News Will Hamas' Victory in Palestinian Elections Lead to Peace or Conflict?

[rachmaninoff]

RAMALLAH, West Bank, Jan. 25 — Hamas, the militant Islamic party sworn to the destruction of Israel, won a large share of votes in the first Palestinian legislative elections in a decade, depriving the more secular Fatah party of its longstanding monopoly on power, surveys of voters leaving the polls indicated Wednesday.

NYTimes 1/26



also
BBC 1/26

US President George W Bush also said Washington would not deal with members of Hamas, even if they ended up in positions of responsibility, unless the group renounced a desire to destroy Israel.

"A political party, in order to be viable, is one that professes peace, in my judgment," he said in an interview for the Wall Street Journal.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "We do not deal with Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Under current circumstances, I don't see any change in that."

 

[rachmaninoff]

A few more links (did NY Times jump the gun?)

Some numbers & controversies:

The claim from leading Hamas candidate Ismail Haniyah contradicts earlier exit polls putting Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah faction ahead.

"Hamas has won more than 70 seats in Gaza and the West Bank, which gives it more than 50% of the vote," Haniyah said.

The Palestinian electoral commission made no comment and was expected to announce the official result later on Thursday.
...
Shortly after voting ended on Wednesday, a Fatah official estimated that Fatah had won 46% of the vote, beating an estimated vote of more than 30% for Hamas.

However, early exit polls suggested Hamas had gained 40% of the vote to Fatah's 46%.

According to the Palestinian Central Elections Commission voter turnout was 77.6%.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9F526B8A-1D36-46F4-8195-0863DEBCB6DD.htm

An exit poll conducted by An-Najah University in Nablus gave 46% to Fatah and 40% to Hamas. Another exit poll, issued by the Palestinian Policy Center, showed that Fatah was expected to win 42% of the votes as opposed to 35% for Hamas. A third poll by Bir Zeit University gave Fatah 46% and Hamas 39.5%.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1137605909154&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

So the situation is: the exit polls differ signficiantly, but many newspapers have called the election to Hamas. Fatah has not yet conceded, and there are no official results yet for a few more hours.

 

[siddharth]

So the situation is: the exit polls differ signficiantly, but many newspapers have called the election to Hamas. Fatah has not yet conceded, and there are no official results yet for a few more hours.

It seems like Fatah officials have now conceded that Hamas have won the elections.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4649606.stm

Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei has announced his resignation, saying Hamas must form the next government following the parliamentary elections

 

[rachmaninoff]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_election

Officials with Fatah conceded that Hamas had won about 70 total seats. They also spoke on condition of anonymity because counting in some districts was continuing.

 

[siddharth]

rachmaninoff, I'm curious. Why the russia quote?

 

[rachmaninoff]

rachmaninoff, I'm curious. Why the russia quote?

Oops! Sorry, I must have been confused. I moved it to a new thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108132

 

[Bilal]

Thanks for this post...

As Palestinian I have mixed feelings:
- This election shows that Palestinian becomes a real democratic nation. There is no place for dictatorship anymore. There is a law above all the political parties and it should be respected by all.
- This election shows that people wanted to punish Fatah for their corruption. Also these results are answer to the rise of the right wing in Israel who rejects the right of Palestine to exist.

Anyway, i have to admit that I am sad to see the secular and the left parties losing these elections. I support to punish Fatah for their corruption ... but I did not expect such results. Anyway, good luck for them in the next election after kicking all the corupted leaders.

I will be back to explain the situation on ground.

 

[wasteofo2]

- This election shows that Palestinian becomes a real democratic nation. There is no place for dictatorship anymore. There is a law above all the political parties and it should be respected by all.

Do you know if there is a date scheduled for the next elections? I wouldn't be so sure that Hamas would give up their power if voted out. Palestine may just have elected a new dictatorial party to rule them.

 

[Art]

Do you know if there is a date scheduled for the next elections? I wouldn't be so sure that Hamas would give up their power if voted out. Palestine may just have elected a new dictatorial party to rule them.

Power won at the polls tends to temper extremism. Wait and see but I think now that Hamas are elected there is a very strong chance they will tone down their rhetoric and behave a lot more responsibly than before. Not immediately perhaps but shortly.

Up to now they have had the luxury of being able to say and do whatever they liked whilst somebody else had to deal with the consequences. Now that these consequences are their responsibilty I suspect they will follow a far more moderate path than previously.

 

[Bilal]

Do you know if there is a date scheduled for the next elections? I wouldn't be so sure that Hamas would give up their power if voted out. Palestine may just have elected a new dictatorial party to rule them.

The Palestinian president who won the election last year is the leader of Fatah. He will stay for another 3 years. Usually the Parliament election are arranged every 4 years. The president has the authority to cancell the government if it becomes illegal.

It is impossible to have dictatorship in Palestine … we used to have such election on the levels of towns and universities. The results are not always usual, for example: in last August in the city of Qalqilia , Hamas won the 7 seats of the municipality, while all Fatah candidates failed. In the Parliament election, Fatah won all the seats of this city! This means that the people changed their mind completely in 6 months!

What happens is a result of several factors starting from the complete failure of the peace process, settlements, occupation, extreme right wing Israeli government, corruption of PA …and ending with the financial support from the USA government to several Fatah candidates (they admit of giving 2 MD to several fatah candidates). Many people believed that USA government wants to buy the election by few millions of Dollars, so they vote to the opposite side.

 

[Bilal]

Power won at the polls tends to temper extremism. Wait and see but I think now that Hamas are elected there is a very strong chance they will tone down their rhetoric and behave a lot more responsibly than before. Not immediately perhaps but shortly.

Up to now they have had the luxury of being able to say and do whatever they liked whilst somebody else had to deal with the consequences. Now that these consequences are their responsibilty I suspect they will follow a far more moderate path than previously.

I agree with you ….

It seems the leaders of Hamas did not expect to win such high percentage!

Now they are friendly asking Fatah and the Left to establish one government. There are many difficulties for Hamas to establish the government alone.

I do not know how they can deal with Israel (the real authority in WB and Gaza) if they do not recognize it?

 

[russ_watters]

- This election shows that Palestinian becomes a real democratic nation. There is no place for dictatorship anymore. There is a law above all the political parties and it should be respected by all.

Agreed. That's definitely a good thing.

- This election shows that people wanted to punish Fatah for their corruption. Also these results are answer to the rise of the right wing in Israel who rejects the right of Palestine to exist.

My boss's theory is that Hamas was able to credibly claim a victory with Israel's pullout from the West Bank. Do you think that played any role?

If it did, that's a bad sign that people are turning to Hamas not becuse they think Hamas can be a legitimate political force, but because they believe Hamas's terrorism gets results.

Power won at the polls tends to temper extremism. Wait and see but I think now that Hamas are elected there is a very strong chance they will tone down their rhetoric and behave a lot more responsibly than before. Not immediately perhaps but shortly.

I'd like to believe that (and as a staunch democracy-ist, I should), but I'm not sure we've ever seen an actual terrorist organization elected to power before.

 

[Bilal]

If it did, that's a bad sign that people are turning to Hamas not becuse they think Hamas can be a legitimate political force, but because they believe Hamas's terrorism gets results. I'd like to believe that (and as a staunch democracy-ist, I should), but I'm not sure we've ever seen an actual terrorist organization elected to power before.

If Israel accept the decent offer of Arafat or Abbas , then Hamas will never get such support!

The problem that the people have nothing to lose now...

Palestinian resistance includes Fatah and Hamas, so nobody can claim that Hamas only who liberated Gaza. The problem is the failure of the peace strategy of Fatah by recognizing the right of Israel to exist, while the Israeli rejected till now to accept the right of Palestine to exist.

May be Israel should withdraw from Gaza through a agreement with Fatah instead to run away as scared sheep!

 

[Bilal]

I'd like to believe that (and as a staunch democracy-ist, I should), but I'm not sure we've ever seen an actual terrorist organization elected to power before.

I do believe that Art can reply and show you how terrorists not only became leaders but also created a State on the land of other nation!

((On October 28, 1948, Israeli battalion 89, headed by Moshe Dayan attacked Al-Dawaymeh, a village West to Hebron, to kill children and old aged men and women, Israel newspaper Davaar said on June 9, 1979. ))

((The terror Zionist organization Shtirn tried to assassinate the British military leader Montgomery, according to his dairies. Somebody has phoned my office to say this is Shtirn gang speaking, we have prepared a bomb to the Field Marshal, Montgomery's dairies, London, 19958, P. 467.))

((Shtirn, itself also made another assassination bid against late US President Truman. It was because fanatic Zionists had felt that he did not give enough support to their claims in Palestine. The White House Intelligent Service was warned by British Secret Service over a trapped message to Truman. The murder attempt was foiled. Novosti, 21, 5, 1988.))

((The terrorist Irgun Organization headed by Menachem Begin staged attacks on the British troop police centers in Palestine upon Britain's Mandate; the result was two Briton soldiers killed. Irgun again said it was responsible for King David Hotel detonation, where 100 persons killed, 41 of them were Arabs and 71 Jews and 28 Britons. The explosion took place in July 22 1946.
As a result British authorities haunted Begin to arrest and put him on trial. They allocated $ 50,000 for the person who can put him in jail. Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram March 10, 1992. ))

 

[russ_watters]

If Israel accept the decent offer of Arafat or Abbas , then Hamas will never get such support!

The problem that the people have nothing to lose now...

That isn't what I asked...

Palestinian resistance includes Fatah and Hamas, so nobody can claim that Hamas only who liberated Gaza.

Well, anyone can claim anything they want just by opening their mouths - and Hamas did claim that their violence is what led to the Israeli withdrawal. My question was: do you think people believed them and voted for them because of it?

The problem is the failure of the peace strategy of Fatah by recognizing the right of Israel to exist, while the Israeli rejected till now to accept the right of Palestine to exist.

I didn't think that had been a component of Israeli policy for some time. The question isn't whether Palestine should exist, but where. That is different from the other side of the coin, where Hamas still does not recognize Israel's right to exist.

May be Israel should withdraw from Gaza through a agreement with Fatah instead to run away as scared sheep!

I'm not sure what you mean. For the West Bank, Israel had been trying to broker a deal to give it up for some time and finally gave up and withdrew unilaterally. There was no running away - they just decided that it was worth the international recognition to give it up without an agreement from the Palestinians. That puts a heavy burden of proof on the Palestinians to actually prove that they are even interested in peace.

As I understand it, the status of Giza is still under considerable dispute.

 

[russ_watters]

I do believe that Art can reply and show you how terrorists not only became leaders but also created a State on the land of other nation!

That isn't what I was saying. Of course terrorists have become leaders. But the Palestinians just elected a government with a stated policy of terrorism. I don't think that's ever happened before.

 

[NateTG]

That isn't what I was saying. Of course terrorists have become leaders. But the Palestinians just elected a government with a stated policy of terrorism. I don't think that's ever happened before.

Considering that the government hasn't been formed yet, that statement seems, at best, premature. I'm also wondering how different this is from, say, Sinn Fein winning elections in Ireland.

I'm not sure what the short term results will be, but if Palestine remains democratic, then getting Hamas invested in a peacful political process is probably a very positive thing for the Palestinians, and, most likely Israel as well because political empowerment makes terrorism a less attractive option.

 

[russ_watters]

Considering that the government hasn't been formed yet, that statement seems, at best, premature.

I don't: Hamas has existed for some time. They may well change their stance, but the fact of the matter is, they were elected while having that stance.

I'm also wondering how different this is from, say, Sinn Fein winning elections in Ireland.

I knew someone would bring up Sinn Fein. It's a thin difference, I know, but Sinn Fein does not claim association with the IRA. That enables Sinn Fein to draw support from a larger audience that includes people who are against violence. With Hamas, there can be no such fence sitting: a supporter of Hamas is supporting a terrorist organization.

Edit: Also, Sinn Fein's history is fractured enough, though, that is is not easy to pin down. Hamas's position has always been clear and consistent.

I'm not sure what the short term results will be, but if Palestine remains democratic, then getting Hamas invested in a peacful political process is probably a very positive thing for the Palestinians, and, most likely Israel as well because political empowerment makes terrorism a less attractive option.

I tend to agree, but I'm not sure - we'll just have to wait and see how this one pans out.

 

[jimmie]

How will Bush's "war on terror" be affected by the outcome of elections?

 

[Art]

There are several examples to illustrate my point. Besides Israel which has already been mentioned the current governing party of the Republic of Ireland, Fianna Fail were labelled terrorists for their opposition to British occupation and then again by the first Free State government and yet following their election to power they became a highly respected member of the international community.
Like many other now respectable groups whose roots lay in armed insurrection the rhetoric on which they were founded continued to some degree. In the case of Fianna Fail to the point that a claim to the still occupied 6 counties in the north of Ireland was enshrined in the constitution (until removed by referendum as part of the Good Friday Agreement) but was never militarily pursued.
Another example would be the US itself.

 

[SOS2008]

…and ending with the financial support from the USA government to several Fatah candidates (they admit of giving 2 MD to several fatah candidates). Many people believed that USA government wants to buy the election by few millions of Dollars, so they vote to the opposite side.

So Bush has been trying to spread democracy in the Middle East, and he uses the K Street tactics he/GOP are so familiar with?

I agree with you ….

It seems the leaders of Hamas did not expect to win such high percentage!

Now they are friendly asking Fatah and the Left to establish one government. There are many difficulties for Hamas to establish the government alone.

Correct about your other comments too. Arafat became more moderate with time. The problem is, once labeled a “terrorist organization” Bush will never work with Hamas just as he wouldn’t with Arafat.

Oh democracy, and how it is only a good thing when the Party of your choice wins, eh?

 

[BobG]

If it did, that's a bad sign that people are turning to Hamas not becuse they think Hamas can be a legitimate political force, but because they believe Hamas's terrorism gets results.

Hamas won because they aren't one-dimensional. They paid a lot of attention to details internal to the Palestinian community that were not controversial. But, if Palestinians are even divided over whether Hamas contributed to results or hindered results, it's good for Hamas - it becomes a push and other issues become the deciding factor instead.

That doesn't change the Hamas external view and that is definitely a problem. Israel has elections coming up and the chances of hard-liners, unwilling to negotiate, winning Israel's elections just skyrocketed.

Between Israel-Palestine, the possibility of a theocratic Iraq (and the problems that will cause with Sunnis), the possibility of a nuclear Iran, the Middle East is in the most volatile and unpredictable condition I've seen.

 

[alexandra]

There are several examples to illustrate my point. Besides Israel which has already been mentioned the current governing party of the Republic of Ireland, Fianna Fail were labelled terrorists for their opposition to British occupation and then again by the first Free State government and yet following their election to power they became a highly respected member of the international community.
Like many other now respectable groups whose roots lay in armed insurrection the rhetoric on which they were founded continued to some degree. In the case of Fianna Fail to the point that a claim to the still occupied 6 counties in the north of Ireland was enshrined in the constitution (until removed by referendum as part of the Good Friday Agreement) but was never militarily pursued.
Another example would be the US itself.

Here are a few more examples of so-called 'terrorist' organisations that were voted to power:
South Africa - the African National Congress (ANC)
Namibia - the South West African People's Organisation (SWAPO)
Mozambique - the Liberation Front of Mozambique (FRELIMO)
Three examples just off the top of my head... And note that all of them retained power since being voted in by the people, and continue to enjoy immense popularity.

 

[alexandra]

Between Israel-Palestine, the possibility of a theocratic Iraq (and the problems that will cause with Sunnis), the possibility of a nuclear Iran, the Middle East is in the most volatile and unpredictable condition I've seen.

I couldn't agree more, Bob - but what really gets me is how predictable this instability was - it was completely predictable that the invasion of Iraq would result in religious factionism, and the Israeli-Palestinian time-bomb has been ticking away as long as I can remember, and getting worse with each passing year. It didn't take brilliant multimillion-dollar-funded 'thinktanks' to see a volatile situation brewing there. 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...

 

[phcatlantis]

Here are a few more examples of so-called 'terrorist' organisations that were voted to power:
South Africa - the African National Congress (ANC)
Namibia - the South West African People's Organisation (SWAPO)
Mozambique - the Liberation Front of Mozambique (FRELIMO)
Three examples just off the top of my head... And note that all of them retained power since being voted in by the people, and continue to enjoy immense popularity.

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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?

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...

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[phcatlantis]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[SOS2008]

But letting Iran build nukes unchallenged is going to lead to love and harmony for all, right?

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.

 

[phcatlantis]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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 don't need a study to understand the general feeling of a population mad at corruption.

 

[Cyrus]

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-235/0601261542104711.htm

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453761.9229166666.html

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453761.9229166666.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=avJA_ZrJjS1w

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/27/world/main1244095.shtml

I mean, there is not really that much debate on the general feeling of being tired of corruption.

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

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.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't think this has anything to do with Hamas' election...

 

[fargoth]

i don't 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 isn't 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

 

[alexandra]

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!

 

[alexandra]

But letting Iran build nukes unchallenged is going to lead to love and harmony for all, right?

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

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...

 

[kcballer21]

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.

 

[NateTG]

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 fundamental 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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

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.

 

[SOS2008]

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.

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.

 

[phcatlantis]

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 don't 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.

 

[phcatlantis]

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.

 

[phcatlantis]

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.

 

[alexandra]

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

 

[alexandra]

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

 

[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.

 

[Bilal]

This is the major reason. Even in Christian areas, Fatah lost the elections!

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.

 

[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 government 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).

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.