Talk:Hamas wins Palestinian election

American Double Standard

I write this as a proud Irish-American who strongly believes that the partisan of Ireland in 1922 was illegal. The British and Ulster Unionists gerrymandered a border to artificially create a rump-Ulster that would have a majority of Unionists. That having been said, there is a double standard being applied to Hamas by Western media and many Americans in general. The IRA and its political wing, Sein Fein, ran a terrorist organization and stood for political office. While the vast majority of the IRA and Sein Fein have since renounced violence, that was not so from the 1960s to the mid-1990s. During that time, many Americans donated money to support the IRA, Sein Fein, and like-minded pro-IRA organizations. It has only been now, since 9/11, that Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Republicans like Peter King have distanced themselves from Gerry Adams.

My point is this: a lot is being made about Hamas pre-election polls. Americans and Israelis are complaining that Hamas can not be part of the Palestinians government because they are, and support, terrorism. While no one would criticize Israel for not wanting to sit down with terrorists, Americans of both parties did force the British to sit down with terrorists. In addition, the PLO and Yasser Arafat were terrorists and/or supporting terrorists when the Americans of both parties made Israel sit down at the Madrid Conference and Oslo Accords. So what is the difference between the IRA, the PLO, and Hamas? All are terrorist organizations. All want to be part of the political process. We’ve said yes to two and now we’re criticizing Hamas?


 * Your point is moot. Read the fine article: Hamas isn't interested in negotiations, only blood. Fatah supported the two-state solution. The IRA bombed its way to the table and ended up disarming without achieving reunionfication. Where is the double standard?24.94.246.41 20:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see a relevance. To some, we the americans are terrorists, although no western media would dare label us as such. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is which side a person is on, perhaps. Sharon was considered a terrorist years ago by much of the world, and so is our President Bush right now. But, I also don't think the West's reaction is a part of THIS story. This story is about an upset election victory in a seemingly fair election process; so everyone,like America and Israel, who say they want to "spread democracy throughout the middle east", must simply say "today, the Palestinian people have spoken"...and that's this story, at least I think so. Neutralizer 21:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/081005/weldon.html http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/20010822.asp http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004065.php http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201943.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_accords
 * Look I am just reporting. If they want Hamas to run their gov't then so be it. They elected them. I was taking the article to look at all POV's not just one. This is obviously a situation that is both upsetting and exciting (depending on where you are from and what you believe). My intentions were NOT to state a POV for the US but merely to state what they beleive of the issue. Which I believe was totally relevant. Since the US is saying what they believe, and the quotes are facts, they are not a POV...but facts. Jason Safoutin 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work,Jason, remember though that if we start reporting the US's reaction to everything that happens, then we also need to be reporting France's reaction and Italy's and Iran's reactions and the articles will get too long,I think. Neutralizer 20:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Title
The title desperately needed npoving as we were not saying "Bush takes over American government" after he won. Neutralizer 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Here I agree with you, although some information from any election monitoring sources would be good. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Reuters seems very confident in their report, But I can't find independent verification. It must be Thursday evening there; there must be some "official" results by now; will keep looking. Neutralizer 20:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the results are referring to the US time...i could be wrong but I think they were speaking of Thursday eastern time in some sources...but I have not yet gotton any election results. Jason Safoutin 20:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems like the Bush and British governments now accept that Hamas won; also, President Carter's group is there monitoring. "The whole of the international community has the responsibility to accept the outcome of any fair and democratic election," said British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw."Hamas won," said Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel. "Hamas is surely not a democratic movement. Its ideas are surely not humanistic ideas.What do we do now?"  Neutralizer 20:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * These are nice quotes, although I'm not quite sure how to integrate them into the article. Some background from the WP Hamas article might be good too. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want statements of monitoring groups here are two sources:


 * Carter Center:"Palestinian Elections Important Step Toward Greater Democracy Say NDI/Carter Center Observers"
 * the Council of Europe: "The elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council were conducted in a well-organised and democratic fashion, better than seen in some Council of Europe member states". --SonicR 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Google front page reports "landslide with 76 seats" http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/01/26/hamas_wins_landslide_76_seats_in_parliament/ Jason Safoutin 21:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And here http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1545238 Jason Safoutin 21:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"shock" (and awe)
has US or any European country expressed "shock" over this? if not, i think the subsection headed "US/EU shocked" should be renamed. if they have earlier stated an expectation that Hamas will not come to power, then maybe "surprised" is suitable. one possibility is to split the US/EU reaction and the mideast reaction, and head the first "US/EU call for Hamas to renounce violence". Doldrums 09:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes they are shocked or whatever, but They took all those quotes and concerns out of the article. BUT I agree when they said it was too POV even though they were facts. I do believe a separate article should be made on the "reaction" Jason Safoutin 20:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * By George, I think he's got it! :) Neutralizer 22:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Typo
editprotected "Condoleeza" => "Condoleezza" (2 times) Van der Hoorn (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 15:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)