Hamas wins

[Rashak_Mani]

@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.

Even if that made them Israeli puppets or ass kissers ?
I think they should take it… but I feel they might not take it. Pride and honor thingy.

[tagos]

@The Flying Dutchman

With regard to the IRA anology, keep in mind that the IRA never sought to expel the protestants.

If any one thinks that there is still a possiblity for peace consider this. Do you think the insurgents in Iraq or the Taliban in Afghanistan will quit as long as the US is in their countries? Israeli citizens and their protecting army are foreign occupiers in Arab land. The US can get out, but there is no escape for Israeli citizens.

On the other hand, the group has shown itself willing to periodically suspend attacks in favour of Palestinian diplomacy, if the group sees fit.

“The main aim of the intifada [uprising] is the liberation of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, and nothing more. We haven’t the force to liberate all our land,” Mr Rantissi told the BBC in 2002.

“It is forbidden in our religion to give up a part of our land, so we can’t recognise Israel at all. But we can accept a truce with them, and we can live side by side and refer all the issues to the coming generations.”

BBC link

I’d say that is a very pragmatic statement that undermines the shrill rhetoric. They can’t win, will settle for 1967 borders and leave the thorny questions to somewhere way down the line, by which time peace and prosperity will lance the wounds of hatred enough to, like N Ireland hopefully, make a reasonable generation-long compromise a permanent fact on the ground.

[Kimstu]

A recent (18 January) report by the International Crisis Group predicted the electoral success of Hamas, but seems to think that it might be ultimately a positive development, as it will require the mainstreaming and consequent moderating of Hamas policies.

I agree that formal Palestinian allegiance to an organization formally committed to the eradication of Israel is not good on the face of it. But in practical terms, as pointed out here by others, how much real choice did they have? Even the many Palestinians who don’t advocate the destruction of Israel tend to be more impressed with the actual humanitarian and infrastructure achievements of Hamas organizations than by what they perceive as the continued futility and corruption of Fatah.

From the linked report:

So far, the U.S. and EU essentially have opted to ignore the Islamists rather than deal with them upfront – the end result being a movement that feels stronger, more emboldened, and over which the West has precious little leverage. With the prospect as remote as ever of a renewed peace process or a weakened PA cracking down on a strengthened Hamas, the international community’s best remaining option is to maximise the Islamist movement’s incentives to move in a political direction through a policy of gradual, conditional engagement.

Hamas’s electoral participation results from a convergence of disparate interests. For President Abbas, securing the ceasefire, rehabilitating the Palestinians’ international standing, and putting the domestic house in order required a deal with Hamas. In exchange for cooperation, he offered power-sharing through political integration. […]

In its pragmatism, and even willingness to deal with Israel on day-to-day operational affairs, Hamas rule at the local level has been almost boringly similar to its predecessor. Local politicians emphasise themes of good governance, economic development, and personal and social security, leaving specifically religious issues and the conflict with Israel to the background. With only scant exceptions, they have yet to try to impose their vision of an Islamist society.

Nationally, too, signs of pragmatism can be detected. Far more than Fatah, Hamas has proved a disciplined adherent to the ceasefire, and Israeli military officers readily credit this for the sharp decline in violence. In recent statements, Hamas leaders have not ruled out changing their movement’s charter, negotiating with Israel, or accepting a long-term truce on the basis of an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines. Today, their electoral platform is in these respects closer to Fatah’s outlook than to Hamas’s founding principles.

There is a less encouraging side. Hamas continues to straddle its public and clandestine wings, subject to competing views from different leadership elements, and at least partially susceptible to Syrian and Iranian pressures. Most Israelis, and not a few Palestinians, are worried about its armed potential, and there is widespread suspicion in Israel that the organisation simply is biding its time, waiting for the post-electoral period to launch a new wave of attacks with a replenished and improved arsenal. Perhaps most significantly, it has neither renounced violence, nor accepted Israel’s existence. […]

All this suggests that integration is a work in progress, neither a sure thing nor the safest of bets. But what is the alternative? The PA is not in a military, let alone a political, position forcibly to disarm Hamas. […]

While there are important differences in policy, both the U.S. and EU avoid (and in the American case, bar) contacts with the Islamist organisation, deny funding to projects with Hamas-run municipalities, and have threatened to halt assistance to the PA if Hamas joins it. This attitude has had several, essentially negative, results: estranging Palestinians from Western donors; losing touch with an increasingly large segment of the population; jeopardising project sustainability; and reducing accountability. Meanwhile, Hamas has gained strength from a nationalist backlash against perceived foreign interference and is participating in elections without having to fulfil any prior condition.

Western countries have not done the one thing that might have had a positive impact: try to shape Hamas’s policies by exploiting its clear desire for international recognition and legitimacy. There is every reason for the West to withhold formal dealings at a national level, at least until it renounces attacks against civilians and drops its opposition to a two-state solution, but the current confused approach – boycotting Hamas while facilitating its electoral participation; facilitating its participation without seeking through some engagement reciprocal concessions – makes no sense at all.

Without conferring immediate legitimacy on Hamas, engaging its national officials or removing it from the terrorism list, the EU in particular – which has more flexibility than the U.S. in this regard – should encourage the Islamists to focus on day-to-day matters and facilitate a process of potential political integration and gradual military decommissioning.

[Mtgman]

Hamas just pulled its own teeth. As long as they were independent, non-state, actors, they could simply be an “uncontrollable faction”. Now that they have legitimate positions of power their actions can be reasonably interpreted as “acts of the state”. If there was one thing which could be said about today’s geopolitical climate it’s “state-sponsored terrorism will not be tolerated.” Afghanistan is a case in point. The next terror attack will have to be denounced by Hamas or be seen as an act of war. They can’t win, and would be fools to want, actual war with Israel and her allies.

Worst case scenario is that Hamas is caught in the same trap Arafat was. They can’t endorse terrorism now that they speak for the state. To do so would be tantamount to a declaration of war. The most they could do is publically distance themselves from whomever is behind the attacks and give token efforts at curtailing the terrorists.

Since there is almost certainly no shortage of people willing to continue to be terrorists, with or without help from Hamas, I’m betting this second verse(Hamas coming to legitimate power) will be the same as the first(Arafat being elected).

Enjoy,
Steven

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Neurotik

Don’t be ridiculous. Hamas’ election will likely result in moderating their actions, although possibly not their words. The Palestinians do not want Israeli retaliatory strikes and popular support for Hamas will quickly erode if they attempt to a) implement a strict Sharia code of law or b) use their election to step up attacks against Israel that derails the progress made so far.

They had better moderate their actions, because now that Hamas is in control of the government of an entire nation (as it were) every attack that they claim credit for is an act of war. When they were not vested with national leadership that was not an issue, but now it’s a BIG one.

[DSeid]

Well, I am always one for trying to see any possible upside …

Fatah certainly blew their chance, in several ways: failing to adequately clean their own house of corruption and failing to stand up to Hamas and to crack down on terror in their own ranks are up at the top. Hamas is now in charge. What can be a positive course from here?

It is possible that being in charge will motivate responsible actions. A refusal to renounce terror and to recognize Israel (which will be their first approach) will result in isolation from a variety of supports that they now have, give an Olmert government a full steam ahead for unilateral disengagement and will justify that such disengagement be with a wide berth* and with the ability to project military power into the West Bank at any moment in respopnse to any perceived potential threat. Hamas from here will be judged by the electorate on how they deliver prosperity, not by rhetoric. A few years of isolation may bring them to the realization that negotiation is reasonable … after all, it took Sharon being in power to make him reealize that “greater Israel” was a deathtrap dream, and to wake up Israel’s hard right to reality. Maybe this will do the same for Hamas. It maybe that Fatah could never actually deliver on security, Hamas could if they so desired. It might happen … in a few years. Short term, no. And as Steven points out, Arafat merely ignored it as long as his own fiefdom was maintained. But maybe, just maybe.

*Sevastopol, the fact is that for most of its course the fence is nothing more than a simple chain link fence in the middle of a road with various detection devices placed on each side. At points it is a wall. Personally, if it needed to be a big big friggin wall the whole way with concrete and barbed wire and glass shards and trained Dobermans, I wouldn’t care, and would then call it a wall. A well justified wall. What it is though is a barrier that reduces the ability of terrorists to get into Israel proper, and placing it whereever it needs to go to provide that protection will be in Israel’s immediate interest. Final borders will need to be determined later when there is an adequate negotiating partner. That means someone who is not committed to destroying you and who can deliver security. That party has not yet existed.

[Neurotik]

@Airman Doors

They had better moderate their actions, because now that Hamas is in control of the government of an entire nation (as it were) every attack that they claim credit for is an act of war. When they were not vested with national leadership that was not an issue, but now it’s a BIG one.

Yup. There are too many reasons for Hamas to tone down their actions, although their words may still be fairly belligerent. The big question, as Rashak alludes to, is now that they’re in power, can Hamas be an effective government with regards to corruption, etc? I think it would be a huge mistake for the Israelis or the US to make life difficult for them. It will just give them an excuse if things collapse. The best action would be to declare yourself open to negotiations, but make clear that attacks from Hamas will not be tolerated.

[Kimstu]

@DSeid

Final borders will need to be determined later when there is an adequate negotiating partner.

This part I’m not sure about. Okay, final final borders will require the existence of an established two-state solution, sure. But I don’t think the issue of border negotiations can be completely deferred until then.

If Israel’s fence ends up expropriating too much Palestinian farmland or too many Palestinian water sources, it will just be an additional source of grievances and resentments that will make a stable solution ever harder to reach. The issue of where exactly the fence is set has got to be at least somewhat on the table all the way through.

[smiling_bandit]

Personally, I more or less expected this result, although not quite so in favor of Hamas.

I think it’s also a good thing. No matter who won the election, my side wins. (I love playing both sides).

Eletions do change things. Whether or not the new government is moderate or violent (and frankly, I think very little of Fatah or Hamas or the Palestine Arabs) is irrelevant. Overnight, Hamas is no longer the gadfly on the fringe. They now have powers and responsibilities which make them a target, too. If they don’t keep their better work up, they will be sent home in disgrace. That changes the calculus they have to live by.

If Hamas-in-government launches rocket attacks on Israel, it’s a nation (of some kind) attacking another nation. War. And the Israelis have a very open target to shoot now. I favor a very immediate, concrete form of reprisal. Every time Hamas launches a rocker, Israel annexes another few square miles of Palestine. Every year without violence they can graciously hand back turf claimed from the rocket attacks.

[tagos]

A friend of mine is a very moderate, secular, anti-violence Palestinian intellectual but even she has problems with giving up the Right to Return. It’s time Hamas and the people accepted what I tell her.

You lost. It’s tough, hard, unfair etc but you’ve lost. Israel is there to stay, you’re not going to get the RoR. The most favourable of US govts are not going to bully Israel into granting that right, all you can do is strike the best deal you can and live with it. And the first step is to cut out all this violence shit.

I can understand why that’s hard to hear, hard to accept but that’s the way it is.

[smiling_bandit]

Another viewpoint similar to mine, but with a somewhat different take on it:

http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/uf-well-that-wasnt-supposed-to-happen.html

[DSeid]

Kimstu, it is Israels’ best interest to operate solely on the decision of security, and with that as a priority next is to stay as close to the green line as possible. Hamas has nothing they can bring to the table in negotiation over the course of the Fence that they would be willing to bring to the table (recognition of Israel and the renunciation of terror being the only items they have got to offer). What this does is validate the Kadima position: unilateral disengagement and give them a state whether they want it or not, but theyshould be prepared for severe reprisals if they do anything to attack Israel, and try to fly as a state in increasing isolation from Israel and the even much of the rest of the world. Israel will be ready to talk when the PA under Hamas is ready to renounce violence and to recognize her.

[Malodorous]

Fatah has been so unsuccessful that I might’ve been tempted to vote for Hamas. At least it’s a chance that things will change.

Worst case scenario, things remain how they are, with the Palestinians sattled with a corrupt gov’t and one unable or unwilling to cease attacks on Israel. In the end the Israelis grab what land they can and wall the Palestinians off and wash their hands of them. I think this outcome would’ve been the most likely even under Fatah.

But Hamas, as a terrorist organization, may have more ablility to successfully enact cease fires and there’s at least a chance they’ll prove less corrupt then their predecessors. If they want to get anything done at all, they’ll have to renounce violence (at least offically) and give up on destroying their neighbour. And in anycase the fact that there’s real competition in Palestinain elections will hopefully make both parties more effective.

[Martin_Hyde]

@SentientMeat

The message of the Northern Irish peace process comes through clearly: eventually you have to negotiate with the actual terrorists themselves. (Martin McGuinness became minister for education in the devolved government).

Without negotiation (at the very least on the path of any separation wall), the bombs, rockets and atrocities will not stop no matter how appalling we all say they are.

Well first, Martin McGuinness had been fairly tame as far as “terrorists” go for decades.

And the problem with the Northern Ireland analogy is, that from all I’ve seen the Irish terrorists may have been asking for some pretty ambitious things, but they were willing to soften their position in the face of negotiation. We’ve been trying to negotiate a peace between the Israeli and Palestinians for fifty years and we’ve seen very little softening of the Palestinian position.

The Irish paramilitary types still want a unified Ireland, as do their political leaders, but they have agreed through the Belfast Agreement that they’re going to pursue this in a political manner. That they are willing to decide the fate of Ireland through a political, not a military, process.

For the sistuations to be similar there’d have to be some evidence that Hamas was willing to do the following things:

-Abandon as a political goal the destruction of Israel

That may seem to be asking more than what was asked of the Irish terrorists, but the destruction of Israel is a more unattainable and harmful goal than the unification of Ireland. Even the Real IRA and the most extreme IRA members don’t advocate the complete destruction of say, the UK, or the rest of Ireland. And really that analogy doesn’t work so well because again, Ireland != Israel/Palestine.

-Agree to abandon the use of terrorist activities
-Agree to the ultimate goal of disarming Palestinian terrorist groups

Obviously the Israelis would have to make some concessions too, but until those three things actually happen, negotiations and peace deals will be hopeless. And honestly I don’t see Hamas being on board for a single one of those things. And whatever concessions Israel might be willing to make, they will never make them until those conditions are agreed upon.

[David_God_of_Frogs]

Do we even know if this is a legitamate result? I heard on the radio that the exit polls didn’t predict quite such a strong Hamas showing.

[gum]

I agree with The flying Dutchman, I think it’s pretty bad.

“Negotiation with Israel is not on our agenda,” said Mushir al-Masri, a senior Hamas official, who won election in his home district in the northern Gaza Strip. “Recognising Israel is not on the agenda either.”
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=129992006

[Martin_Hyde]

@David

Do we even know if this is a legitamate result? I heard on the radio that the exit polls didn’t predict quite such a strong Hamas showing.

Exit polls can be pretty flawed.

[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.

Hamas, on the other hand, doesn’t want Israel to exist at all. How do you deal with someone whose first demand is “don’t exist?” Do you have to make concessions for the right to exist?

Zev Steinhardt

[mswas]

I was wondering when Hamas would finally take over. I think that what you’ll see is a moderating factor on Hamas now that they have to deal as a legitimized organization. The thing is we have a hypocritical definition of terror. It’s terror when they do it, but it’s a military action when we do it. Now it will be a military action when they do it and all out war can be justified. (as much as it can ever be ‘justified’)

Hamas was one of the only groups actually benefitting the people in Palestine. As was said they build schools and hospitals. Two good friends of mine snuck into the West Bank to do activism. One of them a male told me that Hamas doesn’t teach children to hate Israel as much as many people like to believe that. He said that they teach them how to read and write and do math. He said the rubber bullets from Israeli APCs are enough to teach the children to hate Israel.

Hamas is extremist yes, but I think they are one of the only hopes for actually unifying the Palestinians into a state, they might be angry at Israel, and it’s easy for them to stay angry when they have nothing to lose, but if they can manage to pull together an actual functioning state then they will have something to lose and will become more moderate. If we in the west don’t allow the terrorists to put together some type of state infrastructure they will always fight us, and the only way to solve it other than working with the terrorists is genocide, because as of now they are backed into a corner and have nothing to lose. We need to let the rat out of the corner and see how it behaves when it’s not trapped.

Erek

[mswas]

I was wondering when Hamas would finally take over. I think that what you’ll see is a moderating factor on Hamas now that they have to deal as a legitimized organization. The thing is we have a hypocritical definition of terror. It’s terror when they do it, but it’s a military action when we do it. Now it will be a military action when they do it and all out war can be justified. (as much as it can ever be ‘justified’)

Hamas was one of the only groups actually benefitting the people in Palestine. As was said they build schools and hospitals. Two good friends of mine snuck into the West Bank to do activism. One of them a male told me that Hamas doesn’t teach children to hate Israel as much as many people like to believe that. He said that they teach them how to read and write and do math. He said the rubber bullets from Israeli APCs are enough to teach the children to hate Israel.

Hamas is extremist yes, but I think they are one of the only hopes for actually unifying the Palestinians into a state, they might be angry at Israel, and it’s easy for them to stay angry when they have nothing to lose, but if they can manage to pull together an actual functioning state then they will have something to lose and will become more moderate. If we in the west don’t allow the terrorists to put together some type of state infrastructure they will always fight us, and the only way to solve it other than working with the terrorists is genocide, because as of now they are backed into a corner and have nothing to lose. We need to let the rat out of the corner and see how it behaves when it’s not trapped.

Yasser Arafat was corrupt. He used his position to become a billionaire gangster. He owned properties all over the world including Bowlmor Lanes on University Place in downtown New York. I think Hamas will do better than him and his establishment.

Erek