From an international viewpoint, it's probably a huge setback. But I think the chances of them setting up a more stable government, bent on creating a safe and secure infrastructure and maybe declaring statehood in a couple years is much more likely now that Fatah is out of power.
The leader of Hamas said he's willing to start productive talks with Israel so long as they go somewhere and aren't just empty talk. Israel refuses to deal with him. He refuses to recognize Israel.
I think everyone just needs to sit back a bit over the next few months to see what happens. I hope Palestine got what it wanted though, in terms of a leadership that actually works to better their society instead of a leadership merely bent on staying in power.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Palestinians Unfortunately, it seems that no Palestinian party really gives a damn about the Palestinian people. If any ever-existing Palestinian government would care about the approximately two million people living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, they would have long ago stopped using the money given to them (by other Arab countries / private donators / western aid organizations) for weapons and the training of terrorist bombers, but invested it in building a new country and showing that the Palestinian people is willing to compromise on territory in favor of peace and prosperity. It's not that difficult once you think about it, really. Once the Palestinians will want peace and will agree that they can't have all the territories they want, a party whose goal is peace will be elected.
Israel Israel will, eventually, have to give up on some of the territories, because there is no other alternative for peace -and peace is that the main Israeli parties want. However, due to the new circumstances - meaning a blooddthristy terrorist party at the head of a nation living almost inside Israel - any more withdrawals will be dangerous for the security of the Israelis, because there is no guarantee that this will not give a boost for the Hamas to start terror attacks again.
In general Maybe it's for the good that the Hamas got elected. It shows to the world what danger we are actually facing, now that a violent organization is democratically elected. We mustn't forget that the Hamas is responsible to the death of numerous innocent lives. Babies who didn't even know their own name, entire families who just happened to be all together at the wrong time and at the wrong place.
If Ted Bundy would be elected to be the president of the USA, would anyone say "hey, now that he's president he'll be nicer and bring forth world peace?" I think not.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's something of a mischaracterization Beanny. While I agree that the military arm of Hamas has long been a terrorist organization that needs to be stopped, the political front of Hamas has done a lot of good for average Palestinian citizens, and with them in charge of the government (Minus President Abbas of course), we could see a lot of great things happen to average citizens in the form of infrastructure improvements.
Also, most of the money you're talking about didn't go to Hamas, sadly, it went to line the pockets of the administrators themselves. Six of one, half dozen of the other, but there it is.
This presents a rather large problem for Bush though. He has made two contradicting vows. One: To stamp out terrorism everywhere. And Two: To support democracy everywhere.
What does he do when democracy elects terrorists?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does this result contradict the oft-made assertion that most Palestinians do not support terrorism, and that it is only the extremists who do?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, I would be glad if you could show me an article which describes the improvement in the form of infrastructure improvements thank to the Hamas, as I've never heard of anything of the sort - and I live here.
The only postive thing the Hamas offers to the Palestinians is PRIDE. Their vote shows, without a shadow of a doubt, that they still haven't realized that Israel won't be going away. They believe that the Hamas will banish Israel and bring honor to the Palestinian people as heroes of the Arab world.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this is just one more sign of exactly how badly the Bush administration has botched the war on terror.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
If a suicide bomber with Hamas ties detonates him/her self on Israeli soil, will that now constitute an official act of war?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I live in the one where Bush has plenty of faults (tons of them, in fact) but isn't responsible for every evil in the world. You're right. It's a different universe.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Does this result contradict the oft-made assertion that most Palestinians do not support terrorism, and that it is only the extremists who do?
There are plenty of people who would rather support figures who they feel would actively do the wrong thing than figures who would do nothing, or be unable to do anything.
It's a mess. I dare hope that political recognition will make Hamas recognize how much is at stake, now that they can say with some clout that their actions represent the people's will. But that may be foolish optimism.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest, I'm really don't understand your comments at all.
Bush has declared it his mission to fight terrorism. That's his claim not mine. Now another group that Bush has indentified as a terrorist organization has taken power not through violence but via a fair democratic process. If that seems like progress to you, then fair enough. To me, it seems like just one more proof that Bush is loosing the war on terror. This isn't blaiming Bush for every evil in the world. It is simply holding him responsible for the duties he has claimed are his.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, Hamas isn't just a group that's been identified as a terrorist organization. They are-among other things-a terrorist organization, or else the designation has no meaning and doesn't apply anywhere.
Furthermore, given the popularity of Hamas amongst Palestinians, I think if you'd held a fair democratic election there five or ten years ago, the outcome might not be so different.
To attribute these election results to a failure of Bush's is really just a guess.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:To attribute these election results to a failure of Bush's is really just a guess.
It is a different thing to attribute the election results to Bush's failure, and to say, as I did, that the election results are evidence that Bush's war on terror is failing. The first one implies that Bush's war on terror caused Palestinians to vote for Hamas, the second simply states that Bush's war on terror failed to prevent Hamas' rise to power.
No one has ever really clearly identified what it would mean to "win the war on terror" which makes it pretty difficult to determine whether or not we are winning. But when a group that our government has labeled a terrorist organization gains power, that has to be considered a victory for the terrorists and not the Bush administration. In a war, victories for your "enemies" are signs that you are loosing the war.
I also never claimed Hamas was a terrorist organization. You will note that I said that Bush (or perhaps more properly the Bush administration) has identified them as a terrorist organization -- which is true.
To be fair, I did not simply say that Bush's war on terror was failing, I said he botched it -- meaning that Bush's decisions are the reasons its failing. I'll stand by that.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hamas runs many relief and education programs. These programs are viewed variously as part of a sincere social development agenda, an integrated para-state policy, as propaganda and recruitment exercises, or both. Either way, they have significatly incresed literacy in the areas.
quote: 1. The HAMAS - like its parent organization - the "Muslim Brotherhood" aims to create a religious-civic infrastructure in the following areas: aid to the poor, education, health, society and religion. Building this foundation has been the organization's goal since its founding in the territories, and this network of institutions is the source of the movement's strength, and provides the ability to recruit operatives, including suicide attackers.
I don't think Hamas is flowers and honey, but they clearly serve a purpose in Palestinian society that goes further than suicide bombings.
Beanny, where in Palestine do you live? Just curious.
I don't think the elections shows a clear mandate from the people for the eradication of Israel. While that COULD be the reason, it could just as easily be that they are sick of the corruption from Arafat-chosen administrators and want a government that actually listens to them and cares about them. They made no progress under Arafat and his cronies, they want a new direction. Hamas offers them that in a way that no other group in Palestine stepped up to try. It's not at all surprising they chose another road.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's worth noting that the wikipedia article you quote has the following warning on it:
quote: The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
Oh, and from the same article:
quote: its stated goal is to "remove Israel from the map"
and
quote: The Hamas Covenant, written in 1988, states that the organization's goal is to "raise the banner of God over every inch of Palestine," i.e. to eliminate the State of Israel (and any secular Palestinian state which may be established), and to replace it with an Islamic Republic.
posted
All things which I never disputed. The only point of contention I was arguing, was that Hamas has done a lot of good, such as raising the literacy rate of Palestinians, and operating schools and hospitals. Those facts were disputed and I set about proving their accuracy, and I never claimed that Hamas DIDN'T do horrible things, or that it's goal WASN'T to wipe Israel off the map.
I was merely trying to offer further opinion on what is going on there beyond the same old "the Palestinians want to kill the Israelis" explanation. I think there's more to it.
And I'd have no difficulty find another dozen articles that say that Hamas does good things for the average Palestinian, Wikipedia was just the fastest.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, thanks for the enlightment. I still think that the Hamas are probably just selling a pack of lies, but... who knows - I mean, in a way it could be like the communist reign: despite the horrifying violation of human rights - people got free education and health insurance, and if they excelled at something, the government would invest in their success, for the pride of the country.
And by the way, Palestine is a ten-minute drive from where I live, I have participated in various Jewish-Arab meetings, I have quite a few family members who used to hire Palestinian workers that would come there from Gaza and the West Bank ("used to", because all of the money they deposited in their workers' bank accounts was taken by the "government"), many of my friends are already in the army and serve in the territories - so yes, I have a good idea of what's going on.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What does he do when democracy elects terrorists?
*Brain explodes*
Hitler was democratically elected as well. Everything Lyrhawn is saying about Hamas could have been said, almost word for word, about the Nazi party's rise to power in the 1930s. And many people actually did say it. I guess some people just don't learn from history.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Sopwith: One question of protocol:
If a suicide bomber with Hamas ties detonates him/her self on Israeli soil, will that now constitute an official act of war? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should, but it won't. After all, there've been Fatah suicide bombers, too.
American servicemen have committed murder of civilians in cold blood of citizens from more than a dozen countries around the world, on their soil. Are we are war with all of them?
Further, an official act of war? How official can it get? Palestine isn't an official state, and Hamas doesn't recognize Israel as an official state. Officiality doesn't really matter anymore. It's a matter of what any side can get away with politically.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What does he do when democracy elects terrorists? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitler was democratically elected as well. Everything Lyrhawn is saying about Hamas could have been said, almost word for word, about the Nazi party's rise to power in the 1930s. And many people actually did say it. I guess some people just don't learn from history.
Did you seriously just call me a Nazi supporter? I almost hope you did, for the laugh I'd get out of it, and I wouldn't put it past you judging from your love of spewing hyperbole and invective. Furthermore, I agreed up and down that Hamas' military wing, or if you don't want to distinguish, that Hamas itself is still a terrorist organization that kills innocent civilians, in addition to what I said about them improving infrastrucure.
I think you're really grasping at straws in yet another attempt to assualt me, which is more sad than pathetic, but you can take your pick I guess.
Further still, the original point that I made, that bellabee was responding to is a valid one. Bush is the enemy of terrorism and the champion of democracy, but he's ignored a rather important hedge in his little war, what do you do when democracy elects terrorists to office? It appears he dodged that bullet in Iraq, but he can't ignore it in Palestine.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the point was that you are similar to a Nazi supporter, not that you actually are one.
Anyways, I would say that this election illustrates something that I thought should have been obvious to the Bush administration: That democracy is not inherently the opposite of terrorism.
When you promote democracy in a state where terrorists are popular, who do you think is going to be put into power? Not necessarily the guy backed by America but unliked by the people of that state. This is an important lesson not only for Palestine, but also for Iraq and other states we might overthrow, where it's definitely possible we will see terrorism eventually get elected into office. This is not to say that making these countries democratic is bad - but just that we should not expect democracy to make terrorism go away, as long as the people still feel terrorism might be necessary.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: American servicemen have committed murder of civilians in cold blood of citizens from more than a dozen countries around the world
For those that want to know why the red states don't listen to you anymore, allow me to present Exhibit A
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed... "red states" apparently don't like to think that American servicemen could be fallible. And if someone says something you'd rather not think, why listen? Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very large difference between "fallible" and "cold-blooded murderer"
it is, as Douglas Adams once pointed out, "a difference which keeps the vast majority of the population alive from day to day."
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
password, are you denying that the military justice system has convicted american service personnel stationed oversees of murder? I can't vouch for a "dozen" countries, but both Japan and Korea have had fairly well-publicized incidents in the past that have resulted in convictions by U.S. Courts Martial.
Here's a more recent one from CBS. We don't know if he's guilty or not yet, but it's serious enough that we turned the suspect over.
It happens, and Lyrhawn's point was we don't want such things considered an act of war.
I think the fact that Hamas is recruiting the people to blow themselves up changes the analysis from Americans who are living in a foreign country and commit crimes against with no support or prodding from superiors.
But that doesn't mean the sentence that provoked your ire is incorrect. Even if the number is wrong, the underlying concept - that American servicemen sometimes commit crimes against host-country citizens - isn't.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, it has happened. But Lyrhawn's intimation that it's a comparable event to a Hamas bombing is ridiculous, both for the reason you point out (that the attacks are the sanctioned intent of the arm in the case of Hamas) and because the frequency is, I'd be willing to bet, about two orders of magnitude off (i.e 100 suicide bombings for every serviceman that commits murder against a foreign citizen). I'd also be willing to bet he has to go back a good ways to get "more than a dozen" countries.
Lyrhawn, if you can cite examples of cold-blooded murder of a civilian by a U.S. serviceman in 13 countries in the last 15 years, I'll eat my words.
quote: Even if the number is wrong, the underlying concept - that American servicemen sometimes commit crimes against host-country citizens - isn't.
Then why give a wrong number? why make such an outlandish statement? I actually agree with Lyrhawn's point-- that the actions of an individual acting alone do not constitute an act of war-- But what I'm saying is that embellishment detracts from a point... if your purpose is to convince anyone. The statement could have easily been made without the slam, as only one example would have been plenty sufficient.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:But Lyrhawn's intimation that it's a comparable event to a Hamas bombing is ridiculous
He wasn't saying it was comparable. He was pointing out that actions of individual people tied to a nation's government don't necessarily lead to war. Something you agree with.
quote:Then why give a wrong number?
Do you know the number is wrong?
quote:why make such an outlandish statement?
What's outlandish about it?
quote:But what I'm saying is that embellishment detracts from a point
What embellishment? You admit you don't know the number is wrong. I don't know the number is right, but you accused Lyrhawn of inaccuracy without looking it up yourself.
quote:The statement could have easily been made without the slam, as only one example would have been plenty sufficient.
Who was it a slam on? The cold-blooded murderers?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What does he do when democracy elects terrorists?
*Brain explodes*
Hitler was democratically elected as well. Everything Lyrhawn is saying about Hamas could have been said, almost word for word, about the Nazi party's rise to power in the 1930s. And many people actually did say it. I guess some people just don't learn from history.
So if I'm reading this right, you believe that the US, or perhaps Israel, should invade the Palestinian area and impose a government more to their liking? Not criticising, just checking. Hasn't it been tried already?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, I'm being overly sensitive to the tone (a notoriously tricky thing on "the internets")... I obviously read it as impugning the service in general, you didn't. Not many others have weighed in but, given our respective post counts, I'd say you're more likely to have the pulse of the forum.
I didn't check my facts, no, but I also didn't make the accusation. And I do know enough about the world around me to know that a US servicemen being bound by law for murdering a foreign national is a rather rare thing. He said something, I'm skeptical. That's where it stands.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Skepticism leads to "for those that want to know why the red states don't listen to you anymore, allow me to present Exhibit A"?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What does he do when democracy elects terrorists?
*Brain explodes*
Hitler was democratically elected as well. Everything Lyrhawn is saying about Hamas could have been said, almost word for word, about the Nazi party's rise to power in the 1930s. And many people actually did say it. I guess some people just don't learn from history.
So if I'm reading this right, you believe that the US, or perhaps Israel, should invade the Palestinian area and impose a government more to their liking? Not criticising, just checking. Hasn't it been tried already?
Would it be hypocritical of the US not to? The US is supposed to be fighting terrorists. Well here we have a government run by terrorists.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point, Lyrhawn, is that if one is enough, why make it "dozens"? If one specific example is good, then give one specific example, instead of a sweeping gesture that implies "it happens all the time".
Dagonee, no, the skepticism doesn't lead to that. I already said I read it as a generalized staement about the military. Lyrhawn says it wasn't. Fair enough. It seemed like one to me, and that's why it was off-putting.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
That's a lose/lose situation. If we declare war on a democratically elected government it breaks Bush's creed that democracies don't declare war on each other. There's too much to be lost by invading, and really nothing to be gained.
password -
If I had enough time, I have little doubt I could find 13 over the course of American history. You're limitation to fifteen years in that previous post was wholly arbitrary and is baseless as far as I'm concerned. I think saying more than a dozen was probably true, so I said it. No, I'm not going to make a special trip to the library just to look it up, just for you, but I personally believe that number isn't wrong, and you are more than free to try and prove otherwise.
Further, I fail to see how what I said translates into "it happens all the time."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, 15 years was arbitrary, so is your reference to American servicemen at all.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Further, I fail to see how what I said translates into "it happens all the time."
If you truly can't see how your original statement might be taken as a broader implication of, or appeal to, a common (rather than an isolated) occurance then perhaps I should just leave off.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Figures.... something happens in the world, and it was either caused buy the President, or reflects negatively upon him.
Oh, and the red states see a difference between an act of terrorism committed by an indvidial, sanctioned by an organization, and a crime committed by an indivdual who is part of an organization. Service members aren't infallible. But they shouldn't all be judged by the acts of idiots like Pfc. England.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:American servicemen have committed murder of civilians in cold blood of citizens from more than a dozen countries around the world, on their soil. Are we are war with all of them?
Obviously not. This is in large part due to the way we treat such people, and on whose orders, exactly, they're murdering civilians in cold blood.
When a member of the American military murders a civilian abroad without orders from his superiors, far and away the most common practice is for them to be severely punished with jail-time at best. When a Palestinian member of Hamas murders a civilian in Israel-on the orders of Hamas leadership, frequently-the response is...cheering in the streets and regarding the dead murderer as a matyr who has ascended to Paradise.
So I think the two situations aren't really similar at all. Certainly nations would respond to the two things differently.
quote:Further, an official act of war? How official can it get? Palestine isn't an official state...
They lack real-estate, but they have a government, elections, laws, an economy...it seems to me that they're a pretty damn real state.
quote:Furthermore, I agreed up and down that Hamas' military wing, or if you don't want to distinguish, that Hamas itself is still a terrorist organization that kills innocent civilians, in addition to what I said about them improving infrastrucure.
While it is undeniable that Hamas has done good things for some Palestinians, I really don't understand why it's mentioned so often. I mean, Adolf Hitler (since Nazis have already been invoked) was kind to animals, or so I've heard. The Klan in the past has done some nice charity work, its members have anyway.
But no one remembers those things, and rightfully so. Because the mass- targeted murder of civilians for politics overwhelmingly trumps the building of infrastructure.
And as for democracy...well, the technical definition of a democracy is a society which chooses its political leadership through a democratic process. But there is another thing we usually think of when we say "democracy", and it involves a lot of things not present in Palestine. Things like a free press, safety to express contrary political views.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I brought it up in correlation to trying to describe the Palestinian mindset, and why they might decide to choose Hamas, who regardless of the surrounding circumstances, actually helps them out from time to time, over Fatah, who seems to be only in it for themselves.
What is it with this thread and a lack of recognition of context?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is it with this thread and a lack of recognition of context?
Lyrhawn, I understand what you are saying and am a little perplexed by the reaction of a few Hatrackers.
I do not read sympathy for Hamas, anti-Americanism, or support for terror. It seems to me you are just trying to get into the mindset of Palistinians and understand why they voted the way they did.
It makes sense to me. I agree that the Palastinian sees more of the "good - as in infastructure for the citizems" works Hamas does. They probably have a different perspective on what terror is. It is a muddled and murkey region.
I just wanted to let you know I am with you. I get your context.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have not said I don't understand why Palestinians voted Hamas over Fatah. Furthermore I did not intend to be saying that you spefically, Lyrhawn, were including infrastructure improvements and charity work right up amongst the most important and attention-worthy things Hamas does. However looking back, very specifically did so, because my post had your name right on top, heh.
That was a mistake on my part, sorry about that. I meant my remarks about not understanding why Hamas's charity work is mentioned along with their murder to be towards people in general who do so, not you in particular.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whew, thanks lem, Rakeesh. Sanity reigns on Hatrack!
We won't know who really wins in this situation for awhile yet. Hamas has agreed to a cease fire "at the very least" according to CNN. Israel, from what I understand, has agreed. First we'll see how that lasts, then we'll have to see what real changes come from Hamas having a majority in their parliament. We'll also have to wait and see if Abbas can survive the power shift, or if he too will be ousted and a Hamas militant will be thrusted into the Presidency.
It's too early to say much of anything yet.
I highly doubt, however, that regardless of how negotiations go, there's no way Hamas will agree to disarm. I think their militant wing should be molded into a national police force and army, which will go hand in hand with them declaring official statehood. There's no way anyone is going to get them to give up their weapons though, and I wonder why they should. If they can actually change their ideology and stop committing acts of terrorism, then it makes sense they should keep their weapons.
Again though, it's too early for speculation.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I guess a victory for Hamas is a victory for the hawks in Israel.
No, getting what you want is only a victory for you if you want something that's actually good for you.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
