No, of course not, Zev. But I view the election results as a fundamental good thing for a few reasons.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Israel, for the most part, has renounced violence. The only area where they are actively violent is in targeting terrorist leaders.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!).
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.”
