Palestinian election, Hamas claims early victory

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

trevster2k

Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Joined
Jan 17, 2001
Messages
4,330
Official results are not yet in but Hamas, considered my most to be a terrorist organization is claiming victory in the election. Interesting development, especially since it was a democratic vote putting them in power. Even if they don't win, they will have tremendous political influence in the government. Hang on to your socks, just when you thought the Middle East couldn't get more destabilized.
 
I'm curious as to how the US handles this outcome since they will not acknowledge Hamas but if they are the governing power of the Palestinians in a democratic election,well, jeez, it is awfully confusing.

They campaigned on eradicating corruption and restoring law in the region as opposed to focusing on the destruction of Israel.
 
Ambivalent pessimism from USA Today...
Election will encourage Israel's go-it-alone approach
JERUSALEM (AP) — Hamas' apparent victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections has dramatically shaken up the political landscape of the Middle East, elevating Islamic militants who call for Israel's destruction and most likely encouraging Israel's go-it-alone approach to Mideast peacemaking.
It also raised questions about the U.S. policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East. Although Wednesday's vote was an exemplary exercise in democracy, with far fewer disruptions than expected and extraordinarily high turnout, rejectionists won the day.

Leaders of both Hamas and the ruling Fatah Party said Thursday that Hamas won an outright majority of parliamentary seats, though official results were not yet available. The Islamists, capitalizing on widespread discontent with Fatah's corruption and ineffectiveness, now have a right to form the next Palestinian government, though it was not clear if they would choose to do so.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate, will remain head of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization, which is responsible for dealings with Israel.
But Hamas is sure to take a leading role in Palestinian decision-making and the initial statements from Hamas leaders were not promising for peace. Mushir al-Masri, a senior Hamas official, said recognizing Israel and negotiating with it are "not on our agenda."

However, al-Masri also suggested Hamas would be willing to join a coalition with Abbas and Fatah, and several Hamas officials said before the vote that they would not seek to tie Abbas' hands in future dealings with Israel.

A day before the balloting, acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hinted that more unilateral moves — such as last summer's Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip — could be in store if Israel feels there is no Palestinian leadership to talk to.

The apparent Hamas victory "will weaken those in Israel or elsewhere who think we have a partner to negotiate with and it will strengthen those who don't think so, which means it will strengthen the inclination to either go it alone with more unilateralism or do nothing," said Israeli political analyst Yossi Alpher.

Olmert, who took over as acting prime minister after Sharon suffered a devastating stroke on Jan. 4, is the front-runner in March 28 elections. But Hamas' legislative showing could hurt the electoral prospects of Olmert's centrist Kadima party, formed by Sharon in November to free his hands to pursue a peace deal with the Palestinians.

Whether peacemaking with Israel can go forward will now largely depend on whether Hamas joins Fatah in the government, and whether it will abandon the violent ideology that underpinned the dozens of suicide bombings it carried out against Israel before a cease-fire was declared a year ago.

Both Israel and the United States have declared Hamas a terrorist group and refuse to deal with it. But a more nuanced policy now appears possible, with Israelis already debating whether it would be wiser to engage Hamas and a U.S. official refusing to rule out negotiations with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.

Alpher said misguided U.S. foreign policy is largely to blame for the political rise of Islamists in several places, including Iraq, Lebanon and now the Palestinian territories. "President Bush's democracy push is one of the primary factors that is responsible for what has happened because he has chosen to ignore the contradiction between electoral democracy which he's sponsoring and allowing armed Islamic movements to run."
....and pessimistic ambivalence from Ha'aretz...
Arab world jubliant at 'earthquake' of Hamas victory
BEIRUT - The victory of Hamas in the elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council was greeted with jubilation Thursday across the Muslim world.

State-run radio in Iran opened its afternoon news broadcast with the report of Hamas' victory, saying the vote showed that Palestinians support resistance against Israel. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met Hamas and other militant leaders in Damascus last week, though the Islamic cleric-run regime insists it only gives the groups moral support.

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."
 
Last edited:
It certainly didn't work out too well in Germany or Italy on the first run.
 
Alpher said misguided U.S. foreign policy is largely to blame for the political rise of Islamists in several places, including Iraq, Lebanon and now the Palestinian territories. "President Bush's democracy push is one of the primary factors that is responsible for what has happened because he has chosen to ignore the contradiction between electoral democracy which he's sponsoring and allowing armed Islamic movements to run."

Ain't that the truth...
 
trevster2k said:
I'm curious as to how the US handles this outcome since they will not acknowledge Hamas but if they are the governing power of the Palestinians in a democratic election,well, jeez, it is awfully confusing.

I think Bush won't talk with them until they retract that Israel position. I also heard a theory that bringing Hamas into the political process will supposedly make them less likely and more responsible......
 
CNN is declaring that Hamas won a "landslide" victory. This is interesting. Is this a victory for extremists, or for democracy? Hamas isn't going to change its position on Israel. But maybe being drawn into the political process will change them in some way.
 
I'm glad to hear that Canada's new prime minister elect, Stephen Harper, has already publicaly stated that his government would not recognize Hamas.
 
Democracy encourages people to get the government that they deserve, honest bastards who wish to destroy the state of Israel and enforce Islamic law on their population.

Incidently the campaigning in Jerusalem issue before the elections was a violation of the Oslo Accords, a little factoid neglected by most reportage on the matter.

:up: to the security barrier

:up: to a Palestinian state that can't export it's problems.
 
phanan said:


Ain't that the truth...
Very reactionary position really.

Democracy is dangerous in the short term, but if preserved in the long term it can yield success. Although in Iraq the religious parties do not have an outright majority and the balance of power rests on the shoulders of secular parties.

If Hamas abuses it's new found position then the cautionary tale of the Palestinians may help other fledgling states.
 
So Democracy is good so long as it suits us?

I work with mostly Israeli Jews. I was talking to one of them today (an MD here on a fellowship, about to return to Tel Aviv in a year) and he said he feels that it is largely the fault of the Israeli government for not working better with the previous Palestinian leader, and not empowering him more, but continuing to ignore the Palestinian political factions.
 
According to some who would rather see client dictators than the will of the people :| . You can find the results of an election disapointing or outright scary and still have faith in the democratic process - the result hardly upsets cherished notions of what the people wanted.

As for empowering Arafat the Oslo War is a testament to everything he brought out in the cause of peace, in the absence of the occupation his power would evaporate - that is why he walked away from the negotiations in 2000 and launched the second intafada.
 
A_Wanderer said:


As for empowering Arafat the Oslo War is a testament to everything he brought out in the cause of peace, in the absence of the occupation his power would evaporate - that is why he walked away from the negotiations in 2000 and launched the second intafada.

The fellow I was talking about was referring to Mahmoud Abbas, not Arafat.
 
Right, that changes it around a bit. You said previous leader, I am unaware of the new leader fielded by Hamas ergo I assumed previous leader being the one before Abbas.
 
Is it possible that putting Hamas in a position of responsibility to the Palestinians isn't the worst thing that could happen? I dunno...I've got no clue how serious these people really are about wiping Israel off the map when you get down to it, or how willing the Palestinian people truly are to continue with their "war," which isn't helping their quality of life a bit. Maybe I'm too optimistic...
 
I would also assume that sometime the critical point will be reached and people will be too tired to keep this war/uprising going. However, I don't underestimate the extent of human stupidity or cruelty so that's probably too lofty a goal.
 
The course that the Palestinians have been taking with the Intifada hasn't helped them worth a damn. Now they've put these leaders in a newly authorized place of power. This makes me really nervous. When they say that democracy can be chaotic, they're not kidding.
 
boosterjuice said:
I'm glad to hear that Canada's new prime minister elect, Stephen Harper, has already publicaly stated that his government would not recognize Hamas.

Yes, let's not acknowledge democratically elected governments. That really shows how committed one is to democracy!

:|
 
VertigoGal said:
I've got no clue how serious these people really are about wiping Israel off the map when you get down to it, or how willing the Palestinian people truly are to continue with their "war," which isn't helping their quality of life a bit.
And no one knows really; that's the problem. Some of the European governments have been floating the idea of a "Sinn Fein" strategy (i.e. work with the political wing in hopes of slowly undermining the military wing from inside), which seems a bit hard to swallow here, given that that distinction is far muddier with Hamas than it was with SF (not that they were transparency incarnate either).
anitram said:
I work with mostly Israeli Jews. I was talking to one of them today (an MD here on a fellowship, about to return to Tel Aviv in a year) and he said he feels that it is largely the fault of the Israeli government for not working better with the previous Palestinian leader, and not empowering him more, but continuing to ignore the Palestinian political factions.
That could be a left-leaning view, a right-leaning view, or neither, depending on what he meant by "working better" with Abbas. When Sharon pulled out of Gaza the (far) Left said: Oh this is bad because it's a way to avoid negotiations and set the Palestinian leadership up for a failure, while the Right said: Oh this is bad because he's signaling to them that terrorism alone will suffice to get them land, and that they won't have to completely disarm before getting anything else in order to prove they're serious. Or perhaps he just meant a more moderate stance that negotiations + phased disarmament would have allowed Abbas the most breathing room. (A_W is correct that so far, there is no reason to assume Abbas will not stay at the helm of the PA & PLO, but obviously he will have more opposition to contend with.)
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Democracy is dangerous in the short term, but if preserved in the long term it can yield success.
IF can be a very big word sometimes--that was why I brought up the less than encouraging precedent of Italy and Germany before. Fundamentalism is not the same as fascism, of course, but it doesn't have the greatest track record of refraining from hijacking the political process either. On the other hand, you could argue that that is pretty much what the "client dictatorship," as you put it, amounted to anyway, so why not go for broke.

Either way, opportunities to negotiate were certainly missed by both sides, and who knows how many more may get missed now.
 
The talk in the Islamic community is that this was really a rejection of the status quo. Palestinians are fed up with the corruption and such that's going on in the current ruling party. Fahta has said they won't do a coalition but Abbas is expected to remain President.
 
VertigoGal said:
Is it possible that putting Hamas in a position of responsibility to the Palestinians isn't the worst thing that could happen?



i think that's the silver lining here.

democratic governments, because they are accountable to the population, tend to worry more about fixing, say, the sewer system than they are about wageing perpetual wars against a sworn enemy (hey, that sounds familiar ...)
 
And it's easier for a country like the United States to attack an official Hamas government than a rogue Hamas terrorist group. I think the leaders of Hamas will want to maintain government control for a while, and if they do, they realize that they will have to change their ways. The militant wing can't simply carry out suicide bombings anymore, because the government will now be held responsible. It will be considered an act of war by the country of Palestine, not a terrorist group.
 
Back
Top Bottom