Sunday, January 29, 2006

Hamas: A Compilation

Hamas has won the elections in the Palestinian territories. Today, the overhead projector of history is again showing us something very important concerning the true prospects for a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians. In a legally executed, internationally supervised democratic process, the majority of Palestinian adults calmly and thoughtfully committed themselves to pursuing a one-state solution built on the ashes of a defeated Israel.

We're being told that the huge vote for Hamas is actually a vote against the corrupt PLO chieftains who returned to take over. Along with being a terrorist organization, Hamas is a social service organization. The Palestinian Arabs did not vote for terror or to destroy Israel. They just voted for the party that actually has a chance to improve their day-to-day lives. The party that actually has social programs and builds schools and hospitals. They've promised to deal with corruption and to improve services. They don't rape, pillage and plunder their own population like the PA/Fatah policemen do. They aren't corrupt sleezebags like the PA/Fatah. They aren't into extortion either. Hamas, the anti-corruption party, won't be able to plead ignorance about where the Euros go.

Corruption, poor services and an inability to lead took away whatever credibility Fatah had. But if the key issue had been Fatah corruption, Hamas would have downplayed any differences between the two organizations with respect to relations with Israel. It did not. The interesting part is that for all of its anti-Israel positions, Hamas will have no choice but to deal with Israel in some capacity, or else it will fail the people who elected it. If Hamas refuses to work with Israel at all, the Palestinians won't be able to cross the border at all, and vital services like water and electricity will end up disappearing. Nothing moderates like pragmatism.

At this point Hamas needs Israel much more than Israel needs Hamas, but since there is now a working democracy in Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas has to be much more careful as to how it acts, both in relations to the people and to Israel. There will be no excuses or ambiguities when Hamas fires rockets on Israel and launches suicide attacks against civilian targets. Now, given that they are in the government, any Hamas terrorist attack is an act of war committed against Israel’s civilian population by a hostile foreign country. Israel should have the right to respond in the same fashion that any other nation would respond to an act of war committed against its civilian population by a hostile foreign country. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens when Israel assassinates a Hamas legislator for taking part in suicide attacks.

While some people are upset about the recent turn of events in the Middle East, I would like to approach it from a brighter side: A Hamas win is good for Israel. I would rather Hamas be in power so that it is clearer to us where we stand. I feel this is a better result than us having to deal with double standards of a party that call for peace to the West, and preach war to their own. Israel is better off with opponents who are lousy liars than with opponents who are good at fooling the world.

The world has been asking us to listen to the Palestinians and not to the terrorists. Elections should reflect the will of the people, and this one reflects the will of the Palestinians. Well, the Palestinians have spoken, and it's clear what these people want: It is a resounding "yes" to Israel's destruction. Behind the veil of a voting booth, over half of their population shouted out loud and clear that they are for suicide bombers and they are in favor of the destruction of Israel.

The problem isn't Fatah or Hamas, the problem is the people who elected them.

Pajamas Media, Boker Tov Boulder, & Life-of-Rubin have roundups of many of the bloggers who have already written about the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections. I'm trying something different with this post, and later will write another one.

What's "different" about this post? There is nothing original in this post - but the way in which it was put together. This post was compiled by combining quotes from many other posts*, with very slight editing in spots. Please let me know what you think in the comments. Thanks.

* Each period and some other punctuation marks are the links. Perhaps later I will list all the sources.
Technorati tags: , , , , , .


  1. I'm impressed by the way it all flows together. I don't remember seeing this sort of compilation before.

  2. Thanks. I messed up the formatting at first, but it's finally cleaned up.

  3. Excellent roundup, Ezzie, effectively done. Just a little confusing when you start a sentence with "I" but do not actually mean yourself....until you get to the bottom and realize what this is all about,,,

  4. Thanks. I thought about changing the "I", but I wanted to keep it as close as possible...

  5. I wish I'd read this before I blogged ths morning. I'll have to link to you later!

  6. No wonder some of the quotes sound a little familiar! ; ) That's a great idea!