Read the platform of Hamas here by the “Political” director of this terrorist group.
Money Quote:
Our message to the US and EU governments is this: your attempt to force us to give up our principles or our struggle is in vain. Our people who gave thousands of martyrs, the millions of refugees who have waited for nearly 60 years to return home and our 9,000 political and war prisoners in Israeli jails have not made those sacrifices in order to settle for close to nothing.
Hamas has been elected mainly because of its immovable faith in the inevitability of victory; and Hamas is immune to bribery, intimidation and blackmail. While we are keen on having friendly relations with all nations we shall not seek friendships at the expense of our legitimate rights. We have seen how other nations, including the peoples of Vietnam and South Africa, persisted in their struggle until their quest for freedom and justice was accomplished. We are no different, our cause is no less worthy, our determination is no less profound and our patience is no less abundant.
Here’s a piece by Richard Cohen on Hamas’s victory. And here HIS money quote:
In due course we will be told that what Hamas has been insisting on for years — the utter destruction of Israel — is not really a serious goal. Hamas should not be taken literally and, anyway, it will be forced to moderate both its platform and its policies by the reality of governing. When, for instance, it repeats the words of its charter — “The solution of the problem (Israel) will only take place by holy war” — we will be assured that it is only throwing red meat to what in America is called “the base.” As for its truculent anti-Semitism — not to be confused in this case with anti-Zionism — it, too, will be dismissed as without consequence. Hamas will have to deal with reality — and Israel, in the region, is the mightiest reality of them all. Yasser Arafat came to understand that.
Here’s a thoughtful (as usual) piece from Christopher Hitchens on the Hamas election. Here’s something to think about for those who want to blame the president for global warming and all terrorism.
It is shallow and short-term, therefore, to write up the election result as a bitter fruit for the Bush administration’s democracy initiative. (What was the alternative? No elections? Elections but without Hamas participation? And do not forget that the combined vote for the four secular and leftist and independent lists, at a time of extreme pressure to conform to either Fatah or Hamas candidates, was over 112,000 ballots, or about a tenth of the total.)
Dear Ms Taft:
Last night on the BBC, I heard an interview with a Palestinian militant, discussing prospects for peace. He said that when the Israelis are ready to accept peace and stop their policies of repressive retaliation, which have often involved the killing of people who are not involved in terorist activities (sometimes labelled “collateral casualties”), the Palestinians will be ready to renounce their policies of violence. I can only hope that moderate minds and hearts on all sides prevail.
Palestinians talking about peace are like Democrats talking about supporting our troops; A big stinkin’ lie. The idiots at the BBC call our self-defense against terrorists ‘repressive retaliation,’ also. When the murdering creeps in the Middle East recognize the legitimacy of Israel, and put away the explosives they strap on their own kids, we might be able to relax a little. David, your anti-semitism, lack of historical perspective, and your gullibility in trusting people who hate the Israelis are astounding. The Palestinians were dancing in the streets, celebrating the death of our fellow citizens on 9/11. They are as moderate as a heart attack.
Palestinians = terrorists
terrorists = hate America
Democrats = hate the troops
hate the troops = hate America
Palestinians = Democrats = anti-semitism
It’s all starting to make sense now..
eric:
Well, I’m glad it is making some sense to you, because other than an unfortunate spate of name-calling, I am unable to figure out just what bear is trying to say. I go back to my closing comment: I can only hoppe that moderate minds and hearts on all sides prevail.
I think he took your simple observation as a full and unwaivering statement of support for Palestinians and terrorists.
What I was breaking down (that I thought was starting to make sense), was a grasp of bear’s thought process.
I have to ask. So far in the effort to stop terrorism by spreading democracy across the globe (because that is the best way to defeat those who hate freedom), we have a country freed from a dictator only to elect a theocracy majority (see “requesting a timetable for the end of our occupation – emboldening the enemy”), and now another country that elects a terrorist party to govern. Is reality living up to ideology?
eric:
Once again, I find your insight of great value. Mine ws an observation, and I tried to report the Palestinian militant’s statements as accurately as i could. By doing so, i certainly did not endorse the militant’s position.
Of trying to spread democracy, I recently starting reading a book analyzing the process of voting, and the authors offered a grim but very reasonable observation: democracy is much more complex than merely holding elections. It involves creating social cohesion, and that in turn involves many things more complex than merely opening the polls. The authors pointed out that societies that are essentially homogeneous can adopt democratic systems relatively easily, citing Sweden as an example. Societies that are more heterogeneous have a much greater difficulty adopting democracy on a serious level, and for that the authors cited the United States. as for fragmented societies like Iraq and Palestine, the authors stood silent. Their point is that democracy can work, but it is a long, slow, complex process.