So what do you all think?

Here's BBC's story:
Hamas sweeps to election victory (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4650788.stm)

History is on the march.

Of course, it comes as no surprise to anyone, I think. It was obvious years ago that Hamas would eventually take over the Fatah.

I think it's pretty scary, but that's the thing with democracy--you have to go with what the people want. But what if the "people" want to blow up Israel? Then what? It's like Iraq. The U.S. administration keep saying how great Iraq will be as a democracy and how they'll be "free," but will the Western world be happy with what the majority of Iraqi people want? And look what democracy has gotten us in the U.S.--Bush. The majority is often wrong. Geez, I'm starting to sound like I'm in favor of monarchy or dictatorship or something, but really I'm not. Just thinking out loud.

I heard someone earlier today comment on how this might actually work out to Israel's benefit - now the Hamas leadership will be gathering themselves together in one building.

Actually, there seem to be quite a few Israelis as well as some political commentators who think this may work out advantageously but not for the reasons Red gives, but because this may lead the Hamas to sit around a table and talk, now that they have got caught up in the democratic process.

I would like to take some of the credit for this with my production and sale of Hummas for Hammas. If anyone is intertested in some delicious hummus feel free to PM me. All profits are to the benefit of advancing Hammas.

Actually, there seem to be quite a few Israelis as well as some political commentators who think this may work out advantageously but not for the reasons Red gives, but because this may lead the Hamas to sit around a table and talk, now that they have got caught up in the democratic process.

I'll take that bet.

And you thought Bush vs. Kerry was a rotten choice. :no:

All I know is that if my trip to Israel is ruined because of this someone is going to be in for an ass whoopin' :whip:

I think it's pretty scary, but that's the thing with democracy--you have to go with what the people want. But what if the "people" want to blow up Israel? Then what? It's like Iraq. The U.S. administration keep saying how great Iraq will be as a democracy and how they'll be "free," but will the Western world be happy with what the majority of Iraqi people want? And look what democracy has gotten us in the U.S.--Bush. The majority is often wrong. Geez, I'm starting to sound like I'm in favor of monarchy or dictatorship or something, but really I'm not. Just thinking out loud.

but souldn't a democracy defend itself?
democracy isn't just about what the majority wants, it has to make sure that the minority's rights will be kept, and that the demacracy itself will be kept.
if a fascist wins a democratic elections we probably would't see it as a democratic event, should we accept a terror organisation as a leader of a democratic country?

I doubt that the occupied and besieged territories fit the definition of a true democratic society in the first place. The security situation has become increasingly worsened lately, and there was legitimate fear of clashes and unrest in connection with the election. In addition Israel continues its policy of stealing land (expanding settlements, the wall), assassinations, accidentally killing civilans and children (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1137605926383&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull), and generally making people's life a misery. The West continues to turn the blind eye. But still they pushed for elections. And the US thought they could buy victory for Fatah (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/washington-steps-in-to-give-fatah-election-help/2006/01/22/1137864806858.html).

Is this democracy? In the very least, I would say that such conditions are not favourable for democracy and moderate politicians. Such conditons fuel hatred and extremist organisations.

if a fascist wins a democratic elections we probably would't see it as a democratic event, should we accept a terror organisation as a leader of a democratic country?

I know the US Congress, and probably Israeli authorities too, didn't want to see Hamas in the election to begin with. But I think it's too late to disqualify them now. The Palestinian people have chosen Hamas. I do think it is fair to ask them to modify their charter regarding the destruction of Israel and to renounce the use of violence against civilians, though.

On the other hand Israel is considered a democratic country, and yet they use terrorist methods against the Palestinian people. That is wrong too.

The PLO was also long considered a terrorist organisation. The PLO charther clauses regarding the destrction of Israel wasn't nullified until 1996. And yet the PA (where the PLO played a vital part) was established with Israel's blessings already in 1994.

Btw, I agree with a lot of what eggplant said. Though I'd take it a step further and say that democracy is overrated :)

Democracy is, by definition, rule of the majority. If a minority oppressed it doesn't they system any less democratic. This is why the US has a constitution that the democracy (democratic republic) must follow.

On the other hand Israel is considered a democratic country, and yet they use terrorist methods against the Palestinian people. That is wrong too.


two wrongs don't make a right..
and althought I disagree with most of the IDF acts, I don't think it's the same as the hamas acts.
Israel is not a good example of a democracy, but an organisation like hamas is illigal and can't get elected, that's what happened with the Kahana party.
I'd like to see it happen in palestine.

All I know is that if my trip to Israel is ruined because of this someone is going to be in for an ass whoopin' :whip:

were you serious in this post?
this shouldn't change anything regarding the safty of visiting israel. It'll be as safe and as dangerous to visit here as always.

two wrongs don't make a right..
and althought I disagree with most of the IDF acts, I don't think it's the same as the hamas acts.
So you think the Hamas is worse, and that this justifies the IDF acts? I think it's pointless to discuss who is the worst: Is it the national army that upholds an apartheid-like oppression of an entire people, killing civilians and blowing up their houses? Or is it the organisation that tries to paralyse a people with fear by sending its members to blow themselves up on buses, in squares and in shopping malls? They are both beyond evil. But there's no question who is the stronger party, and therefore must take the initiative and the first steps if a solution is to be found.

And yet the Hamas has largely followed a truce for nearly a year. I don't think the Israeli occupation force has shown similar restraint.
Israel is not a good example of a democracy, but an organisation like hamas is illigal and can't get elected, that's what happened with the Kahana party.
I'd like to see it happen in palestine.
Agreed that Israel doesn't meet all the criteria for democracy.
Hamas is not illegal in Palestine. (That is why they were allowed to run in the election.) I guess they could have been declared illegal, but then the USA would have had to fully expose the iron glove that dictates state of affairs in the region.

It's my understanding the Palestinian election had a higher participation rate then the 2004 U.S. Election, in at around 75%.

I personally think that both countries should just be firebombed. It would do the whole world some good in the process. :gun:

I personally think that both countries should just be firebombed. It would do the whole world some good in the process. :gun:

Good idea, Hitler.:whip:

So you think the Hamas is worse, and that this justifies the IDF acts? I think it's pointless to discuss who is the worst

that's funny. you put words in my mouth and than argue with them.
you can't do it, and I won't be dragged to discussions in which words are placed in my mouth according to one's thoughts.

And yet the Hamas has largely followed a truce for nearly a year

that's not true.

that's funny. you put words in my mouth and than argue with them.
you can't do it, and I won't be dragged to discussions in which words are placed in my mouth according to one's thoughts.
It was a question, and I think a timely one at that - but I didn't claim that you said that. Thanks for clarifying, though.

that's not true.Well, I was only paraphrasing what I read in the mainstream media. If you have information to prove me wrong, feel free to post it.