rccar328 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 This is definitely bad news for Israel, and I believe, for the entire Middle East. Whether they know it or not, the Palestinians have, through this election, pretty much said that they don't want peace - rather, they agree with http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361080268&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull]Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that Israel should be 'wiped off the map', by electing representatives from an organization that has actively sought the destruction of Israel, primarily through the use of terrorism. At a press conference this morning, President Bush stated that the US will not deal with HAMAS, which is officially recognized by the US government as a terrorist organization. Makes perfect sense to me. It'll be very interesting to see how all of this plays out, but I believe that this is a huge step backward in terms of the 'road map to peace.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Well it's not like Israel ever did anything to help the so called "Road map to peace". I still hate the **** out of HAMAS though. While I dislike HAMAS and their being elected, I can understand why it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhuf Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 This is definitely bad news for Israel, and I believe, for the entire Middle East. And for the US. It's an interesting policy dilemma: the US wants to foster democracy by recognizing legitimate elections, but at the same time does not want to work with organizations that use terror. One question is, are the Palestinians prepared for the consequences of their decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 So this is the result of democracy, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I'm not so sure. As an israeli general said: "you don't negotiate with your allies, you negotiate with your enemies". As long as the feeling that Hamas represents was widespread among the palestinian population it woudln't matter who was in power, as negotiations with them wouldn't address that feeling. Having Hamas in power at least puts them in a more central role where their issues have to be addressed head on, rather than ignored while you hope they go away. Its like the northern ireland peace process... much as everyone on the british side would have liked to ignore sin fein and negotiate only with the moderate republicans, this would have been pointless. Any agreement would have been worthless is the people still supported sin fein and their viewpoint. The UK government realised this and decided they had to include sin fein in the process, no matter how unpalletable, and hoped that being in the process would cause sin fein to slowly moderate its attitude. Its all very well exporting democracy, but you can't complain when people in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Palestine decide to vote for parties you don't like. That is democracy for you. Its worth pointing out that in palestine Hamas is seen as a benevolent defender, not an eveil terrorist organisation. So this isn't really the palestinians saying "they don't want peace". 2/3rd of palestinians live on under $2 a day.. and hamas provides much of the schooling, orphanages, hospitals and other facilities that these people need. It is also very disciplined and has almost no corruption, which might cause a lot of palestinians to put it above fata when voting (as fata is seen as widely corrupt). Hopefully the realities of government will in time cause Hamas to realise that negotiation is inevitable. Since most aid to palestine comes from europe, the EU will be able to exert a reasonable amount of presure on Hamas to moderate it's langage. Though whether the EU will be willing to entirely withdraw all aid from such poor people is another matter. Not wanting to sound even more anti US than i have been accused of being, but the real problem is for the US. They have stated they won't negotiate with Hamas... which leaves them very little pressure or influence to bring to bear. The real danger is that Israel overreacts and elects a hardline government too... then the rhetoric will ramp up and the peace process really will be in trouble. However a recent poll shows that most israelis believe negotiation with Hamas will have to happen eventually.. so hopefully that won't happen. As long as that doesn't happen, and people keep talking, i think this is good for the peace process in the long run... but the short term might be rocky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhuf Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 A few points of information: 1. The US officially designates Hamas as a terrorist organization because their members kill civillians to affect political change. 2. Hamas has as one of its core platform values the destruction of Israel. 3. The US has plenty of leverage in the form of aid to the Palestinians which can be turned on and off as needed. The conventional (and I believe naively hopeful) interpretation of the election is that this is not a vote for terror, but a vote against the existing Palestinian leadership, an attempt to try something else. And why not? But it's naive to believe that the vote for Hamas was made in ignorance of point 2 above. Perhaps one can hope the Palestinians really didn't 'mean it' when they voted for a party that wishes to exterminate another country. The real problem is not the US. The US is sovereign to determine wether or not to negotiate with terrorists. All countries have that right by law. A Hamas government is going to have to decide wether or not to reounce terror. I doubt it will. Reouncing their platform is the last thing they need to do. Why should they when they just got a strong vote from the Palestinians that they love their platform? The very real problem will be : what will the Palestinians do if the aid runs dry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I didn't say the problem WAS the US. Merely that it was a problem FOR the US. The EU gives much more in aid, and has many more contacts with Hamas than the US. By making blanket statements the US has effectlvely ruled itself out of any influence for a while... though personally i wouldn't be surprised if talks DO go on in secret. Re 2: Apparently they didn't really mention the destruction of Israel as part of their election platform, and concentrated much more on cleaning out corruption etc.. I heard they even referenced getting a deal based on the 67 lines.. which implicitly imples the existance of an israel. Though of course all those omissions and implicit implications don't actually add up to anything remotely concrete. But its quite likely that a lot of palestinians voted on issues of corruption and their daily lives... rather than the destruction of israel. Though of course being anti Israel can't exactly hurt you in that kind of election. But if I was a poor guy living in palestine i'd be voting for the party i thought was going to get me food and a job and that ran the local hospital and school and that wasn't as corrupt as the current lot.. rather than voting on the issue of attacking israel. But the basic point remains... whether Hamas was in power or not their views (and the views of all the people who support them) would have to be included in the peace process. Having them in power probably makes that easier in the long run. In the short term Hamas will probably have its hands full trying to get the economy and government running.. and the practicalities of that have a tendancy to remove a few of the sharp extremities from people's views. Bear in mind that Sin Fein and the PLO were both on terrorist lists at one point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 If the West totally shuts out the Palestinian Authority out of any communication at this point over this, it certainly isn't going to help maintain stability in the region. If Hamas feels totally isolated and shut out they could react explosively, seeing nothing to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhuf Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 ...the practicalities of that have a tendancy to remove a few of the sharp extremities from people's views. One can only hope. Although there are other parties who came to power through election and never abandonded their fascistic ideologies: NAZIs in Germany. Both Hamas and NAZIs used clinics and services to demonstrate governmental competence to the people as an election strategy (pretty standard stuff). Both parties claim to be able to restore a downtrodden nation to greatness. Both claimed that foreign influence undermined their countries. Both advocated the violent distruction of Jews. There are probably more differences than similarties between the organizations and the times, places and situations, but it gives me pause. If Hamas feels totally isolated and shut out they could react explosively, seeing nothing to lose. That's really no worse than the historic pattern of Hamas behavior. They already kill civillian innocents for political gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 True,.. but why give them an additional reason to do so by a sudden cessation of all political and diplomatic communications, which will surely be viewed as an insult to a group that can rightfully claim to be elected by the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 One can only hope. Although there are other parties who came to power through election and never abandonded their fascistic ideologies: NAZIs in Germany. Both Hamas and NAZIs used clinics and services to demonstrate governmental competence to the people as an election strategy (pretty standard stuff). Both parties claim to be able to restore a downtrodden nation to greatness. Both claimed that foreign influence undermined their countries. Both advocated the violent distruction of Jews. There are probably more differences than similarties between the organizations and the times, places and situations, but it gives me pause. Of course, pulling out the nazi card... The situations in the middle-east and in Germany during the 30's are very different as you've said. So yeah... It may be a terrorist organization, but the simple fact that they've accepted to participate in a democratic process is a really big step. In fact, I'm going to say it's a big step towards peace, if everyone is willing to negotiate and talk with each other. Oh, and I'd like to note that it's a democratically elected government. Nobody can do anything about it. When Bush said that he won't negotiate with the Hamas, I told myself:"So he wants to bring democracy to the world, but once a government he doesn't like is elected, then he refuses to deal with them. Hmmm..." Yeah, they all love democracy...when the people elect a government they like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted January 29, 2006 Author Share Posted January 29, 2006 Well, until Hamas decides to stop supporting/participating in terrorism, there is no reason President Bush should negotiate with them. Of course, things are a bit different now for Hamas: if they keep up their suicide bombings, it'll technically be government-sponsored, which makes it an entirely different ball game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 They've even said that they want to turn their armed wing into a part of the official Palestinian military. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 They'll have to do better than that if they're trying to outshine the United States in having terrorists elected to public office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Since Fatah have been storming government buildings with automatic weapons I'm not sure there is as big a difference between Hamas and Fatah/PLO as some people like to think. It should be remembered that pretty much all the major political factions in that area have extremist links/past and blood on their hands in some form or other. As i understand it the president may actually havehis hands tied.. it would be illegal for the US to give money to Hamas while they are on the Terrorist organisations list. So the 40 million a year that the US gives may have to stop no matter what. Thats going to be a blow to hamas... but if it causes the palestinians to suffer even more then it might be along term problem.. as the more downtrodden a people the more desperate and extreme they get. Maybe the arab countries will kick in to support them.. but that could lead to a whole load of other problems. I'm not sure that hitler/hamas comparisons are in order... simply due to the fact that hamas has no goals outside it's own lands. I gotta say i think everyone is overreacting and should give hamas at least a short amount of time to reveal their intentions before predicting doom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted January 30, 2006 Author Share Posted January 30, 2006 I'm torn as far as monetary support to the Palestinians - on the one hand, I'm against supporting Hamas in any way, but on the other hand, withdrawing all support may drive even more Palestinians into the Hamas camp...but on the other hand, giving support to the Palestinians would now essentially constitute giving support to Hamas... Like I said, I'm torn. And as far as Hitler/Hamas comparisons, they don't really hold up in the Hitlerian 'take over the world' sense, but when it comes to the extermination of the Jews, they definitely stand up to scrutiny (though Hamas has never been as systematic about it as Hitler was). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 I say don't give aid to HAMAS, because it supports terrorism. During this so-called "War on Terror" we shouldn't be giving aid to terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 But if you are giving aid to Hamas, that they spend on hospitals or schools... are you supporting terrorism? Tricky question. Even the extermination of the jews comparisson is flakey.. they want the extermination of Israel (as a state) and even that is mainly an issue of war and land. Hitler wanted to exterminate the jews as a race, no matter where they are. Hamas wnats to drive them from israel. From where i stand there is a marked differnce between hating someone you are at war with and wanting to wipe out an entire race of people who have done nothing to you. Give them tanks and bombers and i'm sure they'd attack israel.. but i doubt they'd start putting people in gas chambers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted January 31, 2006 Author Share Posted January 31, 2006 But if you are giving aid to Hamas and they spend most of the money on hospitals or schools, and spend some of the money for dynamite that is then strapped to someone and used to blow up a bus or a cafe, is it still okay because most of the money went to a good cause? This really is the crux of the problem - with all of the aid that the US gives to the Palistinians (I think I heard that it's around $40 million per year), Hamas could buy an arsenal of weapons and bring its hopes of eradicating Israel that much closer...of course, if they did, the aid would be gone faster than you could say "suicide bomber", but I don't know what kind of oversight the US government has on how aid money is spent, and whether Hamas could use that aid to slowly build up such an arsenal...of course, I could just be coming up with conspiracy theories, but I don't think it's all that far-fetched. The leader of Hamas came out the other day and said that they want to create a new Palestinian army , to "defend our people against aggression." My question is, how long is it going to take before some Hamas suicide bomber blows up another bus or cafe, and then the Palestinian government reads the resulting retaliatory strike by Israel as an act of war? I guess I'm just not as optimistic as some about the restraint of a known terrorist group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 But if you are giving aid to Hamas and they spend most of the money on hospitals or schools, and spend some of the money for dynamite that is then strapped to someone and used to blow up a bus or a cafe, is it still okay because most of the money went to a good cause? No. If any money goes on terrorist activities then it isn't ok at all. I'm with you on that. But, hypothetically, if there are two bank accounts 1 - Palestinian government bank account 2 - Hamas private bank account and we pay money into account 1, which is then spent entirely on aid and other good stuff, does it matter that the guys administrating both accounts are terrorists? And might be using account 2 to fund such activities? If i lend money to a terrorist to buy his mum a birthday present, does that mean i'm supporting terrorism? Assuming i give it on the understanding it will be spent entirely on the present? Hmm... interesting.. I think the $40m may be gone anyway, as it will be illegal for the US to keep giving it (unless they find a legal loophole). But I very much doubt Hamas would be daft enough to provoke israel into a full scale "war". They'd get slaughtered.. no way any "defence force" could stand up to the might of israel's army. They might support individual suicide bombers, but i can't see them commiting suicide withthe whole country. Mind you, nest time the israeli army launches a helicopter rocket attack on a crowded appartment building, i'd have no problem with the palestinians shooting it down. But i think ALL their aid will dry up pretty rapidly if they start spending it on armies rather than food/economy/healthcare that is badly needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Perhaps, though, if we don't give them aid and they can't afford to run schools and hospitals, they'll realize that they need to become more moderate so they can get the aid money flowing in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Perhaps, though, if we don't give them aid and they can't afford to run schools and hospitals, they'll realize that they need to become more moderate so they can get the aid money flowing in. Or they just get hungry, get easily manipulated by extremists and they'll get more extreme. It's not as easy as you seem to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Or they just get hungry, get easily manipulated by extremists and they'll get more extreme. It's not as easy as you seem to think. Yes, I see that as another possibility. I still believe though that we shouldn't be giving aid to a hostile country (like North Korea, for example). And the Palestinians clearly don't appreciate the billions of dollars we've sent to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 And the Palestinians clearly don't appreciate the billions of dollars we've sent to them. Says who? The majority of Palestinians who surely do appreciate any help or the few extremists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I don't know. I've just never heard of any Palestinian having a positive attitude about the U.S. All we ever see of Palestinians are them burning the American flag and chanting "down with America." Maybe just no one ever shows the good appreciative Palestinians? *Shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.