Palestinian Elections

[The Wrath]

So Hamas won 76 of the 132 (I think) seats in the parliament. It goes without saying that the elections were a farce and that the other option, Fatah, was only marginally better than Hamas.

Honestly though, I'm optimistic about the outcome. The reason is that, while much of the Western world may not like Israel, only the most extreme of radicals still see Hamas as anything other than a thuggish band of murderers. This will give Israel the reason it needs to do what is necessary without facing condemnation from the rest of the world. Furthermore, if the Israeli-Palestinian dispute turns into something larger (as in, involving other Arab countries like Iran and Syria), it will now be much easier to bring hesitant countries (like France and Germany) over to our side.

[softwareNerd]

It all depends on the internal politics within Hamas. They could decide to take this opportunity to "legitimize" themselves and grab traditional power. They may embrace the idea of being the one's to deliver "true statehood" to their people, checkmating Fatah into tagging along. Or, they could simply invite a full-blown war.

[Capitalism Forever]

This will give Israel the reason it needs to do what is necessary without facing condemnation from the rest of the world.

The rest of the world gave Arafat the Nobel Peace Prize. And Hamas, after all, is merely following in the footsteps of that "respectable statesman." And now they're democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people, and we all know that the will of the people must be respected, because if you don't, then you're just as bad as Hitler.

So I wouldn't count on any change in "world opinion." But world opinion doesn't matter anyway. What matters is whether Israel has the chutzpah to do what is necessary, no matter how much condemnation and consternation everyone expresses at it.

Their initial response sounds encouraging; let's hope they'll keep it up.

[gags]

Looking at the Palestinians' situation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a more irrational and poorly led group of people. For more than 50+ years they have made the wrong decisions at virtually every critical point. They have consistently chosen violence over peace and it has earned them nothing but death, destruction and poverty. Now they are being led by the party of suicide bombers. The Isrealis should say the hell with world opinion and do whatever is necessary to guarantee their security.

[softwareNerd]

My understanding is that the majority of the good Palestians left that area over the decades and live in the U.S. and elsewhere.

[RussK]

The great thing about this election is that it shows the real intention, mentality, and goals of the majority of the so called Palestinians. Over the past couple of years, representatives of the PLO and other sympathizers have been spreading propaganda that, "the majority of the 'Palestinian people' want peace and are non-violent, and terrorism and its support represents only a small faction of the population". This election has shown the world what probably many of us here have known: that the majority of Palestinians do not want peace, and support the actions of terrorist organizations. However, will this mean anything? After all, sympathy for the Palestinians only came via terrorist acts; everything that they've accomplised has been due to terrorism.

[softwareNerd]

Here's a summary of Hamas's pre-election positioning, from MEMRI.

[RationalEgoistSG]

The outcome of this election is also going to have a significant impact on internal Israeli politics. Right before Sharon's coma he had forged a new moderate party that seemed to be leaning towards more appeasement of the Palestinians. Depending on how this new Hamas government presents itself, we could see a majority of Israeli's supporting a more hawkish government and moving away from the moderate party. For example I'd be willing to bed that Benjamin Netanyahu's political favorability is going to jump in the coming months.

[StarBuck]

I think its safe to say the Hamas victory had as much to do with Islamicism in Palestine as Fatah corruption.

Although on the face of it this is not a good thing, no one can say for certain how the Hamas will behave as a legitimate player.

[D'kian]

Although on the face of it this is not a good thing, no one can say for certain how the Hamas will behave as a legitimate player.

You know, a lot of people in the media are waving the "legitimate player" card as they would a talisman to fend off evil. How did Arafat behave as a legitimate player? If that's not answer enough, then look at history and see how other legitimized tyrants have behaved. Hitler was elected, too, never forget that.

Oh, they'll do the welfare state thing. They already do in some areas. That might just win over the Eu, too.

What will likely happen is Hamas will "renounce" terrorism and go on with "resistance." The Europeans will eat it up and give him money.

The best outcome would be all out open war against Israel, but I don't think the next ruler of Hamstan is really that stupid.

[jrs]

Right before Sharon's coma he had forged a new moderate party that seemed to be leaning toward more appeasement of the Palestinians.

I do not think that Sharon was trying to appease the Palestinians. He recognized that they were not a reliable partner for peace negotiations; and decided to impose a peace settlement unilaterally. That is what he did in Gaza and I think that he was going to do it next on the West Bank. Building the wall of separation and removing indefensible outposts was part of his plan.

The only other way do it unilaterally would have been to drive out or exterminate the Palestinians which would be Genocide and unacceptable to the International community and also to many Israelis.

[The Wrath]

The term "genocide" is too easily thrown around these days. The word means exterminating people based on race or ethnicity. It cannot be applied to a free nation's choice to secure a geographical region. Carpet bombing the West Bank wouldn't be genocide anymore than it was genocide for us to carpet bomb Hamburg.

We weren't seeking out all people of German heritage and killing them. Likewise, Israel has never shown any inclination to seek out all people of Arab or Palestinian heritage and kill them.

Edited January 28, 2006 by Moose

[StarBuck]

Okay, if not genocide, how about the term "ethnic cleansing".

[The Wrath]

Or how about "war." Both the terms "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" denote war crimes taken against a group that did nothing to deserve it. Israel is fighting a defensive war and has every right to pulverize the geographical location of its enemies. The presence of civilians is of no consequence, especially considering that the so-called "innocents" just voted overwhelmingly to have their territories run by Hamas.

[Capitalism Forever]

unacceptable to the International community

Anything Israel does is unacceptable to the "international community" as long as it involves Israel's survival.

The obligation of Israel's Prime Minister is to defend the rights of Israeli inviduals, not to satisfy the international community.

[softwareNerd]

There's also a slight chance that the Hamas and Fatah will damage each other better than a half-hearted outsider might.

[jrs]

Israel is fighting a defensive war and has every right to pulverize the geographical location of its enemies.

No. The Israelis started the war.

Foreign Office

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration%2C_1917

The establishment of a specifically Jewish state within the land of Palestine was a violation of the understanding that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". And it was contrary to fundamental principles of religious freedom and equal rights.

By the mid-19th century, the Land of Israel was a part of the Ottoman Empire, populated mostly by Muslim and Christian Arabs, as well as Jews, Druze, Bedouins and other minorities. By 1844, Jews constituted the largest population group (and by 1890 an absolute majority) in a few cities, most notably Jerusalem.

.....

Near the end of the century Leon Pinsker and Theodore Herzl took practical steps toward securing international support for a Jewish homeland in the region of Palestine, though neither of them considered Palestine as the only conceivable site for the future state. In 1897, the First Zionist Congress proclaimed the decision "to establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz-Israel secured under public law."

.....

The Arabs totally rejected the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine (however, they were not under any legal obligation to accept the plan as General Assembly resolutions are not binding).

Violence between Arab and Jewish communities erupted almost immediately. Toward the end of the British mandate, the Jews planned to declare a separate state, a development the Arabs were determined to prevent. On May 14, 1948, the last British forces withdrew from Palestine, and the Jews, led by David Ben Gurion, declared the creation of the State of Israel, in accordance with the Partition Plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel/History

Various Israeli terrorist groups operated against the British and the Arabs from the beginning of the conflict. So while many Palestinians today are as bad as you-all say they are, the Israelis are just as guilty in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

http://www.etzel.org.il/english/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_gang

[The Wrath]

The modern-day Israelis are just as guilty because of what they did 90 years ago?

Furthermore, the land that eventually became Israel already had a clear Jewish majority. I also don't see how forming Israel somehow violates the rights of Palestinians. And don't give me some bs about how they stole the land...there has never, in the history of mankind, been a nation called "Palestine."

[gags]

The establishment of a specifically Jewish state within the land of Palestine was a violation of the understanding that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". And it was contrary to fundamental principles of religious freedom and equal rights.

Are you saying that today, in 2006, Isreal does not have a right to exist?

[Capitalism Forever]

The establishment of a specifically Jewish state within the land of Palestine was a violation of the understanding that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".

Israel respects the rights of non-Jewish individuals more than any other country in the Middle East does. In fact, most of the Jews living in Israel are themselves "non-Jewish," i.e. secular.

Israel, although far from being perfect, is the freest, most civilized, most moral nation within a radius of 2000 miles of Jerusalem. Palistan (spelling intentional) IS perfect--perfectly evil, that is.

[FeatherFall]

No. The Israelis started the war.

The establishment of a specifically Jewish state within the land of Palestine was a violation of the understanding that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". And it was contrary to fundamental principles of religious freedom and equal rights.

While Israel is officially a Jewish state, the government protects the rights of any individual, regardless of religion. I am curious as to why you think that they started "the war". I am not all that sure I understand what war you are talking about. Is it the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Or was it the Israeli action against the British occupation? Also, why do you believe the British had just authority in making the Balfour declaration in the first place?

Various Israeli terrorist groups operated against the British and the Arabs from the beginning of the conflict. So while many Palestinians today are as bad as you-all say they are, the Israelis are just as guilty in my opinion.

The links you gave have not convinced me that the organizations referenced are true "terrorist" organizations. Irgun's stated goal was retaliatory in nature. Can you offer evidence that this was not the case?

From your link, regarding Lehi's self proclaimed terrorism:

It is not directed against people, it is directed against representatives. Therefore it is effective.

Though I don't like the Idea of Lehi dealing with Nazis, or the accusation that they were funded by extortion and bank robbing, the terrorism charges remain weak.

The only detailed descriptions of these two group's (Lehi and Irgun) attacks were against the police, military and political leaders of Britain. They also sabotaged infrastructure. There are only short passages regarding bus bombs and the like. These passages lack enough context conclude that they were not necessary actions to achieve legitimate wartime objectives. I have no choice but to dismiss your recent opinion until you provide that context.

[StarBuck]

Also, why do you believe the British had just authority in making the Balfour declaration in the first place?

I don't see where you are coming from. Are you saying the Balfour was not legit but the Revisionists had a "defensive" right to Palestine and Jordan anyway?

[FeatherFall]

I don't see where you are coming from. Are you saying the Balfour was not legit but the Revisionists had a "defensive" right to Palestine and Jordan anyway?

Starbuck, I think I chose my words poorly. I didn't make any claim regarding the legitimacy of the Balfour declaration. JRS used the following quote to support his claim that Isreal is the agressor in the conflict.

"nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".

It's true any legitimate government needs to protect the rights of the non-Jewish. My point was that the Jews didn't require any legitimization through British declaration, and that the JRS hadn't offered a convincing argument to support his claim that the Zionist movement took action in conflict with the concept of rights.

[jrs]

The modern-day Israelis are just as guilty because of what they did 90 years ago?

I view the conflict as one long war with intermittent flare-ups. Each side justifies its acts of war or terrorism by claiming that they are just retaliating for acts by the other side. So to evaluate the situation today, it is necessary to go back to the beginning.

Israel has continuously engaged in collective punishment of the Palestinians (the non-Jewish population). You yourself have advocated "carpet bombing" them. Why are you so conscious of the violent acts of one side and not those of the other side?

Furthermore, the land that eventually became Israel already had a clear Jewish majority.

If this is true, it is irrelevant. A majority of Jews in Israel has no more right to establish a Jewish theocracy than the majority of Muslims in Iran have to establish a Muslim theocracy.

I also don't see how forming Israel somehow violates the rights of Palestinians.

They were reduced to second-class citizens (if even that) in their own home-land with different identity cards and license plates. And many of them did lose their property holdings as individuals, families, and communities simply because of their ethnic or religious identity, not as punishment for any crime of which they had been convicted.

And don't give me some bs about how they stole the land...there has never, in the history of mankind, been a nation called "Palestine".

I am not an expert on history, so I cannot comment on whether the Philistines (= Palestinians) ever ruled that land. But it was being held by the British after World War I as "Palestine", i.e. the British Mandate. Why were the Israelis not satisfied to live in that? Why were equal rights not enough?

Are you saying that today, in 2006, Israel does not have a right to exist?

No state should be founded on religious discrimination. Israel should give up its identity as a Jewish state and become a secular state.

Irgun's stated goal was retaliatory in nature. Can you offer evidence that this was not the case?

Their avowed "goal" is not the point. The question is whether they attacked innocents.

After purchasing the tickets [at the Jerusalem Railway Station], Sima took a large cloth sign out of her handbag and placed it on top of the cases. On it, in three languages (Hebrew, English and Arabic), was written "Danger, mines" and the Irgun symbol. An Arab policeman who was standing nearby went over to Sima, gripped her by the dress and asked: "What's this?" Sima hit him in the face and freed herself. One of the Irgun security men saw what had happened, aimed his sub-machinegun at the policeman and shot him.

.....

When the police sapper tried to lift one of the suitcases, there was an explosion which destroyed the interior of the building and killed him.

Thus the Irgun confessed to terrorism.

[StarBuck]

Okay, so far I've heard that the Palestinians are just another lie to wipe out a theocratic Israel.

Please, if your going to talk about this get you noses out of Peters and Chomsky first.