What if Hamas wins?

I'm so glad to learn you are getting smarter.
:wink: :wink:

Nothing official yet, but Senior Hamas official Muhmad a-Zahar released a statement claiming an election victory, stating his organization has earned over half of the Palestine Legislative Council's 132 seats.

Palestinian PM quits after poll

Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei has resigned, saying Hamas must form the next government following the parliamentary elections.
It comes as the militant Islamic group appeared to be heading for a shock win.

With counting still under way, officials from the ruling Fatah party said Hamas had won a majority. Official results are due at 1900 (1700 GMT).

Israel, the US and the EU consider Hamas a terrorist group and have said they do not want to deal with it.

Mr Qurei has gone to see Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to hand in his formal resignation.

Hours before official results were due to be released, Fatah officials privately admitted that Hamas had won.
Hamas claimed it had won at least 70 seats in the 132-member parliament.

The BBC's Jon Leyne in Jerusalem says there is no doubt that the Hamas showing has transformed the Palestinian political arena.

For decades, Fatah - the party founded by the late Yasser Arafat - has totally dominated electoral politics, but that time is over, he says.

Hamas is also now a major power and it will enter parliament still committed to its armed confrontation with Israel, our correspondent adds.

No talks

With victory looming, senior Hamas official Ismail Haniya said the group would discuss political partnership with Fatah.

"This issue is going to be one of our priorities in the near future," the Associated Press news agency quoted him as saying.

Another Hamas official, Mushir al-Masri, warned though that Hamas would not hold peace talks with Israel.

"Negotiations with Israel is not on our agenda," he said.

"Recognising Israel is not on the agenda either now."

The likelihood of a resounding victory of Hamas - which is committed to the destruction of Israel - sent shockwaves though the Jewish state.

Speaking on the night of the election, acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel could not deal with a Palestinian Authority which included Hamas.

"Israel can't accept a situation in which Hamas, in its present form as a terror group calling for the destruction of Israel, will be part of the Palestinian Authority without disarming," Mr Olmert's office reported him as saying.

"I won't hold negotiations with a government that does not stick to its most basic obligation of fighting terror."

Diplomacy warnings

US President George Bush also warned on Wednesday that Washington could not sanction a government led by Hamas in its present form.

"A political party, in order to be viable, is one that professes peace, in my judgment, in order that it will keep the peace," Mr Bush told the Wall Street Journal.

The European Union - the biggest provider of aid to the Palestinian Authority - said it would work with any Palestinian government which renounced violence.

"We are happy to work with any government if that government is prepared to work by peaceful means," said European External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

URGENT - Hamas wins landslide victory with 76 seats in Palestinian parliament
SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Writer

January 26, 2006 9:42 AM


RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - The Islamic militant Hamas group won a landslide victory in parliamentary elections, taking 76 seats in the 132-member legislature, election officials said Thursday. The rival Fatah Party, which controlled Palestinian politics for four decades, won 43 seats.

The results were based on 95 percent of the votes counted, and could still change slightly, said Hanna Nasser, head of the Central Election commission. The 13 remaining seats went to several smaller parties and independents.

AP-WS-01-26-06 1242EST

What if Hamas wins?

This spreading of Democracy don't seem to be going the way I imagine it was intended.

Given the current intransigence against Hamas in Israel and the US, it's hard to be optimistic.

Considering Sharon's condition and the above, it's hard not to view the situation as one step forward, two steps backward. Again...

D'artagnan wrote:

Given the current intransigence against Hamas in Israel and the US, it's hard to be optimistic.

Considering Sharon's condition and the above, it's hard not to view the situation as one step forward, two steps backward. Again...

Given the current intransigence against Hamas??????

How about given the blatantly terrorist nature of Hamas it's hard to be optimistic.

Do you mean to suggest that you would be optimistic if the US and Israel were foolishly inclined to give Hamas a chance?

Palestinian elections

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the Hamas earthquake

Leader
Friday January 27, 2006
The Guardian


Democrats will rightly applaud the 78% turnout in Wednesday's elections to the Palestinian parliament, which were remarkably fair, free and peaceful. George Bush and Tony Blair, who set such store by promoting democracy in Iraq and (selectively) elsewhere in the Middle East, should be delighted. The only problem is the result: preliminary figures show a stunning victory for the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, long shunned as a terrorist organisation not only by Israel but also by the US, Europe and Russia. This is a catastrophic defeat for Fatah, the natural party of liberation and government for Palestinians for 40 years and for half that period committed to a two-state solution to this most intractable of conflicts.

Hamas is no ordinary political party. Until it participated in this election it was best known in Israel and abroad for the suicide attacks it used against its Israeli enemies. In Gaza and the West Bank it was admired for its network of social services and opposition to the corruption which became a byword for Fatah and the PLO, under Yasser Arafat and then Mahmoud Abbas. Ideologically, Hamas is close to where the PLO was 30 years ago, wedded to armed struggle and to the replacement of Israel by a Palestinian state. It was hardly a good sign when its leader in exile met recently with the Iranian president, who calls for the eradication of Israel. Rhetoric and reality may, however, be different: Hamas's election manifesto did not repeat the call of its charter for the destruction of the Jewish state. It has been disciplined enough to largely observe a year-long ceasefire and has hinted it may continue that indefinitely. Its electoral triumph probably owes less to its resistance to occupation - an unequal struggle against Israeli F16's, Hellfire missiles and targeted assassinations - than to its demand for clean hands and delivery.

Paradoxically, a victory whose scale was unanticipated even by expert local pollsters, might - just - turn out to be better news that it looks. Had Hamas won just a few ministerial seats in a powersharing cabinet dominated by Fatah, the tension between politics and resistance could have been hard to resolve. If its parliamentary majority - 76 out of 132 seats, to Fatah's 43 - is to mean total responsibility, the Kalashnikovs and explosive belts will have to go. It is hard to imagine Hamas running an effective government without dealing with Israelis. It is even harder to see the Israelis dealing with it except through the barrel of a gun if bombs start going off on buses in Tel Aviv.

That is why the right response to this result is to insist that Hamas make clear that it is committed to negotiations with Israel. The new parliament should pass and implement a draft political parties law requiring armed militias to disband. By the same token Israel must meet its obligations under the internationally backed "road map" for peace, including the cessation of all settlement activity. Israel will be deeply sceptical both of Hamas's intentions and outside advice and will be tempted to go for more unilateral moves on the model of the Gaza pullout pushed through by Ariel Sharon last summer. It will be hard to argue with Ehud Olmert, Mr Sharon's successor, facing a testing election in March, when he says Israel has "no partner" for peace. Mr Olmert will only weaken his new centrist Kadima party if he is seen making any concessions to what the Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, yesterday ominously but predictably dubbed "Hamasistan".

Outsiders such as the EU and US should watch to see if conditional engagement will increase their leverage and encourage Hamas to take the gun and the bomb out of Palestinian politics. Victory for Hamas is a Middle Eastern earthquake that may bring new opportunities to the immense task of building peace between two peoples who have been fighting for far too long in the same small country. But for the moment it is the dangers that are far more obvious.

The West and Hamas must talk to each other
(Filed: 27/01/2006)

The first big test for democracy in the Arab world came in 1991, when the radical Islamic Salvation Front was poised to win the general election in Algeria. The generals cancelled the second round and a "dirty war" ensued, in which 150,000 people are thought to have died. That put a damper on experiments with representative government, but where they were permitted Islamist parties did well, whether in Bahrain and Morocco in 2002 or in Jordan the following year.

However, it is only since George W Bush's campaign for political freedom in the Middle East that they have come into their own. Twice last year, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri) headed the list, first to a transitional, then to a permanent parliament. And on Wednesday Hamas won a stunning victory over Fatah in elections to the Palestinian legislative council. In the Arab world, democracy grants the radicals openings that they could only have dreamed about under previous dictatorships. Having championed this process, the West must now come to terms with the outcome.

America, the European Union and Israel have all said they will not deal with an organisation that calls for the destruction of Israel. They are right to distinguish between a popularly elected party and the murderous designs of its armed wing. But in practical terms there is much to be said for engaging with Hamas, in the hope of steering it towards the renunciation of violence.

The movement has held to the ceasefire it agreed with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, last March. Since its victories in local elections in May and October, it has proved a competent municipal administrator, as it had previously of its extensive social welfare programmes.

It now finds itself responsible for all Palestinians, the majority of whom, opinion polls have shown, want to reopen peace talks with Israel. That way lies the rescue of the Occupied Territories from the despair of mass unemployment. Rejectionism, by contrast, spells economic wreckage, as the borders stay closed and foreign funding dries up. By its victory, Hamas has forfeited the freedom of opposition; as the governing power, it faces hard choices.

The argument that the leopard cannot change its spots has some merit. In Lebanon, Hizbollah is represented in parliament and retains its militia, as does Sciri, with its Badr Brigade, in Iraq. Stepping outside the Arab world, Iran remains a radical Islamic state more than quarter of a century after its revolution.

Yet Hizbollah has yet to be tested as a governing party and the Iranian experience is unique, in that policy is ultimately determined by ayatollahs under the principle of velayat-e faqih, or guardianship of the Islamic jurist. The elected leaders of Hamas have no such clerical cover; they are directly accountable to the electorate.

Even if the movement decides de facto to accept the two-state solution, peace negotiations will not revive until Israel, in its turn, has elected a new prime minister on March 28. The rise of Palestinian radicalism would seem to favour Likud under Benjamin Netanyahu, rather than Ariel Sharon's creation, Kadima, which has been well ahead in the opinion polls. Whoever wins will face a reinvigorated neighbour after years of Fatah duplicity and corruption, which eventually led to internal splits and chaos. Mr Abbas is a busted flush and should go. Israel and its allies should draw up a joint strategy for dealing with a sea change in Middle Eastern affairs. Fifteen years ago in Algeria, an opportunity was missed to test a radical movement with the responsibility of power. That mistake should not be repeated.

Two leaders from today' UK papers:

The Guardian's view:

Quote:

Palestinian elections

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the Hamas earthquake

Leader
Friday January 27, 2006
The Guardian


Democrats will rightly applaud the 78% turnout in Wednesday's elections to the Palestinian parliament, which were remarkably fair, free and peaceful. George Bush and Tony Blair, who set such store by promoting democracy in Iraq and (selectively) elsewhere in the Middle East, should be delighted. The only problem is the result: preliminary figures show a stunning victory for the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, long shunned as a terrorist organisation not only by Israel but also by the US, Europe and Russia. This is a catastrophic defeat for Fatah, the natural party of liberation and government for Palestinians for 40 years and for half that period committed to a two-state solution to this most intractable of conflicts.

Hamas is no ordinary political party. Until it participated in this election it was best known in Israel and abroad for the suicide attacks it used against its Israeli enemies. In Gaza and the West Bank it was admired for its network of social services and opposition to the corruption which became a byword for Fatah and the PLO, under Yasser Arafat and then Mahmoud Abbas. Ideologically, Hamas is close to where the PLO was 30 years ago, wedded to armed struggle and to the replacement of Israel by a Palestinian state. It was hardly a good sign when its leader in exile met recently with the Iranian president, who calls for the eradication of Israel. Rhetoric and reality may, however, be different: Hamas's election manifesto did not repeat the call of its charter for the destruction of the Jewish state. It has been disciplined enough to largely observe a year-long ceasefire and has hinted it may continue that indefinitely. Its electoral triumph probably owes less to its resistance to occupation - an unequal struggle against Israeli F16's, Hellfire missiles and targeted assassinations - than to its demand for clean hands and delivery.

Paradoxically, a victory whose scale was unanticipated even by expert local pollsters, might - just - turn out to be better news that it looks. Had Hamas won just a few ministerial seats in a powersharing cabinet dominated by Fatah, the tension between politics and resistance could have been hard to resolve. If its parliamentary majority - 76 out of 132 seats, to Fatah's 43 - is to mean total responsibility, the Kalashnikovs and explosive belts will have to go. It is hard to imagine Hamas running an effective government without dealing with Israelis. It is even harder to see the Israelis dealing with it except through the barrel of a gun if bombs start going off on buses in Tel Aviv.

That is why the right response to this result is to insist that Hamas make clear that it is committed to negotiations with Israel. The new parliament should pass and implement a draft political parties law requiring armed militias to disband. By the same token Israel must meet its obligations under the internationally backed "road map" for peace, including the cessation of all settlement activity. Israel will be deeply sceptical both of Hamas's intentions and outside advice and will be tempted to go for more unilateral moves on the model of the Gaza pullout pushed through by Ariel Sharon last summer. It will be hard to argue with Ehud Olmert, Mr Sharon's successor, facing a testing election in March, when he says Israel has "no partner" for peace. Mr Olmert will only weaken his new centrist Kadima party if he is seen making any concessions to what the Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, yesterday ominously but predictably dubbed "Hamasistan".

Outsiders such as the EU and US should watch to see if conditional engagement will increase their leverage and encourage Hamas to take the gun and the bomb out of Palestinian politics. Victory for Hamas is a Middle Eastern earthquake that may bring new opportunities to the immense task of building peace between two peoples who have been fighting for far too long in the same small country. But for the moment it is the dangers that are far more obvious.