If Hamas has won, it is bad news indeed. The Belmont Club thinks that this will make it more likely that Benjamin Netanyahu will become Israel’s next prime minister. Also see Oxblog. This wasn’t supposed to happen. Everyone was talking about how to deal with Hamas as a large minority after the elections. That was problem enough. Now, a party who thinks that Islam (as they understand it, i.e., no Muslim can believe in the existence of Israel) is the solution will govern. Is it possible that they will moderate themslves? Probably not.
To the contrary, the emergence of Hamas introduces a desperately needed clarity to the situation. Now we KNOW without any doubt whatsoever that the GENUINE aspiration of the Pal people is NOT for coexistence with Israel. They want blood, and they won’t be satisfied unless they get it. I never had any doubt that the Pals were permeated with genocidal, totalitarian impulses. Now, everybody else knows it.
I can only hope the Western world doesn’t try to get in the Israeli’s way when they are obliged to defend themselves. Israel has been at war with the Palestineans for over a decade. It’s time they were allowed to unsheath their swords in their own defense. If Palestineans are allowed to see what war really is, maybe they will not be so prone to want it. This is a very dangerous time for the world. Israel will not allow itself to be destroyed without the Arab world paying a terrible price.
This actually surprises people? Doesn’t surprise me...I was suprised that it "wasn’t supposed to happen." Yea, like defeating the Sandinistas way back when wouldn’t happen...you have to stop listening to the MSM.
And I agree that this SHOULD clarify things, but it won’t (at least not for anyone but the Israelis). I think both sides will have to learn to live with "tit-for-tat," or there will need to be a good old-fashion war for territory, with the loser pushed out altogether (although that would not be great for Israel’s economy). Regardless, don’t expect it to be pretty.
In so far as Hamas is a political party they will have to be "moderate". Hamas will spout loud rhetoric, but will anything change? I wouldn’t be surprised if even in a "moderate" Islamic nation like Kuwait, more people are inclined to think Israel is a danger to be destroyed, rather than an ally to be embraced. There is a lot of sympathy for terror against Israel, even among those who disagree with the terrorists, many seem to support the "right" to terror.
As the above posts seem to note, it might make things clearer and easier on Israel than if a so called "moderate" party had won.
But why expect change? Why won’t Israel and Palestine will be back at a peace table with the next 10 American presidents?
The victory of Hamas is the DIRECT result of Israeli and US policies - what did you expect? Fatah has proven unwilling or unable to deal with the problems of its people, so eventually this had to happen (throw the bums out and try someone else, perhaps an omen of the US elections in Nov 2006). Perhaps, since it always seems to takes hawks to bring peace on the Islaeli side (who would have ever thought Sharon would have gotten out of Palestinian lands), it may ultimately take Hamas, with unquestionable bona fidas when it comes to defending Palestinians (tactically right or wrong), to make peace with Israel and a two state solution. Besides, if we demand democracy, we have to accept the results, even if they are not what we expected (this must be why the US seems to have no problem with "friendly" authoritarian regimes). It appears a democratic Iraq is going to deliver a fundamentalist Islamic government, so that one may not quite turn out as we had hoped, either...
joelp,
There is precedent in what Sharon did, however, I don’t think Sharon truly thought peace would be had.
Fatah, led by Arafat, was NOT the savior that Clinton made him and the group out to be.
Arafat would say one thing to the West and another to his own people. That is a proven fact.
What Arafat did was to try to have it both ways, that is, the support of the West and the support of his own people.
What this development does do is to stop the talking out of both sides of the mouth, so to speak, from the Palestinian leaders.
One question joelp, what message do you think is sent when on one side of the border, the non-Isreali side, you have a UN flag, a Palestinian flag, a hamas flag, a very large billboard that has a masked Palestinian holding a bloodied knife in one hand and a cut off head in another and is standing above a headless body with the words to the effect that this is what happens to the dogs of Sharon written in Hebrew?
That is the reality that Israel has lived under since the day of her existance.
You want to blame this situation on someone, joelp?
Don’t blame it on Israel or the United States. Blame it all the Arab nations in that area and Britain!
What is ironic is that Israel will NOW have what amounts to a state to attack instead of just a movement.
Think of this way ...
The Palestinians have stated with their vote that they support what Hamas stands for, terrorism, genocide, and the elimination of Israel.
Instead of Hamas being an organizaton that has no explicit political power, today, it has pretty much control of the Palestinian government, which was probably the case any way.
So, if they decide to continue with the intafada, Israel can take out the government of Palestine and be justified in doing so. Instead of trying to stop an amorphous terrorist organization, Israel now has something more concrete do deal with.
By the way, it is no surprise that a leftist will blame America and Israel for the ills in the Middle East. What is ironic is that the left, which, joelp clearly occupies, (Talk2Action.Org is a leftist website that he promotes and contributes to) has more in common with the religious right than he might think in this regard.
Joelp, your comments are why I hate democracy. Never before have I seen or heard such ridiculous garbage. The type of democracy you seem to imply that we are asking for breaks down into Mob rule. This sort of democracy is the worst sort. There are no limits placed on the issues which fall under the voters’ control, so if the majority wishes something done, it is done, regardless of the minority rights, views, opinions, property and life sacrificed. I always hope that when we are talking about "liberal" democracy we mean by "liberal" essentially "classical liberal" or a constitution that strictly limits the role of the government to a defense of Individual Rights. Only when this is done is "representative democracy" a good thing, mainly for the selection of the best among the candidates.