[aldo_14]

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

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

It comes as the militant Islamic group appeared to be heading for a shock win. [/q]

Hmm.... this could go one of two ways, it seems. 

Bad way; end of any dialogue between the PA and Israel, and escalating violence as a result both due to Hamas militancy and Israeli reaction (either retaliatory or pre-emptive). 

Good way; encourages Hamas to move away from militancy to diplomacy (akin to the IRA/Sinn Fein in N.Ireland)

Bad way seems more likely based on the quotes in the BBC article at the moment.

[kode]

good way is more quoted in swedish news, last night.

[Sandwich]

It may sound harsh, but I personally am glad about one aspect of this whole thing - perhaps now the world will see how desiring of peace our Palestinian neighbors are after this, voting for the most hardcore terrorist group around as their government. Not that the previous Palestinian government was any better, but at least Hamas doesn't try to hide who they are.

God help us all.

[Rictor]

This could get interesting. As in: bullets and explosions interesting.

[aldo_14]

It may sound harsh, but I personally am glad about one aspect of this whole thing - perhaps now the world will see how desiring of peace our Palestinian neighbors are after this, voting for the most hardcore terrorist group around as their government. Not that the previous Palestinian government was any better, but at least Hamas doesn't try to hide who they are.

God help us all.

I don't think that's been the general international assessment of the situation, to be honest; the Hamas vote appears to be generally viewed as a protest vote against Fatah (principally corruption & the failure to make progress towards a 2 state peace deal), and possibly the general unrest and lack of security in the territories.

 It'd be unwise to regard it as some sort of endorsement (by voters) for escalating or even continuing violence at this early stage; Hamas has 2 spheres of operations, one of which is terrorist/militant, and one of which is social (building hospitals, schools, mosques, etc) - the question that we'll need to wait and see answered is which one was key to this election.   Certainly the very decision for Hamas to participate democratically in the first place offers some glimpse of hope.

One other thing worth considering is that when Sharon was voted in, he was (probably still is AFAIK) considered a war criminal by the Palestinians; this sort of situation is scarcely unprecedented in that sense, just in that it's the smaller, weaker group this time that have voted in someone the 'other side' considers the devil incarnate.

Of course, if it is an endorsement for terrorism and the eradication of Israel - you have to ask why?  I don't think low enough of humanity to assume the majority of hatred comes without some form of rationalisation for it, and it's usually more useful to address that rationalisation than just keep addressing the consequences (of that hatred).

[Mefustae]

From what i've seen and read, voters were attracted to HAMAS namely due to their efforts to stamp out corruption and soforth. The fact that this has happened only after HAMAS chose to seriously downplay the violent aspects of their group should go a long way to show that the general populous isn't a group focussed on bloodshed and destruction.

Oh, and Sandwich; it's called optimism. Look it up.

[Sandwich]

I don't think that's been the general international assessment of the situation, to be honest; the Hamas vote appears to be generally viewed as a protest vote against Fatah (principally corruption & the failure to make progress towards a 2 state peace deal), and possibly the general unrest and lack of security in the territories.

 It'd be unwise to regard it as some sort of endorsement (by voters) for escalating or even continuing violence at this early stage; Hamas has 2 spheres of operations, one of which is terrorist/militant, and one of which is social (building hospitals, schools, mosques, etc) - the question that we'll need to wait and see answered is which one was key to this election.   Certainly the very decision for Hamas to participate democratically in the first place offers some glimpse of hope.

It is frustrating to see people in the world trying in every which way possible to avoid facing the facts on the ground. Pardon me if I do not continue this specific line of debate - I don't feel like being frustrated. As you said, we'll just have to wait and see.

Of course, if it is an endorsement for terrorism and the eradication of Israel - you have to ask why?  I don't think low enough of humanity to assume the majority of hatred comes without some form of rationalisation for it, and it's usually more useful to address that rationalisation than just keep addressing the consequences (of that hatred).

I fully agree. Their hatred is not some sort of out-of-the-blue, irrational hatred. It comes from simple things, such as some children's TV programs (this is an Iranian cartoon, not Palestinian, but it depicts Palestinians and IDF soldiers).

EDIT: There comes a point, Mefustae, when optimism must give way to realism. I don't base my expectations on my hopes. I base my expectations on history, on past experience. Sure, my hopes are that things have changed, that leopards can change their spots, etc. I hope so. But I don't expect it to happen. And that, my friend, is called realism.

[Mefustae]

*Looks up 'realism'*

Aaaaah, point well made.

However, look at the bigger picture. While you argue that HAMAS will likely never change its views, Israel's (and the United States') complete refusal to even talk with a HAMAS controlled government hardly encourages change.

Edit: (If i'm ever being sarcastic, i'll add a smilie or [/sarcasm], you made a good point and I acknowledge that )

[Sandwich]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...

[vyper]

It may sound harsh, but I personally am glad about one aspect of this whole thing - perhaps now the world will see how desiring of peace our Palestinian neighbors are after this, voting for the most hardcore terrorist group around as their government. Not that the previous Palestinian government was any better, but at least Hamas doesn't try to hide who they are.

God help us all.

Sandwich, this is the problem. I don't doubt there are many blood thirsty Palestinians who would like nothing more than for Islam to rule the world, just as I don't doubt there are zionists in Israel who like to make us all Jewish.

At the end of the day these people are not the majority, they simply appear so because of the violence and strangth of certain singular acts.

When, in France, an extreme right wing political group gained ground in the early stages of an election people did not assume that the majority of the French wanted to kill all darkies (so to speak) - they assumed it was a warning to the established mainstream parties to buck up and get their act together.

Why is it so hard to accept that the Palestinian people are doing the same to their mainstream party?

[aldo_14]

It is frustrating to see people in the world trying in every which way possible to avoid facing the facts on the ground. Pardon me if I do not continue this specific line of debate - I don't feel like being frustrated. As you said, we'll just have to wait and see.

I'm not sure I understand you.  Remember that, whilst I may be somewhere else, I'm also emotionally distanced by that.  Where you are, you have a very good view, but only of certain things and perspectives.

I fully agree. Their hatred is not some sort of out-of-the-blue, irrational hatred. It comes from simple things, such as some children's TV programs (this is an Iranian cartoon, not Palestinian, but it depicts Palestinians and IDF soldiers).

Yes, but why?  Why does that sort of cartoon get made?

More importantly, why would it get watched by Palestinians (because these are the people who voted for Hamas, not the Iranians - we all know about that countries foibles)?  Why would it be accepted?  You're trying to say 'this causes hate, they make them hate'; but not why anyone would want that hatred.  What are the simple things that cause it?  Why do those simple things exist?

If you want to sit, and confidently say "we're better than them", you have to rise above the easiness of simply assuming hatred never has valid reasons.... understand them, understand why, and thus understand how to overcome it and find peace.  90% of time, those reasons hurt to be realised, and that's why they're ignored. 

And no, I'm not saying there's any justification for bombings or violence; not for blowing up a cafe or a bus, nor is there for bulldozing a refugee camp or shooting a protestor in the head.  There never is.  But not everyone is born to hate, and I doubt many even want to.  All they need is an alternative to it.

[Sandwich]

Why is it so hard to accept that the Palestinian people are doing the same to their mainstream party?

As far as elections can guage the opinions of a public (i.e. uneven turnout between supporters of one side vs. supporters of the other can't be calculated), the majority of the Palestinian people have voted for Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization, as recognized by the EU, UN, US, and any other acronyms you want to throw in there.

Now, I freely admit that it could very well be that the Palestinians were not so much voting for Hamas as they were voting against the (corrupt and ineffective) Fatah. Be that as it may, it's still a worrying outcome.

Yes, but why?  Why does that sort of cartoon get made?

More importantly, why would it get watched by Palestinians (because these are the people who voted for Hamas, not the Iranians - we all know about that countries foibles)?  Why would it be accepted?  You're trying to say 'this causes hate, they make them hate'; but not why anyone would want that hatred.  What are the simple things that cause it?  Why do those simple things exist?

For a simple reason, although you're not going to like it: because Islam is a religion of Peace. Oh, and make sure to read the "About this site" page before you start bringing forth the "there's lots of 'normal', peace-loving Muslims" argument - a fact I don't argue against, don't get me wrong. It's just that "lots" != "majority".

If you want to sit, and confidently say "we're better than them", you have to rise above the easiness of simply assuming hatred never has valid reasons.... understand them, understand why, and thus understand how to overcome it and find peace.  90% of time, those reasons hurt to be realised, and that's why they're ignored. 

And no, I'm not saying there's any justification for bombings or violence; not for blowing up a cafe or a bus, nor is there for bulldozing a refugee camp or shooting a protestor in the head.  There never is.

Never said we were "better" than anyone. Just not as ruthlessly violent.

And dude, have you never watched a Palestinian protest on TV? Or a funeral? Or a celebration? Or a wedding? The crowd always has a sea of weapons, from pistols through assault rifles and on to RPG's, being fired into the air in celebration; did it ever occur to you that the reports of these protestors being shot and killed might be omitting the fact that said protestors were armed? I'm not citing any specific incident here, btw, just a general observation.

But not everyone is born to hate, and I doubt many even want to.  All they need is an alternative to it.

Amen and Hallelujah!

[Crazy_Ivan80]

well, it's not liike there was a lot of love spent between the jews and muslims before israel came into existance. After that and the recurring defeats of the arabs it only got worse...

Maybe the arabs don't like jews, and like them even less when they're not dhimmis?
The same with christians imho: the palestinian christians are only tolerated cause they're second class to the muslims and their numbers are so small; similar in Lebanon where the christian numbers are dropping (though they're with much more). Imagine mid-eastern christians declaring an independent country for themselves, then imagine the muslim outrage at the uppityness of those dhimmis at declaring a 'crusader' state.

[Rictor]

on a semi-related note, didn't Ehud Olmert recently hint that there would be further withdrawls from the West Bank? Yeah, that's going to go down real well with the settlers and right wing.

[karajorma]

As far as elections can guage the opinions of a public (i.e. uneven turnout between supporters of one side vs. supporters of the other can't be calculated), the majority of the Palestinian people have voted for Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization, as recognized by the EU, UN, US, and any other acronyms you want to throw in there.

So was Sinn Fein. You know something Sandwich. Your attitude in this whole matter reminds me of that of Ian Paisley in Ireland. He too spent all his time complaining at how Sinn Fein were all terrorists and murderers, refused to see the flaws that existed in his camp and in the end stormed out of the peace talks that eventually lead to the situation we have now in NI simply because Sinn Fein were permitted to actually sit at the table and give their view.

The only way you'll get peace is by allowing the Palestinians to have a voice. They elect Hamas because they feel that they aren't puppets and will put their view across. It's the same reason that lead to Sinn Fein winning seats in the elections just before the ceasefire.

[aldo_14]

For a simple reason, although you're not going to like it: because Islam is a religion of Peace. Oh, and make sure to read the "About this site" page before you start bringing forth the "there's lots of 'normal', peace-loving Muslims" argument - a fact I don't argue against, don't get me wrong. It's just that "lots" != "majority".

I don't believe you can use religion as an excuse for crime, and I don't believe you can stereotype people based on a group of vocal nutters.  That site is set up to basically state a pre-conclusion and label Muslims in a certain way; that's what the 'about' page says.  to me that's no more factual than sites created to 'detail' the 'Zionist threat', and it's not all that dissimilar to what that cartoon you mentioned does; 'these people hurt someone of my religion, hence all those people must be evil because they were of a different religion'.

It's no more valid, indeed, than calling the Iraq or Afghan wars of recent times an accept by Christian/Zionist/Crusader nations to subjugate and kill Muslims.  It deliberately ignores the reasons beyond religion-  foreign policy, occupation, long term feelings of injustice - as well as the reasons of global power that act to define the tactics used by militant or terrorist groups.  Especially in the PTs, because it's not a case where the Palestinians can retaliate with helicopter gunships and waves of tanks.... so for some of them - tragically - they decide to hit back using themselves as bombs.

The truth is that sort of attitude is an intentionally self-fulfilling one, as it aims to demonise a people in order to justify that demonisation.  I'm sorry, and don't mean to cause offense, but i think it's just lazy racism.

Never said we were "better" than anyone. Just not as ruthlessly violent.

And dude, have you never watched a Palestinian protest on TV? Or a funeral? Or a celebration? Or a wedding? The crowd always has a sea of weapons, from pistols through assault rifles and on to RPG's, being fired into the air in celebration; did it ever occur to you that the reports of these protestors being shot and killed might be omitting the fact that said protestors were armed? I'm not citing any specific incident here, btw, just a general observation.

Oh, I'm not denying the right of Israeli troops to defend themselves if fired upon (although does that not extend in converse to Palestinians seeing their houses bulldozed?) - I was actually referencing the various cases of foreign peace activists shot and killed by IDF forces (I believe at least one has been ruled as murder), or run over by bulldozers. 

The question is, though, is Israel 'not as ruthlessly violent' because it wants to be, or because it has an overwhelming array of hi-tech weaponry? 

Is it not violent in itself to commit assasinations, regardless of how evil the target, using bombs and rockets?  To demolish homes in response to once person coming from that area being soft in the head and blowing themselves up?  Is it ruthless to wall up a people, particularly when said wall cuts towns in half and off from key agricultural areas?

More importantly, if the positions were reversed, can we really be sure there wouldn't be the same feelings on either side?  IIRC, when Israel was still British administered territory, it was terrorism & guerilla warfare by both Arab and Jew that defined the shape of the nascent state.

My heart bleeds when I think of this whole situation; on the one hand, you have a Palestinian populace who feels oppressed and bullied by a larger state which strikes with impunity.  On the other, Israel finds themselves surrounded by nations who are at best refusing to acknowledge the states existence, and at worst openly-anti-semitic and calling for its destruction.  The only reason I tend to put the onus upon Israel is because Israel has, IMO, more power to make positive change.

The whole situation is almost a microcosm of the failings of humanity (intolerance, suspicion, greed for land and power over others, the desire for vengeance and the cycle of violence), IMO, but for some reason I still think there's room for hope.  And I understand the problem of having Hamas in government there, but I don't think it should be viewed as a damming indictment for either the peace process or the Palestinian peoples' wish for one; at least not in these first few days.

[ionia23]

"When you sign up for the wrong team, you get what you deserve." -FS2

Palestine dug it's own grave this time.  Way to go.

[karajorma]

So Northern Ireland dug their own grave electing Sinn Fein?

[Ghostavo]

Old article but I agree with it, although I can't say I understand all the geo-political references(I skipped most of them).

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j123002.html

[Roanoke]

Well we all know how much those crazy Yanks like regime change. Maybe now it's time to send in the Abrams.

Gonna be interesting to see how the British government react, given how they accepted Sinn Fein into the political fold.