Hamas wins!

  • News
  • Thread starter rachmaninoff
  • Start date
  • #26
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,950
19
And meddling in Iran is definitely going to shorten the fuse... but no, what is obvious to ordinary people who bother to read the news (biased as the 'news' sources are), is completely ignored by the experts and decision-makers. Brave new world..
But letting Iran build nukes unchallenged is going to lead to love and harmony for all, right? :rolleyes:

To be honest, it sounds like you have it exactly backwards -- if the world community isn't going to deal with what Israel probably views as a severe threat to its own existence (one which the world community has deemed illegal, to boot), then Israel will have to deal with it...
 
  • #27
3,042
15
Hamas won for one simple reason. The fatah party was seen as overly corrupt, and greedy. They were living much better lives than most Palestinians, and they were not producing any results after 10 years. No one actually expected Hamas to win, not even Hamas. Now that they won, they are scattering to find a plan that they can implement to cause change. They will clearly have to change their stance on many issues, or they will not receive the billions in aid that they get from the U.S and Europe. This means they will either have to change, or resign. The second option is a very real option, as Hamas themselves do not want to dilute their values merely for politics, and have said they will resign if necessary. So if things don’t shift, expect a resignation. Another key point is that there is not one Hamas. There are different divisions of Hamas and different extremes. It will be interesting to see *if* they make any changes in their stances. It was a landslide victory at nearly 68% majority for Hamas. But the Palestianian people want change, and Hamas knows this. If they do not produce any of their said goals, they will be voted out in the next election in 4 years. The people did not vote for Hamas because of their stance on violence, (this anwsers your question Russ), but because quite simply they were tired of the corruption of fatah.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
cyrusabdollahi said:
Hamas won for one simple reason.

I'm skeptical when someone says "such and such did such and such for one simple reason" about some major political event a day or two after it happens. I haven't seen any substantive analysis of Hamas' victory yet, absent that these gut reactions are pretty premature and of dubious accuracy.
 
  • #29
3,042
15
No, actually. It was discussed by SHIBLEY TELHAMI of the Brookings Institution and the University of Maryland, and DENNIS ROSS, Former US Special Envoy to the Middle East
Fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, last night on charlie rose. They are, in fact, quite accurate.
 
  • #30
SOS2008
Gold Member
31
1
Hurkyl said:
But letting Iran build nukes unchallenged is going to lead to love and harmony for all, right? :rolleyes:

To be honest, it sounds like you have it exactly backwards -- if the world community isn't going to deal with what Israel probably views as a severe threat to its own existence (one which the world community has deemed illegal, to boot), then Israel will have to deal with it...

What has been the result of countries like Pakistan or N. Korea having nukes, WWIII? No, but another military attack in the Middle East against Iran could. Here’s how it goes…

The neocons in the Bush administration and Pentagon gain power and begin their strategy of taking over first Iraq, then Iran, then Syria, and so forth.

The EU tries to negotiate with Iran to divert another attack by the U.S. and/or Israel in the Middle East to avoid further volatility.

World pressure is for the U.S. and the so-called coalition of the willing (Israel and Turkey--I guess Poland is out of this one-hah) to go through the UN this time. This includes pressure from China, which holds the majority of U.S. debt, and Russia.

But recent chain of events, the loss of Sharon who was a voice of reason, and election of Hamas, which is viewed as a terrorist organization throws a wrench in things.

Israel becomes very paranoid (I mean beyond the usual paranoia) and matters escalate.

The EU continues to push for diplomacy and peaceful resolution between Palestine (Hamas) and Israel.

The U.S. continues with it’s usual bias toward Israel and stance against the terrorist government of Hamas, and allows Israel to attack Palestine, which opens the door for the U.S. to attack Iran.

The world is soon embroiled in WWIII.

See how lovely it all is? All over Iran having nukes like Pakistan and N. Korea. Not hardly worth it if you stop and really think about it.
 
  • #31
cyrusabdollahi said:
No, actually. It was discussed by SHIBLEY TELHAMI of the Brookings Institution and the University of Maryland, and DENNIS ROSS, Former US Special Envoy to the Middle East
Fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, last night on charlie rose. They are, in fact, quite accurate.

I know where you got the idea from. I also know your representation of Ross and Telhami's views is inaccurate, neither points to a single reason for Hamas victory at all. More to the point, neither is expressing a point of view founded in genuine study of this particular election; they are responding on the basis of their admittedly long experience and little else. These gut reactions, whether from experts or not, are premature and of dubious accuracy.
 
  • #32
3,042
15
There is a reason they are called experts in the region. Their responses are not so much 'gut' reactions. They are responses after knowing all the key figures in palestine, and spending a lifetime studying and knowing the country. I think they know what they are talking about and are not so much shooting from the hip. Of course there is not one single reason, but there is a major reason. You dont need a study to understand the general feeling of a population mad at corruption.
 
  • #33
3,042
15
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,950
19
What has been the result of countries like Pakistan or N. Korea having nukes, WWIII? No, but another military attack in the Middle East against Iran could. Here’s how it goes…
Far-fetched hypotheticals are fun! You can prove anything! Let me get in on the fun: I can get to a world war in fewer steps!

Israel becomes paranoid.
Israel strikes Iran's nuclear facilities because the world community isn't doing anything about it.
Middle Eastern countries declare war.
U.S. lends support to Israel.
Soon, the world is embroiled in WW3. :tongue:

Actually, I can do even better with N. Korea:
N. Korea nukes Japan.
China does nothing.
U.S. responds in force.
China declars war on U.S. because it doesn't like the U.S. forces so close.
Soon, the world is embroiled in WW3. :tongue:
 
  • #35
3,042
15
I don't think this has anything to do with Hamas' election.........
 
  • #36
320
6
i dont think we can predict anything right now... maybe after the elections in israel things will clear-up a bit.
as long as the relative quiet that lasted for about a year in israel is kept the situation isnt that bad.

i can think of several possible scenarios, the most probable of which are:
1) hamas will support terror acts organize them and take responsibility for them, israel will blame the palestinian government for these acts and re-entry to gaza strip will most likely happen, sending us back to where we were three years ago or even worse.
2) hamas will keep low and let other organizations do the dirty work, this means the status quo will be kept, no hope for peace though.
3) hamas will recognize israels right to exist because of international pressure and try to prevent acts of terror (this one could be wishful-thinking)
if hamas will recognize israel's right to exist and "Kadima" (the new party sharon founded, which Olmert - the one who convinced sharon to pull out of gaza - is leading right now) or "Avoda" (which is the biggest left party in israel) parties will get the majority of votes there actually could be steps in the right direction. (though the left parties can do less then the right ones, because they are more fregile).

i guess only time will tell
 
Last edited:
  • #37
alexandra
phcatlantis said:
I'm not exactly sure how useful these parallels are. Fatah and Hamas are both organizations with roots and strong ties to terror. And in none of those cases did the national aspirations of a people depend entirely on how forgiving the neighbors they've victimized felt.
The parallels I see are that all these organisations were declared illegal and banned; they all took up armed struggle to defend their people against aggressors (governments imposed during the colonial period) - this is just a brief sketch, of course; one would have to do some reading on the history of this region to gain any real understanding. Regarding victimising neighbours: the South African government had a consistent policy of attacking and destabilising neighbouring countries' liberation movements (because they were seen as a threat to the apartheid government's existence as they provided support to the ANC and the PAC) - in fact, I see lots of parallels!
 
  • #38
alexandra
Hurkyl said:
But letting Iran build nukes unchallenged is going to lead to love and harmony for all, right? :rolleyes:
There is no proof that Iran is planning to build nukes, just as there was no proof that there were WMD in Iraq. Plain and simple. If there is no proof, one cannot just claim that Iran is building nukes 'unchallenged'. For the record, I do *not* believe any government at all should have nukes. Anyone who has the ability and inclination to think honestly about the human and planetary implications of using such weapons would be against nuclear weapons (in anyone's hands). The US is the only government in the world that has ever been ruthless enough to ever deploy such a devastating weapon; this is proof of how dangerous such weapons are in its hands. No other country has proved itself capable of such atrocities:
The United States Army Air Force dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the mornings of August 6 and August 9, 1945 during World War II. The goal was to secure the unconditional surrender of Japan. At least 120,000 people died immediately from the two attacks combined, and many more would die in years to come from the effects of nuclear radiation. About 95% of the casualties were civilians. Japan sent notice of its unconditional surrender to the Allies on August 15, a week after the bombings. These bombings were the first and only nuclear attacks in world history [so far - my own comment].
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Have a look at some photos of the victims of this barbaric act: http://history1900s.about.com/library/photos/blyindexhiroshima.htm
Hurkyl said:
To be honest, it sounds like you have it exactly backwards -- if the world community isn't going to deal with what Israel probably views as a severe threat to its own existence (one which the world community has deemed illegal, to boot), then Israel will have to deal with it...
If the Israeli government does not figure out a way to live peacefully and deal fairly with its neighbours, then WWIII (the last war) will commence...
 
  • #39
cyrusabdollahi said:
Hamas won for one simple reason. The fatah party was seen as overly corrupt, and greedy..... The people did not vote for Hamas because of their stance on violence, (this anwsers your question Russ), but because quite simply they were tired of the corruption of fatah.
Let's not get too crazy here... the fatah's corruption was definitely a huge factor in the election results. But Russ has a point that is undeniable, Hamas terrorist tactics yielded results. What are this woman's credentials?: Suicide Bombers' Mother Elected to Palestinian Parliament Yea, what a great mom... sure to be a great diplomat.:uhh:
 
  • #40
NateTG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,450
6
I think Shimon Perez's comment was quite apt:
"We have seen the result, and now we have to wait and see the result of the result. The people have elected a majority, but they have not elected a policy."

There is a fundemental problem in the region, and especially in Israel that is the result of external powers drawing, more or less, arbitrary lines. There is no easy answer to a situation where two people both believe they have rights to the same land -- especially when there isn't a mutually respected authority.

Hamas has the Tiger by the tail. If they don't take power, they loose credibility. On the other hand, they're not politically prepared to do so.
 
  • #41
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,950
19
alexandra said:
There is no proof that Iran is planning to build nukes, just as there was no proof that there were WMD in Iraq. Plain and simple. If there is no proof, one cannot just claim that Iran is building nukes 'unchallenged'.
Given what we know about the situation, it is certainly feasible that Iran plans to build nukes, and frankly, I think it certainly seems likely.

But I don't really care to argue that -- the main thing I want to convey here is that it's not a reasonable course of action to avoid considering the possibility that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons until they fire one at Israel.

Sure, closing our eyes and crossing our fingers might work out in the end, but it is wholly irresponsible to take that chance.

alexandra said:
If the Israeli government does not figure out a way to live peacefully and deal fairly with its neighbours, then WWIII (the last war) will commence...
Shouldn't there also be a burden on Israel's neighbors to figure out a way to live peacefully and deal fairly with Israel?

I certainly don't think it's fair to require the Israelis to suffer the possibility of total annihilation, just to appease our desire to avoid meddling in a sticky situation. The question is why you think it's fair.
 
  • #42
SOS2008
Gold Member
31
1
Hurkyl said:
Far-fetched hypotheticals are fun! You can prove anything! Let me get in on the fun: I can get to a world war in fewer steps!
I am rusty on Christian prophecies, but I threw that out based loosely on their beliefs about the End Times.
Hurkyl said:
Given what we know about the situation, it is certainly feasible that Iran plans to build nukes, and frankly, I think it certainly seems likely.

But I don't really care to argue that -- the main thing I want to convey here is that it's not a reasonable course of action to avoid considering the possibility that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons until they fire one at Israel.
So what if Iran does have nukes? So do a lot of countries that aren’t even part of the nuclear treaty. Please provide evidence for why you are so sure Iran will fire on Israel? Have you heard of Mutually Assured Destruction? It’s what kept the U.S. and USSR from starting WWIII. Why can’t Iran have nukes like Israel and we can live in a stale mate of peace forever?

I’m very tired of Zionist fear mongering. I care about the best interest of all the people of the world.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
cyrusabdollahi said:
There is a reason they are called experts in the region.

Yes, because they have published on the subject. Not because they are clairevoyant.

Their responses are not so much 'gut' reactions.

They are, couched in qualifications you saw fit not to include.

Of course there is not one single reason, but there is a major reason. You dont need a study to understand the general feeling of a population mad at corruption.

Sure you do, to measure this general feeling of a population mad with corruption.
 
  • #44
cyrusabdollahi said:
I mean, there is not really that much debate on the general feeling of being tired of corruption.

No, there is little debate that Fatah corruption had an impact on the polls. We don't know how much yet, because the measures aren't back yet.
 
  • #45
alexandra said:
The parallels I see are that all these organisations were declared illegal and banned...

Still not seeing it, for the simple fact that PNA was formed and run by ex-terrorists throughout its life. This election saw power pass from one group tied to terror to another.
 
  • #46
alexandra
Hurkyl said:
Given what we know about the situation, it is certainly feasible that Iran plans to build nukes, and frankly, I think it certainly seems likely.

But I don't really care to argue that -- the main thing I want to convey here is that it's not a reasonable course of action to avoid considering the possibility that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons until they fire one at Israel.

Sure, closing our eyes and crossing our fingers might work out in the end, but it is wholly irresponsible to take that chance.


Shouldn't there also be a burden on Israel's neighbors to figure out a way to live peacefully and deal fairly with Israel?

I certainly don't think it's fair to require the Israelis to suffer the possibility of total annihilation, just to appease our desire to avoid meddling in a sticky situation. The question is why you think it's fair.
Hurkyl, you have to understand something about my perspective: I am not a nationalist - I do not support one 'nation' and oppose any other 'nation'. I myself have lived in a variety of countries, never in the land of my heritage or of my birth (which my parents immigrated from when I was a baby). I do not feel any such thing as 'national pride' - the concept makes no sense to me whatsoever. What I care about is human beings, no matter what nationality or colour or sex or whatever they are. I hate to see needless conflict, death and destruction, and the resulting human misery. I am not anti- the Israeli people and I am not 'pro-Hamas'.

This is my understanding of the situation: ordinary people all over the world suffer as the result of decisions made by powerful people who represent the interests of a tiny minority of very rich people - people who own big corporations like Halliburton, for instance.

You know, when young American men and women (some of them so young they have never had a chance to experience anything of life) die, I am just as distressed as I am at the thought of the innocent civilians who get blown to pieces on the streets or in the markets as they try to go about their daily lives.

I hope this helps you understand my attitude better; whether or not you agree with me :smile:
 
  • #47
alexandra
phcatlantis said:
alexandra said:
The parallels I see are that all these organisations were declared illegal and banned...
Still not seeing it, for the simple fact that PNA was formed and run by ex-terrorists throughout its life. This election saw power pass from one group tied to terror to another.
One person's 'terrorist group' is another person's 'liberation group': the definitions depend on which side you're on.

I lived in South Africa and studied politics there as part of my degree in the apartheid era, so know a bit more about that country than the others - so here's some information... The South African apartheid government declared the African National Congress (the ANC) a terrorist group, but the black and progressive white people living in South Africa saw the ANC as a liberation group. When the ANC came to power at the end of the apartheid era (in 1994), the 'ex-terrorists', who had been imprisoned as terrorists in South African prisons, were voted in as the legal government and have been in power since. The leader of the ANC, Nelson Mandela, had in fact been in prison for 27 years! He was legally defined as a 'terrorist', as were many of the current members of the ruling ANC.

You can read a basic, sketchy history of South Africa on the wiki site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa
There's some basic information about Nelson Mandela on wiki as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela
 
  • #48
Bilal
I do not support Hamas , but I will never vote for Fatah!! I think this is how most of people in Palestine thinking.

- The leaders of Fatah are extremely corrupted.
- They (Fatah) receive the orders from the enemy of Palestinian (Israel), they work for the security of Israel more than the liberation of the Palestinian.
- They recognized Israel but they failed to end the occupation.
- Israel built many settlements on 60% of WB. They continue their strategy to destroy the Palestinian people (the native people) and to convert them to ‘’Red Indian’’.
- The American government is the most hated government in ME. (Bush and Rice for the ME nations are the same as OBL for American) They supported explicitly Fatah, so many people vote for the opposite side.
 
  • #49
Bilal
This is the major reason. Even in Christian areas, Fatah lost the elections!!

cyrusabdollahi said:
Hamas won for one simple reason. The fatah party was seen as overly corrupt, and greedy. They were living much better lives than most Palestinians, and they were not producing any results after 10 years. No one actually expected Hamas to win, not even Hamas. Now that they won, they are scattering to find a plan that they can implement to cause change. They will clearly have to change their stance on many issues, or they will not receive the billions in aid that they get from the U.S and Europe. This means they will either have to change, or resign. The second option is a very real option, as Hamas themselves do not want to dilute their values merely for politics, and have said they will resign if necessary. So if things don’t shift, expect a resignation. Another key point is that there is not one Hamas. There are different divisions of Hamas and different extremes. It will be interesting to see *if* they make any changes in their stances. It was a landslide victory at nearly 68% majority for Hamas. But the Palestianian people want change, and Hamas knows this. If they do not produce any of their said goals, they will be voted out in the next election in 4 years. The people did not vote for Hamas because of their stance on violence, (this anwsers your question Russ), but because quite simply they were tired of the corruption of fatah.
 
  • #50
Bilal
Hamas and Fatah , also the left are considered as terrorist organization in the eyes of the Zionists and their supporters .... is that means we are a terrorist nation?

I believe it is relative view, for example the Palestinian considers the American goverment as a fascist government.

Many people in ME do not believe in any moral justification for stealing our homeland and creating a (Jews State). If the German killed 6 millions Jews, then they should establish it there ... or in Texas (USA is 300 times as large as Palestine).

phcatlantis said:
I'm not exactly sure how useful these parallels are. Fatah and Hamas are both organizations with roots and strong ties to terror. And in none of those cases did the national aspirations of a people depend entirely on how forgiving the neighbors they've victimized felt.
 

Related Threads on Hamas wins!

  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
Q
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
K
Replies
5
Views
2K
D
Replies
2
Views
2K
B
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Top