babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Hamas Wins Palestinian Elections

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Hamas Wins Palestinian Elections
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 26 January 2006 03:27 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yahoo News

quote:
JERUSALEM - Officials in the ruling Fatah Party said Thursday that Hamas captured a majority of seats in Palestinian legislative elections, shortly after the militant group claimed victory.

The Fatah officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they expected Hamas to win about 70 seats, which would give the Islamists a majority in the 132-seat parliament. They spoke on condition of anonymity because counting in some districts was continuing.

Earlier, Hamas' top candidate, Ismail Haniyeh, said the group had won 70 seats. Exit polls had forecast a narrow Fatah victory. Official results were expected later Thursday.

A victory by Hamas, which is committed to Israel's destruction, would likely jeopardize future Mideast peace moves.


[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 January 2006 08:44 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting results. I suppose we won't know until later today how Fatah and Abbas are going to respond.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 January 2006 09:34 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I heard that the Israeli government said it will not negotiate with a terrorist organization (assuming Hamas would want to negotiate). Haven't we heard that before?
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 January 2006 09:49 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, might it be that both the Israelis and Bushco are leaving the door open for Hamas's agreement to foreswear violence?

That I could see Hamas doing. A demand for full disarmament seems to me unrealistic, if, in the short term, likely.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 26 January 2006 10:33 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As I understand it, Hamas wanted to be a strong official opposition so that they could complain that the government (Fatah and whoever) was settling too cheap with Israel. But they didn't want the responsibility of negotiating with Israel themselves, since they refuse to recognize Israel.

If so, they have won more than they wanted, and likely have no idea how they will handle it.

If this is correct, certainly I'm not going to speculate what they will do, when they don't know themselves. Call for a recount?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 26 January 2006 12:03 PM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps they'll just quietly make it known that they won't object to a Fatah Prime Minister being named by Abbas?
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 12:38 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Hamas Reaction

quote:
Asked if a Hamas-run government would enter peace talks with Israel, Zahar said there that even prior to his party's apparent election success, there had been no movement toward peace and therefore, there is no point to hold dialogue at this time.

"We have no peace process," he said. "We are not going to mislead our people to tell them we are waiting, meeting, for a peace process that is nothing."


Peretz: Hamas not a partner for peace

quote:
Peretz: Hamas is not partner for talks, undermines stability
Labor Chairman Amir Peretz said Thursday that his party does not consider Hamas to be a partner for peace negotiations.

"We have no intention of allowing negotiations to take place, or let someone else force us to recognize an organization that declares it seeks to destroy Israel," Peretz said.

The Labor chairman also said his party "will not negotiate with an entity that is a terror organization. Hamas is not a partner because of its course of action and beliefs and it undermines stability in the Middle East."


More reaction

quote:
But while Hamas' victory proved the group's popularity over the ruling Fatah party, the win also could backfire on the militant group, some analysts said.

"Hamas' role was greatly respected and embraced because it was a resistance movement," Sami Moubayed, a Syrian analyst, told the Associated Press.

"Now, they will naturally be prone to fail like any other movement that entered the political arena, because they will have a very hard time to deliver on their promises," he said.

"The Palestinian Authority is corrupt and Hamas will now share the blame," he added. "Resistance is something very honorable. Politics is a dirty game."


Hamas will not renounce violence or recognize Israel

quote:
British Foreign Minister Jack Straw and French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin were among the political voices expressing disappointment at the apparent victory.

"The international community will want Hamas to make a proper rejection of violence and to acknowledge that Israel exists," Straw told the BBC.

Hamas has carried out as many as 60 suicide attacks against Israelis since a Palestinian uprising began in 2000, and has said it has no intention of disarming if it forms the new government.

Israel, the United States and the European Union all regard Hamas as a terrorist organization and are unlikely to recognize its government.

The U.S. position on Hamas won't change because of the election results, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at an international conference in Davos, Switzerland, via a telephone hookup from Washington.

"You cannot have one foot in politics and another in terror," she said.

On Thursday, a senior Hamas official indicated that official political power won't change its key positions, the AP reported.

"Negotiations with Israel is not on our agenda," said Mushir al-Masri, who won election in the northern Gaza Strip. "Recognizing Israel is not on the agenda either now."

Hamas has said it would not give up its weapons whatever the election outcome or change its charter policy on Israel. But the organization's armed wing has mostly abided by a truce negotiated last year by Abbas and Egypt.


[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 12:41 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
I heard that the Israeli government said it will not negotiate with a terrorist organization (assuming Hamas would want to negotiate). Haven't we heard that before?

Since when is winning an election a terrorist act?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 January 2006 12:48 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have an idea. We appoint Jimmy Carter, a few Kennedys, and General de Chastelain (if he's free yet) to go in and chat everybody up. Progress will be made. Slowly, but it will be made. I see no reason why not.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 12:54 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I think a truly international convention might be the ticket which must include all nations in the region. That might lead to peace. But then again I think Jack Layton would make a better PM than the alternatives, and would like to end world poverty, AIDS.....
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 26 January 2006 01:03 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
I have an idea. We appoint Jimmy Carter, a few Kennedys, and General de Chastelain (if he's free yet) to go in and chat everybody up. Progress will be made. Slowly, but it will be made. I see no reason why not.

I assume that was satire. The Americans always think they can go in and solve problems they know little about.

But even Canadians are not immune. General de Chastelain had the best of intentions. The IRA led him around by the nose until the unionist community rebelled and support for Trimble collapsed.

For the record: I have no idea how to solve the Middle East's problems. That's likely because I don't live there.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 January 2006 01:04 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't suppose the boys would step back and accept the independent Hanan Ashrawi as PM of a coalition government ... Lots of experience there.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 01:06 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Wilf:
You are so right! It's easy to postulate about what would be best for a country or situation we are not directly involved with, when we can't even solve our own domestic problems. Just look who "we" elected in Canada.

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 01:07 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
I don't suppose the boys would step back and accept the independent Hanan Ashrawi as PM of a coalition government ... Lots of experience there.

Lots of baggage, too. But on second thought maybe a needed change from the usual machismo?

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 January 2006 01:17 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Although my proposal was tongue-in-cheek, it was meant partly as a way to get the Americans out, actually. Well, some Americans, anyway.

And I am quite a bit more optimistic about the process in Northern Ireland, but then I'm patient. Finally breaking through the imperviousness of the Brits was an achievement all on its own.

The major problem in the Middle East remains U.S. hegemony. People there can't solve it on their own because they are not being allowed to. So something must be done internationally, but the international community should not be led by Bushco.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 26 January 2006 01:22 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
I heard that the Israeli government said it will not negotiate with a terrorist organization (assuming Hamas would want to negotiate). Haven't we heard that before?

The Israeli government doesn't want to negotiate with anyone, period.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 01:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think a Hamas victory is a great positive shift. At its core it is not a victory for religious orthodoxy, but a vote against the politics of appeasment and, at the same time, an indication of a willingness to participate in a political process. It is also a recongnition that Fatah has failed to deliver.

Palestinians will trust Hamas to get the best deal possible, as none was in the offing under the Fatah banner, just more occupation.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 January 2006 01:31 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know whether people missed my point, which was that for years and years Israel said it would not negotiate with the PLO because it was a terrorist organization. They, of course, ended up doing so.

I fail to see how the Hamas win is a positive development, at least in the short term. Other than Hamas, the only winner is Likud. Maybe in the long term it will lead to a better deal. But as Keynes said, in the long term we're all dead.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 01:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have always said, you negotiate peace agreements with those you are at war with, so Israel can choose negotiate with Hamas, or as it has been pointed out prove once again that they have no interest in negotiating, as the state of war only furthers their overall interests of expanding Israeli settlement and annexation of stolen lands.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 01:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
I don't know whether people missed my point, which was that for years and years Israel said it would not negotiate with the PLO because it was a terrorist organization. They, of course, ended up doing so.

I fail to see how the Hamas win is a positive development, at least in the short term. Other than Hamas, the only winner is Likud. Maybe in the long term it will lead to a better deal. But as Keynes said, in the long term we're all dead.


From a Palestinian perspective, I don't think it really matters does it, since they were dead anyway, and that is the point. Their decision was to go down fighting, at least.

You can rightly decry the worst aspects of their views, but this is not like an election here where "social" issues are paramount. The paramount issue is the occupation, and nothing else.

When has moderation of public policy on the behalf of the Palestinians ever effected the reality of more settlement and more land grabs? Really Josh when did it? Under Labour? No. Under Likud? No.

Yet you seem to think startegic voting on the behalf of the Palestinians will somhow wake Israel up. When they are quite whomever is in power in Israel uses it as an opportunity to maintain the status quo, which is more settlement and annexation, when they are militant, whomever is in power uses the militancy as an excuse to send in the army and the bulldozers and their is more settlement and more annexation.

Point to an occurence, just one, where it is clear that a moderation of Palestinian policy has effectected the process of settlement and annexation. Just one.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 26 January 2006 01:46 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder what will come first: Hamas recognizing that the State of Israel exists and will continue to exist. or Israel negotiating with Hamas.

My opinion is that if Hamas changes its views on the need to eliminate the state of Israel from the world map then Israel might just talk to them.

It is difficult to talk with those who deny your existance.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 01:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by miles:
I wonder what will come first: Hamas recognizing that the State of Israel exists and will continue to exist. or Israel negotiating with Hamas.

Great. Really good. Go back to the stupid prestige games about recognizing Israel's right to exist. This is the calssic non-negotiating strategy: First of all make a preliminary demand which is impossible. Classic.

People who know negotiating, know that if you are serious about negotiating, you negotiate on issues that are soft first, and then chip away at the hard items slowly.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 01:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So Miles, did the PLO's recongintion of Israel "right to exist" prevent Ariel Sharon from building a wall staright through the middle of the West Bank?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 26 January 2006 01:57 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Great. Really good. Go back to the stupid prestige games about recognizing Israel's right to exist. This is the calssic non-negotiating strategy: First of all make a preliminary demand which is impossible. Classic.



I would have thought that the easiest part would be Hamas stating we do not like Israel but it exists.

Then what is needed is both sides being locked in a room talking until an agreement can be reached.

I used to have a prof at university who said that instead of armies leaders of nations should be locked in a room with pillows and the winner of the pillow fight wins.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 26 January 2006 01:59 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
So Miles, did the PLO's recongintion of Israel "right to exist" prevent Ariel Sharon from building a wall staright through the middle of the West Bank?

Well it might have led to Sharon removing settlers. An issue that his party was against and an issue that right before he announced it that the world thought he was against.

Then again nothing good happened after PLO recognized Israel so the point is mute.

Or did some good occur?


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 02:01 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moot, not mute.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 January 2006 02:03 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gosh, it's great to have old babble back, isn't it.

I'm serious, too. That I would say it here is a measure of just how wild the election forum has been.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 02:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by miles:

Well it might have led to Sharon removing settlers. An issue that his party was against and an issue that right before he announced it that the world thought he was against.

Then again nothing good happened after PLO recognized Israel so the point is mute.

Or did some good occur?


Sharon's decision to remove settlers from the Gaza Strip had nothing to do with the PLO, or even Hamas, as much as they are loath to admit it. It had even less to do with the Yasser Arafat's 1987 recocgnition of Israel, which was so very long ago, I don't even no why it is an issue anymore, and why Zionists bring it up again and again and again, as if it never happened.

The decision to remove settlers was simple zero sum politcal arithmatic about expenditure of resouirces, (political/military/economic) against econoomic gain. One of the reasons it can be seen that this is the case, is because it was possible to do without negotiating with the Palestinians.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 02:12 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, in point of fact, it is irrelevant what Hamas's position on Israel is, since the PA, the legally constitued body under which Hamas's mandate is authorized has recognized Israel's "right to exist," under Yasser Arafat, Just as SSM is the law of land, even if Staphen Harper is the Prime Minster. If Mr. Harper wants to change the SSM law, then he will have to change it. That is what continuity of governance and law is all about.

In fact, by particpating in the election, Hamas's indirectly recognizes Israel's right to exist, because the PA itself exists as a result of the recognition of Israel by the PA, and is ocnstituted by acts of law negotiated by Israel and the PLO, which were incumbent upon the recognition.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 02:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The point is moot, as you say.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 26 January 2006 02:20 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
Hamas is an extreme rightwing organization. There goes the neighbourhood.
From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 02:24 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is it? How so?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 02:27 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is this statement, from this Hamas candidate, extremely right wing

quote:
Frankly, I am against involving civilians from both sides in the conflict.

But the Israelis also must not involve civilians, which is what they unfortunately did when an F-16 targeted the home of Shaikh Salah Shehadi and killed about 18 civilians, children and women among them. And they called that a security operation.

But when Palestinians carry out an operation in which civilians are hurt or killed, they call it a terrorist act. I prefer that both sides leave civilians aside.


Is there something objectionable in the above?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 02:37 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Hamas Wins:

quote:
Hamas, the militant Islamic group committed to the destruction of Israel, has won a landslide victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections.

The shock outcome, which earlier prompted the resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei and his cabinet, is likely to throw the Middle East peace process into turmoil.
Reporting from Jerusalem, CTV's Janis Mackey Frayer said many believe the results "mark an end to the prospect of peace making" in the Middle East.

"Hamas has long claimed that it's committed to the obliteration of the Jewish state and has long rejected the idea of negotiation," she said Thursday.

"It seems like they (the Palestinians) were voting for an anti-corruption party against a Fatah party many associated with corruption," she added.



From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 26 January 2006 02:41 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
The neighbourhood already had a lot of violent-prone extremes on all sides. Hamas is a Moslem Brotherhood ideological offshoot - quite extreme. Ask women, cultural progressives, gays etc.

Their charter says to kill Jews wherever they are found. Maybe that's just talk.what people put in a manifesto because it sounds radical.

Perhaps, they will become "pragmatic" because the European Union has been threatening to cut off all funds (a few billions) unless Hamas disarms and recognizes Israel (which at least seems for now to be moving towards the centre-left).

No one needs a government of religious bigots who think their "God" allows bombing innocent civilians at random.

Not a good result. The Middle East needs an extreme right government like it needs a hole in the head.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 02:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peech, would you consider News story about a landslide Likud victory in Israel, which did not quote a single Likud official, candidate, and or source, and only their opponents, to be a fair reporting of the event?

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 02:45 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:

Their charter says to kill Jews wherever they are found. Maybe that's just talk.what people put in a manifesto because it sounds radical.

Please quote the charter on this. Or find and interpretation of the charter by someone from Hamas who says this. Ask yourself, "has Hamas ever undertaken an operation outside of Israel, ever?"


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 02:52 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Peech, would you consider News story about a landslide Likud victory in Israel, which did not quote a single Likud official, candidate, and or source, and only their opponents, to be a fair reporting of the event?

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


It's news from ordinary sources about an election that is taking place now.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 02:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peech I am sorry that MSN piece is totally and blatantly biased reporting. Its garbage. send that to any Carlton Journalism prof and they will tell you so.

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 26 January 2006 03:06 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
Article 7:

"The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the
rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him'."

Nice people, Cueball. I wonder what would happen to people like this under, oh I don't know, Canada's or France's or Germany's or Belgium's or Holland's hate propaganda laws. Not nice people, not much to cheer about today. But then there is hardly ever much to cheer about when it comes to politics in that region of the world. Advocates of mass murder have just won an election. Very sad.

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 03:15 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Peech I am sorry that MSN piece is totally and blatantly biased reporting. Its garbage. send that to any Carlton Journalism prof and they will tell you so.[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

See my posts above which essentially say the same thing as quotes from actual Hamas, or are the CBC and Haaretz and even the Hamas charter (quoted above) also "propaganda"?
Besides it's too early to say what will evolve.

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 26 January 2006 03:16 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
Who knows, maybe it won't be so bad when they all figure on all sides they have no alternative but to learn to adjust. The Israelis did after all sell arms to the anti-Semitic extreme Ayatollah of Iran in the 1980s. Politics makes strange bedfellows so maybe they have no alternative on both sides. And of course everyone over there is utterly exhausted of the violence and rhetoric from what I read.

or maybe Koffi Annan has an answer up his sleeve. Or send Bono. Or the Morwegians again.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagnaf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6145

posted 26 January 2006 03:39 PM      Profile for lagnaf        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
Article 7:

"The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the
rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him'."

Nice people, Cueball. I wonder what would happen to people like this under, oh I don't know, Canada's or France's or Germany's or Belgium's or Holland's hate propaganda laws. Not nice people, not much to cheer about today. But then there is hardly ever much to cheer about when it comes to politics in that region of the world. Advocates of mass murder have just won an election. Very sad.

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


Absolutely. It absolutely amazes me that so many "progressives" are cheering one of the most racist, hate-filled and violent groups on the planet. It's shameful.


From: Alberta | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 January 2006 03:55 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nice strawman. No true progressive would be "cheering them on." Neither would they be funding them.

quote:

Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.

Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative," said a former senior CIA official.


http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=18062002-051845-8272r


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 04:10 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Josh: Your source for this "truth" about Israel financing Hamas is none other than Larry Johnson who gave evidence on the recent CIA leak:

Meet Larry Johnson

quote:
Meet Larry Johnson
The CIA official turned Democratic spokesman has a pre-9/11 mindset.
by Gary Schmitt

On July 10, 2001--two months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon--Johnson wrote an op-ed for the New York Times ("The Declining Terrorist Threat") in which he argued that Americans were "bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism" and, in truth, had "little to fear" from terrorism. And, in turn, he rebuked his former colleagues in the national security bureaucracy for using the "fiction" of the terrorist threat to pump up their budgets.

....the idea that Larry Johnson should be given a platform by Democrats to pontificate about the damage done to national security by the leak is a bit perverse. Their time would be better served by wondering how the Larry Johnsons and Michael Scheuers of the world were allowed to rise to senior levels within the intelligence community in spite of their spotty record of analysis--and perhaps continue to do so.


[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 26 January 2006 04:15 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually the source in the quote josh posted isn't Larry Johnson, it's Tony Cordesman.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 January 2006 04:17 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, the source was Tony Cordesman. So you can now search the neo-con fever swamps like the Weekly Standard for articles trashing him.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 26 January 2006 04:23 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"You cannot have one foot in politics and another in terror," (Condolezza Rice) said.

Do as I say, not as I do.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 04:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
Article 7:

"The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the
rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him'." ]


So you are saying that this quote from the Qu'ran advocates Killing "Jews wherever they are found," as you clearly put it. So it is not the charter itself which is the problem but the Quran.

So you are saying the Quran says that "jews should be killed whereever they are found," and that this is meant to be taken literally in context of the 21st cenury. Is this what you are saying about the Qu'ran?

Notice it also postulates a world where trees and rocks talk. Are we to take this literally, as gospel, or are we allowed some leaway from interpretation?

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 04:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagnaf:

Absolutely. It absolutely amazes me that so many "progressives" are cheering one of the most racist, hate-filled and violent groups on the planet. It's shameful.


And you are also saying that this quote from the Qu'ran means that 'Jews should be killed wherever they are found." Is that the case?

There is no room for historical context, or interpretation. But that is what it is, absolutely. The Qu'ran advocates explicitly and literally that all jews everywere must be killed.

You don't think it is scripture being used to reinforce a politcal POV, and that its interpretation is at all fluid depending on context?

Then how is it that the above qouted Hamas candidate is able to say:

quote:
Frankly, I am against involving civilians from both sides in the conflict.

But the Israelis also must not involve civilians, which is what they unfortunately did when an F-16 targeted the home of Shaikh Salah Shehadi and killed about 18 civilians, children and women among them. And they called that a security operation.

But when Palestinians carry out an operation in which civilians are hurt or killed, they call it a terrorist act. \I prefer that both sides leave civilians aside.


How does this interpretation by this Hamas candidate mesh with your interpretaion of article 7, or for that matter the fact that Hamas explicitly opposes attacks against Jews outside of Israel, and has made that clear on numerous occasions.

Is it possible that the Hamas charters use of the above quote from the Qu'ran as relgious aphorism, not explicit and literal instruction?

But you are actually saying that every Hamas activist literally believe that trees and rocks will talk to them?

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 26 January 2006 04:42 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Miles:
the State of Israel exists and will continue to exist.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. There was a pole in the US which showed that a majority of young jewish people no longer have affinity with the state of Israel, that and the more material factors of who is having more kids, and other factors.

I stick to my prediction that the teens will be for Israel what the 80s was for South Africa.

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Vigilante ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 04:53 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
No, the source was Tony Cordesman. So you can now search the neo-con fever swamps like the Weekly Standard for articles trashing him.

Actually if you read the article carefully you'd see it also quotes such "reliable sources" as Larry Johnson and (I love this) "One U.S. intelligence source who asked not to be named." Your Friend Tony Cordesman is an "analyst" with that "unbiased (s they say) think-tank" the Center for Strategic and International Studies (ironically shortened to: CSIS) And BTW I researched Larry Johnson in that well known "neo-con" source Wikedia which referred to the weekly standard.
(I suppose some one will be posting next that Hamas was affiliated with Mother Teressa.)

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 January 2006 05:03 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cordesman was the source of the information regarding Israel's support of Hamas. As for him being some sort of left-winger:

quote:

"Professor Cordesman has previously served as national security assistant to Senator John McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as civilian assistant to the deputy secretary of defense,

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Cordesman


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 05:12 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Josh: You accused someone of the "straw-man" tactic then you post this innuendo op-ed about Hamas somehow, being financed by Israel.....
How about some hard evidence or alternatively what about the real relevancy of this thread....how will this new dynamic affect peace in the region?

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 26 January 2006 05:21 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's the real story: Fatah outsmarted itself.

Hamas got 45.35% of the vote, and should not have had a majority. (The same proportion as Mike Harris got twice, in case you've forgotten.)

For their first real election, all parties other than Fatah had asked, of course, for propotional representation. Fatah, of course, being the dominant party, wanted to keep FPTP (or "block vote" with some multiple-member seats, but not proportional). So they compromised on a half-proportional system. "Parallel" like Japan. Half the seats by PR lists, and half by local seats. But unlike Germany and the other MMP jurisdictions, the list seats were not compensatory.

The idea was, Fatah would sweep the local seats as usual, enjoying the "winners' bonus," but letting the smaller parties have a taste of proportionality.

But Hamas swept the local seats, and got the "winners' bonus" that Fatah had expected.

Hamas got 30 of the 66 list seats, but 46 of the 66 local seats.

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 05:27 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Here's the real story: Fatah outsmarted itself.

Hamas got 45.35% of the vote, and should not have had a majority. (The same proportion as Mike Harris got twice, in case you've forgotten.)


Thanks for that. Interesting...it'll take awhile for me to understand the numbers...but looks like another example of "political karma" like Paul Martin conspiring to become PM only to not be able to hold onto it...then resigning.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 26 January 2006 05:47 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
And BTW I researched Larry Johnson in that well known "neo-con" source Wikedia which referred to the weekly standard.

And that makes it interesting that you omitted this part:

quote:
In an expanded version of this argument, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy...

It seems the Weekly Standard did too, but that's not surprising.

From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 26 January 2006 05:53 PM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think this is the beginning of the end of Hamas sponsored violence.

For an example, look at the IRA and their political offshoot Sein Fein. The IRA is gone and all that is left is Sein Fein.


From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 06:46 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:
I think this is the beginning of the end of Hamas sponsored violence.

For an example, look at the IRA and their political offshoot Sein Fein. The IRA is gone and all that is left is Sein Fein.


I was contemplating the same thing. In order to become a legitimate political force it will have to abandon it's more "radical" ideals (destruction of Israel for example) because it appears that the Palestinians have spoken in this election: they want movement not rhetoric or corruption. I also suspect that Israel will talk to Hamas even if it's privately because that would be the only way to move forward.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 26 January 2006 07:04 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Thanks for that. Interesting...it'll take awhile for me to understand the numbers...but looks like another example of "political karma" like Paul Martin conspiring to become PM only to not be able to hold onto it...then resigning.


Hamas' election victory is a great example of "political karma" for Israel. They had an oppurtunity to deal with a largely secular resistance movement since the 1970's and chose not to. They played the rejectionist game by constantly moving the goal posts or insisting that completely abstract platitudes be accepted without contingency, expanded settlements, built walls, stole water, bulldozed homes, killed thousands upon thousands, discredited and undermined Arafat at every turn and blamed everyone else for the problem.

Hamas is the result. Of course, as one can see by the proclaimations of Israeli leaders, they are already dusting off the old script for Round 2.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 26 January 2006 07:13 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This seems to be a familiar karma in the region. The colonial powers either undermine or wipe out secular political groups, as they've done in Indonesia, Irak, Palestine and Egypt, leaving Islamist groups as the only coherent organizations left standing.

quote:
Egypt is the country where the Muslim Brotherhood was first established in 1928. By inflicting a swift and humiliating defeat on an Egypt ruled by President Gamal Abdul Nasser, a man wedded to "Arab socialism," in June 1967, Israel delivered a near-fatal blow to the hopes for the development of secular Arab nationalism in the region. In that hour of their downfall most Egyptians attributed the Israeli victory to Jewish devotion to their religion and, in a similar spirit, turned to Islam for their own spiritual succor. It was at that point that the Muslim Brotherhood, though still an outlawed organization, began gaining popularity.

The Rise of Political Islam: The Palestinian Election and Democracy in the Middle East

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
rici
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2710

posted 26 January 2006 07:21 PM      Profile for rici     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A rather more cringe-inducing critique of Israeli policy from Robert Satloff, Executive Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Regardless of what one thinks of Hamas, or the interesting manipulation of the new voting system in Palestine, it seems that the Hamas list has decisively won a fair election. This does not actually oblige Israel or the US to engage with the newly-elected authority, but it should; otherwise, one might ask, why advocate democratic elections? I gather that Dr. Satloff would say that the US should not have done so, or at least should not have been sincere about it, but now the die is cast.


From: Lima, Perú | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 07:24 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

Hamas' election victory is a great example of "political karma" for Israel. They had an oppurtunity to deal with a largely secular resistance movement since the 1970's and chose not to. They played the rejectionist game by constantly moving the goal posts or insisting that completely abstract platitudes be accepted without contingency, expanded settlements, built walls, stole water, bulldozed homes, killed thousands upon thousands, discredited and undermined Arafat at every turn and blamed everyone else for the problem.

Hamas is the result. Of course, as one can see by the proclaimations of Israeli leaders, they are already dusting off the old script for Round 2.


Speaking of scripts I wonder if we will hear more of "Death to the Zionist Entity"?) The largely secular "resistance" groups in the Palestinian conflict chose to wage a war of terror throughout, notwithstanding that Israel continued talks throughout that time.
Your "argument" is both facile and a gross over simplification of the issues.

A Refresher on The Conflict

quote:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a simple two-sided conflict with all Israelis (or even all Israeli Jews) sharing one point of view and all Palestinians another. In both communities, some individuals and groups advocate total territorial removal of the other community, some advocate a two-state solution, and some advocate a binational solution of a single secular state encompassing present-day Israel, the Gaza strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. There has been both literal prolonged violent conflict, with various levels of intensity and the underlying conflict of ideas, goals and principles. On both sides, there have at various times been parties who differ in the degree to which they advocate or use the violent tactics, active non-violence, etc. There are people who sympathize with the goals of one or the other side, without necessarily embracing the tactics that have been used on behalf of those goals; further, there are those who embrace at least some of the goals of both sides. And to refer to "both" sides is, itself, a simplification: Fatah and Hamas are far from agreement over goals for the Palestinians; the same could be said for the various Israeli political parties, even if discussion is limited to the Jewish Israeli parties.

And the acts of Palestinian terror date back at least as far as 1929:
Partial list of Palestinian terrorist acts.

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 07:28 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rici Lake:
A rather more cringe-inducing critique of Israeli policy from Robert Satloff, Executive Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Regardless of what one thinks of Hamas, or the interesting manipulation of the new voting system in Palestine, it seems that the Hamas list has decisively won a fair election. This does not actually oblige Israel or the US to engage with the newly-elected authority, but it should; otherwise, one might ask, why advocate democratic elections? I gather that Dr. Satloff would say that the US should not have done so, or at least should not have been sincere about it, but now the die is cast.


I agree that sooner or later Israel and the US will have to recognize Hamas which will equally have to recognize Israel and renounce its objective of destruction of the said state.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 07:34 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

I was contemplating the same thing. In order to become a legitimate political force it will have to abandon it's more "radical" ideals (destruction of Israel for example) because it appears that the Palestinians have spoken in this election: they want movement not rhetoric or corruption. I also suspect that Israel will talk to Hamas even if it's privately because that would be the only way to move forward.

So all in all everyong agree it was the best thing.

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 26 January 2006 07:42 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This morning, the good people at the CBC said that there has not been a democratic election in the occupied territories for ten years, but didn't the Palistinians elect Abu Mazen democratically? What gives? Have the people in charge of covering the Middle East for the Ceeb been asleep at the switch since 1996?

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 08:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That goes along with all hyperbolic folks myths that the media propogates among the ignorant. Much of which is spewed back here daily.

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 January 2006 08:29 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Josh: You accused someone of the "straw-man" tactic then you post this innuendo op-ed about Hamas somehow, being financed by Israel.....

It's not innuendo, it's a fact. Similar to the U.S. providing the seed money for bin laden and company. And there's nothing new about it. It's been talked about for many years.

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Thrasymachus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5747

posted 26 January 2006 08:35 PM      Profile for Thrasymachus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that the election of Hamas might be a good thing. I think the condition of recognition of Israel is a ridiculous starting point though. Sinn Fein never had to renounce Ireland's claim over its Northern quarter in order to engage in peace talks. I think that there are a lot of parrallels that can be drawn. SDLP was unable to negotiate on behalf of the IRA because it wasn't linked to the IRA. Fatah was in a similar predicament. Now at least you have the potential to have the right people at the table to actually be able to deliver peace and not simply talk about it.
From: South of Hull | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 08:37 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
It's not innuendo, it's a fact. Similar to the U.S. providing the seed money for bin laden and company. And there's nothing new about it. It's been talked about for many years.

OK. I am willing to be convinced. Can you please point to some evidence. Becasue as you know, talk is not evidence.

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 January 2006 08:45 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I gave you evidence above. Which you attempted to negate by way of smears. If you want pictures of the Mossad agent handing over the cash, sorry I don't have that on me.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 09:07 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
OK I stand corrected, by attempting to help the Palestinians and also in it's self interest, (in an effort to weakon the PLO)Israel has "financed" Hamas. I guess you are right.
Roots of Hamas

quote:
"We are doing everything to stop the violence. But Hamas is a creature of Israel which at the time of Prime Minister [Yitzhak] Shamir [the late 1980s, when Hamas arose], gave them money and more than 700 institutions, among them schools, universities and mosques. Even [former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak] Rabin ended up admitting it, when I charged him with it, in the presence of [Egpytian President Hosni] Mubarak."

Origins of Hamas

quote:
Hamas was funded directly and indirectly during the 1970s and 1980s by various states including Saudi Arabia. The political/charitable arm of Hamas was officially registered and recognized within Israel at this time: indeed Israel supported and encouraged Hamas' early growth in an effort to undermine the secular Fatah movement of Yasser Arafat. Hamas abstained from politics throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, concentrating on social issues such as exposing corruption, administration of waqf (trusts) and organizing community projects. Towards the mid-80s, however, the movement was taken over by a militant faction led by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

Origins of Hamas

quote:
Hamas online, as of 01/08/04, contains the following description of the organization:

Hamas was formed in 1987 with the objective of destroying the Zionist entity that occupies Palestine, and establishing Palestine from the sea to the river based on Islamic principles. The group operates mainly in the Gaza strip and the West Bank, and boasts tens of thousands of supporters throughout Palestine. The number of hardcore members remains unknown. World wide they enjoy millions of sympathizers for their admirable struggle against the barbaric Zionist occupation / crimes.


[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 January 2006 09:15 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It was not an op-ed piece, but a news analysis, directly quoting people who would know. But believe whatever you want to believe. Next you'll be telling me Israel doesn't have an nuclear bomb, and asking me for proof that it does.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 10:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
OK I stand corrected, by attempting to help the Palestinians and also in it's self interest, (in an effort to weakon the PLO)Israel has "financed" Hamas. I guess you are right.
Roots of Hamas

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Peech ]


\

Actually the last US ambassador to Israel made more or less the same remarks after 9-11, noting that Israel made the same mistake with the Islamic fundamentalists in Gaza that the US made with those in Afghanistan, or at least that was the gyst of it. He said, that in the 70's he was astonished to see Israel supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, when he was on his to Israel after visiting Egypt on the occaission of Anwar Sadat funeral (killed of course by Muslim Bortherhood activists.)

The conjecture that Israel was subverting the PLO, is obvious politicking, and given the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood and its history, there is no reason to doubt the idea that Israeli support was a little more than simple humanitarianism.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 January 2006 10:34 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:
Thanks for that. I never cease to be amazed by the breadth of your knowledge! (seriously)

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2006 10:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The article used to be posted on the US embassy's website, but since the change over in ambassador, all the old speeches are gone, or obscurely archived, I looked but can't find it there.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
FabFabian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7496

posted 27 January 2006 12:34 AM      Profile for FabFabian        Edit/Delete Post
This is a nice little fuck you to the rest of the world. Good for them.
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 27 January 2006 01:01 AM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
Hamas is structured like the old IRA, with a political wing and a military wing. While diplomacy takes years, as in the case of Ireland and the IRA, it's a lot better than the alternate.

Does Bush have the focus or the patience for diplomacy, I guess we will know pretty soon.

The difference in social conditions on either side of the wall with Israel is telling. Billions for military spending is given by the US to Israel, the money might have been better spent improving the social condition and poverty of Palestinian families. Thats why Hamas is so popular, they helped families with things like baby formula and schools. It may not seem like much but the mothers of Palestinian children noticed.

Democratic elections are a good thing, as long as its a Bush style democracy.I for one wish the Palestinian people every success, I hope they make this work. If we believe in democracy , what works for us does not necessarily work for Bolivia, Venezuela or Palestine. Its time we got used to it.


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 January 2006 01:07 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it fundamental to dimiss the IRA analogy entirely. The fact is that even in Belfast Catholics were invited into UK as citiznes. This is not the case with the Palestinians of the West Bank, who are excluded from all apsect public life of the country whose army they must obey, and are forced to live alongside those whose religious inheritance makes them privilidged not just tacitly but explicitly by law.

Catholic integration was the express policy of Britain, seperation is the express policy of Israel.

Hence, it is easy to see why a group like Hamas has so much more appeal to a larger constituency.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 27 January 2006 01:25 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
...it'll take awhile for me to understand the numbers...

Hamas got 30 of the 66 list seats, but 46 of the 66 local seats, total 76 of 132.

Fatah got 42.08% of the votes for parties getting more than 2%, so 27 of the 66 list seats, plus 16 of the 66 local seats, total 43.

Four local seats went to independents, nine list seats to smaller parties.

If they had MMP (the German compensatory system), the results would have been:

Hamas: 58 (46 local, 12 top-up list)
Fatah: 54 (16 local, 38 top-up list)
PFLP: 6 list
Badil (”The Alternative”): 4 list
“Independent Palestine” (left wing of Fatah): 3 list
The Third Way: 3 list
Local independents: 4

Perhaps Fatah would have led a coalition of those willing to recognize and negotiate with Israel.

What an electoral tragedy.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 January 2006 01:43 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
For the record: I have no idea how to solve the Middle East's problems. That's likely because I don't live there.

Except of course when I feel I have the right pontificate about what is good or bad for Arabs. Because in Port Hope we may not be able to discern the difficult complexities of Israeli poltics, and eschew anyone who suggests that "we" who live "here" might be able to discern those inscrutable problems with which they live, and be capable of judging them, but of course Arabs are so much simpler for us in Port Hope, so, it is quite easy for "us" here to determine what is a "tragedy" for "them" "there."

In other words we feel free to judge those we don't like, but warn others against the error of judging those we do.

What a very sad clown you are.

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 January 2006 02:07 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Perhaps Fatah would have led a coalition of those willing to recognize and negotiate with Israel.

So, as a Lawyer Wilf, is it relevant that Hamas has not recognized Israel's right to exist, when the body (the PA) which delivers them their mandate has?

Or in other words do the laws, covenants, and bylaws of an organization change when new elected officer take over their posts, or at such a time as those new officers ammend the laws covenants and by-laws of that organization?

So, as to say, is the Liberal SSM bill repealed automatically because Stephen Harper is about to take office, or does the Liberal law stand until repealed?

It is in fact the case that until such a time as Hamas repeals Yasser Arfat's recognition of Israel, the PA still recoginizes Israel even if the PA is run by an organization that does not officially do so.

This is not, as you would have it, a stumbling block to a negotaited peace. Because Israel negotiates with the PA, as the legaly constituted body, not with Hamas, and the PA does recognize Israel and has for 15 years.

For that matter, is it incumbent upon the CPC to enshrine an official recognition of "Israel's right to exist" in its constitution before a new Ambassador is sent to Tel Aviv by the Canadian governement? I mean really Wilf, does the CPC recognize Israel's right to exist?

I had thought that the general Canadian recognition of Israel's right to exist would stand, would it not, whatever the position of the CPC? Or is this particular kind of diplomatic sucking of cock only required of Arab peoples?

Or are you going to contimue to mislead people, by suggesting that Hamas's position is relevant to the practical negotiating positions of the partners, which is the PA (whomever it is run by) and use this faux stumbling block "recognition of Israel" as a tool to prosecute your anti-Palestinian position, so that you can play your part in the justifying Israeli negotiating intransigence and thus support further annexation of Palestinian land, the humiliation of 3.5 million persons, and the destitution of same.

Is there a purpose to propgating such a-legal pedantry? Or is it that you just like to simply play with electoral numbers so that you can make smug pronunciations about the bad manners of those who vote for people you don't happen to like.

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 January 2006 02:34 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it's great that the Palestinians have had an election. If they want their country run by Hamas, then great (as long as the election is free and fair). If the election is free and fair, then what they want to do is their business. But, it doesn't mean that we have to deal with them as long as their avowed objective is to destroy Israel.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 January 2006 02:38 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I mean what country is the PA supposed to run, given that the Israel army is sitting on all of it, and a bunch of Israeli settlers sitting on half?

You don't think that it is incumbent upon Israel to negotiate giving back all that property they took from the Palestinians because the Palestinians have the bad manners, many years after the fact, to think that the state aparatus that took all of their land might not be such a good idea?

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 January 2006 02:41 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I mean what country is the PA supposed to run, given that the Israel army is sitting on all of it, and a bunch of Israeli settlers sitting on half?

You don't think that it is incumbent upon Israel to negotiate giving back all that property they took from the Palestinians because the Palestinians have the bad manners, many years after the fact, to think that the state aparatus that took all of their land might not be such a good idea?

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


I don't think Hamas is concerned merely with recovering "all that property [the Israelis] took from the Palestinians". They want to destroy Israel.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 January 2006 02:44 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So it is not ok for Hamas to want to destory Israel, but it is just fine and dandy for Israel to have actually destroyed Palestine.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 27 January 2006 02:46 AM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

They want to destroy Israel.

What's illegitimate about that? Israel would dearly love to destroy palestine, or at least drieve the palestinians into the desert, ie, some place else in arabia.

There most certainly ARE parties in the Knesset, even in the governing coalition, which have had Eretz Israel as a goal for years.

As goals go, neither are particularly practical, but it takes some kind of special pleading to argue that the congruent desire is OK when voiced by an Israeli and racist when voiced by a palestinian.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 January 2006 02:47 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
So it is not ok for Hamas to want to destory Israel, but it is just fine and dandy for Israel to have actually destroyed Palestine.

Israel isn't going to last anyway. The Jewish population will eventually be overwhelmed by the non-Jewish population.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 January 2006 02:51 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is the Hamas position.

And that is why it asbolutely necessary for Israel to negotiate a settlment with the PA, which recognizes Israel's right to exist, and with those people whom the Palestinians have elected to run it.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 January 2006 02:54 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
That is the Hamas position.

And that is why it asbolutely necessary for Israel to negotiate a settlment with the PA, which recognizes Israel's right to exist, and with those people whom the Palestinians have elected to run it.


In one of the last negotiation rounds with Arafat, didn't Israel offer to give him something like 98% of the territory he was asking for...but he rejected it?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 January 2006 03:03 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually what happened was that Arafat by recognizing Israel's right to exist racanted a claim on 75% of everything which they originally asked for, which was all of it. This idea, the one that you are talking about is predicated on the idea that the entire Palestinian claim was only for the West Bank and Gaza, which is not true. That is what the Israeli's said was on the table. Arafat said, Ok but we want everything up to the 1967 border, and Israel niggled on 3% of that.

Furthermore, what was offered was only half offered, in that Israel would actually maintain physical military control over half of the West Bank up until such a time as they felt they didn't need to be there.

And so it goes.

In every round of these negotiations the amount of land negotiable becomes smaller and smaller, and the Israelis add more settlers, build more bypass roads and security infrastructure, and then low and behold find some highly technical reason that they can not negotiate with the Palestinians because they don't recognize Israel's right to exist or something, or because there is not a complete end to violence or something, and then say, "oh but now we have all these settlers here, and there is no way we can give that up, would you like this piece of desert in compensation for this aquifier?"

Now Sharon had formed a party that wants to establish the wall as the official border of Israel, further cutting Barak's offer by a 1/3rd. And so it goes.

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 January 2006 03:08 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[beyond mere thread drift]

What's W.A.S.T.E.?

[/beyond mere thread drift]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 January 2006 03:11 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 January 2006 03:28 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for that "clue". It brought me quickly to here.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 27 January 2006 04:40 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rici Lake:
it seems that the Hamas list has decisively won a fair election.

I suppose, but only in the sense that Fatah cannot well claim otherwise, due to their unfortunately greedy miscalculation. It pains me to say it -- they are fellow members of the Socialist International, after all -- but when socialists manipulate the voting system to their advantage, it can blow back at them, as happened here. A tragic miscalculation, from Fatah's point of view; Fatah outsmarted itself big time.

And hardly anyone notices, since even a non-proportional election is enough to satisfy some people's definition of "free and fair," let alone a half-proportional one.

But if we don't call it a fair election when Mike Harris gets a majority with only 45% of the vote, why is it fair when Hamas or anyone else does?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
rici
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2710

posted 27 January 2006 08:12 AM      Profile for rici     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:

...manipulate the voting system to their advantage, it can blow back at them

And what is fairer than that?

As you said earlier, Wilf, you don't live in the middle East, and neither do I; furthermore, we are both citizens of one of the few democratic countries in the world which has not (yet) adopted any form of proportional representation, much though we might both wish that were not so. This limits our legitimacy to criticise.

But I do think we should stand united against the anti-democratic cynicism represented by people like Robert Satloff, whose speech I linked to earlier. Let me just quote a bit of that:

quote:
We Americans are to blame, on several fronts: for failing to press Abbas to fulfill his commitments to security and disarmament early on; for not doing enough to strengthen Abbas so as to deny him the excuse that he needed these elections as a vehicle to implement those commitments; and for having such a messianic commitment to the power of elections to transform people that we were blind to the possibility that evil people can exploit democracy for evil ends.

Now, when he talks about "exploiting democracy for evil ends", he's not talking about Fatah cynically redrafting election laws. He's talking about Hamas running for election, which he believes that the United States and Israel should have prevented, presumably by force if necessary.

The Palestinian election result may not have been the best theoretically possible, but it remains the fact that the vote was not marred, as far as can be seen, by ballot box stuffing or counting irregularities; and that a large majority of Palestinians endorsed the process by voting. Calling the results of that process a tragedy can only serve to add legitimacy to the viewpoints expressed by Satloff.


From: Lima, Perú | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 27 January 2006 08:15 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Actually what happened was that Arafat by recognizing Israel's right to exist racanted a claim on 75% of everything which they originally asked for, which was all of it. [ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Im not sure what you are sayng here. That "75%" is the current state of Israel as most of the world accepts it. Barak's offer was a huge breakthrough that if Arafat and his cronies had accepted it could have meant a Palestinian state today.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 27 January 2006 08:17 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

In one of the last negotiation rounds with Arafat, didn't Israel offer to give him something like 98% of the territory he was asking for...but he rejected it?



From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 January 2006 08:40 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread. I haven't read through the whole thing, but it seems to have gone pretty well (in that no news is good news, and doesn't look like it's degenerated into a big flamefest).

Thanks very much, folks.

(It's funny, I was just telling a fellow babbler privately yesterday that when I woke up, I heard that Hamas had won the Palestinian election on the morning news. And I thought, oh dear, this is going to have serious repercussions indeed - the Middle East forum will never be the same! )


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca