|
Grex > Agora56 > #74: Hamas victory - Democracy "In-your-face" | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 57 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 8 of 57:
| 
Jan 27 17:47 UTC 2006 |
What I think is the most interesting question here (and one for which
I have no answer) is: several years down the road, should the Palestinian
people be dissatisfied with the situation under Hamas' leadership, will
they be allowed another (relatively) free and fair election to vote them
out? And if they vote them out, will Hamas relinquish power?
The history of Africa is full of "elected" despots, who came to power in
a comparatively fair election and then rigged the system so they never
risked losing it again, at least not by the ballot box. Will Hamas set
up that kind of system?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 9 of 57:
|
Jan 27 18:41 UTC 2006 |
We see it happending here - politicians getting elected democratically but
then rigging the system (by gerrymandering) to stay in power. Democracy only
tends to reflect the wishes of the population, but what is to say the wishes
of the population are necessarily desirable?
|
cross
|
|
response 10 of 57:
|
Jan 27 19:03 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 11 of 57:
|
Jan 27 19:25 UTC 2006 |
re #8
Hamas may or may not have the ability to govern. It may be a failed
experiment by the people expecting their military heroes to also be good
politicians.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 57:
|
Jan 27 19:47 UTC 2006 |
Hamas mobilizes local popular support by providing social services to the
needy. This, and corruption in Fatah, are probably a major reason for
their success in the election. While its military wing is a terrorist
organization, the leaders of the social services functions may indeed be
good politicians. Well, we are going to find out, aren't we?
|
keesan
|
|
response 13 of 57:
|
Jan 27 20:03 UTC 2006 |
Do military heros make any worse politicians than former actors?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 14 of 57:
|
Jan 27 20:09 UTC 2006 |
If you include Ulysses Grant's record as POTUS in your data, yes.
But given the situation they're faced with, I'm not sure whether even
the most gifted politicians would be able to accomplish very much.
|
klg
|
|
response 15 of 57:
|
Jan 27 20:17 UTC 2006 |
What about former actors who portrayed military heros? What about
current senators who portrayed military heros??
The failure of Fatah goes way beyond corruption. Look at the big
cities in the US, where people often don't care what goes on behind the
scenes, so long as the trains run and the streets are plowed.
Who is responsible for calling new elections there? The President
(Abbas who is Fatah), the new Prime Minister (to be appointed), or the
Parliament (Hamas)?
|
tod
|
|
response 16 of 57:
|
Jan 27 20:19 UTC 2006 |
Most organized crime ventures usually have a lil marketing strategy of "Robin
Hood" in order to keep the neighbors happy. Just look at GW's sudden interest
in Cuban refugees.
|
gull
|
|
response 17 of 57:
|
Jan 31 07:25 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:7: That's probably the most likely outcome. But it's also
possible that having to attempt to govern a nation will cause Hamas to
moderate its stance and become a more acceptable political movement.
What I don't understand is why the Bush Administration seemed so
surprised by this outcome. It seemed obvious to me that Hamas was
going to make big gains.
|
bru
|
|
response 18 of 57:
|
Jan 31 09:40 UTC 2006 |
There is a difference between big gains and overwhelming victory.
given time Hamas would have slowly integrated into the government with
some degree of success. But winning the whole ball of wax in one push
is going to leave them with no one to learn from.
|
klg
|
|
response 19 of 57:
|
Jan 31 11:46 UTC 2006 |
Merely because one party controls the government does not prevent it
from appointing ministers/deputy ministers from another party. There
are probably many members of Fatah who sympathize with Hamas, yet chose
their party affililation based on who would provide them with a govt
job. After all, the only practical difference between the 2 is that
Fatah pretended to want peace with Israel. In fact, they both want to
wipe it off the map.
|
md
|
|
response 20 of 57:
|
Jan 31 11:52 UTC 2006 |
This is the pussification of Hamas. Already they're starting to sound
conciliatory and "diplomatic." They will never get their country back by
conventional diplomatic means. (Or by violence, obviously.) They lost it
through a fiat of the UN, and they'll have to get it back the same way.
|
klg
|
|
response 21 of 57:
|
Jan 31 12:34 UTC 2006 |
Warning!! Big Lie Warning!! Big Lie Warning!! Big Lie Warning!! Big
"They" DID NOT "lose it through fiat of the UN".
That is a complete and total fabrication.
Go back and learn your history.
"Palestine" was being administered by Great Britain. It was to become
a homeland for the Jews. They sliced off 75% of it and gave it to the
Arabs (Jordan). Then, they let the UN partition the remainder, leaving
the Jews with less than half of the remainder. The Arabs didn't like
it, so they attacked. As a result, Judea, Samaria, and the old city of
Jerusalem were held by Jordan and Egypt held the Gaza strip. In 1967,
Israel fought a defensive war that resulted in its capturing those
areas. They've tried to give it back ("land for peace") but the Arabs
wouldn't do it, preferring to take advantage of the "refugees" as a
simmering sore.
(By the way, all the while - since Biblical times - Jews have lived
there and in modern times they purchased (with cash) substantial land
holdings.)
As to "getting their country back by conventional diplomatic means,"
what do you call the offer that Barak made and Arafat refused??????
g Lie Warning!! Big Lie Warning!! Big Lie Warning!! Big Lie Warning!!
|
twenex
|
|
response 22 of 57:
|
Jan 31 12:39 UTC 2006 |
Bordering something with "Big Lie Warning" doesn't make it any less a pile
of crap. For future reference.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 23 of 57:
|
Jan 31 14:44 UTC 2006 |
With the exception of a few trivial errors, I don't see #21 as really
that wrong.
|
twenex
|
|
response 24 of 57:
|
Jan 31 14:45 UTC 2006 |
I just put that in in case he decided to use it again. Thus the "for future
reference" reference.
|
klg
|
|
response 25 of 57:
|
Jan 31 17:12 UTC 2006 |
(Errors? What errors?)
|
tod
|
|
response 26 of 57:
|
Jan 31 18:34 UTC 2006 |
Arafat should have been executed decades ago.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 27 of 57:
|
Jan 31 18:47 UTC 2006 |
Well, it was the United Nations that divided Palestine into two parts,
leaving one for the Jews. But I don't see why that matters.
Re 26: Give it thirty years, and hip youngsters will be walking around
with t-shirts of Arafat's mug on the front of them, a la Che Guevara.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 28 of 57:
|
Jan 31 18:47 UTC 2006 |
..but that's true of so many people who wind up in positions of political
leadership throughout the world.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 29 of 57:
|
Jan 31 18:48 UTC 2006 |
(Nathan slipped in, #28 was in response to #26..)
|
twenex
|
|
response 30 of 57:
|
Jan 31 18:49 UTC 2006 |
Che wasn't ugly.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 31 of 57:
|
Jan 31 18:50 UTC 2006 |
heh. :(
|
tod
|
|
response 32 of 57:
|
Jan 31 18:50 UTC 2006 |
re #29
Arafat wasn't a head of state when he was flying around like GW on an Enron
campaign jet. The CIA should have retired him rather than let him scam all
the Islamic leaders to line his Swiss accounts with billions.
|