democratic Hamas

[lord of the mark]

Ultimately, they've decided they want nothing to do with a Hamas government, cut off all but the barest contact to the outside world and would now have you believe that this is what a Hamas-run government would be like under normal circumstances.

On the contrary, they made clear that all Hamas had to do was accept certain basic conditions, and they would talk to Hamas. Hamas refused, and kept attacking them.

Dunno, that PM they appointed didn't seem particularly blood-thirsty. Israel's response to a Hamas government was to imediately take a hardline that makes it difficult for Hamas to do anything other than maintain a hardline position.

Haniyeh proposed a 20 year truce, in exchange for recognition of a Hamas run state. Thats not moderation. Israel doesnt intend to only survive for 20 years.

Do you honestly think destroying what little was left of the Palestinian economy and starving people will change Hamas's position?

Are you taling about now, or before the Hamas takeover in Gaza. Israel was not starving the Pals, they were refusing to fund the govt, as was the West.

Abbas is still the leader of a horribly corrupt organization, which will horribly mishandle the business of government and we'll get a repeat of the current situation in a few years when next they hold elections.

They intend to hold elections in the next few months. Fatah proposed new elections before the Gaza takeover - Hamas went to war to stop that.

Taking to the streets because you couldn't win at the ballot box? Vocal minorities aren't supposed to get their ways in democracy.

Youre allowed to take the streets in protest, yes.
Esp. when youre asking for basic liberties. Anyway, Gaza under Hamas is no democracy.

BTW, it seems to me that Hamas regularly demonstrated back when THEY lost elections. Hell, they didnt just demonstrate, they created an armed force, sent suicide bombers against Israeli civilians in defiance of the announced policy of the PA govt, etc.

[Victor Galis]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

On the contrary, they made clear that all Hamas had to do was accept certain basic conditions, and they would talk to Hamas. Hamas refused, and kept attacking them.

They wanted Hamas to basically capitulate before they would even consider talking to them. Israel kept bombing Hamas, while Hamas was observing a "ceasefire." (By which I think they a lull in a attacks rather than a full stop... still less than today.)

Haniyeh proposed a 20 year truce, in exchange for recognition of a Hamas run state. Thats not moderation. Israel doesnt intend to only survive for 20 years.

I suspect you can use those 20 years to negotiate though. I mean... North Korea and the US still only have a truce how many years after the war ended?

Are you taling about now, or before the Hamas takeover in Gaza. Israel was not starving the Pals, they were refusing to fund the govt, as was the West.

I'm talking about before. The proverbial **** has hit the fan now. Not sure, what anyone can do at this point in Gaza.

They intend to hold elections in the next few months. Fatah proposed new elections before the Gaza takeover - Hamas went to war to stop that.

I'm a bit confused about the purpose of new elections. I mean... loser of previous election wants to call a new election a few months later, with foreign powers threatening to continue sanctions if a certain outcome comes up. Why even bother? Might as well just continue ruling the West Bank as if they'd won elections.

To be fair, I think the whole idea of democracy in the PA is not really that great. I mean, what's the point of democracy when the two parties will start shooting at eachother when unhappy with the results?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Victor Galis
[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

On the contrary, they made clear that all Hamas had to do was accept certain basic conditions, and they would talk to Hamas. Hamas refused, and kept attacking them.

They wanted Hamas to basically capitulate before they would even consider talking to them. Israel kept bombing Hamas, while Hamas was observing a "ceasefire." (By which I think they a lull in a attacks rather than a full stop... still less than today.)

They didnt ask them to capitulate. They asked them to accept the Oslo accords, recognize Israels right to exist, and renounce terror. Israel for 25 years demanded those as preconditions for talking to the PLO, with US support, and the PLO finally agreed. Why should Israel let Hamas get away more cheaply?

[Kuciwalker]

Taking to the streets because you couldn't win at the ballot box? Vocal minorities aren't supposed to get their ways in democracy.

But they are supposed to demonstrate for their cause.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Victor Galis
[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark
[q]On the contrary, they made

Haniyeh proposed a 20 year truce, in exchange for recognition of a Hamas run state. Thats not moderation. Israel doesnt intend to only survive for 20 years.

I suspect you can use those 20 years to negotiate though. I mean... North Korea and the US still only have a truce how many years after the war ended?

what would there be to negotiate? Hamas would already get a state in the territories? What would Israel have to offer to get a final peace?

Israel will give a pal State and withdraw from all the terrs in return for a final end to the conflict, nothing less. Theyd be foolish not to demand that.

[lord of the mark]

I'm a bit confused about the purpose of new elections. I mean... loser of previous election wants to call a new election a few months later, with foreign powers threatening to continue sanctions if a certain outcome comes up. Why even bother? Might as well just continue ruling the West Bank as if they'd won elections.

polls for some time have been showing Hamas would lose a new election.

Before the gaza takeover the goal of new elections would be to get Hamas out. Now the goal would be to add legitimacy to the Abbas-Fayed govt.

[Victor Galis]

[q]what would there be to negotiate? Hamas would already get a state in the territories? What would Israel have to offer to get a final peace?

Israel will give a pal State and withdraw from all the terrs in return for a final end to the conflict, nothing less. Theyd be foolish not to demand that. [/QUOTE]

I suspect withdrawing from the territories would be the price for a final peace. Recognizing Hamas as the government of the Pal territories and recognizing them as a state leaves a lot of negotiation room.

At any rate, I suspect the situation would be helped if either side would allow international peacekeepers to take over border crossings in order to keep them open.

I seriously think that permanent peace is currently impossible. There needs to be some sort of cease-fire for awhile while passions cool off and things return to some sort of normalcy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Victor Galis I seriously think that permanent peace is currently impossible. There needs to be some sort of cease-fire for awhile while passions cool off and things return to some sort of normalcy.

That was tried in the 90s, didnt work. As long as the Pals didnt see a political settlement coming, the peace couldnt be kept.

I think at least some movement toward a permanent peace is necessary.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


That was tried in the 90s, didnt work. As long as the Pals didnt see a political settlement coming, the peace couldnt be kept.

I think at least some movement toward a permanent peace is necessary.

I didn't say it wasn't, but I think you have to go back to the 90s before you can get to where you want to go.

Though really, the problem is that as long as there are people in both countries that want to derail the process, it will be too easy for it to fail. As long as the PA govt. can't control terrorists in it's territory, there can't really be peace.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


I didn't say it wasn't, but I think you have to go back to the 90s before you can get to where you want to go.

Though really, the problem is that as long as there are people in both countries that want to derail the process, it will be too easy for it to fail. As long as the PA govt. can't control terrorists in it's territory, there can't really be peace.

so far, theyve made more strides than any previous Pal govt since 1992. They may not be quite all the way there yet, but I think theyve reached the point where the govt of Israel should begin to dismantle roadblocks to improve life in the West bank, and keep the momentum going.

[Sirotnikov]

Israel kept bombing Hamas, while Hamas was observing a "ceasefire."

Hamas has several times attempted to kidnap Israeli soldiers by infiltrating Israeli soil. Hamas is complicit in part of the rocket shooting on Israeli soil.

Israel has not, so far, directly targetted Hamas, btw.
Most arrests and hits were of Al-Aqsa and PIJ personnel.

At any rate, I suspect the situation would be helped if either side would allow international peacekeepers to take over border crossings in order to keep them open.

Last time I heard, Hamas charged the border crossings and the international peacekeepers escaped, leaving Hamas in charge of the borders.

Not something Israel would like.