed, even if the governed are in a bad place.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

2024 Pet Calendars!

Order 2024 Calendars

Recent Comments

  • NotMax on Monday Morning Open Thread: Holding On to Hope (Dec 4, 2023 @ 11:40am)
  • Nelle on Monday Morning Open Thread: Holding On to Hope (Dec 4, 2023 @ 11:36am)
  • Bobby Thomson on Late Night Open Thread: Dean Phillips Is Huffing Serious Fumes (Dec 4, 2023 @ 11:28am)
  • trollhattan on Monday Morning Open Thread: Holding On to Hope (Dec 4, 2023 @ 11:24am)
  • Geminid on Monday Morning Open Thread: Holding On to Hope (Dec 4, 2023 @ 11:24am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions: Montana

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
What Has Biden Done for You Lately?

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Cole & Friends Learn Español

Introductory Post
Cole & Friends Learn Español

Four Directions Montana

Donate

Walter’s Fund (Athenspets)

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!