|
Hamas Set to Win Palestinian Election: Government Resigns (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJFreaq |
Yea I was listening to NPR on the ferry ride home.
Good 'ol Hamas. I hope they change their terrorist ways.
Just as much as I hope Israel gives them a chance for a fair shot for peace.
Gah... balls.
:nervous: |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
Dont blame me for my lack of knowledge about true Hamas.
You see these are the things than CNN will never tell you, they are too busy in potraying Hamas as a bad terrorist organisation with corruption rooted deep within. |
What more do you need to know?
It's in their charter to wipe Isreal off the map; nuff said I would say.
Regardless of the peoples choice, there should be no negotiations with terrorists unless they change their policies. Only then could they be taken seriously.
If the people voted in Hamas, logically doesn't that mean that they agree with the Hamas policy?
Didn't they just vote in a terrorist government then?
If you're wondering about Carter in the pic below, he was an international observer team from the National Democratic Institute that monitored the elections.
 |
|
|
| Yoepus |
What the editors of the WSJ think of this development, I think they summed i up rather nicely:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110007874
| quote: |
Hamas Rules
A chance to show it has an agenda beyond terror.
Friday, January 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
The sweeping victory of the Islamist Hamas party in Wednesday's Palestinian legislative elections can hardly be considered good news. But neither is it surprising, and it may even have the long-run benefit of educating Palestinians about the terrible cost of their political choices.
The ruling Fatah faction of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas governed corruptly, ineffectually and, until the death in 2004 of founder Yasser Arafat, dictatorially. So it is understandable that Palestinians wanted an alternative. That they went for the only other major choice on offer is not necessarily an indication that they share Hamas's goal of destroying Israel and all its citizens. The vote might even turn out to be clarifying--in the sense of showing the world that no Israeli-Palestinian peace is possible until the Palestinians have leaders who really want to live in peace with Israel.
Of course, there's no sugarcoating what this vote for the party of suicide bombers and social welfare says about the state of Palestinian politics. Partly this is the fault of the losing Fatah faction itself. Ever since its return to the Palestinian territories in the mid-1990s following the Oslo "peace" accords, Fatah has fed Palestinians on a diet of extremist, anti-Semitic propaganda. Its military wing assassinated "moderate" Palestinians, while allowing Hamas to flourish as a terror weapon--both to kill Israelis, and to scare Fatah's American and European patrons about the possible alternatives to its rule.
It should never be forgotten that in 2002--under Arafat's iron fist--Palestinian terrorists were allowed to murder 452 Israelis. That figure later dropped not because of any change of heart on Fatah's part but because Israel and the United States finally gave up on Arafat as a credible peace partner and turned to a strategy of unilateral separation (the infamous "wall") and military strikes.
Partly, too, Israel and the West must own up to their culpability for Wednesday's outcome. Foreign policy critics of the so-called realist school will no doubt be tempted to trumpet the vote as a setback for President Bush's strategy of democratizing the Middle East. But it's more accurate to say that Hamas's win only highlights the damage done by decades of realist support for "strongmen" and "stability."
The calculation at the heart of Oslo was that Arafat and Fatah would impose a dictatorial order on Palestinians that outsiders never could. The late Yitzhak Rabin put it most clearly when he said the point of recognizing Arafat in 1993 was not to give the Palestinians their freedom. It was because Arafat could deal with Hamas and other troublemakers without interference from "the Supreme Court and [the human rights organization] B'Tselem."
Rabin was right that Arafat would have scant regard for the rights of Palestinians. But he was wrong that Arafat would crack down on Hamas. Like every other strongman, Arafat didn't crack down on extremists but used them to his advantage where he could. Palestinians could see that the U.S. was coddling a man who oppressed them, breeding cynicism about U.S. motives and making it hard for democratic movements to flourish. The Bush Administration is working hard to change those perceptions and build a Palestinian civil society, but this will take years.
So far the White House--which pushed the Palestinian Authority to hold these elections--has struck the right notes in response to the Hamas victory. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised the vote for being peaceful and "by all accounts fair." At the same time she stated that "you cannot have one foot in politics and another in terror." President Bush rightly said Hamas should expect no relations with the United States until it stops calling for Israel's destruction.
The White House will have to resist the temptation, no doubt encouraged by Europe, to pressure Israel to deal with Hamas as it once was pressed to deal with Arafat. But given Hamas's history and declared goals, the onus is on its leaders to show that they have an agenda beyond terror. If Hamas begins to use Gaza as a base to import weapons and attack Israel, the Jewish state will have every right to strike back in self-defense. And the U.S. should support it in doing so.
It's always possible that the burden of responsibility will over time make Hamas a less radical movement. If it remains rejectionist and bent only on war with Israel, then the Palestinians will sour on its rule in any case. Perhaps then average Palestinians will conclude they have no choice but to co-exist with Israel if they want a better life. The obligation of the U.S. is to make it clear to Hamas, and to all Palestinians, that there is no future in terror.
|
To those that don't see a problem with Hammas in power, would you be alright if the KKK controled most the US government? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Hopefully the election of Hamas to government in Palestine will have a similar effect on radical Islam as the election of the Conservatives in the UK had on conservative politics!
Ie. they will be so bad that the people will realise what a load of their policies are and will never elect them again!
However, I'm not sure it will work like that. This election is the first in a pattern that is emerging in the Middle East...Arab nationalism (socialism) failed to deliver the goods. Now people are turning to the next thing that is promising them a better life...political Islamism. It wont work. It wont deliver the social promises the people need and it puts the middle east in direct conflict with the West. In the short term, this is extremely bad if Hamas maintains their radical stance...
...unless being in charge forces Hamas to modernise and become more moderate. It often happens that radical ideas are soon forgotten after those ideas have brought them to power. It is a strong possibility that being elected will take away the radical edge off Hamas, maybe... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
What more do you need to know?
It's in their charter to wipe Isreal off the map; nuff said I would say.
Regardless of the peoples choice, there should be no negotiations with terrorists unless they change their policies. Only then could they be taken seriously.
If the people voted in Hamas, logically doesn't that mean that they agree with the Hamas policy?
Didn't they just vote in a terrorist government then?
If you're wondering about Carter in the pic below, he was an international observer team from the National Democratic Institute that monitored the elections.
|
Why pick on Carter? The neocons want to invade every country in the world if they could to force them to be democratic...why not have a picture of Pearle or Wolfowitz saying how wonderful democracy is? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
To those that don't see a problem with Hammas in power, would you be alright if the KKK controled most the US government? |
Well the UK has Sien Fein in government who are the political wing of the IRA. Its a bitter pill to swallow but it has helped a GREAT deal to bring peace to Northern Ireland (indeed Irish terrorism against mainland Britian simply does not exist anymore) and to the UK so maybe there is a lesson there? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Why pick on Carter? The neocons want to invade every country in the world if they could to force them to be democratic...why not have a picture of Pearle or Wolfowitz saying how wonderful democracy is? |
Why not ask the guy who made the drawing?
How the hell am I supposed to know? lol :p
I'm not sure what he's saying by putting Carter in there... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Try and answer the question at the bottom of my post.
Why negotiate?
Israel's official policy desires a two state solution, Palestine's official policy as of this morning is a one state solution: The elimination of the Jewish state.
Maybe its just me, but that seems a bit Hitleresque, no?
Ahh forget the lessons from history, lets appease them!:rolleyes:
|
Well I can see your point by what they have said but thats all it is...what they have said. Saying 'that' about Israel is going to make them popular amongst the palestinians. It appears they are standing up against Israel (or will do) to protect the people in Palestine. Hey, maybe that 'hardline' just won them the elction?
But you need to give them time to see how they evolve now in power. This is a new phase for Hamas. A position they have never been in before. You dont know how it will pan out. It could be extremely bad if they continue their hard stance, but they might just has likely moderate their policies to maintain power (both from internal and external pressures).
Actions speak louder than words remember! Just because a Palestinian group says they want to eliminate Israel doesn't mean they will or even want to do it!
Look at Fatah...they had the same 'policy'...then they got into power and made their policy a two state solution... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Why not ask the guy who made the drawing?
How the hell am I supposed to know? lol :p
I'm not sure what he's saying by putting Carter in there... |
You mean you didn't draw it?!?! |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
You mean you didn't draw it?!?! |
Dood, I'm luckily to draw a straight line with a ruler.
I'm forever artistically and creatively inept in that field...:sadgreen:
(As much as I wish I wasn't...) |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| This thread is hypocritical. I don't hear anyone bitching about Israeli state sponsored terrorism and hence the Palestinians should not negotiate with Israel. And before anyone tries to put words in my mouth, no I do not support Hamas (especially considering the fact that MOSSAD set them up in the first place). Creating terrorist organizations seems to be a hobby of the US and Israel. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
This thread is hypocritical. I don't hear anyone bitching about Israeli state sponsored terrorism and hence the Palestinians should not negotiate with Israel. And before anyone tries to put words in my mouth, no I do not support Hamas (especially considering the fact that MOSSAD set them up in the first place). Creating terrorist organizations seems to be a hobby of the US and Israel. |
Really?
Can you show us a U.S. written policy that wants to destroy another country? |
|
|
|
|
