# Hamas wins **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 26, 2006, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687 "2006-01-26T13:14:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/41 "2006-01-26T19:09:40Z")
No, of course not, Zev. But I view the election results as a fundamental good thing for a few reasons. 1. With Fatah in the issue was ‘Fatah can stop the attacks and chooses not to or Fatah can’t stop the attacks at all.’ Therefore there was never any real hope of a settlement with them in power. 2. With Hamas now in place I suspect the learning curve to be steep, steep STEEP for them. Governing is a MUCH more complicated task than terrorizing. This is the first step in finding out if Hamas can accomplish what Fatah couldn’t. Backing Fatah was clearly a pointless exercise at this point. When Hamas comes to the table as the legitimate government of a nation-state they’ll have to bring more than ‘JIHAD!’ or somesuch to be taken seriously. 3. If Hamas can’t deliver on its election promises (peace, prosperity, etc) then you’ll see a new party formed by splinters of Hamas and Fatah to challenge them next time out. Politics in such a case is a funcamental GOOD. Churchill once said ‘Jaw, jaw is better than war, war.’ and it’s the God’s honest truth. Just the willingness of Hamas to take the step towards acheiving a legitimate governing position shows some development on their part, politically, that should engender hope. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/42 "2006-01-26T19:11:54Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > I have little doubt that if Israel offered a completely independent West Bank and Gaza, along with a highway/railway connecting the two, plus independent control of their borders (a true two-state solution) along the Green Line, they would take it. Oh, I am sure they would. The question is, would they stop there? That, I don’t know about. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/43 "2006-01-26T19:13:43Z")
**Johnathan Chance** I’d argue that Hamas has been doing the actual governing for the most part, as they’ve been the most successful at implementing infrastructure for their people. Besides it’s only a country of about 4 million people, it’s not like the old Fatah people will suddenly disappear and they won’t have contact with them. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/44 "2006-01-26T19:20:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Oh, I am sure they would. The question is, would they stop there? > > That, I don’t know about. Permanently? Who knows. However, a Hamas official said that the organization would be willing to give a ten year truce in return for Israel moving back to the 1967 borders. To me, that’s a starting point for negotiations. And a lot can happen in ten years, especially if the Palestinian economy can get on its feet and things start improving for the average person. Ten years later, you’ll get a bunch of people used to peace and prosperity and much, much more unwilling to rock the boat. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/45 "2006-01-26T19:29:44Z")
> [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > Ultimately, I think, the Hamas-IRA analogy is flawed simply because the IRA had no desire to take over the island of Great Britian. All they wanted was control of Ireland. They were willing to let the UK exist on GB. But the point is that when it became obvious that complete reunifiaction with Ireland was impossible, the IRA was willing to accept a lesser concession to get a peaceful solution. The analogy is not supposed to suggest an equivalence in the extreme goals of the IRA vs Hamas, but to show that terrorist groups are sometimes willing to give up their most radical demands when it becomes obvious that there is no other way to get anything. I think Hamas, now that it is put in the position of negotiating, will almost certainly do the same. > [@](#): > > How do you deal with someone whose first demand is “don’t exist?” Do you have to make concessions for the right to exist? I’d imagine that, along with a ceasfire, offically giving up the call for the destruction of Israel would have to be a precursor to any talks. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/46 "2006-01-26T19:51:26Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > However, a Hamas official said that the organization would be willing to give a ten year truce in return for Israel moving back to the 1967 borders. But that would require evacuation of the settlements – which already are on the west side of the separation wall. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BarrierMay2005.png](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BarrierMay2005.png) Is there any chance the Israelis will be willing to evacuate them? ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/47 "2006-01-26T19:55:10Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But that would require evacuation of the settlements – which already are on the west side of the separation wall. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BarrierMay2005.png](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BarrierMay2005.png) Is there any chance the Israelis will be willing to evacuate them? Three years ago would you have said the Israelis would be willing to evacuate the entire Gaza strip? I’m not saying that the Israelis would take them up on it right off the bat - plus the statement was made way back in 1994. My point is that negotiation and peace is possible between the two sides. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/48 "2006-01-26T20:12:57Z")
A couple of random points. First off, \*in re \*the argument over Hamas denying Israel’s right to exist – can’t it also be said that the basis of Zionism is the denial of Palestine’s right to exist? Second, asking Hamas to renounce violence – is anyone asking Israel to renounce violence? Third, let’s not talk as if the Palestinian self-government areas constitute a sovereign nation, because they don’t. They are more of a Bantustan at this point, and one without any territorial integrity. In short, we can get all shook up about the Hamas victory, but let’s not leave the Israelis out of the equation. For better or worse, _they’re_ the true masters of Palestine, and they – not Hamas – have the power to create a workable solution. ---
**Author:** ![kezami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eb8c5e/32.png) [@kezami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kezami)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/49 "2006-01-26T20:15:22Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Three years ago would you have said the Israelis would be willing to evacuate the entire Gaza strip? > > I’m not saying that the Israelis would take them up on it right off the bat - plus the statement was made way back in 1994. My point is that negotiation and peace is possible between the two sides. If I recall correctly there wasn’t much negotiating going on about the decision to evacuate Gaza, maybe only the logistics involved. Some [background.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan_of_2004) ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/50 "2006-01-26T20:42:36Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The advantage to all this is that Hamas now has a formal mailing address. Any further terrorist acts should be viewed as an act of war and dealt with accordingly. why is it that you can understand this so cogently in the case of palestine, but refuse to acknowledge the obverse elsewhere? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/51 "2006-01-26T20:47:10Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > First off, in re the argument over Hamas denying Israel’s right to exist – can’t it also be said that the basis of Zionism is the denial of Palestine’s right to exist? To exist on the territory that is now internationally recognized as Israel’s, sure. And I’m not trivializing that—the issue is indeed a deal breaker for a number of Palestinians, who regard the establishment of Israel as an illegitimate land grab, full stop. But there is nothing in the mere fact of Israel’s existence or the support for it that is known as “Zionism” (if you exclude the fundamentalist kookery about so-called “Greater Israel”, which really **could** wipe Palestine entirely off the map if implemented) that rules out the simultaneous existence of a Palestinian state. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/52 "2006-01-26T20:55:46Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **Johnathan Chance** I’d argue that Hamas has been doing the actual governing for the most part, as they’ve been the most successful at implementing infrastructure for their people. Besides it’s only a country of about 4 million people, it’s not like the old Fatah people will suddenly disappear and they won’t have contact with them. Well, I understand your point but want to point out the difference between building schools and clinics at your own discretion and being elected to provide such. In the first scenario your seen as doing something good because you want to. In the second you are EXPECTED to do so by the electorate. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/53 "2006-01-26T21:03:29Z")
> [@kezami](#): > > If I recall correctly there wasn’t much negotiating going on about the decision to evacuate Gaza, maybe only the logistics involved. I didn’t say that there was negotiating going on with Gaza. I said could you have imagined that Gaza would be evacuated. The point was that things change with regards to people’s positions on issues. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/54 "2006-01-26T21:06:15Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > A couple of random points. First off, \*in re \*the argument over Hamas denying Israel’s right to exist – can’t it also be said that the basis of Zionism is the denial of Palestine’s right to exist? I don’t think so. After all, the Israelis accepted the original partition plan when it was proposed. If the denial of Palestinian statehood was fundamental to Zionism, I’d venture to say that they would have rejected it; just as the Palestinians did. > [@](#): > > Second, asking Hamas to renounce violence – is anyone asking Israel to renounce violence? Israel, for the most part, has renounced violence. The only area where they are actively violent is in targeting terrorist leaders. > [@](#): > > Third, let’s not talk as if the Palestinian self-government areas constitute a sovereign nation, because they don’t. They are more of a Bantustan at this point, and one without any territorial integrity. While it is true that the geography of the West Bank makes territorial integrity a bit difficult, Hamas has a good shot to start with Gaza, which is a continuous territory. > [@](#): > > In short, we can get all shook up about the Hamas victory, but let’s not leave the Israelis out of the equation. For better or worse, _they’re_ the true masters of Palestine, and they – not Hamas – have the power to create a workable solution. Not quite. Both sides have to agree in the end. Israel could, if it wanted, go back in and return things to the state they were in fifteen years ago before Oslo. The point, of course, is that they don’t want to do that. While Israel certainly does have the upper hand; I think that the Palestinians must first deal with the terrorists in their midst (whether it be eliminating them or “rehabilitating” them into legitimate organizations) and then, working with Israel for a permenant solution. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/55 "2006-01-26T21:23:05Z")
> [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > I don’t think so. After all, the Israelis accepted the original partition plan when it was proposed. If the denial of Palestinian statehood was fundamental to Zionism, I’d venture to say that they would have rejected it; just as the Palestinians did. Well, the Zionists accepted it because it _gave_ them more than they already had; the Palestinians rejected it because it _took_ from them what they already had. Both parties acted according to their interests. But we know now that the Zionists meant all along to use their half as a springboard to take the Palestinians’ half, which is what ended up happening. I suppose you could argue that Zionism didn’t reject a Palestinian state _per se_ – it just rejected a Palestinian state in Palestine. ---
**Author:** ![rippingtons\_fan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rippingtons_fan/32/11767_2.png) [@rippingtons\_fan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rippingtons_fan)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/56 "2006-01-26T21:41:18Z")
The victory of Hamas means that Israel’s policy of detente with the Palestinians has essentially backfired, with the result being that Israel will have to re-occupy the lands recently turned over to the Palestinians. The Israeli Government will view this as a matter of national security and will take this action despite criticism from other nations. The chance of yet another Mideast War becomes more certain, and pro-Western leaders like Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Parvez Mussharef of Pakistan will be ousted and replaced with radical Islamic governments. All of this _could_ happen as a result of the Hamas election victory. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/57 "2006-01-26T21:52:46Z")
> [@rippingtons\_fan](#): > > The victory of Hamas means that Israel’s policy of detente with the Palestinians has essentially backfired . . . **What** policy of detente? Sharon made a unilateral decision to pull out of Gaza. I don’t recall him actually negotiating with the Palestinians on that or anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/58 "2006-01-26T21:55:01Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > But we know now that the Zionists meant all along to use their half as a springboard to take the Palestinians’ half Whoa. Cite? I mean, after the 1948 war I’m sure there were Zionists who felt committed to simply keeping all the territory they’d managed to get hold of. But it would be news to me that Zionists in general, prior to the actual partition of Palestine, intended to ignore the partition agreement and conquer the territory assigned to the Palestinians. > [@rippingtons\_fan](#): > > The victory of Hamas means that Israel’s policy of detente with the Palestinians has essentially backfired, with the result being that Israel will have to re-occupy the lands recently turned over to the Palestinians. Whoa twice. Even if Hamas’ victory does actually constitute a setback for the alleged “detente” instead of, as some have argued, a potentially hopeful sign for it, why would that mean that Israel would “have to” re-occupy Gaza? ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/59 "2006-01-26T22:07:50Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > Well, the Zionists accepted it because it _gave_ them more than they already had; the Palestinians rejected it because it _took_ from them what they already had. Neither side had it. It was under British rule at the time. The Palestinians never had an independent state there that was taken away by the Zionists. > [@](#): > > Both parties acted according to their interests. But we know now that the Zionists meant all along to use their half as a springboard to take the Palestinians’ half, which is what ended up happening. That’s ridiculous! Let’s not forget just _who_ started the war in 1948 (hint: it wasn’t the Israelis). Let’s not forget that no one seemed to be complaining when Jordan and Egypt held more of the Palestians original portion of the partition than the Israelis did. To say that the Israelis intended to use their part of the partition as a springboard to capture the rest of the area is just plain false. > [@](#): > > I suppose you could argue that Zionism didn’t reject a Palestinian state _per se_ – it just rejected a Palestinian state in Palestine. Again, you’re rejecting the facts. Israel was (despite your assertion) willing to go along with the partition plan, which would have created a Palestinian state. Israel was, after the 1967, willing to return most, if not all, of the land that they captured in that war in exchange for peace. Do you remember the result? I’ll give you another hint ([No! No! No!](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Resolution)). Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687/60 "2006-01-26T22:11:10Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Whoa. Cite? I mean, after the 1948 war I’m sure there were Zionists who felt committed to simply keeping all the territory they’d managed to get hold of. But it would be news to me that Zionists in general, prior to the actual partition of Palestine, intended to ignore the partition agreement and conquer the territory assigned to the Palestinians. I overstated. I should have said “one Zionist faction,” (albeit an influential one) rather than Zionism. Here’s what I was thinking of (from Wikipedia): “Arabs also feared that the Jewish state would be a stepping stone for further advancement; this view is supported by statements from David Ben Gurion and other leaders recently discovered by Israel’s New Historians and other independent scholars.” As to why the Arabs rejected partition, and the Zionists embraced it, there’s also this, from the same source: “The Arab leadership opposed the plan, arguing that it violated the rights of the majority of the people in Palestine, which at the time was 67% non-Jewish… [O]thers criticised the amount and quality of land given to Israel. They argued that the area of the Jewish state comprised 55% percent of the Mandate territory, while the Jews owned only 6.5% of it.” And now back to your regularly scheduled OP. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hamas-wins/341687.md?page=4)