Hamas Wins Big

[Last Conformist]

This could get amusing.

[Az]

Man, the upcoming civil war is going to be sooo much fun.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3186040,00.html

[Last Conformist]

A MP how doesn't like democracy? That's funny.

[our_man]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Maybe Hamas will have a more reasonable stance once in power. Especially if the Israelis don't immediately attack Palestine.

It wouldn't be a first: the Fatah was a terror group before becoming more reasonable, and several Islamist parties across the Muslim world became more reasonable once elected in power.

It's a possibility. They'll have to moderate their stance and at least appear to be more pragmatic on the surface in order to show the international community that they can be dealt with. In NI Sinn Fein changed their stance to a certain degree when they were allowed into power to appear more respectable.

I still wouldn't trust them for a minute though.

Neither should Israel with Hamas, but let's see what happens. There's only going to be one loser in this if Hamas try to challenge Israel's resolve.

[Zevico]

I doubt Hamas would have a more reasonable stance once in power. They were elected as firebrands. Their stance may moderate relative to their previous position, but the effect would be little to none. I mean, most Fatah members as well as politicians still view terror as a viable alternative to negotiations and have used it in the past, including during the Oslo Accords. But Hamas is a religious, extremist and fundamentalist group. Look at Iran's leadership--did they moderate once they were in power?

[our_man]

Originally posted by Zevico
I doubt Hamas would have a more reasonable stance once in power. They were elected as firebrands. Their stance may moderate relative to their previous position, but the effect would be little to none. I mean, most Fatah members as well as politicians still view terror as a viable alternative to negotiations and have used it in the past, including during the Oslo Accords. But Hamas is a religious, extremist and fundamentalist group. Look at Iran's leadership--did they moderate once they were in power?

I'd like to wait and see what happens in Iran. I don't think Iran's leadership is united as it might appear to be, and a lot of the senior government members are rather unhappy with the nutjob that's been put in power. They've already reined him in over the oil ministery, so we'll see how much of a leash he's on soon enough, and whether they can control their dog.

The fact is that if Hamas want to play ball on the international scene, they're going to have to behave themselves. Life is still bad for the Palestinians, but it can get a hell of a lot worse if Hamas decide they're going to play fast and loose with the rules. It's one thing to run soup kitchens; it's quite another to manage a country. If they don't shape up, they'll get the bum's rush faster than you can say 'Allah Akhbar'. Why? Because the Palestinians will hopefully have associated Fatah with (limited) progress, while seeing that Hamas simply want the Intifada, with all it's suffering, to continue.

[GePap]

What did anyone expect, honestly? Big Fatah victories after thier screw ups? Please....

Oh, and say hello to dmeocracy people-ins't this what our brave boys are dying for in Iraq? The ability of people to chose who represents them politically?

[GePap]

I just see the US and EU sending out a great message to the Arab world about democracy- we love democracy! We fight for Democracy! Now elect people with ideas we agree with or your in deep trouble....

Yeah. VERY consistent message there, no chances of sounding like hypocrites, none at all.......

[GePap]

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=20707

Interesting Lebanese editorial on the general subject:

After elections, prepare for a new springtime intifada

By Ali Jarbawi
Commentary by
Tuesday, December 13, 2005

The Palestinian and Israeli political realities have been inextricably linked since the start of Israel's occupation in 1967. Their amalgamation has been both mutual and escalatory to the extent that it is no longer possible to address one without taking into consideration the other.

There has never been a time when the intensity of this interrelatedness and its various ramifications have been more apparent then during the past few months. The postponement until January 2006 of Palestinian Legislative Council elections and the earlier-than-anticipated general Israeli elections next March have brought this intermingling between Palestinian and Israeli political lives to a peak.

The results of the Palestinian elections will lead to a core change in the nature of the Palestinian political system and the fashion in which it operates. The upcoming parliamentary elections, not the presidential election, are the key to the crucial democratic transformation the "patriarchal" Palestinian system needs. The system's internal political legitimacy sprang from the authority of the late Yasser Arafat's charismatic leadership. This overwhelming individual control led to a complete absence of a separation of authorities, a continuous marginalization of the role of institutions and a limitation on their political effectiveness. It also led to a severe reduction of any political participation in the decision-making process. All authority lay with Arafat. All aspects of the Palestinian political process were concentrated in his hands, and he maneuvered it at a whim. He was the Palestinian political system; no decision was made without his knowledge and nothing was carried out except on his orders. There were no constraints on the extent of his rule.

Hence, Israeli and international efforts were, up to the convening of the Camp David summit of summer 2000, focused on attempts to satisfy Arafat personally in order to reach a political settlement that would be desirable to Israel. When the summit failed, there was no longer a Palestinian political system to be dealt with for these players while Arafat remained on the scene.

The change began with Arafat's death. But the election as Palestinian Authority (PA) president of Mahmoud Abbas, with his reserved personality and the different capabilities from Arafat he brought, were not enough to create the democratic leap or the move toward a political settlement. Legislative elections were necessary to transfer the legitimacy from its individual-based foundations all found in Arafat - revolutionary, historical and charismatic - to the legal-institutional level needed to empower Abbas.

However, when Abbas declared his intention to hold parliamentary elections, two important and unexpected things happened: the opposition factions, first and foremost Hamas, declared their intention to run; and the inevitable beginnings of change in the internal state of Fatah began to appear with a shift of parliamentary leadership to the younger generation.

These two surprises will result in a radical transformation of the political system, how it operates and its political approaches. The system will become more institutionalized and the PA president will no longer be its principal pivot. Rather, the pivot will shift to the Legislative Council, which will operate according to parliamentary foundations and contain a strong opposition. This democratic transformation will result in more internal stability for the Palestinian political system but will also result in a council more stringent with and willing to scrutinize the negotiation process. As a result, no political settlement unjust to Palestinian rights will be signed.

On the Israeli side, meanwhile, the resignation of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon from the Likud party and the formation of his new party, Kadima, shook up the Israeli political system. Sharon's current popularity comes from a belief by many Israelis that he is the politician best capable of dealing with security and reaching a political settlement that will ensure maximal Israeli gains. The outcome of Palestinian elections will likely be considered by most Israelis as extreme and undesirable, especially with the inclusion of Hamas and the young Fatah generation in the Legislative Council. That fact, coupled with the personalities who abandoned their parties to join Kadima, such as a former Prime Minister, Shimon Peres, will most likely lead to a Sharon victory. Such a victory will unshackle Sharon from right-wing extremists whose influence will be reduced in the new Israeli political system. This will also grant him an overall mandate to move forward to fulfill his and Peres' vision of a settlement with the Palestinians that will not anger the world, the United States in particular.

It should be noted, however, that this transformation in the Israeli political system is not based, as many think, on a shift by Sharon from the right to the center, but rather on a shift of the center toward Sharon, whose real place is still in the Israeli right-wing camp.

Sharon has already declared his acceptance of U.S. President George W. Bush's vision of a settlement based on the principle of two states, thereby implying that he does not oppose the establishment of a Palestinian "state." However, he has been unilaterally designating the boundaries of this "state" on the ground according to Israeli conditions, which include the previous government's opposition to the internationally-supported "road map."

What this means is that Sharon wants to give Palestinians a "leftover state" - without full independence or complete sovereignty, which is established on whatever land Israel cannot annex because of dense Palestinian population concentration. Annexing these areas would lead to an imbalance, from a Jewish-Israeli perspective, in the demographic reality and would eventually transform Israel into a bi-national state. This is why Sharon carried out his unilateral withdrawal from inside the Gaza Strip while continuing settlement construction in the West Bank, isolating Jerusalem from its surroundings, completing the separation wall and establishing cantons to squeeze the Palestinians into the smallest possible geographically scattered spots within the West Bank, while maintaining the Jordan Valley as an isolated security zone under Israeli control. These are the characteristics of the settlement Sharon wants to impose on the Palestinians by creating facts on the ground, and this settlement will constitute his political platform after the elections.

What then will be the political outcome of the elections? Will they be a glimmer of hope for a possible breakthrough? Or will they lead to another dead end for an acceptable rather than an imposed political settlement?

Rather than creating a hope for a breakthrough, the Palestinian and Israeli election results are going to collide. Sharon will continue to impose facts on the ground, disregarding the Palestinian position. Likewise, Palestinian election results will lead to a reaffirmation of the Palestinian position rejecting a "leftover" state. Most likely, the elections on both sides will result in an increased possibility of confrontation: these elections will set the stage for a third, "springtime" intifada.

Ali Jarbawi is a professor of political science at Bir Zeit University. This commentary first appeared on bitterlemons.org, an online newsletter.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh, and say hello to dmeocracy people-ins't this what our brave boys are dying for in Iraq?

That's your brave boys.

Originally posted by GePap
I just see the US and EU sending out a great message to the Arab world about democracy- we love democracy! We fight for Democracy! Now elect people with ideas we agree with or your in deep trouble....

Yeah. VERY consistent message there, no chances of sounding like hypocrites, none at all.......

What other message should we send? Please elect people who have views repugnant to us?

I suppose you're gonna say we shouldn't be sending a message at all, but that's kinda late now - we got ourselves involved in the whole issue ages ago.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Zevico
Look at Iran's leadership--did they moderate once they were in power?

Well, they did stop overrunning embasies...

[GePap]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Well, they [i]did[/d] stop overrunning embasies...

Cause they were made into fortresses. I assume you have seen a US embassy lately, right?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Oerdin
There were moderately higher hopes that Arafat's death (due to AIDS supposedly from sleeping with hookers)

Arafat had AIDS and SLEPT WITH HOOKERS?

HOLY CRAP! I thought he was a paradigm of virtue and honesty, but it turns out he was nothing but a philandering ******!

[Last Conformist]

@Ludd: Please tell me that's some sort of failed attempt at satire.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
What other message should we send? Please elect people who have views repugnant to us?

I suppose you're gonna say we shouldn't be sending a message at all, but that's kinda late now - we got ourselves involved in the whole issue ages ago.

If one praises democracy, one is stuck with the consequences of it. So either stop praising democracy as a catch all and end all to all problems, or on principle work with whomever gets elected as long as they continue the democratic process.

As for what to do, I seriosuly doubt that cutting off the PA if Hamas gets a mayority of the legislative Council will do anything other than make Hamas more powerful, as the collapse of the PA budget will drive more poor Palestinians towards private charities, funded by Islamists. Which will further cement the Islamists and undermine the Western position.