# Hamas wins majority in democratic Palestinian Elections



## Cannonfodder (26 Jan 2006)

Thoughts or opinions on the repreccussions ? .


----------



## GO!!! (26 Jan 2006)

Repercussions?

They had a fair and free election, in which 82% of registered voters showed up, and elected Hamas with a landslide. 

This is the democracy we have chosen to defend and spread - perhaps we would be better supporting a totalitarian puppet regime, because the Israelis will now undoubtedly feel the need to wipe them all out.


----------



## Cannonfodder (27 Jan 2006)

Wipe them all out , effective  but not quite in fashion these days . Kind of hard to have a caucous meeting if everybody is blowing themselves up . Perhaps they will learn to moderate there rhetoric and work for solutions to there problems .


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Jan 2006)

I think this is a good thing....they will find out its a lot easier to be the "opposition" instead of the crown wearer....[ala the NDP in Ontario a few years back]


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jan 2006)

I agree Bruce.  Especially if they renounce violence (I believe that's what they were saying on tv) and their citizens do it anyway.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Jan 2006)

Just picturing the old leader and his cabinet all out there firing AK-47's into the air and looking smug.....


----------



## big bad john (27 Jan 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Just picturing the old leader and his cabinet all out there firing AK-47's into the air and looking smug.....



I wonder if the Parliment has a budget for ammo for celebratory firing.   :

So much for range days in the Palestinian Defense Forces.


----------



## Cannonfodder (27 Jan 2006)

Probably wont be any dull moments in parliment  , makes question period more interesting .


----------



## Cannonfodder (27 Jan 2006)

Ariel is going to awake to totally differant world .


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jan 2006)

> They had a fair and free election, in which 82% of registered voters showed up, and elected Hamas with a landslide.
> 
> This is the democracy we have chosen to defend and spread - perhaps we would be better supporting a totalitarian puppet regime, because the Israelis will now undoubtedly feel the need to wipe them all out.




Couldn't agree more.

I DO think they could learn some firearms saftey though. Watching the election on TV they kinda looked like animals - screaming and shouting, everyone with an AK waving it all around just going beserk.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (27 Jan 2006)

Go and Bruce good points you changed my view on this, it will be a good thing if we hold true to our values of what the people want In a free vote.

  I can see the movement getting the legitimacy of a real army under the new Government vice its terrorist position, that army will then be free to reflect the values and desires of the Palestinian people and government. They will be free to screw up and have the Israel pound them when they attack as then an attack would be a nation attacking another and the end result would be a fair fight in the worlds eyes. I see this whole Hamas thing playing right into the hands of the right wing in Israel. Whatch out Hamas sometimes you get what you want and it is not a good thing in the end.


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Jan 2006)

Pah.  Getting legitemacy and renouncing violence?  Wasn't that what we were saying about Arafat when he first got elected?

More likely result:  US and most of Europe cut their funding of the PA.  PA is forced to seek funding from middle east.  Hook up with Iran and/or Al-Qaeda, either of which will demand some sort of return on their money (ie. increased attacks on Israel).  Israel moves in to wipe out Hamas, and occupies most of Palestine in the progress.

At that point it's only a question of wether any other countries get involved.  It could get quite messy.


----------



## Glorified Ape (27 Jan 2006)

I'm with a few others here - I think it might actually do some good towards putting Hamas on a more political (rather than violent) path. 



			
				Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Ariel is going to awake to totally differant world .



Preferably not at all, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Jan 2006)

This didn't take long,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11056698/


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jan 2006)

ahhhh, let the self destruction begin


----------



## Armymedic (27 Jan 2006)

My interest isn't in how the Hamas regime will govern Palestine, nor how it deal with Israel, it is in how western democracies are going to deal with the new gov't.

As Go alluded to, a large portion of Palestinians turned out in sanctioned and monitored democratic elections. There was not vote tampering or other irregularities noted during the election.

If the western democracies, particularly the US, doesn't want to work with a freely democratically selected popular gov't because of its view towards another nation, then those actions and words smack of perjury and blasphemy.

"I believe in freedom", "I believe in the democratic process" Just words to fool the masses?

Well now, Palestinians voted freely, democratically. Don't like their choice? Going to have to suck it up and work with that gov't, aren't we?


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Jan 2006)

Hell no!

Need I remind you that Hitler was fairly elected as well?

Just because a government is "fairly elected" doesn't mean we have to agree with their policies or support them in any way.  It would be wrong to go in and attempt a regime change, sure.  On the other hand, if they attack an allied nation, they're fair game.


----------



## rifleman (27 Jan 2006)

Why would it be wrong to create a Regime change? the precident has been set. 

Allons-z!!

We can call it ' the great war on democratically elected goverments we don't like' (GWODEGWDL) AKA WW5


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Jan 2006)

It is ironic that a terrorist state [Palestine] had democratic elections and chose between two major parties/terrorist groups, their next government. Hamas is unlikely to give up its vow to destroy Israel.
One of the winner's is Syria ,as it is Syria that has supported Hamas through the year's even hosting its headquarters in Damascus. Until the palestinians reach the stage that the people of N Ireland did, there wont be peace. Until there is an accomodation with Israel Palestine will be an economic basketcase.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jan 2006)

"If the western democracies, particularly the US, doesn't want to work with a freely democratically selected popular gov't because of its view towards another nation, then those actions and words smack of perjury and blasphemy."

Its not that the West just doesn't like them.  Its that their use of  violence and platform of Israel's destruction rules out any chance of having a legitimate dialog with them.


----------



## GO!!! (27 Jan 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> It's not that the West just doesn't like them.  Its that their use of  violence and platform of Israel's destruction rules out any chance of having a legitimate dialog with them.



Yes, we could not possibly have a legitimate dialogue with a nation that uses violence!

We (the western world) have prided ourselves on our "defence and spread" of democracy since the end of WW2. This is democracy looking us right in the eye. If we refuse to deal with the new Palestinian Government, we have removed any veneer of legitimacy that we had left. 

We either deal with Hamas on an even footing, as a national government with valid and popular policy goals, or we stop all of our efforts to spread our particular flavour of government and morality (internationalist liberal), as we are obviously pursuing our national interest, and little else.

The Arab world would be a far better ally than tiny, militaristic Israel, simply "by the numbers", so I fail to see why we are condemning an election result and government that used means freer and more democratic than our own!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jan 2006)

Well GO I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Yes, we could not possibly have a legitimate dialogue with a nation that uses violence!



Funny how you picked up on the "violence" bit, yet totaly disregaurded the fact that the following 5 words of his statement were "and platform of Israel's destruction".



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> We (the western world) have prided ourselves on our "defence and spread" of democracy since the end of WW2. This is democracy looking us right in the eye. If we refuse to deal with the new Palestinian Government, we have removed any veneer of legitimacy that we had left.



Once again, Hitler's government was techincaly quite democratic.  So was Iran's and Iraq's.  It remains to be seen wether the Palestinian government will remain a democracy.  In the meantime, a bit of caution is in order.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> We either deal with Hamas on an even footing, as a national government with valid and popular policy goals, or we stop all of our efforts to spread our particular flavour of government and morality (internationalist liberal), as we are obviously pursuing our national interest, and little else.
> 
> The Arab world would be a far better ally than tiny, militaristic Israel, simply "by the numbers", so I fail to see why we are condemning an election result and government that used means freer and more democratic than our own!



Because we don't operate purely "by the numbers", otherwise, we'd be telling China it's a-ok to oppress their people as long as they're on our side when the fighting starts, and the cold-war would have never been an issue because we would have signed an alliance with the USSR.  We look at other aspects of a country when considering allies.  A country being lead by a party which advocated genocide _PROBABLY_ wouldn't make a very good ally.  That's just my guess though.  If you think we should team up with genocidal maniacs, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Glorified Ape (27 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Yes, we could not possibly have a legitimate dialogue with a nation that uses violence!
> 
> We (the western world) have prided ourselves on our "defence and spread" of democracy since the end of WW2. This is democracy looking us right in the eye. If we refuse to deal with the new Palestinian Government, we have removed any veneer of legitimacy that we had left.



I'd wager that veneer rubbed off a long time ago, but you're absolutely right. 



> We either deal with Hamas on an even footing, as a national government with valid and popular policy goals, or we stop all of our efforts to spread our particular flavour of government and morality (internationalist liberal), as we are obviously pursuing our national interest, and little else.



I'd put money on the latter, as I've really seen little evidence of anything else. Again, you're absolutely right - they were democratically elected and not dealing with them would be stupid. Iran has espoused the same things Hamas has but the West still deals with it. Of course, they're not democratically elected - they had a democratic government once but its policies on the domestic oil industry weren't favourable to US and British interests so the US and Britain staged a coup. Glorious, glorious democracy - our brand of freedom export is a light, a big, shiny, bone bleaching and earth-scorching light.  :



> The Arab world would be a far better ally than tiny, militaristic Israel, simply "by the numbers", so I fail to see why we are condemning an election result and government that used means freer and more democratic than our own!



Again, I agree completely. I'm not clear what you're referring to as "freer and more democratic" means, though? Having Israel as an ally causes more harm than it's worth, especially considering its frequently despicable behaviour throughout the years while claiming innocence and love of "liberty" and "democracy". If we're going to deal with a**holes, we might as well deal with ones that compose a regional majority.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2006)

Democracy refers to the process where the people choose how they will be governed. If the government they choose is an outlaw regime which violates the rule of law at home or internationally, then that government should be taken to account (even to the point of enforced regime change, should they change from a nuisance to an actual threat). As for the people who voted these clowns in? They need to learn there ARE consequences to every action.

As has been pointed out ad nausium, most dictators like to hold elections to show how "democratic" they are. Some even use the word "Republic" in their national titles, both actions to mock us (and fool the soft headed). 

Some predictions about the Hamas "government" of Palestine; they will be as big a gang of thieves as the ones they replaced, they will rule through the use of violence directed at their internal opponents, they will use their status as "government" to spout anti-Semitic propaganda at every opportunity and hijack legitimate and semi legitimate forums to do so, and they will never rest until they either achieve their states goal of the destruction of Israel, or die trying.

*There is no requirement for us to do anything other than to acknowledge they were properly elected, and tell them that they are not invited to discourse with civilized nations until they show by both word and deed (our error with Arafat) they have indeed changed. The burden of proof is on them, not us.*


----------



## enfield (28 Jan 2006)

In the short term this is very bad. However, in the long term, I see this election as recognizing the reality of power. Hamas has - or will - exterminate/absorb its enemies and unify the Palestinians. Rather than trying to create an artificial political arrangement through negotiation, the most powerful faction has been given an overwhelming mandate. Good - better a landslide than a 50-50 split. 

Hamas will evolve, just as the PLO evolved, and other insurgent/opposition/terrorist groups have had to change once they achieved power. It won't be pretty, but the requirements of Administration are very different than the requirements of opposition. 

However, I echo the concerns voiced earlier - the West may pull out of peace negotiations and support of the PA, and the void could be filled with Islamic extremist elements. 

I think this victory makes Hamas more vulnerable to Israel and accountable to the people: Hamas now "owns" all the infrastructure (ie targets) and is responsible for any commitments it makes. As the government it is a bigger target to Israeli action, and more accountable to its people.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jan 2006)

I think that in the short to medium term this validates Ariel Sharon’s _separation_ strategy.  For the time being almost all the people in the region will opt for whichever anti-Israel party seems the most aggressive.  Negotiations have to be kept going because the Americans insist but they are pro-forma, only; real peace is a generation away, maybe more.

I think that in the longer term all real democratic experiments are good, for us.  As people become more and more comfortable with democracy and as they learn, as a_majoor says, that democratic actions have consequences they will become more demanding of their elected leaders and more discerning in electing them.

If what I have read is true Hamas has, already, demonstrated that it can provide hones and effective administrative and social services.  It may provide what the Palestinians need almost as much as they need peace and security: an honest, reasonably efficient national government.


----------



## Armymedic (28 Jan 2006)

I see a flip side as well.

War can be legally declared on another nation. Trade embargos can be legally declared upon another nation. 

It may be easier to deal with Hamas now that they are "exposed" as a legal gov't


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Jan 2006)

"War can be legally declared on another nation. Trade embargos can be legally declared upon another nation. 

It may be easier to deal with Hamas now that they are "exposed" as a legal gov't."

Totally agree.


----------



## 48Highlander (28 Jan 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> I see a flip side as well.
> 
> War can be legally declared on another nation. Trade embargos can be legally declared upon another nation.
> 
> It may be easier to deal with Hamas now that they are "exposed" as a legal gov't



Yes, but you know that any such acts against "Palestine" will just end up being called illegal anyway.  Gotta have the UN's approval, and the UN is more interested in picking on Israel.  So we'd have protestors in the streets bitching about the illegal occupation of palestine by western forces, holding "No war for Oil" signs, and caricatures comparing Bush and Harper to Hitler.  Same old, same old.  If the Hamas develop a good PR department, we're screwed.


----------



## Armymedic (28 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> If the Hamas develop a good PR department, we're screwed.



I concur. They figured out the first part of the game and got elected, won't be long before they can set up a situation that makes the western countries look bad to their own electorate.


----------



## GO!!! (28 Jan 2006)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Again, I agree completely. I'm not clear what you're referring to as "freer and more democratic" means, though? Having Israel as an ally causes more harm than it's worth, especially considering its frequently despicable behaviour throughout the years while claiming innocence and love of "liberty" and "democracy". If we're going to deal with a**holes, we might as well deal with ones that compose a regional majority.



My statement to the "more democratic means" is based solely on the voter turnout - 86% was the number I read.

We are really dealing with *two* groups of genocidal maniacs, as 48th alluded to, and I am of the opinion that neither is "better" than the other.
If we are to be allied with one, I would prefer it to be the Arab/Persian bloc, as opposed to the Zionist one - Israel is not going to nuke us for neglecting them, but the Iranians just might nuke us for continuing to support Israel.


----------



## Quiet Riot (28 Jan 2006)

I think there are better was to choose allies, than just solely making alliances with those who hold the most power in the region.  Hamas as alot to prove before most westerners take it seriously(at least to me).  Hamas can't even get along with the other political parties in Palestine, I doubt their skills at international relations will be much better.  And how can Israel and Palestine have peace talks now?  One ruling party is calling for the eradication of the others country.


----------



## Praetorian (28 Jan 2006)

This talk of switching from Israeli alliances to Arab ones will please only one group:
Israel
Lets face it the only thing holding the Israelis back is the west, with the American Leesh removed theyd be more then willing to wipe the Middle East as we know it off the map.
In every single conflict, regardless of technological or numerical advantage, the Arab nations have proven themselves adept at getting their *sses kicked.
I believe the Israeli cabinet is licking its lips, Hamas is now legit and all they have to do is wait for it to cross the line and blast it back to the stone age.
Even the Americans acknowledge that in a regional conflict, even America would be unable to stop Israel, see EX MILLENIUM CHALLENGE.
Israel is there to stay, for the Arabs to remove them would be like the natives removing us from Canada.

Besides, no matter how good ur PR section is, u wont be winning any hearts and minds while blowing oneself up in shopping malls.

Cheer...  mazel tuf (or something like that)   :cheers:


----------



## Spr.Earl (28 Jan 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Thoughts or opinions on the repreccussions ? .


Possibly what Sien Fein has had in Northern Island?
Let's wait and see.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Jan 2006)

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060128/palestinian_ambush_060128

Gunmen briefly take over Palestinian parliament 
CTV.ca News Staff

In a sign of growing instability following Hamas' election victory, gunmen and Palestinian police briefly took over the parliament buildings in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on Saturday.

Gunmen from the former ruling party of Fatah climbed on top of the Palestinian parliament building in Ramallah and fired shots Saturday, demanding the resignation of their party's leadership.

Meanwhile, dozens of armed police officers loyal to Fatah briefly stormed a parliament building in Gaza City to protest any transfer of security responsibility to Hamas.

"Everybody should know that we are not going to allow the Interior Ministry to belong to Hamas," the police said, referring to the government body that controls the security forces.

Most of the 58,000 members of the security forces are allied with Fatah and fear for their jobs under a Hamas-led government, as Hamas has its own armed force of about 5,000 gunmen in Gaza.

In earlier fighting in Gaza, Hamas gunmen wounded two Palestinian policemen in what authorities said was a roadside ambush early Saturday.

Clashes have erupted between gunmen from Fatah and Hamas since the Islamist group won a landslide victory in last week's Palestinian parliamentary election, which ended four decades of Fatah domination. 

The election was a clear rejection of Fatah's corruption and inability to maintain order. 

Before the vote, veteran Fatah leaders, those most tainted by corruption allegations, resisted repeated calls for reform by the party's young guard.

Demonstrators demanded the resignation of the party's entire central committee, however only a few Fatah activists called for Mahmoud Abbas, who is part of the committee, to step down.

Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas leader in Gaza, said he asked Abbas to meet Sunday to discuss forming a government, but Abbas' office said no appointment had been made.

Hamas, responsible for dozens of suicide bombings on Israelis and listed as a terror organization by the United States and the European Union, has long called for the destruction of the Jewish state. 

Canadian prime minister-designate Stephen Harper has suggested his Conservative government won't accept Hamas as long as it continues to support terrorism


----------



## big bad john (29 Jan 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4658872.stm

Hamas floats Palestinian 'army'  

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal says the group will not disarm 
The political leader of the Hamas militant group has said it could create a new Palestinian army following its surprise election victory. 
Khaled Meshaal, who lives in exile in Syria, said the force would include its militant wing and would "defend our people against aggression". 

His comments came after foreign powers called for Hamas to renounce violence. 

Unrest continues in Gaza and the West Bank, with supporters of the defeated Fatah party staging violent protests. 

Some involved clashes with Hamas activists, others were directed at the leadership of Fatah. 

'No immunity' 

Mr Meshaal said in the Syrian capital, Damascus, that Hamas had no plans to disarm. 

"As long as we are under occupation then resistance is our right." 

  


Profile: Ismail Haniya 
World conundrum on Hamas 
Hamas on agenda at Davos 
In pictures: Palestinian unrest  

He said Hamas was ready to "unify the weapons of Palestinian factions, with Palestinian consensus, and form an army like any independent state... an army that protects our people against aggression". 

But Mr Mashaal also said Hamas would abide by current agreements with Israel "as long as it is in the interest of our people". 

Israel said on Saturday that no Hamas leaders would be immune from targeted killings if the group maintained aggression and continued to refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. 

Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz said: "Whoever stands at the head of a terror organisation and continues to carry out terror attacks against Israel is not immune." 

Senior Fatah figures also warned Hamas not to interfere in the Palestinian security forces - most of whom are linked to Fatah. 

Gaza police chief Ala Hosni told Associated Press: "The security institution is a red line. We will not allow anyone to tamper with it." 

  The victory of Hamas is a challenge, the people of Palestine have spoken and no-one should suppress their choice 

Thomas Ayeni, Lagos


Palestinian poll: Your views 
In quotes: World reaction 
Israelis react 
Palestinian press review  

Fatah supporters, security officers and members of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade protested all over Gaza and the West Bank on Saturday following Hamas' victory. 

Security forces in Gaza demanded Hamas figures responsible for killing policemen should be brought to trial. 

Several people were wounded in an exchange of fire between Hamas supporters and members of Fatah in Khan Younis in Gaza. 

In Ramallah on the West Bank, Fatah supporters also staged more protest against their own leadership, which they blame for the election defeat. 

Some of the activists marched to the compound of Palestinian Authority leader and Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas, later praying at the grave of former leader Yasser Arafat. 

'Blackmail' 

Mr Meshaal said he had been in contact with Mr Abbas and wanted to work in partnership with Fatah, although many senior Fatah officials say they do not want an alliance. 


Fatah activists launched violent protests in Gaza and the West Bank 

Hamas policy-maker Ghazi Ahmed Hamad said if Fatah did not join a government "we will try to form a government of technocrats". 

Hamas has also rejected international calls for the group to renounce violence or face cuts in aid to Palestinians. 

Ismail Haniya, who headed Hamas' election list, said: "This aid cannot be a sword over the heads of the Palestinian people and will not be material to blackmail our people, to blackmail Hamas and the resistance. It is rejected." 

President George W Bush warned US aid, worth $400m (£225m), could be cut following Hamas' surprise poll win. 

Hamas won at least 74 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian assembly and has the backing of a further four independent MPs.


----------



## enfield (29 Jan 2006)

There seems to be more than just the basic Fatah-Hamas animosity here. The existing government structure (beside the fact it was set up and manned by Fatah) doesn't trust Hamas since Hamas accused them for years of being collaborators and attacked them as such. The police and security forces don't want to work for the guys they were arresting and shooting at a few months ago. It's like trying to integrate the IRA and Royal Ulster Constabulary, or the Rhodesian Army and Mugabe's rebels. Can't be done - in the end, someone has to go. 

A Hamas "Palestinian Army". Wonderful. What exactly is the point of that? Target practice for the IDF? Remove more money from a poverty stricken population to pay for an even more bloated security apparatus? Fight toe-to-toe with the Israeli Army and single handedly reclaim Palestine? The region needs less young men with guns, not more. 

I still say recognizing the stronger party, and allowing them to clean house (however bloody) is the best course in the long term - and this will definitely get worse before it gets better. More worrying, however, is that this will likely cause a shift to the right in Israeli politics, and reaction to the Hamas victory will likely dominate the post-Ariel Sharon political debate and lead to a hardline government.


----------



## 48Highlander (29 Jan 2006)

I get a good laugh every time I read about palestinian "police forces" or "ministries", especialy in articles like these.  I suppose I shouldn't, it's really sad more than anything else - their terrorist groups and their police forces act in pretty much the same manner.  Their roles are interchangable; one day the Fatah were terrorists, the next day became soldiers, politicians, and police officers.  Now the Hamas is forcing them out of power, and this time we're seing Hamas terrorists being turned into police officers, politicians, and soldiers, while the Fatah are once againd degenerating into a bunch of armed thugs.  It's not reasonable to expect anything else, yet western media, and Palestines supporters, keep clinging to the delusional that these organizations have some veneer of civility and legitimacy.  The more I learn about the place, the more I am of the opinion that the best thing that could have happened to them would have been for Israel to have annexed Palestine early on and gotten it over with.  Right now, all their society knows is corruption, death, murder, and lies.  As things stand now we would need to commit an army of psychiatrists to the region for a couple decades in order to turn things around.


----------



## Shec (29 Jan 2006)

So Fatah & Hamas are shooting at each other.  Great !!  That should thin out the herd a bit before the IDF has to go in to protect its citizens.   And what would be wrong with that?   It is not militarism as Israel has been accused of  on this and other related threads.  Arguably is it not a forward defence policy not unlike Canada's has traditionally been?    The essential fact is that Hamas has made it clear that it has no intention of backing down from its stated original strategic primary objective of wiping out Israel.  And Hamas is apparently bent upon creating a fundamentalist jihadist state.  That should keep any truly democratic Palestinian elements charging the mags for their AK-47s.  Well, as I think it was Santayana who once wrote,  people tend to get the government they deserve.     In the meantime what do you expect Israel to do - lie back and take it?


----------



## GO!!! (29 Jan 2006)

Praetorian said:
			
		

> This talk of switching from Israeli alliances to Arab ones will please only one group:
> Israel
> Lets face it the only thing holding the Israelis back is the west, with the American Leesh removed theyd be more then willing to wipe the Middle East as we know it off the map.
> In every single conflict, regardless of technological or numerical advantage, the Arab nations have proven themselves adept at getting their *sses kicked.
> ...



Israel would probably "win" a ME war in the early stages, but the whole reason that they laid such a beating on the Arabs in the first place was US support - remember the airlift of military equipment to Israel on the shiny new C5 galaxy? The Israelis would win early, but lose overall, due to sheer weight of numbers, if they lost US support and money, the only thing that keeps Israel alive today.


----------



## Cannonfodder (29 Jan 2006)

Every night our news casts are hijacked with the ongoing saga of the middle east , its to the point that it is white noise to most people . You have savage wars and disasters that are not brought to viewers attention because the media is feeding us another repeat of the 5 o clock news . It is kind of beyond who is right or who is wrong , these parties will never get along .  If aide was cut off on all sides maybe they would see there need to coexist  but that is wishful thinking .


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Jan 2006)

The rock and a hard place.........its tough to govern one way whem most of your subjects wish something else.

Negotiated Peace

Hamas's election victory may have raised fears of a hardening in Palestinian attitudes towards Israel, but a poll Monday shows a vast majority want a negotiated peace with their Israel.
A survey conducted within days of the group's win showed 84 percent of Palestinians want a negotiated peace agreement with Israel, said the survey by the Ramallah-based Near East Consulting institute.
And even among Hamas supporters, over three quarters of those polled (77 percent) admitted they would like to see a negotiated settlement to the conflict.

Eighty-six percent said they want Abbas to remain in his post when Hamas forms a new government.
Perhaps more importantly in the wake of growing international pressure, nearly three-quarters want Hamas to drop its call for the destruction of Israel.
Nearly three out of four (73 percent) respondents said they believed the resistance movement should "change its position on the elimination of the state of Israel."

In contrast, a poll in an Israeli daily reflected a hardening of attitudes with only one in six (17.6 percent) people believing their government should conduct negotiations toward a final settlement with a Hamas-led government.
The figures in the Maariv daily showed a sharp drop from those published in a Yediot Aharonot poll conducted before last Wednesday's parliamentary election when 48 percent of respondents said Israel should talk to a Hamas-led government.
In Monday's survey, however, 52.7 percent said Israel should not engage in talks with such a government. 

Here is the whole article.
http://www.islamonline.org/English/News/2006-01/30/article04.shtml


----------



## 48Highlander (30 Jan 2006)

Islam Online might not be the most impartial source of middle-east news....

EDIT:

The LA times generaly tends to be left-leaning also, but even they seem to be a little more balanced than Islam Online:



			
				http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mideast29jan29 said:
			
		

> For most Israelis, the only association with Hamas has been the most traumatic one possible: the killing and maiming of hundreds of citizens in suicide bombings carried out by the group's military wing.
> 
> Yet an opinion poll conducted last week found substantial numbers of Israelis expressing willingness to open some form of dialogue with Hamas. The survey, published Friday in the Maariv newspaper, found that 40% of respondents would be willing to negotiate with Hamas if it renounced violence. Fewer than one-third, or 29%, said Israel should cut off all contacts with the Palestinian Authority and resume targeted killings of Hamas leaders if it failed to renounce violence.



Not sure where the Islam Online "statistics" are coming from.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Jan 2006)

Not sure where yours came from either..........."published".....whoopee


----------



## Glorified Ape (30 Jan 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> I see a flip side as well.
> 
> War can be legally declared on another nation. Trade embargos can be legally declared upon another nation.
> 
> It may be easier to deal with Hamas now that they are "exposed" as a legal gov't



The Palestinian territories are not a state - it's statehood which Palestinians have been after for a long long time. A nation and a state are two different things. 



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> My statement to the "more democratic means" is based solely on the voter turnout - 86% was the number I read.
> 
> We are really dealing with *two* groups of genocidal maniacs, as 48th alluded to, and I am of the opinion that neither is "better" than the other.
> If we are to be allied with one, I would prefer it to be the Arab/Persian bloc, as opposed to the Zionist one - Israel is not going to nuke us for neglecting them, but the Iranians just might nuke us for continuing to support Israel.



I doubt anyone's going to nuke us - what weapons they do have would be better put to use nuking each other. I agree about there being two groups of genocidal twits involved, though Hamas seems much more open about their attitudes. 

I think Hamas getting elected will change their behaviour substantially - one of the best ways to defuse a political movement, especially a resistance movement, is to include them in the political process. I can't imagine any bigger inclusion than being the head of the government. Their formation, or intent thereto, of a military isn't something we can really crap on them for - just about every state has an army and few have a greater need for one than the Palestinians, even if they're not a state yet.


----------



## jimmy742 (31 Jan 2006)

I agree that one of the best ways to defuse a political movement, particularly one perceived also as providing armed resistance to an occupier, is to include them in the political process. It happened in Northern Ireland, for example, with some success.

If one can judge by the initial press statements, there clearly appears to be a moderate Hamas and an extremist Hamas. The moderates appear to be based in Palestine and the more extreme faction seems to be in Syria. The odds are pretty good that the Palestinians voted for the moderates. 

Furthermore, economics will dictate Hamas' policy. Iran and especially Syria cannot possibly provide $3.4 billion annually in economic aid, and Israel can shut down the Palestinian economy almost at will. Looking at past actions, the Hamas leadership practices "realpolitik". This would imply a more moderate stance and, likely, recognition of Israel's right to exist. To think that Hamas will continue to follow a military course of action vs Israel as long term policy is simply asinine.


----------



## 48Highlander (31 Jan 2006)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Their formation, or intent thereto, of a military isn't something we can really crap on them for - just about every state has an army and few have a greater need for one than the Palestinians, even if they're not a state yet.



I think they'd be much better off with a strong and well armed police force instead of an army, although in the middle-east the distinction between the two tends to be almost non-existant anyway.



			
				jimmy742 said:
			
		

> To think that Hamas will continue to follow a military course of action vs Israel as long term policy is simply asinine.



Just remember that the same thing was said when Arafat came to power.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Feb 2006)

The surreal world of the middle east, Via Instapundit Feb 19 2006:



> Just yesterday, Hamas came into power. *As I noted, its first order of business was to indemnify itself—rhetorically, if not legally—from the obligations of Oslo, and to assert that, no, the nation of Israel does not have the right to exist in this world*. Despite Hamas’ being essentially a successor government (and thus required under international law to abide by treaties to which the previous government acceded), the party has renounced any treaty that recognized Israel.
> 
> *Can you guess what the second order of business was? That’s right: to condemn Israel’s decision to cease sending cash to the Palestinian Authority.* Specifically, $42.2 million. Since the PA and its new Hamas bosses run almost entirely on the swiftly-eroding goodwill of the rest of the world (terrorism doesn’t pay very well), Hamas is now demanding that Israel reconsider its decision to cut funding. A representative said: "This is a faulty decison, and the Israelis must reconsider their decision. It will only increase hatred."
> 
> It really is like dealing with teenagers. Except, you know, for the murder part.


----------

