4 ms·

Hamas won free and fair elections. Peace must come from negotiations with Hamas; it can't be predicated on their destruction.

victorhooi 12y ago
Well, yeah, except for the slight part about how they're a terrorist organisation? I mean, the Quarter (the Quartet (United States, Russia, United Nations, and European Union) basically said, we can recognise you, but you have to commit to non-violence etc. And Hamas was like, no, screw you guys, we're going to keep rocketing and bombing all the civilians we like...I mean, Israel's going to cave eventually, if we keep shooting rockets at their citizens, right?
- dannypgh 12y ago
  "[The other side is] going to cave eventually, if we keep shooting rockets at their citizens" is exactly the logic Bibi is using with the current campaign in Gaza. It's absurd and insanely biased to pressure only one side of an armed conflict to adopt non-violence. Take a look at the death toll of the conflict: the fact that more pressure is on Hamas than Israel to "commit to non-violence etc." from various actors like the Quartet is a sign of how biased those actors truly are. I've been downvoted, presumably because people seem to believe "we need to bomb the other side / wipe them out in order to begin to discuss peace" mentality but that's been the predominant strategy for decades and it hasn't gotten far. Hamas rose to popularity in the OPT because they were seen as an institution that was providing social services (hospitals, schools, etc.) and wasn't as corrupt at the local level as the PA. If you take a 30-year view, Hamas went from enjoying support from the Israeli military as a counterweight to the PLO to being the reason Israel claims they can't have any productive dialogue with the PA. It's morally bankrupt. Predicating negotiations on capitulation of the other side (in terms of things like the Hamas charter, recognition, non-violence, what have you) isn't diplomacy, it's the complete absence thereof.
  - EGreg 12y ago
    All I know is that if Hamas didn't fire rockets into Israel, Israel's army would never come in or bomb anything in there. In fact the IDF would protect them if they were attacked. As for the blockade -- we need international inspectors to come in and make sure all the tunnels are closed and qassam rockets are gone. Then Egypt and israel should lft the blockade.
BugBrother 12y ago
The best test of an organization isn't when they win an election, it is if they step down when they lose one. If they "can't" lose elections (because of military control, media control, just not holding any more elections and/or election cheating), they aren't better than... well, Putin or Hamas. In this case, we also have all that about celebrating the murdering of civilians and organised official antisemitism copied from both religious sources and the Nazis(!). Edit: I might add that Austria got sanctioned in the EU over Jörg Haider's political party and its democratic result. Hamas must be at least a factor of hundred worse.
EGreg 12y ago
Ummm how about the part where after these fair and free elections they eliminated the rest of the government through killing them or running them out of town? Would you mind addressing what part of legitimate democracy that is?
- dannypgh 12y ago
  I didn't say that there was a legitimate democracy in the OPT- I said they won elections. By the 4th Geneva Conventions the security of Palestinian civilians rests with the occupying power. Gaza is similar to Area A - the PA has policing powers but the Israeli military retains ultimate control, as evidenced by control of borders, airspace, and shipping routes. By international law Gaza is still occupied, so the occupying power has at least as much responsibility for protection of civilians as any other entity. The PA has little if any practical influence over areas B and none over area C. So in very real terms the OPT is occupied, and I wouldn't call any occupied state a free democracy, because occupying militaries aren't elected by their subjects. I mention the elections because they do represent a poll if not a census of popular opinion in the OPT. If you want to maintain legitimacy and support for any accord, it makes sense to include them. Otherwise you're just gearing up for an agreement between the occupying power and their puppets, which is pretty meaningless.
  - EGreg 12y ago
    Hamas was elected in 2006 because they had better social programs than Fatah. This was a more major factor than their position regarding the elimination of a Jewish state. Almost immediately upon coming into power they destroyed the rest of the government, killed people, ran Fatah out of town and proceeded to impose growing Talibanization efforts in Gaza, restricting freedom of women, gays, etc. They also trained kids to become fighters, etc. It is against the Geneva conventions to fire rockets from civilian areas, and against many international laws to use civilians as human shields. So no, Hamas is not a legitimate government, and they commit international war crimes. I am not sure how you support the idea that "Peace can't be predicated on their destruction". That said, if the international community cares as much about Gaza as it now seems from the rhetoric, I say they should form a coalition to go into Gaza and help them build a real, independent sovereign state there. When the UN inspectors can confirm that the smuggling tunnels have been closed and there are no more Qassam rockets, scud missiles, or whatever else they've got lying around, then Israel and Egypt can lift the blockade and Gaza can have freer trade. Note that all this can be done without Israel's involvement. But the international community would have to find willing partners in Gaza, and I doubt the semi-theocratic, ideological Hamas regime would make for good partners. But after Israel takes out Hamas, maybe the international community can form a plan to step in there. Here's hoping. But then again, let's face the sad truth: no states really care enough to help the Gaza people. The Arab League states deny Palestinian refugees citizenship -- even the ones fleeing Syria. And the same NATO countries that went into Iraq to nation-build are not likely to do it in Gaza, even though it's much more readily possible to build something there. There's no oil or other stuff to support "American interests". Other people that international coalition didn't really try to help get their own state or avoid genocide: Kurds, Tutsis, Black Sudanese in Darfur. So how do we get them to actually stop talking and start helping provide security and nation build?

victorhooi 12y ago

Well, yeah, except for the slight part about how they're a terrorist organisation? I mean, the Quarter (the Quartet (United States, Russia, United Nations, and European Union) basically said, we can recognise you, but you have to commit to non-violence etc. And Hamas was like, no, screw you guys, we're going to keep rocketing and bombing all the civilians we like...I mean, Israel's going to cave eventually, if we keep shooting rockets at their citizens, right?

dannypgh 12y ago
"[The other side is] going to cave eventually, if we keep shooting rockets at their citizens" is exactly the logic Bibi is using with the current campaign in Gaza. It's absurd and insanely biased to pressure only one side of an armed conflict to adopt non-violence. Take a look at the death toll of the conflict: the fact that more pressure is on Hamas than Israel to "commit to non-violence etc." from various actors like the Quartet is a sign of how biased those actors truly are. I've been downvoted, presumably because people seem to believe "we need to bomb the other side / wipe them out in order to begin to discuss peace" mentality but that's been the predominant strategy for decades and it hasn't gotten far. Hamas rose to popularity in the OPT because they were seen as an institution that was providing social services (hospitals, schools, etc.) and wasn't as corrupt at the local level as the PA. If you take a 30-year view, Hamas went from enjoying support from the Israeli military as a counterweight to the PLO to being the reason Israel claims they can't have any productive dialogue with the PA. It's morally bankrupt. Predicating negotiations on capitulation of the other side (in terms of things like the Hamas charter, recognition, non-violence, what have you) isn't diplomacy, it's the complete absence thereof.
- EGreg 12y ago
  All I know is that if Hamas didn't fire rockets into Israel, Israel's army would never come in or bomb anything in there. In fact the IDF would protect them if they were attacked. As for the blockade -- we need international inspectors to come in and make sure all the tunnels are closed and qassam rockets are gone. Then Egypt and israel should lft the blockade.

BugBrother 12y ago

The best test of an organization isn't when they win an election, it is if they step down when they lose one. If they "can't" lose elections (because of military control, media control, just not holding any more elections and/or election cheating), they aren't better than... well, Putin or Hamas. In this case, we also have all that about celebrating the murdering of civilians and organised official antisemitism copied from both religious sources and the Nazis(!). Edit: I might add that Austria got sanctioned in the EU over Jörg Haider's political party and its democratic result. Hamas must be at least a factor of hundred worse.

EGreg 12y ago

Ummm how about the part where after these fair and free elections they eliminated the rest of the government through killing them or running them out of town? Would you mind addressing what part of legitimate democracy that is?

dannypgh 12y ago
I didn't say that there was a legitimate democracy in the OPT- I said they won elections. By the 4th Geneva Conventions the security of Palestinian civilians rests with the occupying power. Gaza is similar to Area A - the PA has policing powers but the Israeli military retains ultimate control, as evidenced by control of borders, airspace, and shipping routes. By international law Gaza is still occupied, so the occupying power has at least as much responsibility for protection of civilians as any other entity. The PA has little if any practical influence over areas B and none over area C. So in very real terms the OPT is occupied, and I wouldn't call any occupied state a free democracy, because occupying militaries aren't elected by their subjects. I mention the elections because they do represent a poll if not a census of popular opinion in the OPT. If you want to maintain legitimacy and support for any accord, it makes sense to include them. Otherwise you're just gearing up for an agreement between the occupying power and their puppets, which is pretty meaningless.
- EGreg 12y ago
  Hamas was elected in 2006 because they had better social programs than Fatah. This was a more major factor than their position regarding the elimination of a Jewish state. Almost immediately upon coming into power they destroyed the rest of the government, killed people, ran Fatah out of town and proceeded to impose growing Talibanization efforts in Gaza, restricting freedom of women, gays, etc. They also trained kids to become fighters, etc. It is against the Geneva conventions to fire rockets from civilian areas, and against many international laws to use civilians as human shields. So no, Hamas is not a legitimate government, and they commit international war crimes. I am not sure how you support the idea that "Peace can't be predicated on their destruction". That said, if the international community cares as much about Gaza as it now seems from the rhetoric, I say they should form a coalition to go into Gaza and help them build a real, independent sovereign state there. When the UN inspectors can confirm that the smuggling tunnels have been closed and there are no more Qassam rockets, scud missiles, or whatever else they've got lying around, then Israel and Egypt can lift the blockade and Gaza can have freer trade. Note that all this can be done without Israel's involvement. But the international community would have to find willing partners in Gaza, and I doubt the semi-theocratic, ideological Hamas regime would make for good partners. But after Israel takes out Hamas, maybe the international community can form a plan to step in there. Here's hoping. But then again, let's face the sad truth: no states really care enough to help the Gaza people. The Arab League states deny Palestinian refugees citizenship -- even the ones fleeing Syria. And the same NATO countries that went into Iraq to nation-build are not likely to do it in Gaza, even though it's much more readily possible to build something there. There's no oil or other stuff to support "American interests". Other people that international coalition didn't really try to help get their own state or avoid genocide: Kurds, Tutsis, Black Sudanese in Darfur. So how do we get them to actually stop talking and start helping provide security and nation build?