Hamas

[whyBish]

No one claims they are idiots, however after reading this post, I am not so sure about you.

-A
ps. I hope this thread dies a quick death.
[right][snapback]100371[/snapback][/right]

You've called me an idiot before, but now you're not so sure. My posts must be improving :P

[eppie]

eppie

I disagree with that view. 

What looks likely to change is the fupport for,and the credibility of, the dialogue between the Israeli government and whoever speaks for the Palestinian Authority. 

If Hamas is not recognized as a credible party to talks, negotiations, and improvements of the accord that exists today, the situation will change for the worse as less leverage will be applied to Israel to keep change moving forward, and, for example, tear down that damned wall.

Well there were democratic elections. And even one of the fairest in arabia since more or less ever.
The palestenians chose for an organisation that has used terrorism before (Hamas is however not a terrorist organization like e.g. al qaeda) and that has a quite extreme view on the situation over there.
The chances of peace will not be smaller, as compared to when fatah would win the elections. I mean Hamas, being in charge, they know they reach any agreement when part of their people (or people that fight under that name) use terror attacks.

For the world to now state they don't deal with Hamas is a very stupid thing to to, credebility wise and solutionwise.

[Guest]

For the world to now state they don't deal with Hamas is a very stupid thing to to, credebility wise ......
[right][snapback]100490[/snapback][/right]

How can the 'world" lose credibility?

If the whole(or nearly whole as I assume you mean) world doesnt trust Hamas, then I think by definition Hamas has a credibility problem - not the "world".

[eppie]

How can the 'world" lose credibility?

If the whole(or nearly whole as I assume you mean) world doesnt trust Hamas, then I think by definition Hamas has a credibility problem - not the "world".
[right][snapback]100491[/snapback][/right]

I'm referring to the western worlds goals of bringing democracy to the world (and middle east in particular). Now it becomes clear that it is not democracy that we want but a leader we like. The palestinians did not vote en masse for Hamas because they all want to blow up things. The used their democratic right to vote for the party which the believed can make things better.

[Occhidiangela]

The palestinians did not vote en masse for Hamas because they all want to blow up things. The used their democratic right to vote for the party which the believed can make things better.
[right][snapback]100495[/snapback][/right]

Really? What color is the sky in your world? :lol:

Elections are as much about emotion and what one doesn't want as they are about rational choices. I wish elections were tainted with more rationality more frequently, but when race, language, religion, perceived economic advantage, and many other social and political issues are at stake in a vote, rationality is not always the supreme consideration when someone marks a ballot. Emotion plays a heavy role.

Look at the recent rejection of the EU Constitution for an example: was the rejection rational or emotional? Was it a bit of both?

At least some of the folks marking their ballots for Hamas are "into the sea with them" believers, while others were "Fatah are a bunch of crooks and Wankers" believers, just as some of the folks who marked a ballot for GW Bush were "say no to gay marriage" believers, while others were "Kerry is a spineless puppet" believers.

Just like "The American People" or "the people of Nueces County" (the county where I live), "the Palestinian people" is an artificial construct and a generalization.

Occhi

[eppie]

Really?  What color is the sky in your world?  :lol: 

Elections are as much about emotion and what one doesn't want as they are about rational choices.  I wish elections were tainted with more rationality more frequently, but when race, language, religion, perceived economic advantage, and many other social and political issues are at stake in a vote, rationality is not always the supreme consideration when someone marks a ballot.  Emotion plays a heavy role.

Look at the recent rejection of the EU Constitution for an example: was the rejection rational or emotional?  Was it a bit of both? 

At least some of the folks marking their ballots for Hamas are "into the sea with them" believers, while others were "Fatah are a bunch of crooks and Wankers" believers, just as some of the folks who marked a ballot for GW Bush were "say no to gay marriage" believers, while others were "Kerry is a spineless puppet" believers.

Just like "The American People" or "the people of Nueces County"  (the county where I live), "the Palestinian people" is an artificial construct and a generalization. 

Occhi
[right][snapback]100502[/snapback][/right]

OK of course I understand this. But what is the difference now if the group of "terrorism supporters" did or did not vote?

Hamas will not make terrorism a part of their political strategy. The way I see this it can only get better. Maybe potential terrorists will refrain from commiting attacks now. I mean "they" are in the government. The same would go the other way around. If Fatah would have a big majority, terrorism would not stop.
As long as there is the situation like it is now in Israel there will be no end to violence.
(ironic how every peacemaker (Rabin, Arafat, Sharon) at critcial points dies or at least has to stop doing politcs).
Hamas will have to govern now, which means having to find compromises.

[Guest]

OK of course I understand this. But what is the difference now if the group of "terrorism supporters" did or did not vote?

Hamas will not make terrorism a part of their political strategy. The way I see this it can only get better. Maybe potential terrorists will refrain from commiting attacks now. I mean "they" are in the government. The same would go the other way around. If Fatah would have a big majority, terrorism would not stop.
As long as there is the situation like it is now in Israel there will be no end to violence.
(ironic how every peacemaker (Rabin, Arafat, Sharon) at critcial points dies or at least has to stop doing politcs).
Hamas will have to govern now, which means having to find compromises.
[right][snapback]100504[/snapback][/right]

By that logic electing an abortion center bomber to governor wouldnt be bad because the reponsibility would force him straight.

Guess what - cause and effect is not required to work that way.
It could but but it could also work out that the historically bad leader uses his new power to promote evil.

[Occhidiangela]

OK of course I understand this. But what is the difference now if the group of "terrorism supporters" did or did not vote?

Hamas will not make terrorism a part of their political strategy.
+++Snip some interesting points+++
Hamas will have to govern now, which means having to find compromises.
[right][snapback]100504[/snapback][/right]

eppie, while I hope you are right, I don't understand how you can be so sure that statement is an accurate prediction. Terrorism works well, in some cases, to achieve a political end.

Here is a commentary on terrorism as a successful means to an end. Take it with a grain of salt, it is in the Washington Times. The effectiveness of advancing a political agenda via violence is worth considering. Consider also how the IRA was able to focus attention on political issues, pro and con, in Ireland.

Murder Rewarded Article

Another article I will suggest describes why the suicide bomber is the "New Silver Bullet." Peters probably never saw "Conan" but "the riddle of steel" is coming to life in our lifetime.

Mr Peters' biases considered, his argument on the political effectiveness of suicide bombing is worth considering in light of the tools available to Hamas.

I caution anyone, read with a grain of salt, each periodical has its bias, the Weekly Standard is not proof against that media malaise.

Counterrevolution in Military Affairs, the Ralph Peters rant

Occhi

[kandrathe]

I believe terrorists are less effective than revolutionaries or freedom fighters. Allow me to make the distinction. Terrorists are indiscriminate in their targets. They seek attention and discourse by terror, horror and destruction.

If their targeting was sensitive to minimize civilian deaths, I think they would be more effective in recruiting, retention, and public sympathy to their cause. That is, if they were successful. The terrorist takes the lazy way out hitting the undefendable soft targets, but they have a good chance of success. In my mind I'm comparing our own revolutionary war events to modern revolutionary struggles, like the establishment of a Palestinian State.

But, like other struggles in the middle east, I think this one is plagued by the fact that when taken literally, the Koran is antiquated and anti-freedom. It is human nature for people to rally around their faith when things get bad. For strict Islamacists, this pulls them back to a 12th century feudal model of authority. That is why you see a democratically elected Yassir Arafat regime act as a defacto benevolent dictator, and his administration was rife with corruption and cronyism. Hamas is the equivalent of the religious right in the US, which exemplifies intolerance, rankor, and extreme political views.

The problem I see with Palestine (or other islamic nations) is that they desire autonomy and freedom, but are trapped in their primary philosophy of feudal subserviance. In order to progress with their movement they will need two things; assurance to Isreal that they can coexist peacefully, and a new islamic philosophy of freedom and the protection of individual liberties.

[Guest]

Be careful how you define terrorism.

The terrorist takes the lazy way out hitting the undefendable soft targets, but they have a good chance of success. 

[right][snapback]100521[/snapback][/right]

Lazy really isnt a proper description for any more than "cowardly" is. Terrorism is about hitting civilian targets to effect the Goverment as opposed to stratgic, military or political targets.

Its a form of warefare the the west now agrees is unreasonable.
But to be honest its not much different than the A-Bombs and much of the bombing done by both sides in Europe during WW2.

[kandrathe]

...
But to be honest its not much different than the A-Bombs and much of the bombing done by both sides in Europe during WW2.
[right][snapback]100526[/snapback][/right]

Bombing civilians is/was never ethical. For the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was expediant(lazy) way to force capitulation and shorten the war, saving the lives of countless numbers of American soldiers. I hope that it is clear that certain actions of the past are morally disgusting to the world (the Blitz on London, Dresden, the US use of Atomic weapons, Japans atrocities in China, Holocaust, Gulags, etc.). Using past atrocities to justify current ones is equally reprehensible, and begins the decent of mankind into madness once again.

With Hamas, or other islamacist organizations it is doubly troubling since they are twisting their religion to justify their actions. It reminds me of the old Inquisition days of Christianity, and the evil atrocities committed then in the name of saving souls.

[Guest]

Using past atrocities to justify current ones is equally reprehensible, and begins the decent of mankind into madness once again. 

Whoa - Im certainly not justifying Hamas. In case you havent picked up from my earlier posts, I really dont like them.

But I think we should be certainly more careful in our condemnations of them than I see happening(like when you called them "lazy".) There are good reasons we reject terrorism, but it would be good to be specific and thoughful rather than vague and simply insulting.

I mentioned WW2 events mainly because it would be a biit hipocritical to attack Hamas for the specific reason I did and not mention your own countries past actions.

[kandrathe]

...(like when you called them "lazy".) There are good reasons we reject terrorism, but it would be good to be specific and thoughful rather than vague and simply insulting.

I mentioned WW2 events mainly because it would be a biit hipocritical to attack Hamas for the specific reason I did and not mention your own countries past actions.
...
[right][snapback]100534[/snapback][/right]

I reject terrorism as lazy revolutionary action, and I'm not saying Hamas is lazy. Do Germans need to recognize their role in the Holocaust everytime they discuss politics? I would guess there are enough insensitive boors shoveling it into their face for them. I would rather assume that most people have learned from their pasts.

[whyBish]

If their targeting was sensitive to minimize civilian deaths, I think they would be more effective in recruiting, retention, and public sympathy to their cause.  That is, if they were successful.
[right][snapback]100521[/snapback][/right]

Civilian is a matter of perception. From their point of view I doubt they'd count any member of a country preventing a Palestinion nation as a civilian.

[Guest]

Civilian is a matter of perception.  From their point of view I doubt they'd count any member of a country preventing a Palestinion nation as a civilian.
[right][snapback]100813[/snapback][/right]

"Civilian" is not a matter of perception. Its a word with specific definitions. There are multiple defintions for sure wit varying degree of inclusiveness, but none that include what you said.

Their point of view may well make them hate and resent all Isreali civilians, but even from their perspective they would still be some civilians.

[Occhidiangela]

"Civilian" is not a matter of perception. Its a word with specific definitions. There are multiple defintions for sure wit varying degree of inclusiveness, but none that include what you said.

Their point of view may well make them hate and resent all Isreali civilians, but even from their perspective they would still be some civilians.
[right][snapback]100816[/snapback][/right]

"Civilian" is a grossly misused term in the media when covering war, as it is deliberately vague and often incorrectly used as a substitute for the correct Geneva term, non combatant. The inference is that a civilian is non military, but being non military does NOT necessarily make you a non-combatant. A partisan is a non military (Geneva; uniformed military) combatant, who can often be and is often mistaken for a "civilian," or is deliberately reported as a civilian based on the agenda and integrity of the reporting party. (National PR dude or media dude; dudesses inferred as well.)

Occhi