Advertise here: Contact FM.

No Hamas, no peace?!
January 26, 2006 3:21 AM Subscribe

Hamas wins majority in Palestinian elections. In a surprise upset, Hamas has unseated Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party. This after initial results indicated that Fatah would win, and both the Bush administration and Israel indicated that Abbas shouldn't form a coalition government with members of Hamas, but should keep them entirely in opposition. Prominent Hamas leader Ismail Haneya said, "America and Israel wanted to vote against Hamas, so the Palestinian people voted for the Hamas . . . and voted against the occupation." He reiterated that Hamas would resist Israel's occupation until all Palestinian rights were regained.
posted by insomnia_lj (76 comments total)

Welcome to the polls. No guns, no cigarettes, no cellphones.
posted by insomnia_lj at 3:24 AM on January 26, 2006

Who knows? Perhaps the mantle of responsibility in government will translate into more responsible action in other spheres.
posted by caddis at 3:30 AM on January 26, 2006

This is democracy.

An e-friend of mine in Gaza City, a young lady who has her own flat and works as an office manager, wants to leave.

I hope she doesn't. I still believe that Palestine has the strongest chance of achieving liberal democracy of any Arab state. This free election increases that chance, and by breaking the stranglehold of Fatah over politics, it gives other small parties and movements (like that led by Mustapha Barghouti) a chance. These movements need people like her.

All Palestinians and the whole world are watching and will pressure Hamas to reform itself and govern - without violence, without Sharia, and as a democratic government.
posted by By The Grace of God at 4:06 AM on January 26, 2006

BtGoG, the world isn't just watching Hamas. It's watching Olmert and the Israeli government and it's watching the Bush administration. This is what the beginning of democracy looks like.

But I keep thinking about Samuel Huntington's elegant definition of democracy: (roughly paraphrased) "A functioning democracy is one in which power has changed hands at the ballot box twice."
posted by felix betachat at 4:12 AM on January 26, 2006

the Bush administration and Israel indicated that Abbas shouldn't form a coalition government with members of Hamas, but should keep them entirely in opposition.

What happened to fostering democracy in the Middle East? I think this is a good thing... I really hope that Hamas is going down the Sinn Fein route and abandoning the armalite (or suicide bomber) for the ballot box.

Now they have entered politics, if they fuck up, they'll be voted out. Hopefully.
posted by twistedonion at 4:14 AM on January 26, 2006

Off the cuff analysis from Haaretz:

It can be predicted that in the coming days Olmert will make an effort to coordinate with the United States to alleviate international pressure, and at the same time demonstrate a tough domestic stand in order to avoid losing votes to Netanyahu.

In any event, the real implications of the election result will be evident from Hamas' actions in the near future - whether the organization renews suicide attacks or follows a new political path. Most Israelis are more interested in the danger of suicide attacks than in the makeup of the Palestinian parliament.

On the political front, the Hamas victory strengthens Kadima's stands because it rules out any possibility of permanent agreement talks. Hamas' win also adds power to Kadima's "no partner" theory, which states that the only alternative available to Israel is to unilaterally determine the border.
posted by felix betachat at 4:15 AM on January 26, 2006

"What happened to fostering democracy in the Middle East?"

Exactly. Bush has just as much right to tell Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas not to form a coalition government with members of Hamas by giving up a few cabinet posts, as he would if he had told German Chancellor Merkel that she shouldn't form a coalition government with the opposition party. In other words, none. Such an attitude is rude, arrogant, intrusive, and counterproductive.

Makes you wonder how many people who voted for Hamas were voting, in part, against Bush.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:26 AM on January 26, 2006

Makes you wonder how many people who voted for Hamas were voting, in part, against Bush.

Nope. More likely they were voting against rampant corruption and cronyism in the Palestinian Authority. That they get to test the Bush Doctrine ("Freedom is on the March") is just an added bonus.
posted by felix betachat at 4:36 AM on January 26, 2006

While I suspect government corruption was the overriding matter, both corruption *AND* opposing US/Israeli pressure was mentioned.

If Bush wasn't the ice cream sundae in this case, he was certainly the cherry on top.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:40 AM on January 26, 2006

The "budding" of democracy is very nice, but this democracy would grow a lot faster and farther if it were backed up by some money. If the US shifted all of its Israeli aid (3 billion a year?) to Palestine, Israel would benefit at least as much as Palestine would from the stability and growth that a good dose of money would give to the Palestinians. And whether or not Hamas remains a bunch of actual or would-be bombers, the people of Palestine would be less inclined to support disruption and violence if they had a stake in a promising economic environment.
posted by pracowity at 4:45 AM on January 26, 2006

I wonder who could profit from a perpetuation of violence against Israel and/or against the peaceful palestinian majority.
posted by elpapacito at 4:53 AM on January 26, 2006

They had a stake in Gaza, Pracowity, in the greenhouses and other infrastructure that was turned over to them intact and functional - and promptly destroyed it, for whatever reason.

I'd expect most of that aid to go immediately into Swiss bank accounts, ala Arafat. For sure the average Palestinian wouldn't see it, except perhaps in higher-quality hardware for bomb vests.

The Palestinian leadership has been excellent at missing opportunities for peace. I fully expect them to blow this one as well. "One man, one vote" in cultures like that usually get a "One time" tacked on the end of them.
posted by JB71 at 4:59 AM on January 26, 2006

Unfortunately, pracowity, it's not just money that the PA needs. In fact, western donors are slowly waking up to the fact that, in the absence of a credible and responsible government, such aid is actively counterproductive. Last week, the EU suspended a planned $42mil payout for just these reasons.

This is not one of those problems you solve by throwing money at it. Or by punishing Israel. The Palestinians' inability to entrust authority in credible and responsible leaders has ever been the root problem in the peace negotiations. In the absence of transparency, Arafat and his successors were simply strongmen.

Ironically, Hamas does have the sort of infrastructure and accountability that the Palestinians so desperately need. Granted, they use it to murder Israelis and to support the families of those murderers. It's worth hoping that their bureaucratic experience will translate into a more stable and responsible government for their people.

I'm certainly not happy to see the Islamists in power. But at least the Palestinians can demand accountability and Fateh can set about cleaning house without the constant temptation of embezzlement.
posted by felix betachat at 5:07 AM on January 26, 2006

how was this a surprise upset in any way? everyone's been predicting it.

pracowity -- you've hit it on the nail. felix, hamas is a murderous organization, just like the israeli army and the settlers, and hamas (and i'm not trying overly to defend them) has an infrastructure that they do indeed use to run homeless shelters, food banks, and schools.

arguing that fatah should have won is like arguing that Chalabi should have won in Iraq -- a fool's dream, and a dangerous, nondemocratic one at that.
posted by yonation at 5:20 AM on January 26, 2006

No more aid for Palestine.

It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO.

posted by drscroogemcduck at 5:26 AM on January 26, 2006

Some of the greenhouses were looted, some were stripped by the departing settlers, but the Palestinians still managed to export 8 tonnes of peppers (or capsicums, if you prefer) by the second week of December.

JB71 writes "for whatever reason"

38 years of occupation might lead to a little pent up anger, possibly.

Arafat is gone, his young wife will have to live without his largess. The remaining Palestian politicians have seen enough corruption related destruction to have the will to campaign against such things.
posted by asok at 5:29 AM on January 26, 2006

woo, Palestinian hot peppers? I am all over that.
posted by By The Grace of God at 5:33 AM on January 26, 2006

Asok:

Good for them. Glad to see there's something going on there other than sheer frothing hatred.

38 years pent up anger...

Someone gives you a house, because they wronged you 38 years back. You burn it to the ground, then bitch because you've got no place to live. Yeah, that makes sense, if you've got leaders who (in order to maintain control and power) carefully fanned hatred and resentment to the point where no matter what you get it will never be enough.

Were they ever able to find the funds that Arafat squirreled away?
posted by JB71 at 5:37 AM on January 26, 2006

The US needs to take an optimistic stance in regards to relieving (never completely solving) this problem with positive measures. And I don't mean George Bush should walk in and hand 3 billion dollars in unmarked bills to the leadership of Hamas. The place needs that three billion dollars annually spread out in microloans and the like. Considering the small population and low per capita income of Palestine, that money could go a very long way in each life.

Every Palestinian family with a promising future is a family that won't be eager to send its kids away to build bombs and fight the bad guys who they might otherwise accuse of having robbed them of that promising future.
posted by pracowity at 5:43 AM on January 26, 2006

Bush & Co. are complete idiots for thinking Arab democracies would vote for pro-western pro-them governments. People love authoritarians, and will usually vote for them (people also love government continuity -- why take a risk on an unknown?) Look at Putin in Russia.

Anyway, Fetah got kicked out because they were absurdly corrupt, from what I understand, and Hamas has always been pretty competent, and good at what they do. They also have a massive social welfare system setup in addition to their terrorist organization (funneling money from Iran and Saudi and elsewhere to the hands of poor Palestinians).

We'll see what happens, but I think this election was primarily about efficacy, not ideology.
posted by delmoi at 5:55 AM on January 26, 2006

P: if you'll recall, that was precisely the sort of thing that was starting to happen around the time of Camp David and Sharm al-Sheikh. I recall several stories from that period, one in the NYT about a growing trend toward joint Israeli/Palestinian owned businesses in E.J'lem and another in Haaretz about natural gas exploration off the coast of the Gaza strip. It seems absurd today, but before 2000, Amos Oz was arguing loudly for an Israeli/Palestinian common market to encourage the flourishing of economic ties that would serve as a bulwark against hostility.

But then Arafat walked away from the table and decided to pursue the path of murderous despotism rather than good faith negotiation.

I agree with you a hundred percent: a secure economic future is the key to long term peace in Palestine. But today the chief barrier to that peace is a failure of leadership and governance on the part of the Palestinian Authority. Without transparency and the rule of law, the money will go straight into the hands of terrorists and thugs.
posted by felix betachat at 5:56 AM on January 26, 2006

If people think Hamas is running the place anyway, they might as well be in governmental power and have an aura of accountability. The U.S. openly has dealt with militant and terrorist governments in numerous African and Middle Eastern nations in the last few decades. Given that Hamas preaches for the non-recognition of Israel, the U.S. or U.N. refusing to recognize the democratically-elected authority of Hamas at this point would be a huge vat of fuel for the fire.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:06 AM on January 26, 2006

Democracy is tricky business. BeCarefulWhatYouWishForFilter.
posted by OmieWise at 6:10 AM on January 26, 2006

How's the Road Map to Peace working out? President Bush is personally committed to implementing it, but I haven't heard much about it lately. Maybe he'll give us an update in the State of the Union address. That, and that Mars thing.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:11 AM on January 26, 2006

If the people want war, then war they shall have.

Hey, just like America!
posted by fungible at 6:18 AM on January 26, 2006

Regardless of what the EU or Bush & friends do, the peace process is probably screwed. Hamas has publically said that they don't support peace talks, or even the recognition of Israel, so unless they get a lot more moderate it's tough to see any way that the peace process would work, even if Israel were to give more concessions.

It's more about the U.S. giving concessions. The U.S. can offer resources and aid to build the infastructure of a Palestinian state. But to establish a Palestinian state, there has to be an agreement on a border; ergo there has to be a concession to the existence of Israel. Also, I'd like a pony.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:20 AM on January 26, 2006

The next time I'm attending a U.S. peace rally and I see some moran waving a Palestinian flag, I think I'm going to have to kick some ass.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 6:33 AM on January 26, 2006

Iihaa - Why?
posted by Baby_Balrog at 6:46 AM on January 26, 2006

...moron?
posted by Baby_Balrog at 6:47 AM on January 26, 2006

Hamas seems to be modelling itself after the Likud/Irgun model. That seems to have worked out for Israel.
posted by juiceCake at 6:53 AM on January 26, 2006

The next time I'm attending a U.S. peace rally and I see some moran waving a Palestinian flag, I think I'm going to have to kick some ass.

My guess is that we'll see peace in the Middle East before some guy named If I Had An Anus kicks any ass.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:56 AM on January 26, 2006

A little feta, a little hummus, mmmm. Is it time for lunch yet?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:00 AM on January 26, 2006

From the Hamas charter:

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: 'The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him...'
Resisting and quelling the enemy become the individual duty of every Muslim, male or female. A woman can go out to fight the enemy without her husband's permission, and so does the slave: without his master's permission...

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with...

The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion... It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions...

Leaving aside the other ominous stuff here, one has to ask: The Rotary Club?
posted by blahblahblah at 7:01 AM on January 26, 2006

But then Arafat walked away from the table and decided to pursue the path of murderous despotism rather than good faith negotiation.

I believe he walked away from the table after the Israeli prime minister was assassinated by a right wing psycho, which somehow resulted in another right wing psycho getting elected as his negotiating partner.
posted by delmoi at 7:02 AM on January 26, 2006

All the end-timers must be creaming their shorts at this point.
posted by delmoi at 7:03 AM on January 26, 2006

Why, Baby_Balrog? Well, at the risk of killing a joke by explaining it, because the Palestinian people made it clear yesterday that they reject peace.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:07 AM on January 26, 2006

Is it just me who is feeling a lot less sympathy for Palestinians now that they have voluntarily voted for terrorists?
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 7:08 AM on January 26, 2006

...moron?

on teh internets its "moran"
posted by caddis at 7:09 AM on January 26, 2006

Hamas, Fatah Supporters Clash
posted by Postroad at 7:10 AM on January 26, 2006

Leaving aside the other ominous stuff here, one has to ask: The Rotary Club?

Hamas vs The Lions Club:

In 1980, a German-born Canuck called Ernst Zundel wrote a pamphlet called “The West, War and Islam”. A Holocaust denier and all-round wacko (one of his early books claimed that UFOs were a secret Nazi weapon launched from Antarctica), Ernst jotted down his thoughts on how Jews were controlling the world, and then sent them to hundreds of influential individuals in the Middle East, including heads of state and government ministers. Included in the pamphlet was the claim that “unknown to most people of the Islamic world is the tremendous power and influence exercised in the Western world by some branches of a politicized Freemasonry and all its cover organizations, such as the Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions, etc.” The man who almost single-handedly introduced the Arab world to Holocaust denial also seems to have introduced Hamas to the Lions and Rotary.

posted by pracowity at 7:16 AM on January 26, 2006

Caddis, I stand corrected.

Iihaa, this is the first time I've seen you post something that incendiary. That's not a reasonable response to someone's nationality at all.

I'm only mentioning this because I am, at this very moment, somewhat serendipitously wearing a t-shirt with a Palestinian flag on it. It was a gift from a friend whose father was a Palestinian immigrant. I have great sympathy for these people, I feel that their history was irrevocably changed by foreign governments without their say.

Now, before some idiot chimes in with the whole, "oh huh yeah but uh wut about the other peoples whose countrys were effected by foregin governemtns" I recognize that the history of that entire region has been mercilessly fucked around with by western interests.

However, to hear someone come out and say, "I will beat your ass if you wave a Palestinian flag," is vile, hateful and simple. I have a place in my heart for those poor people, and they will always have my support, because I don't make the ridiculously close-minded error of conflating the support an entire population with the political viewpoint of their current government.

Yes, yes, I know. Since I support the Palestinians, and some of the Palestinians support thu terrrr, and some of the politicians in Palestine who supported terrorists are now participating in free government, I'm a terrorist. Or something.
I still don't really understand this whole 'terrorist' label.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:33 AM on January 26, 2006

and here i thought that the only things the rotary and lions clubs controlled was the buffet at the local chinese restaurant ... well, that and the city council and the chamber of commerce ... but the great zionist conspiracy?? ...

what are they smoking over there?
posted by pyramid termite at 7:41 AM on January 26, 2006

hoverboards -- no, it's not just you. I imagine a lot of foreigners feel less sympathy for Americans after they re-elected the Bush White House.

oh, wait...
posted by bl1nk at 7:48 AM on January 26, 2006

I find blahblahblah's and Pracowity's posts very interesting.

Do ordinary Palestinians really believe that the Rotary is out to get them? Can't be true . . .
posted by Eyebeams at 7:48 AM on January 26, 2006

Someone made the comment upthread, but it's a good point - Palenstine is very smilar to many African countries. Armed bandits control the country, and no money is ever diverted to infrastructure as it all goes into the leaders' Swiss bank accounts.

Maybe one day religion, aka 'the means of control', will be thrown into the ocean, and drowned. A pleasant ceremony will ensue, and a new day will emerge.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:49 AM on January 26, 2006

TJH: "Religion" is the discourse people use to describe their deepest hopes and their intractable disagreements. Drowning it would solve nothing.
posted by felix betachat at 7:53 AM on January 26, 2006

Maybe one day religion, aka 'the means of control', will be thrown into the ocean, and drowned. A pleasant ceremony will ensue, and a new day will emerge.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:49 AM EST on January 26 [!]

Given that Fatah is a secular government, like the African countries it resembles, exactly how would drinking the magic Athiesm Kool-aid solve their corruption problems? The Palestians don't actually have a theocratic state, and they haven't instituted Islamic law. They have corruption, but it's secular political corruption, mostly.
posted by unreason at 7:54 AM on January 26, 2006

I wouldn't actually get in a physical fight over it, Baby_Balrog, and I don't associate you with terrorists for wearing a shirt. I just don't think a Palestinian flag belongs at a U.S. peace rally. No nation's flags belong there really, except ours, but especially not the flag of a nation of who, in the here and now, rejects Israel's right to exist.

To borrow your word, it's unnecessarily incendiary and basically off-topic for the event. People at anti-war rallies who are promote one warring nation over another piss me off. You're right it's probably simplistic, but another thing we say on the internets is "get over it".

On preview, exactly bl1nk. The Palestinians deserve the same disdain for their choice that we at metaFilter typically show for the "ignorant" red staters.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:54 AM on January 26, 2006

First off, this wasn't a "vote against peace," like some of you here seem to believe. This was a vote against corruption, just like in our fair neighbors to the North. Canada doesn't really want conservatism, it wants the Liberals out. That said, it will take a massive change in the institutional character of Hamas to move anywhere towards peace. It's extremely unlikely. The best thing that the West can do? Work on funding alternatives to Hamas in soup kitchens and job training. If there was a moderate party that had the resources of Hamas, people would have voted for them. From talking to several Palestineans that voted from abroad, the general sense was that they believed that Hamas was better at providing the resources of government. Much like the EZLN in Mexico, the alternate governmental services were a clear indicator of ideological combat with the established government, and a combat that Hamas won this time. But again, what I heard over and over was that people weren't voting for attacks on Israel, they were voting against corruption. And when peace with Israel doesn't necessarily seem like an achievable goal, voting for Hamas doesn't seem nearly as bad.
That said, the US should continue to exert pressure on Hamas, and Israel should continue the use of military force against Palestine unless Hamas decides, as the IRA did, to moderate its position.
posted by klangklangston at 7:55 AM on January 26, 2006

I think the "they voted against Bush and his policies" is just parochial tunnel vision. They voted for Hamas because their infrastructure is for shit right now and Hamas is the only group that can actually implement a solution. As Clinton said, it's the economy, stupid.

Eyebeams- it's all ultimately Freemason conspiracy stuff. They are, after all, in league with (controlled by?) Zionists.
posted by mkultra at 8:02 AM on January 26, 2006

Worth recalling or noting theat EU sends ten million per month to the Palestinians...what has it been used for? well, corruption, guns, terror, and precious little for improvements. Now we must see what Hamas will do with this largesse.
posted by Postroad at 8:08 AM on January 26, 2006

I have a serious question: why, at least on NPR, were Fatah and Hamas referred to as "movements" rather than as parties? It seemed like a clear case of bias in reporting, but I wonder if there was a more technical explanation. They may well call themselves movements in other contexts, but do they refer to themselves thus politically? Does anyone know?

If I Had An Anus writes "To borrow your word, it's unnecessarily incendiary and basically off-topic for the event. People at anti-war rallies who are promote one warring nation over another piss me off."

I've always supported Palestinian rights, sometimes as an activist, but I agree with IIHAA. I'd feel similarly about someone waving an Israeli flag at a US peace rally.
posted by OmieWise at 8:13 AM on January 26, 2006

a reasonable assessment via BBC
posted by Postroad at 8:14 AM on January 26, 2006

because two wrongs always make a right, IHAA
posted by bl1nk at 8:16 AM on January 26, 2006

I accept your position, IIHAA - your point about waving foreign flags at U.S. peace rallies is valid.

I thought your original post was implying something along the lines of, "I'd like to beat up someone in the U.S. who voices support of Palestine."

In the context of a U.S. protest, it's unnecessary. I probably wouldn't wear this shirt to a war protest rally.

I'd be wearing my trogdor shirt, anyway.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:20 AM on January 26, 2006

I'd be wearing my trogdor shirt, anyway.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:20 AM EST on January 26 [!]

And the peace treaty comes in the NIIIIIIIIGHT!
posted by unreason at 8:22 AM on January 26, 2006

Until others step in and provide the essential social services Hamas does, this is the right voting choice. Why is it that Israel would rather bomb than educate Palestinians? That the neighboring countries would rather keep Palestinians down, and as the oppressed symbol they can use instead of as a model for their charitable work? Why aren't we, the US, who give billions to the region each year, not providing those services Hamas does?
posted by amberglow at 8:39 AM on January 26, 2006

Undermining Hamas and Empowering Moderates by Filling the Humanitarian Void--... It would be useful to clarify that the quality-of-life side of the equation includes empowering and funding reformed Palestinian institutions and new, transparent NGOs to provide public and social services. If the Palestinian Authority were able to assume responsibility for providing its citizens a social safety net, it would enjoy the gratitude and public support that Hamas now enjoys at the PA's expense. Earlier this year the PA launched a Social Fund, conceived as a means of providing monthly welfare income to the poorest 20,000–60,000 Palestinians who otherwise rely on assistance from Hamas. Facilitating such experiments and undermining Hamas's grassroots support would not only help prevent the establishment of a "Hamastan" in Gaza, beyond PA control, it would deny Hamas operatives the logistical and financial support network they need to execute terror attacks....Empowering accountable, nonviolent Palestinian entities -- public and private alike -- to assume the responsibility for (and enjoy the resulting public support from) public works and social and humanitarian services should be a central goal of counterterrorism officials, peace negotiators, economists, and development experts alike.
posted by amberglow at 8:45 AM on January 26, 2006

Head of shin Bet: "As soon as Hamas talks to us [Israel], it's not Hamas any longer"
posted by Postroad at 8:46 AM on January 26, 2006

The next time I'm attending a U.S. peace rally and I see some moran waving a Palestinian flag, I think I'm going to have to kick some ass.

You should change your username to If I Had An Anus I'd Kick It.

Or maybe If I Had An Anus and It Was Waving a Palestinian Flag I'd Kick It.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:57 AM on January 26, 2006

Head of shin Bet: "As soon as Hamas talks to us [Israel], it's not Hamas any longer"

It's not Hamas anymore it's the "Palestinian Authority." And that's "Mr. Palestian Authority," to you shin Bet.

It's all a farce. Musical chairs on the Titanic. The Palestinian Authority can more accurately be called the "Palestinian Responsibility" - blamed for everything that goes wrong but having no real "authority" to do anything about it. With Hamas in charge, the responsibility gets greater and the authority gets weaker. And the cycle of injustice and atrocity continues.
posted by three blind mice at 9:36 AM on January 26, 2006

three blind mice : "With Hamas in charge, the responsibility gets greater and the authority gets weaker."

Actually, I believe you're too pessimistic - Hamas does hold much more authority and control over the whole militant base and the population as a whole than Fatah ever did, specially after Arafat's death. If (and that's a very large if) Hamas decides for a truce it is quite probable a truce will be respected.

But the mirror irony can't be ignored - on the dawn of the Second Intifada, the Israeli population looked long and hard at its neighbours mood and its political leaders and decided the hard-line right-winger Sharon was the best option to navigate those waters. The Palestine population, after little or no advance of anything (peace, war, economy, whatever) after years of Fatah rule looked long and hard at its neighbour mood and its leadership options and decided the hard-liners may after all be their best chance of getting some sort of agreement that doesn't mean total capitulation.
posted by nkyad at 9:53 AM on January 26, 2006

the responsibility gets greater and the authority gets weaker

that reminds me of the days when arafat was a prisoner in his compound and the police stations were being blown up and many were asking "why doesn't arafat do something about the terrorists?"

i don't see any good coming out of the current situation, mostly because i think the people who are leading don't want any good to come from it ... that goes for both sides
posted by pyramid termite at 10:26 AM on January 26, 2006

Bush's anti-Midas touch once again turns gold to shit, eh?
posted by five fresh fish at 10:40 AM on January 26, 2006

I don't know if there were any gold to be had in the first place, fff. But the Bush administration should realize their enormous "popularity" around the world and mostly STFU. It happened almost exactly like that in Bolivia. In the previous presidential election, Evo Morales was in a distant third place when the US Ambassador decided it was a good idea to say something like "If Morales gets elected the US will withdraw all aid to Bolivia" - it was enough to catapult Evo to a close second place. This time around Morales was elected under a very loud American silence. The American leadership seem to think that they can speak to foreign people the same way they speak to client foreign leaders, dispensing their orders and wishes under veiled or not-so-veiled threats. Venal politicians like Berlusconi, Blair and Putin almost always ask "How high?". Independent voters almost always react otherwise.
posted by nkyad at 11:41 AM on January 26, 2006

Metafilter: They also have a massive social welfare system setup in addition to their terrorist organization.
posted by hackly_fracture at 11:55 AM on January 26, 2006

Amberglow's right on regarding the policy that should be taken. And would be taken if we had a liberal internationalist president. Meanwhile...

As for Hamas communicating with Israel, last night on the Beeb, a spokesman for Hamas said that it would not deal directly with Israel, but would speak only through intermediaries (because they don't respect Israel's right to exist).

Nykad also (once again) shows a pretty decent understanding of the situation in Palestine. (Just a note that i enjoy your comments...)
posted by klangklangston at 12:11 PM on January 26, 2006

Bush says we won't deal with Hamas while it has "an armed wing." Yet did Fatah ever give up its armed wing? At least Hamas is less duplicitous about its aims.
posted by rottytooth at 12:55 PM on January 26, 2006

Without transparency and the rule of law, the money will go straight into the hands of terrorists and thugs.
posted by felix betachat

I imagine a lot of foreigners feel less sympathy for Americans after they re-elected the Bush White House.
posted by bl1nk

The rule of law should be our king, not George - Tom Paine

Democracy can be so inconvenient at times. I suppose that's why the US no longer has legitimate national elections, like Iran or Palestine.
posted by nofundy at 1:06 PM on January 26, 2006

... Hamas' presence in the next Palestinian government is not a reason to reject peace negotiations. On the contrary, it is a compelling reason for starting them at long last. It would mean that we negotiate with the entire Palestinian spectrum (excluding only the small Islamic Jihad organization). If Hamas joins the government on the basis of Mahmoud Abbas' peace policy, it is manifestly ripe for negotiations, with or without arms, based on a hudnah (truce).
Thirty years ago, when I started secret contacts with the PLO leadership, I was almost the only person in Israel in favor of negotiating with the organization that was at the time officially designated as "terrorist". It took almost 20 years for the Israeli government to come round to my point of view. Now we are starting again from the same point. ...
posted by amberglow at 4:04 PM on January 26, 2006

"Hamas has never proposed to change or amend its charter. The platform presents a realistic view that reflects Hamas's goals for the next four years. Had we spoken of eliminating and eradicating Israel within this period, we would have been be deceiving our people and repeating false slogans. But this does not stand in contradiction [to the fact that] we place emphasis on the elimination and non-recognition of Israel."
posted by rottytooth at 4:22 PM on January 26, 2006

amberglow: Why aren't we, the US, who give billions to the region each year, not providing those services Hamas does?

Because the aid workers we sent would get shot at, blown up, or kidnapped. Hamas doesn't do these things out of any kind of charitable nature, they do it so they have the support of the average palestinian. They wouldn't take well to us doing it (nor would they tolerate our presence in general.)

In any case, they're going to have a hard time doing any of it now, because they're going to lose any aid they get from the US and probably most of Europe. With Hamas at the helm, it might actually be illegal to send them aid in the U.S., since they are legally considered a terrorist organization.
posted by Mitrovarr at 6:33 PM on January 26, 2006

Gaza and the West Bank get about 1 billion dollars in aid, give or take a year. Alot of it basically goes to stop the effects of the economic meltdown which has been bad to say the least...

anyways... I wanted to make a point on:

It seems absurd today, but before 2000, Amos Oz was arguing loudly for an Israeli/Palestinian common market to encourage the flourishing of economic ties that would serve as a bulwark against hostility.

The idea that a functionalist economic background would smooth over political ones which my Palestinian poly sci teacher said was basically wishful thinking. Political considerations in the ME always trump economic ones... I forgot about that point until i found this book on amazon. This guy basically says that a group of people on both sides found it in their economic intersts to kill the peace process, because they personally would gain the rents from the economic shutdown. I didn't have a chance to get through the whole thing (i got it from my library) and its expensive, but its worth a look...
posted by stratastar at 8:56 AM on January 27, 2006

some very surprising stuff about Hamas, and Israel/Iran arms business here
posted by amberglow at 11:12 AM on January 27, 2006

« Older They fight OUR WARS... | The Adaption to my Generation... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

No Hamas, no peace?! January 26, 2006 3:21 AM Subscribe

No Hamas, no peace?!
January 26, 2006 3:21 AM Subscribe