I am not going to argue with you on the point that the Israeli government would continue to work towards its long term policies regardless of who won the elections, and incorporate the election results (any way they would have come out) into its justification. If Hamas had 'merely' won the second largest number of seats, the Israeli government could state that Fatah was weak and propped up by Hamas...and "no partner"; or even if (unlikely to have occurred) Fatah had won a landslide, there would have been an attempt by the current government to follow its unilateralist policy.
So, perhaps you are saying it isn't worth discussing the specific results of this election, how it is being interpreted, counter arguments of what the results really mean, how they are being used to justify Israeli policy, etc...? After all, Israel would pursue its goals no matter the outcome, and they are only one goal with one possible outcome?
To me however, it is important to point out these specifics, to question the logic, attempt counter arguments, etc. and more than that, there are many contingencies that facilitate and/or impede the speed of implementation of these goals; the current Israeli government's need to adapt and augment the implementation and the specifics of their goals; the likelihood of more or less international pressure on Israel towards greater compromise; the creation of an environment in Israel where the government would have more influence over public opinion or public opinion over government policy; domestic Israeli political and social dynamics. And while these may just lead to variations on a theme, these are significant variations with real world effects.
So, I do disagree with your saying it is absurd and that it wouldn't have mattered (at all?), but I do agree that the goal as broadly defined
would have been, and will be pursued.
joanna wrote:
> This is absurd. It would not have mattered what the election results
> were. If not radical enough, that would mean Israel could pursue its
> unilateralist policy over a quiescent opponent. If too radical, then
> once again, there would be "no partner for peace."
>
> Israel's expansionist and yes, genocidal, policies have been in place
> for a long time and will continue ....
>
> Joanna
>