Announcement

**Dreadnought** · 26 Jan 06,, 18:55

Just because they won an election dont gaurente them anything. They will need to renounce terrorism and all affiliation with them long before the rest of the world will recognize them as any kind of political power. To the rest of the world they are still terrorists until they and time prove otherwise.

**Bulgaroctonus** · 27 Jan 06,, 04:18

The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/in...94&partner=AOL
January 26, 2006
News Analysis
Bush's Wait-and-See Stance on Hamas Reflects Complex Issues
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 � The Bush administration, reacting uneasily to Hamas's victory in the Palestinian legislative elections, called on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas today to stay in office to steer a moderate course and warned Hamas that the West will not deal with it unless it disarms its militias, renounces terrorism and recognizes Israel.

But in a news conference, President Bush also struck a conciliatory note, saying that it was clear that Hamas's performance was a triumph of democracy, among Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general, and a rebuke to "the old guard there." It was striking that his tone was less one of confrontation than of inviting Hamas to change its ways while the world watches.

"There was a peaceful process as people went to the polls, and that's positive," Mr. Bush said. "But what's also positive is that it's a wakeup call to the leadership. Obviously people were not happy with the status quo."

He added that Hamas could not be "a partner in peace" if it continued to advocate the destruction of Israel or harbored "an armed wing." But his tone almost suggested that the United States would have an open mind as the Palestinians form their government and take actions.

Mr. Bush's comments appeared to reflect the sense that the Hamas posed a clear test, and perhaps a blow, to the Administration's push for democratization in the Islamic world; but they also signaled that he would not allow the unwelcome results to slacken the rhetorical embrace of democracy.

That was not surprising, given the administration's response to recent election results in the region. The White House has already welcomed an Egyptian election in which the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned organization that the United States does not deal with, won many seats. A year ago, the administration began soft-pedaling its opposition to Hezbollah's joining the government of Lebanon after winning elections there.

Administration officials acknowledge that the challenge of dealing with the election of militants with violent tendencies in Islamic countries is to make sure they do not hijack their countries once they get in office.

"What you don't want is a situation of one man, one vote, one time," said a State Department official, referring to the strong showings of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah. "If you can avoid that, there's a reasonably good chance of navigating the problem."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, echoing Mr. Bush's tone on Hamas, said: "We understand that this is a transitional period, but anyone who wants to govern the Palestinian people and do so with the support of the international community has got to be committed to a two-state solution, must be committed to the right of Israel to exist."

But despite all these hopeful comments, Bush administration officials and European officials acknowledged that the Hamas victory could become the second big setback in a month to their hopes of brokering any further breakthroughs in the negotiations in the Middle East; the first setback was the incapacitation of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Diplomats involved in the Middle East peace process, known as the road map � a document that calls for reciprocal steps between Israelis and Palestinians toward creation of a Palestinian state � have long acknowledged that this process was all but moribund.

The question in the wake of Hamas's victory is whether the strategy of the United States and Europe of encouraging more unilateral Israeli withdrawals was also dead. More such withdrawals were considered out of the question after Mr. Sharon was felled by a stroke last month, and now they appear even less likely.

Western diplomats noted that in Israel, right-wing political figures have begun suggesting that the Hamas victory was a direct result of what they believe was Mr. Sharon's ill-considered pullout from Gaza and parts of the West Bank last year.

As American officials examined the Israeli-Palestinian situation, they predicted a debate within the administration, and between the administration and its European partners, on how to proceed with the roughly $1 billion in outside assistance that keeps the Palestinian Authority afloat.

Over the years, the Europeans, the United States and the wealthy Arab countries have each provided about a third of the aid to the Palestinians. Under the leadership of James Wolfensohn, the former World Bank president, the plan until now had been to double that sum in coming years if the situation in the middle East stabilizes. That goal has now been rendered moot, diplomats agree.

Even before the election, Western economists charged that this money was wasted. It could now be frozen if Hamas enters the government or becomes a dominant part of it without renouncing terrorism or disarming.

"The United Kingdom could not countenance any aid money being diverted to finance terrorism," said a British official, asking not to be identified because of his country's ground rules about discussing the subject. "Were Hamas to join the Palestinian Authority government, we would need to review all areas of assistance to the Palestinian Authority."

A year ago, in an effort to coax moderates in the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Bush announced in his State of the Union message that the United States would provide aid directly to the Authority, instead of delivering it through non-government organizations in Gaza and the West Bank.

Now Congressional approval for any such direct aid in the future appears extremely unlikely without a transformation of Hamas, which few considered possible at least in the near future.

The Europeans are likely to see the dilemma over Hamas differently, many diplomats say. Regarding both Hamas and Hezbollah, the Europeans � especially the French � have called for the West to use the same strategic template as it did with Sinn Fein, the so-called "political wing" of the Irish Republican Army. That is, they have talked about dealing with Hamas's "political wing" as a way of coaxing it toward eventual partnership in a peace process. The problem, many diplomats and experts say, is that no one even pretends that there are "wings" of Hamas. Its armed forces and its political leaders are married to each other inextricably.

But there is now likely to be pressure from Europe on a strategy to coax a political "wing" into existence; a start could come in the form of declaring Israel's right to exist.

In the end, whatever happens with Hamas is more likely to be dictated not by its actions but by the situation on the ground in Israel and the Palestinian areas.

For weeks Israeli officials have been warning that they expect an upsurge of attacks by Palestinian militants after the Palestinian elections. Now American officials say they are beginning to fear the same thing.

That would be similar to past patterns in which Palestinian attacks seemed aimed at producing hardline right-wing Israeli governments. In 1996, attacks helped propel Benjamin Netanyahu into the prime minister's job. The so-called second intifada helped elect Mr. Sharon in 2001.

The Bush administration is increasingly worried about Iran playing a role in such attacks by aiding Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and others. If there are such attacks, however, Western diplomats say it leaves Israel and the United States with a tougher situation but an easier set of choices: no negotiations, and no pressures on Israel to make concessions, particularly more unilateral withdrawals.

**Bulgaroctonus** · 27 Jan 06,, 04:40

Israel's Likely Course

The New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/in...rtner=homepage
January 27, 2006
News Analysis
Israel's Likely Course
By GREG MYRE

JERUSALEM, Jan. 26 � The Hamas landslide in Palestinian elections has stunned Israelis, but it may also have brought them a rare moment of clarity: with peace talks off the table, Israel will most likely pursue unilateral actions, drawing its own borders and separating itself from the Palestinians.

Ehud Olmert, the acting prime minister, made it clear after an emergency cabinet meeting that talks with Hamas, a Palestinian party sworn to Israel's destruction, were out of the question, while experts said Israel was now freer to establish its future on its own.

They said Israel � whose own elections in two months could be heavily influenced by the Palestinian results � was likely to focus on speeding up construction of the separation barrier, which runs along and through parts of the West Bank. After more than three years of building, it remains less than half finished, but Israeli officials say it has contributed enormously to the reduction of suicide bombings and other attacks. Palestinians, on the other hand, say the barrier takes land they want for a future state.

"The differences between the sides are now much deeper, and the chances for negotiations are much more remote," said Shlomo Avineri, a liberal political scientist at Hebrew University. "The only realistic steps may be Israeli unilateral steps."

Unilateralism was the approach taken by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister for the last five years, who now lies in a coma. He withdrew Israeli settlers and soldiers from Gaza last summer without negotiating the move with the Palestinians, and left open the possibility of more such moves in the West Bank.

Since on-and-off peace talks began more than a decade ago, Israelis have been deeply divided over what sorts of concessions to make, how much territory to keep and whether the talks would lead to an end to the decades-old conflict. On Thursday, it seemed there were few such doubts.

From Israeli hawks who oppose concessions to doves who constantly pressed for renewed peace talks, Israelis said there could be no negotiations with Hamas.

Ami Ayalon, the former head of Israel's Shin Bet security service and now a parliamentary candidate for the left-leaning Labor Party, said the absence of a negotiating partner should not halt Israeli actions aimed at separating from the Palestinians.

Israel, he said, should seek "to create a situation where Israel disengages from the Palestinians and preserves the character of Israel as a Jewish democracy." Israel should continue, he said, "to move fast and independently to our goal."

Mr. Olmert hopes to become prime minister in elections on March 28 as head of the centrist Kadima Party started by Mr. Sharon.

But Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud Party, made clear that the Palestinian results offered an opportunity for his more hawkish message to be heard. He said the Hamas victory was a result of the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and proved that no more withdrawals should occur.

Yuval Steinitz, a member of Parliament from Likud, said Israel should have prevented or canceled the Palestinian elections. He cited the 1993 Oslo accords, an interim peace agreement that bars the participation of armed groups and those that do not recognize Israel.

Mr. Steinitz noted that Palestinian terror attacks against Israel had gone down in recent years, but that Hamas's popularity had gone up. "This is a major loss in our war against terror despite all our tactical successes," he said.

Since the Oslo accords, the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships have maintained a dialogue at some level.

But Israel and Hamas have never had contact with each other, aside from exchanging bullets and bombs. Their relationship is similar to the one that existed in the 1980's and earlier between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, with their refusal to recognize each other.

Hamas's electoral triumph comes at a time when Israel is going through its own political upheavals, and the government is unlikely to make any major moves until after the Israeli election.

"Election time means time out," Mr. Avineri said. "There is a strong argument for refraining from doing dramatic things right now."

The campaign may also mean that Mr. Olmert and his party will have to take a tougher tone to ensure that they are not outflanked on the security issue by Likud.

Israelis are beginning to debate whether the reality of being in power will tame or moderate Hamas. Mr. Avineri suggested a Hamas-led government might not be as threatening as some Israelis feared. He cited the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah, which battled Israeli troops for years in southern Lebanon and now takes part in Lebanese politics.

"Hamas may behave like Hezbollah," Mr. Avineri said. "The rhetoric will be harsh, and they will still be armed, but they will be part of the political system, and their actions may be more restrained."

Others, like Mr. Steinitz, argue that Hamas wants Jews pushed into the sea, and did not enter politics to change its goals but to advance them.

Still, the Hamas victory injects uncertainty into the Israeli election. In previous Israeli campaigns, Hamas and other Palestinian factions have staged deadly attacks that pushed the Israeli electorate to the right.

In 1996, the Labor Party, led by the dovish Shimon Peres, seemed headed for victory after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by an ultranationalist Israeli. But after a series of Palestinian suicide bombings during the Israeli campaign, Mr. Netanyahu, of Likud, won a narrow victory.

The Palestinians started an uprising in September 2000, and in a February 2001 election for prime minister, Mr. Sharon trounced Ehud Barak, the Labor Party leader, who had tried but failed to reach a comprehensive accord with the Palestinians.

**Bulgaroctonus** · 27 Jan 06,, 04:50

I think that the ostensible American policy of allowing Islamists into power through elections will undergo review. President Bush has affirmed his support for democracy, but he will see that democracy can be injurious to American interests, at least in the short term.

How long will America continue to tolerate 'democracy' in the Middle East, when the very people getting elected might be bent on America's destruction?

I view the Palestinian election as one test for the Bush vision of democracy. The other is certainly Iraq. If Iraq degenerates into a chaotic mess, or an Iranian satellite state, the effects of American democracy in the Middle East may seem worthless.

**lwarmonger** · 27 Jan 06,, 06:27

Originally posted by Bulgaroctonus

I think that the ostensible American policy of allowing Islamists into power through elections will undergo review. President Bush has affirmed his support for democracy, but he will see that democracy can be injurious to American interests, at least in the short term.

How long will America continue to tolerate 'democracy' in the Middle East, when the very people getting elected might be bent on America's destruction?

I view the Palestinian election as one test for the Bush vision of democracy. The other is certainly Iraq. If Iraq degenerates into a chaotic mess, or an Iranian satellite state, the effects of American democracy in the Middle East may seem worthless.

It is easy. The Muslim governments (Hamas included) will give there people fights they cannot win. Prior to Hamas coming to power, I viewed both sides as equally culpable in the conflict. The Palestinians have now democratically decided that they deserve what happens to them. Electing a party that is bent on the destruction of an occupying state is not bad in and of itself (it is fairly logical in many circumstances). Electing a party that is bent on the destruction of an occupying state when that occupying state is making considerable unilateral concessions (and when the said party cannot actually achieve its goals) is simply stupid.

Israel will have what it wants from this conflict, and the Palestinians will deserve what happens to them... not on moral grounds, but simply because people who actively seek fights that they cannot win deserve to get taken apart.

**Officer of Engineers** · 27 Jan 06,, 06:46

Let's see if Hamas got the guts to declare war.

**mich** · 27 Jan 06,, 17:23

Originally posted by Dreadnought

Just because they won an election dont gaurente them anything. They will need to renounce terrorism and all affiliation with them long before the rest of the world will recognize them as any kind of political power. To the rest of the world they are still terrorists until they and time prove otherwise.

hamas winning the election is like the american nazi party or the KKK winning the us elections. nations that choose to put extremist elements of their society in power will only bring disaster upon themsleves. palestianians may understand democracy now, but they have made a serious error in judgement. maybe the palestianians are at their wits end, and were forced to make an emotional decision. they should have re-elected fatah.

**astralis** · 27 Jan 06,, 19:49

the election was more about fatah's sheer domestic incompetence, rather than hatred of israel.

**ZFBoxcar** · 27 Jan 06,, 20:57

I imagine its a combination of the two. The hate is definitly there, although Fatah was corrupt and ossified.

**Lunatock** · 27 Jan 06,, 21:31

Originally posted by ZFBoxcar

I imagine its a combination of the two. The hate is definitly there, although Fatah was corrupt and ossified.

Is the hate ever far off when Palestinians are on the move? Most recent news is the french makeover Pali's are giving their towns. Rioting, torching stuff, and demanding Fatah leaders clear out their desks.

**astralis** · 29 Jan 06,, 22:42

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11078875/site/newsweek/

Caught by Surprise. Again.
Arafat created one of the most ill-disciplined, corrupt and ineffective organizations ever to be taken seriously on the world stage.

By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek

Feb. 6, 2006 issue - In the late 1970s, American officials were aware that the Shah of Iran was losing domestic support. They analyzed alternate scenarios and studied various opposition groups. They thought they were being very bold in their outreach, talking to Marxists, dissidents and other radicals. But they paid little attention to the turban-clad clerics preaching dissent via mosque, audiotape and pamphlet. How many people could possibly support mullahs promising a return to theocracy in the late 20th century?

Thirty years later, we're still surprised, and still asking the same questions. How could the Palestinians vote for a party that wants to create an Islamic state? We might even ask the question in Iraq, where elections have yielded consistently for hard-line Islamic parties (and hard-line ethnic parties, in the case of the Kurds).

Let's stop for a moment and understand how this happened, so that at least we can stop being surprised. The story of the rise of Hamas mirrors the rise of almost all such Islamic political parties in the Middle East.

For decades, the dictators who ruled (and rule) the Middle East destroyed all political opposition groups. They were particularly aggressive in co-opting or exterminating liberal, secular, forward-looking groups because those were seen as most threatening. They were often less harsh toward Muslim groups, partly because the Islamists were seen as less political. And, of course, you cannot ban the mosque in an Islamic country.

Rulers like Anwar Sadat and Jordan's King Hussein often used Islamic groups to discredit the secular opposition. Decades of repression, incompetence and stagnation ensured that citizens got increasingly unhappy with their regimes. And the only organized, untainted alternative was the Islamic movement.

Consider Hamas. It was founded as a sister group of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. Initially it was a "quietist" group, accepting Israel's occupation of the West Bank as a fact and simply working to improve the conditions of Palestinians within it. Both Israel and Jordan tacitly supported the group during that period, because they saw it as a way of dividing the Palestinians. They also probably believed it could never come to power. But they worked tirelessly to destroy the PLO and its successor, Fatah, a secular, Soviet-styled revolutionary outfit. (Remember that in the 1970s, even the United States thought that conservative Islamic groups were allies against left-wing revolutionary ones, which is why we funded the mujahedin in Afghanistan.)

But the man who truly opened the space for Hamas was Yasir Arafat. Arafat created one of the most ill-disciplined, corrupt and ineffective organizations ever to be taken seriously on the world stage. Despite the pull of loyalty in tough conditions, Palestinians were losing faith in Fatah through the 1990s. Hamas, meanwhile, became more political, radical and organized. It provided health, education and other social-welfare services. And it stood up for its people.

For someone in Gaza, here is the contrast. Arafat was corrupt, and could not deliver on a Palestinian state. Hamas is honest, effective and holds firm. As Palestinians watched Arafat dither and Abbas fail, they lost any faith that Fatah has a path�by force or by negotiations�to get them a state. And meanwhile, their daily life was getting worse and worse while their leaders drove around in Mercedes cars.

Much is now being written on how Hamas will have to moderate itself to rule. But the next few months, if not years, will be a very rocky ride. If we are to learn something from this experience, it should surely be that now is the time to start building and shoring up the secular groups, the middle-class organizations, the liberal-minded civil society of the Middle East.

Today these groups barely exist. They have struggled under laws designed to prevent them from forming, with no free press to voice their views, no business supporters to give them money and muscle. "Right now we do not have a level playing field," says Bassem Adwadallah, a young Jordanian reformer. "For 30 years Islamic groups have been the only ones allowed in the political space. We liberals are just starting. We need to stop bickering, be better organized, present a persuasive program. But we also need some help."

President Bush has said that democracy promotion is a "growth industry." If it is, then funding such groups and helping them deliver for their people is surely the best way to invest. Without that you'll have elections in the Middle East but no real democracy.

Write the author at [email protected].
� 2006 Newsweek, Inc.

**lwarmonger** · 30 Jan 06,, 00:36

Hamas will fail without Western funding. Funding it does not look like it will get unless it renounces its extremist agenda.

**EricTheRed** · 30 Jan 06,, 00:57

lol they plan on building an army..i doubt they are dropping anything

**Bulgaroctonus** · 30 Jan 06,, 03:59

Originally posted by lwarmonger

Hezbollah will fail without Western funding. Funding it does not look like it will get unless it renounces its extremist agenda.

Hezbollah is based on Iranian funding, it does quite well without Western backing.

Announcement

Hamas wins big at Palestinian Election

Hamas wins big at Palestinian Election

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment