Early reports show that Hamas will gain over 50% of the seats in the Palestinian parliament. Hamas are a recognised terrorist organisation that refuses to negotiate with Israel, and Israel pretty much refuses to deal with Hamas. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4649606.stm This was an opportunity for Palestine to move forward unfortunately the people have voted, and voted unwisely I believe. Add this to the turmoil already in Israel with Ariel Sharon in hospital. God only know where this will lead.
Argh, this is bad. How stupid do you get, voting in a militant party when theres no way in hell that they're ever going to achieve a military victory over Israel. Diplomacy is the only option, and they may just have thrown it away.
They are voting in a militant party because they must feel it's their only option, and as it goes the hatred still runs deep i'd imagine. I bet the Iserali's are pissed now having forced their own out of Gaza too, but the Palistinians are the "underdogs" as they have fewer people and less support so they are staking a claim. It's sad, cause it's a fantastic part of the world with great culture but you cant visit for fear of being blown up or shot. Palistinians cant see diplomacy as a viable option because they see the west as only supporting Iseral, which, indeed the americans have done in the past because a lot of influential americans have been Jewish.
The belief is that the vote is a vote against the ruling Fatah party rather than a militant vote. Israel is key to the problems in the region, and if they had done more a long time ago then things may have been different. Moving out of the occupied territories was only one small step, but with the uncertainty in Israel with Ariel Sharon no longer able to lead who knows where this will go.
The Fatah party has been rife with corruption for over a decade (let us not forget that dear Arafat was a member of the Fatah party). Just because it's cleaned its nose a bit in the last year or two doesn't erase everything else that's happened. Think of it from joe schmoe palestinian's point of view...when you've watched your country get blown up, bombed, security not come back into the Gaza strip after promises to do so, etc., and you get the chance to vote that corruption out of office, wouldn't you? Hamas is more than a terrorist organization, as much as we western cultures would like to make it black and white. They've done a lot to quell the warlords in the Gaza region, their schools and hospitals not only go where the government fails but offer top notch services (albeit with a religious bent). Their charitable organizations are some of the top support for the indigent people in the region. Basically, the people wanted a change. God/Allah/whatever bless them for doing it in a democratic fashion. If we really want to instill democracy in these countries, if that is indeed our intent, then we can't just throw our hands up and not work with the body that was freely elected by the people. You don't get to choose who the other side sends to the negotiating table. Besides, many political analysts are quite sure that by entering and actually winning power in the elections, Hamas will be forced to give up its violent ways. It's hard to be taken as a serious member with such a checkered past, but countries have to welcome them as the duly elected representative, and offer them the respect accorded...that will be the only way to illustrate that things DO change via politics, and not violence. Just imagine what it could be like if Hamas embraces that lesson? Maybe peace wouldn't be so far off after all...but that won't happen if everyone just refuses to play nice from the get-go. Basically, all I'm saying is that there are reasons they were elected, and we should be thankful that it was done democratically. In fact, we should be downright proud that they are being installed into power instead of refusing to participate and then trying to take it by violent uprising (for instance, the Sunni muslim population of Iraq). If Democracy brings Hamas, then let us deal with Hamas properly and respectfully. The Palestinian people have spoken, we should be proud of that accomplishment and work with their decisions. Or else, it really isn't democratic at all, is it?
Yea, but until just over 15 years ago we still had the cold war and Russia supporting at lot of Arab states and the US supporting Iseral. They couldnt do anything a long time ago really, noone could. The political climate today is a lot more productive than it was. I can see Hamas doing postive things for their people, but being negative to everyone else doesnt help the international community. If they just close themselves off from Iseral completely it may work out peacefully, but if they start spouting religious zelous crap like common terrorists about how it's their right to kill non-moslems, or at least, non-palistinians, then their people will be no better off. It'll be just like dealing with Iran. And, it's never democracy, it's always: You conform to our rules or we shoot you and call you terrorists. However, you cant be expected to like everyone, but at least you could be civil about it, however America, Britain and whoever else dont exactly set a good example.
Not as long as that sort of thinking keeps propagating the problem. The first step to change, is to conceive of the possibility.
I hope Israel responds with cautious approach to enterting into a dialogue with Hamas, rather than just shutting off all contacts and condemning them as terrorists, and their election success as a sign that the Palestinians won't ever accept any sort of settlement and just want Israel gone in its entirety Hamas might have a military wing that engages in terrorist acts against Israel, but its social welfare and charitable operations in the occupied territories probably gained it more votes than its hardline stance did. Da Dego says it all really in his last paragraph - whether the election result is a step away from peace all depends on the Israeli reaction now IMHO.
Very condescending I'm fully aware of the discontent with the Fatah party, and the many reasons in which the people may have chosen to vote Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organisation (it is that black and white), the other activities they are involved in at the local level such as the schools have no bearing on this fact, they actively engage in terrorist activities. The people democratically choose Hamas, I can't argue with that, I find it such a shame that in a country/state which has such a high literacy level they chose the militant vote. If Hamas now choose to renounce there militant ways, and work within the normal rules of democratic politics then well done, but I fear that won't be the case. Now be honest, are you convinced it will all be sweet and rosy now.
Mind you, it's only "terrorist" rather than "national security" because they werent apart of an official government. Now Hamas can turn their militant wing into a military wing and pass it off as protecting national security, like the Iserali's (and every other country on the planet, in a manner of speaking) do when they assassinate Palistinian terrorists/officials. Although most other countries just do secret watching, because they have the power and funding to do so.
Don't get me started on Israel It needs moderates on both sides for peace to progress, the problem that now arises is that Palestine have brought into power a hard line element, which no doubt will have a knock on effect in the up coming Israel elections.
Now that is condescending. We could consider it a shame that these literate, intelligent people often live in slums and veritable battlefields, struggling for access to food water and stable employment. We could sonsider it a shame that they are treated as outcasts without civil rights in their own country. Do you think these literate people voted for Hamas because they simply endorse terrorism? They voted for Hamas because they are preceived as being less corrupt and more effective in delivering the goods. When you grow up being brutalised, you become brutal. You want someone to fight your corner, and Hamas has demonstrated it will go to extreme lengths to do that. No, but I think that will be because both sides will screw the pooch by mutual distrust. Because tragically, even though both sides may realise they have to change, neither will trust the other to do so. If we don't give Hamas at least the benefit of the doubt, nothing can change, and then we will be the first to point our finger and say: "See! Told you they wouldn't change!".
Oh I do agree, Hamas must be given a chance to prove that they can change and will work with the rest of the International community. Unfortunately what happens in Palestine effects what happens elsewhere, this will have an effect upon the Israeli elections whether they change or not, this could and may very well be the catalyst for a more hard line government in Israel.
Here's a question that crossed my mind from reading about the election on other forums. If Hamas becomes the governing party for the Palestinians, and carries out an attack on Israel, does not that become more of an act of war? (in as much that it represents an attack from the Palestinian governing body far more than any attacks did previously, which the PA previously washed its hands of responsibility for, blaming other militant groups it has no control over, if not condemning them). As such could Israel more easily impose restrictions and act against the Palestinian Authority (mainly Hamas), as domestically it would appear that the terrorism would no longer be seen to be perpetrated by others with the tolerance if not encouragement of the PA, but by the PA itself directly. If so it could get far worse for the Palestinians, with Israeli military retaliation for any such attacks being greater in scale. Hope I'm explaining myself properly here
Yes, I think it would probably be that, however, Israel has been attacking tagerts it considers rocket worthy in Palestine for quite some time now, mostly retribution, but sometimes just because they see someone they'd fancy not be alive. Both sides do things that could be considered acts of war, and now that Hamas are in power, in my opinion any attacks from the palestinian point of view become all the more legitimate. Of course, one would hope that instead of attacking Israel with bombers, they find a way to negotiate, or at the very least to ignore that situation as much as possible, and get down to improving conditions in Palestine.
Think Sinn Fein/IRA. Exactly the same. Sinn Fein don't claim responsibility for any terrorist attacks. Gerry Adams is free to walk the streets. Seems very hypocritical of people like Jack Straw to condemn this election, but the one in Iraq will be a 'triumph for Democracy' (provided the right side wins).
There are a couple of other points to this that I think should be added to the discussion: 1. Power is addictive. Once you are in power, you want to stay there. The Hamas leadership knows that the Israelis can take them out at their leisure, especially now that they are significantly more visible. They also know that Israel is unlikley to do so except in response to a significant military action. 2. One of the failures of the Fatah party was their inability to control militant factions, such as Hamas, and prevent further attacks against Israel. There is little doubt in my mind that Hamas will be more successful at stopping such attacks if they percieve that it is in their best interest to do so. 3. The existance of Israel as a nation is not longer seriously threatened. There exists no force in the region capable of destroying Israel. To a lesser extent, the existance of the Palestinian state is also fairly secure. At this point I can't see Israel making an about face and re-occuping the West Bank and Gaza. These three aspects, taken together, I think actually offer a great opportunity for peace. Hamas can be fairly sure that if they control the attacks aginst Isreal, they will be pretty much left alone to build a Palestinian state. I think the majority of their leadership is pragmatic enough to realize that the destruction of Isreal is not a feasiable goal and that their best bet for staying in power is truce, even if they do not formally recognize it as peace.
All good points, Cthippo. I too have been drawing parallels in my mind with Sin Fein/IRA. Although the conventional doctrine is not to talk to terrorists, the British government has been seeking communication with the IRA through Sin Fein for years, and despite many bumps in the road and backward steps as well as forward ones, in the end, the IRA has stopped bombing and more or less disarmed. It is the only way to go. If governments are smart they will look to talk to Hamas also. Reward appropriate behaviour, and all that rather than marginalising them. Because history teaches us time and again, that if you marginalise people they will latch onto extremist leaders --see post-WW1 Germany and Hitler, black people in the US and Malcolm X just to name a few examples. Hamas will find out soon enough that politics is a whole different ballgame from blowing up stuff willy-nilly. When you go "official" you cannot piss about like you used to. And if they find out that they can make more assured progress by legitimate means than by terror, they will, as Cthippo says, become very pragmatic indeed. This is a great opportunity for peace. I am saddened, but not surprised, that no Western politician can see it as such...
