Will Hamas' Victory in Palestinian Elections Lead to Peace or Conflict?

[alexandra]

I agree with Bilal very much, the Palestinians probably felt threatened by Israel (undoubtedly from the history of the nation from the 6 Day War forward) but the Hamas will definitely turn it down several notches, now that they're playing with biggers boys now... The Hamas is no longer a terrrorist organisation and from now on I doubt that it will act like one.

Good points, Livingod. Hamas' recent statements seem to point to the changes coming:

Mr Meshaal said in the Syrian capital, Damascus, that Hamas had no plans to disarm.

"As long as we are under occupation then resistance is our right."

He said Hamas was ready to "unify the weapons of Palestinian factions, with Palestinian consensus, and form an army like any independent state... an army that protects our people against aggression".

But Mr Mashaal also said Hamas would abide by current agreements with Israel "as long as it is in the interest of our people".

More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4658872.stm

And an extract from another analysis:

Hamas leaders were talking and acting tough so long as they remained out of power. But once they form government, the heavy responsibility on their shoulders for the good of their people will very probably sober them to the point that would make them suitable for continuing the peace process with Israel. Once in power, Hamas will realize that it has responsibility to the people who elected them and that includes not leading them to utter destruction and humility by rejuvenating a full-fledged military confrontation with Israel but that they should explore the possibilities for a live and let live relationship with their Israeli neighbour. As it is, some Hamas leaders have been taking pains to underline that they have, after all, a basis for coexistence with Israel. Previously, they were unacceptable to Israel and the US for wanting the destruction of Israel. But now these Hamas leaders are no more saying that they would not rest till the destruction of Israel but that their main aspiration or goal is the ending of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Thus, Hamas appears to have already shifted from its earlier position of completely denying Israel’s physical right to exist to one of withdrawal of Israeli forces from their territories. This position is not much different from the one held by the Fatah party.
Reference: http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_25081.shtml

 

[fargoth]

The results of this election surprised all including Hamas. Currently Hamas leaders do not know how to contact the Israeli and to keep good relation with Europe …. Actually they never expect to get the majority of the votes.

Usually Hamas get around 20% of the votes. The people think that they should increase this percentage to be around 40% so they can be sure that no party can establish the government alone. Unfortunately, it seems many people think in that way and decided to vote for Hamas … even in the Christian towns; Hamas got high percentage of the votes.

For 13 years there were two moderate Palestinian leaders (Arafat and Abbas) who accepted the right of Israel to exist. They kissed the shoes of Sharon and Bush to sign a peace agreement based on withdrawal to 1967 borders. They recognized Israel in advance, and they gave green light to the Islamic world and the alliance of Palestinian people to have normal relation with Israel … so what the output:
- The Israeli voted for the extreme right wing, who asked to kick out the Palestinian and to invade Egypt, Syria and Jordan (e.g. Minister Lieberman and Minister Ayalon).
- They built hundreds of settlements on stolen lands.
- They destroyed all the Palestinian police centers and the infrastructure
- They killed Arafat after 2 years of siege
So what will be worse than that? Did Israel give any hope for the Palestinian to support the moderate people? Of course not ….

If the Palestinian voted to the right wing in 2006, the Israeli already voted to the extreme right wing (Netinyahoo) in 1996!

If the Palestinian started suicide bombers in April 1994, the Israeli settlers massacred the Palestinian civilians in cold blood in January 1994.

Anyway, if Hamas and the right Zionist wing succeeded to reach a peace agreement then it will be the end of the conflict forever.

well, the israeli government was leaded by "extreme" right only for 2 years out of 12 since 1994, and even this extreme went to peace talks which ended when left wing prime minister barak offered 90% of WB and arafat decided he doesn't want to talk anymore and started the violence.

ever since then arafat couldn't be talked to, he said he will stop terror, but he did nothing to stop it, the palestinian police cars were stolen israeli cars, and the guns that were given to them by israel were used against it.

there is no proof for israel killing arafat.

im against the building of illegal settlements, but they ceased to be built since last year.

extreme right - "minister Lieberman and Minister Ayalon" first of all, please find me info on ayalon, that will make him belong to the extreme right wing i think you confused him with someone else...

as for Lieberman, he's a minority.

ever since jorden and egypt signed the peace treaty israel haven't talked about fighting them.

and there were no talks of attacking syria, israel just pulled out of lebanon not too long ago.those "Israeli settlers" massacred the Palestinian civilians in cold blood in January 1994 were one crazy man named baruch goldstein, unlike suicide bombers he wasnt sent by his coutry, israelies were shocked at this act, and never justified it, unlike the justification you hear from palestinians for the suicide bombers.

any, dwelling on "who started it" and who's fault is it, will never bring any possitive resaults, the only way is to leave the hate beside and try to understand each-other.
i think israel is ready to give up most of WB gaza strip, and i think israel will give more lands through peace treaties then through fighting that will make israel fortify its part of WB to prevent the palestinians from entering israel.

the offer that was given in 2001 in taba http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/taba2001.html
is very close to the 67' lines, i don't think fighting would yield better maps then this one for the palestinians.

i hope hamas will realize that talking is the preferred way to get territories.

 

[Anttech]

The U.S. continues with it’s usual bias toward Israel and stance against the terrorist government of Hamas, and allows Israel to attack Palestine, which opens the door for the U.S. to attack Iran.

Well you know what to do then. Vote out the Neocons!

 

[Hurkyl]

No, Hurkyl - you cannot redefine my beliefs and perspective. Please note how careful I am always to state "the US administration/government", and distinguish that group from "US citizens", for instance. I know many of my posts are misinterpreted as being "anti-American", but I just simply am not.

I'm quite confused; where did I say any of this? I will admit that in addition to perceiving you as being biased in favor of Muslim nations over Israel, I perceive you as being biased in favor of Iraq (or, to be precise, the Iraqi resistance) over the U.S. (or, to be precise, the current administration), but nowhere did I suggest anything remotely close to you being anti-American.

 

[Hurkyl]

I will reply in more detail on this topic in the Iran Occupation thread, but in regard to the rest of your post, rhetoric has many functions and at this time the rhetoric from Iran is quit understandable.

Given the quote to which you're replying, I have to assume you're offering this as a reason why we shouldn't give the Iranian nuke possibility any consideration.

But I don't understand how that follows from asserting that the rhetoric is understandable.

I don’t see how concern about military escalation in a clearly volatile region is fear mongering.

You didn't seem to have any trouble inventing a fear-mongering accusation when I talked about escalation in a clearly volatile region.

I am a secular American, and like alexandra, feel I can therefore be more objective about conflicts between Arab/Muslims and Israel/Jews.

And, as I've stated, I don't buy it. (Actually, I will reserve judgement, since I cannot be sure at the moment if I'm just lumping you in with everybody else, or if my perception of you is really based upon your posts)

I’ve stated that American Christians have more tendencies to be pro-Israel, but my guess is that some PF members who consistently take a pro-Israel stance are American Jews.

I suppose if that helps you rationalize your beliefs... Don't you think it might be possible that someone who is not a Jew, and is not an "American Christian" might still be able to disagree with you?

This is my #1 beef with many of the "free-thinker" types -- they seem incapable of believing anyone capable of "free-thought" would disagree with them. (My apologies if you're not a "free-thinker" type)

Admittedly, I am, in the literal sense, an "American Christian", but I very strongly disassociate myself from the type of people that term is being used to describe around here. (e.g. Abortion-doctor bombing crusade-mongering fanatics)


Let's recall to what this last whole section was a reply:

(P.S. why do you think my post is "fear-mongering", and why do you think it is "Zionist"?)

As you go on to explain in your post #53, perceived bias is what drives you to post. I am a secular American, and like alexandra, feel I can therefore be more objective about conflicts between Arab/Muslims and Israel/Jews. I’ve stated that American Christians have more tendencies to be pro-Israel, but my guess is that some PF members who consistently take a pro-Israel stance are American Jews. In either case, they are clearly biased, and have no grounds to accuse others of being so. This is the difference between my hypothetical and Zionist fear mongering.

The only thing in this entire section that could be construed as a reply to my quote is "perceived bias is what drives you to post" -- are you saying that anyone who perceives bias in this forum must be a Zionist fear-monger? Given the rest of this paragraph, it sure seems so.

I would like to give you more credit that that, but I cannot come up with a better explanation...

 

[fargoth]

hurkyl and SOS2008, would you please get back on subject?
none of these last posts have anything to do with hamas...

 

[SOS2008]

hurkyl and SOS2008, would you please get back on subject?
none of these last posts have anything to do with hamas...

I agree, and already posted my last reply about Iran in the Iran Occupation thread.

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ruled out contacts with a Hamas-led Palestinian government until the Islamic group renounces violence, and his defense minister threatened to "liquidate" Hamas militants involved in attacks.
----------
President Bush has said hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid will be cut to the cast-strapped Palestinian government unless Hamas abolishes its militant wing and stops calling for Israel's destruction.
----------
On Saturday, thousands of angry Fatah supporters led by gunmen firing in the air marched in West Bank towns, calling for the resignation of their leaders and threatening to kill Fatah politicians who would join a Hamas government. In recent days, there also have been several gunfights between Hamas members and police, leaving four officers and a Hamas gunman wounded.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/ISRAEL_PALESTINIANS?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I think everyone agrees Hamas will need "to moderate its positions and to reach out to the defeated Fatah." My concern is even if they do become more moderate, is Israel and the U.S. sincere that they will soften their positions too? After all, Hamas came to power as the result of a democratic election.

And I am concerned that even if Hamas reaches out to Fatah to join in the government, will Fatah be cooperative?

 

[crazycalhoun]

May be in America you can not find anti Zionists, but in Palestine and ME we all are anti Zionists... simply because we are in wars with them since around 90 years.

Sure, but there are plenty of anti-Zionists who don't go as far as to throw their support behind murderous organizations like Hamas.

 

[alexandra]

I'm quite confused; where did I say any of this? I will admit that in addition to perceiving you as being biased in favor of Muslim nations over Israel, I perceive you as being biased in favor of Iraq (or, to be precise, the Iraqi resistance) over the U.S. (or, to be precise, the current administration), but nowhere did I suggest anything remotely close to you being anti-American.

Sorry, Hurkyl, you're quite right. You never said that I am anti-American; I'm being defensive because this is something I've been accused of in the past by other members (or perhaps only one other member) in these forums. My apologies

For the record, though, I'm not in favor of repressive regimes anywhere - I am totally against the way Sadam Hussein's regime targetted opposition groups (including socialists) and ruthlessly jailed/tortured/executed them, for instance. I am also totally against fundamentalist religious governments (of any flavour) because of their backwardness - the general restrictions they place on people as well as because of the way they treat women. On the other hand, I am also against change imposed from without by military might, whereby innocent civilians (invariably women and children) suffer the most. And I get especially indignant when this 'change' is imposed by military might to suit the hidden agendas of the rich and powerful.

 

[Art]

Ignoring the usual rhetoric, a first step perhaps??

"Our message to the United States and Europe is the attempts you are exerting to make us abandon our principles and struggle will be wasted and will not achieve any results."

However, Mr Meshaal said Hamas could offer Israel a ceasefire.

"If you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce then we will be ready to negotiate with you over the conditions of such a truce," he added.

As I said realisation that they will now have to deal directly with the consequences of their actions is pushing them toward a more moderate stance. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4682484.stm
Now if Israel can bring themselves to stop assassinating people we might get somewhere.

Three dead in Gaza missile strike

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4682268.stm