So Hamas one the Palestinian election. I'm not surprised. I can't blame them either.

What I find funny is that everyone will make a big deal about a terrorist group taking power, but they've been responsible for far less innocent israeli deaths than democratically elected Ariel sharon was for innocent Palestinian deaths. Especially considering Sharon was considered 'too moderate' by many.

They're bad, but the others guy's worse! So that makes them ok!

Right.

Anyway, hopefully being in power will force them to take a more moderate position, like Sinn Fein. Either that or Israel puts on its arse kicking boots.

Never said it makes them ok.

However its new leadership all round in the retarded conflict. Could always hope for a change for good. Yeah right.

All the nuclear weapon possessing nations of the world should demand that Israel and Palestine sort their shit out within the next 10 years, and if they fail the region gets turned into radioactive sludge.

Hey, it worked for Japan.

They should just nuke it and rebuild it, would be a lot easier.

Hopefully this underlines that democracy is not the silver bullet the US would like it to be.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

The irony being that George Bush is saying he wont negotiate with Hamas unless they change their party's constitution ... doesn't that mean the United States is selectively choosing which democratic regimes to support?

I don't see a problem with it. I don't think the US ever claimed that 'we love every government formed by a democracy'.

I think that's one where the rhetoric and reality are absurdly divergent, given the number of democratic governments the U.S. has replaced with right-wing dictatorships in post-war period.

But Bush sure is pumping the democracy in Iraq thing at the moment, so it would be fitting if he supported democracy in Palestine as well.

It's one thing to support the democracy, it's another thing to support the party that wins. Personally I like how the US is approaching Hamas: change your stance on wiping out Israel or we will not deal with you. If everyone takes that approach it may force them towards a more moderate position if they want any kind of voice. Or course, I'm assuming here that there is anything resembling rational thought in that region, which is unlikely.

That is one of the more blatant aspects of DoubleThink I've seen since the end of the election campaign, Oob. So you're saying that you can base your foreign policy around encouraging democracy in a region, yet simultaneously criticise the outcome of one of the few democratic elections in the region?

Criticising the outcome != criticising the means by which that outcome was reached.

I mean, if you support rugby, you can still be cheesed when the aussies beat the All Blacks.

You don't support 'rugby', you support a team. How can you 'support' rugby....

Why support the means if you don't support the ends?
Why support democracy when you say that the result of a democratic election is unacceptable? What sort of precedent is that encouraging? For Fatah to launch a coup?

Ukrainien elections, anyone?

In this case the ends is every changing. They'll just wait until they get a US friendly party elected. I don't see the US being forced to hurry about this issue. They've had the patience to wait out Fidels death.

I mean really, how powerful is Cuba without the Soviets?

You can still support democracy and have preferences about who wins... I don't see the contradiction. I haven't heard the americans say that 'democracy has failed here' or anything like that (and correct me if I'm wrong).

I agree with Oob on this one. I'm sure plenty of people who voted for National didn't give up on NZ democracy because they didn't win (although some made noises about the MMP system). However, I'm not sure the U.S.'s aggressive approach is going to as much good as it will harm, and surely Bush could afford to be a little more polite to a government who have such an overwhelming mandate, rather than going all gung ho on the rhetoric.

As for Mrt's suggestion... well, yes, but perhaps those on the ground in Palestine and Israel might feel that there is a bit more urgency about the matter?

I made that remark with the intention of highlighting that democracy is not the answer on it's own. Democracy is truly for the people, of the peole and by the people and in this case, that is what the people want.

Democracy does not mean political stability. The Palestinians voted, they got Hamas, which is what most of them wanted. The primary objective of democracy has been achieved.

Well it looks like Hamas and Fatah are too busy shooting each other to do anything practical anyway, at least for the time being. A few more of these elections and the problem will take care of itself!

America ARE contradicting themselves. A party they don't like wins, in a fair (as far as we know) election, but they are choosing not to deal with them because they are terrorists.

The people have spoken, and that choice should be respected by all.

I believe that's freedom of association/chosing who your friends are. Just because a country is democratic doesn't mean you have to have relations with them.

hmm this is an interesting dillema.

on one hand America can refuse to have a relationship with whatever government it chooses, whether its democratically elected or not (remember how pissed they got with us over the nuclear free stuff?).
On the other hand, this is a new Government who haven't done anything directly to upset the US yet (I'm drawing a distinction between the terrorist wing and the new government here). Its just the idea of them that has the US worried.

perhaps the most diplomatic approach would have been for the US to recognise them initially and then break diplomatic ties as necessary.

It definitely feels like the most sensible thing to do. Another interesting issue from this: When/If the military wing of Hamas performs another suicide bombing, will that be classed as an official act of war from one state against another?

One possibility is now that Hamas is the ruling party they will stop taking credit for their bombings for this reason.

It wont be classed as an official act of war as it's paramilitary action, even as technically close to the Government it would be, and additionally if it's a suicide bombing on a civilian target, I don't think it will be.

On a slightly seperate note, I'm actually still amazed that Islamic Jihad and Hamas don't launch large offensives against the Israeli army anymore, like they did back during the first intifadah. Sure, things have changed since then and the IDF have knocked down entire apartment buildings after a RPG is fired out of one, but I'm just amazed they don't take advantage of urban environments more often on a large scale.

I wouldn't be suprised if Israel tries to argue that they're no longer paramilitary.

I think that any paramilitary action by Hamas would be viewed as an act of war between states (or one state and a quasi-state). The Austro-Hungarian Government had no qualms about tying the assasination of Franz Ferdinand by Gavrillo Princip to the Serbian Government, even though the Black Hand was technically a terrorist orgnaisation distinct from the Serbian State.

True, Tony, but look at a longer list of examples: countries seem to normally just ratchet up rhetoric when governtment-sponsored paramilitaries start fucking shit up.

Venezuela does not declare war on Colombia when right-wing paramilitaries sponsored by Colombia's government kill it's troops along the borders, India does not declare war on Pakistan when pro-independence Kashmiri forces come across the Pakistani border (though in both cases the countries getting owned whinge very loudly, as Israel will do). Israel has lost their tough core since Operation Solomon anyway.

Yeah, I guess the deciding factor is really the political will for a war. But the activities of paramilitaries with ties to a hostile government certainly provides a very good excuse/justification for an escalation of conflict.

Yeah, but it's not like the U.S. are just itching to invade middle eastern countries is it?









...Oh yeah.

Israel should do this: annouce that every time they get hit by a suicide bomber, they add a mile to their wall. If they manage to get through 12 months without getting bombed, they will remove a mile every 3 months till they get hit again.

Not sure how long the wall is, so increase/decrease the amount to add/remove as appropriate.

How about for every 1 Israeli who dies they kill 1000 Palestinians. Those bus bombs would seem a bit costly after a while.

I don't know how relevant this is, but the United States has gone through a lot of changes as a country since it was formed by a group of anti-British freedom fighters.

My clumsy point is this: paramilitary organisations can change significantly once they gain power, and there is a good chance Hamas may soften its rhetoric over time - just like the People's Republic of China, another (initially unrecognised) new regime that used to speak of destroying the United States and the entire capitalist world system.

Israel should do this:

anounce that they have an enormous penis, thereby bringing the entire world into a long and tedious debate involving yo'momma jokes. Then when everyone is distracted, invade Palestine.

If world politics worked that way Kenya would be a superpower cuz big black dudes have enourmous dicks

"Our shlongs are so large we cut part of them off so gentiles don't get jealous. It didn't work though, that's why there's 6 million less of us since the 40's. Oy!"

Hamas's victory is indicative of the failings of Fatah, Israeli and American governments in the so called "peace process" which saw continued occupation of the 1967 territories, continued violence in the occupied territories by the "IDF", continued israeli settlement expansion with American support, the routine breaking of promises, continued israeli gross violations of international order and the international community not holding them accountable for it, so on and so on.

Hamas symbolises the resistance against all this. Whether they're regarded as a terrorist organisation is irrelevant. They are more than a militant group with their social and economic policies that have benefited many Palestinians- things Fatah have failed to do for years. The Palestinians have spoken. Bush forgot that untampered democracy in the Middle East will often result in the emergence of radical governments that are a direct result of the social and economic ills of the region. He shouldn't have given the PA the kiss of death- forking out 2 million to support it. It screams out puppet.

.

Israel has been using the wanton attacks as justification for further annexation of territory, bombing civlian areas, checkpoints for control, and bombing homes of alleged suicide bombers and their family in order to save time in most cases 'cause they'll do it eventually when they build settlments/checkpoints/apartheid wall over it. Most of the time they don't even bother with justifications. actually. The wall is a strategic movement in order to annex more land, your idea is premised on the fact they have more dovish intentions. Which isn't the case.

What needs to be done is the US to use its position of being the main aid provider to the Israelis by threatening them with cutting aid everytime they violate International law, violate the peace agreement etc. With the EU taking on the same role. I can guarantee you, it'll make a huge difference. But as of 2003- US's policy towards Israel has changed considerably, now they don't see the occupied territories as being occupied. In fact, they finance and encourage the settlement process in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

.

Hamas already toned down their radical rhetoric during the election period so that process has already begun. So yes, they'll do what the PLO did previously once they're integrated into the political system. The PLO was once like Hamas, radical to the bone and considered a terrorist organisation but their political responsibility forced them to become moderates. Hamas will have to do the same thing if they want to be taken seriosuly. I just hope they don't sell out like the PLO, but it'll most likely happen with the political pressure from all sides.

Some people reckon that announcement was made in 911. While the world busied themselves with the 'war on terror', Israelis increased their aggressive campaigns against Palestinians.