barry

I think you've overstated the Hamas victory. And you are wrong. The election was democratic and represents democracy at work.

Hamas victory came about mostly because of the disorganisation of Fatah in the district elections. The party supported candidates lists resulted in a very close victory to Hamas but in the individual district elections(first past the post basis) Many official Fatah candidates were opposed by independant Fatah candidates. The result was a split Fatah vote and victory to Hamas. Next election will see an end to that situation and a probable re-birth of Fatah. Less the neoptism and corruption.

Hamas did not include in it's election manifesto any reference to the destruction of Israel. It does not follow it has a mandate to undertake that course, as you incorrectly claim.

Hamas is fundamentalist. Palestinians have traditionally rejected that course. They will do so again.

Hamas has rejected talking to anyone. They've stated they want a return to the borders at the time of the establishment of the Palestinisn state in 1948. You are correct about the formation of Israel and a parallel Palestinian state. So let's see a return to those borders. I think Hamas and the Palestinians would be content with that. The big question: Would the Israeli's accept that?

I'm not stupid. I see the biggest impediment to peaceful existance between Israel and Palestine is the land stolen by the Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. I don't belive talking will result in peace. Nor do Hamas. The Israeli's have to give up too much. I action by Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the Palestinian land as detailled by borders in 1948 as the single most precursor to peade. Hamas don't need to negotiate. Israel does they've stolen lands.

Hams have turned the tables. It's now not a case of them accepting Israel's right to exist but a case of Israel accepting Palestines right to it's legimate lands as defined in 1948.

Iranian bombs will be armed by terrorists in America. Israel isn't a primary target in the Mullah's minds, mate.

Barry,

Your mention about Hamas winning a democratic election and becoming kind of legit', could cause them to think more about Jaw JAw rather than War War. Let's hope so.

Your mention at the end of your thesis, however, Barry, seems to indicate that Iran is the main worry about not only keeping Hamas at bay, but peace in the whole Middle-East.

Nonetheless, a study of modern International Relations theory, could show that it is Israel with its arsenal of nuclear rockets which does hold the key to peace in the whole area - and backed very much by the US, of course.

Now in power politics there is that old theory about the arrangement or even allowing the levelling or matching of powers to prevent war, or even a disturbance like making sure the Martins and the Coys each had always the same amount of guns and ammunition.

An example in more recent times and regarding nuclear levelling was the case of India and Pakistan, which though causing a diplomatic uproar, would certainly have had some weary diplomats breathing a sigh of relief when Pakistan matched India in nuclear warhead potential.

Somewhat behind the scenes, it could even be arranged by diplomats that Iran receive a store of primed nuclear warheads to use in their long-range rockets, which could be even on the go with China or North Korea right now. We also have nuclear India which also could be dangerously interested in that way

Just a suggestion, mind, but from one who was involved in a study of nuclear deterrence tactics during the Cold War.

BRUSHY let's also remember re Pakistan and India... they were actually ticking off the cities which would be left after a Nuclear Holocaust.. figuring the odds for 'when' it happened.. the 'leveling' effect you mention is not why they avoided war, it was just a desire not to have one. Mutual deterrance in their case was not applicable to the degree you suggest.

PEACE
thanx for picking me up on that :) perhaps I did not make myself clear enough..(*checks wording*) Here is what I said: "Every VOTER who elected Hamas"
My reasoning was pretty straight forward.. Person A stands for election with a known policy of destruction of Country B, therefore those who voted for Person A are culpable.(in the eyes of Country B)
Its a simple "If....then" like in Basic programming.
If you vote for Adolph Hitler KNOWING he will slaughter Jews, you are as guilty as he is. The Germans didn't know he would do that, the Palestinians who voted for Hamas DID know and DO know.

Kay... true. I was in Vietnam for a bit during final stages of the war, Australia has been pretty peaceful but not many other places.
Still the same old fight over resources, territory and pride.

STRUTH as for shipping the Palestinians off to Jordan...(Probably the best solution) well lets see.. the American Indians were shipped off to reservations. The Australian Aborigines were shipped off to be 'not' where you are now... the Kmers were 'shipped off' from Ankor Wat by the migrant Thais, the migrants to Ivory Coast are trying to 'ship off' the indigenous Ivorians to 'anywhere but near the diamond mines'...The Hutus were sick of Tutsis picking off their leaders one by one, so they went for the 'final' solution, and so history goes on.

Boaz,

These studies were done during the Cold War, the research books contain all degrees of deterrence, including the one you mention. The fact is, you have one small country only made powerful because it is the only one in the Middle East, apart from outside perpretators, who has a nuclear arsenal.

The hatred thus ensuing from both Arabs and Iranians for a allowing a small country like Israel to be so potentially dangerous must be amplified a dozen times or more.

The problem seems to be, Boaz, that political philosophers who devout their whole lives to studying such problems, seems to be regarded by many of our contributors as loony lefties or bleeding hearts, because they teach that there can be a way without reverting to war.

Iran is quickly reaching a position like the proverbial tiger cat in a corner, and even without nuclear war capacity will surely cause tremendous damage before she is crippled.

If you want that to happen, Boaz, okay then, mate, go for it. But those lefty academic professors whom some of you seem to spurn so much, please listen to them for a while rather than certain goons in the White House, as well as in our own Parliament House, who would be lucky to get five out of ten in any International Relations course, particularly as regards going to war. And please don't mention WW2, because the position right now stirring up religions, is totally different, and thus potentially longer lasting.

I've got a problem with a few themes in the posts previous. The logic seems to work like this.

"Hamas stands for the destruction of Israel.
Hamas wins the election.
Hamas has a mandate conferred upon it by the Palestinian people to destroy Israel."

Some of you have then taken a further step to say Palestinian people who voted for Hamas are legitimate targets for Israel to kill. Putting aside the very very large problem of trying to find and kill those who voted for Hamas in a supposedly secret election (don't you support secret voting?) for one moment, surely that's the same logic al-Qaeda used to justify killing civilians in the World Trade Center, that Americans who support US attempts to wipe out al-Qaeda are legitimate targets to be killed by al-Qaeda.

Hopefully that silly idea's been put to bed, but above all, I'd argue the Palestinian people have not necessarily conferred a mandate upon their government to pursue the course of the destruction of Israel. The over-riding themes of the campaign involve corruption, delivery of services, fiscal responsibility and reliance on overseas aid, in addition to the Israeli relationship. Palestinians wanted a far more isolationist, self dependent, values driven government as opposed to the Fatah. In response to this Israel is within its rights to refuse to hand over customs duties to the PA, and continue on its unilateral settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it's a logical course of action in response to the mandated goals of the Palestinian government. When put in light of the Hamas supported ceasefire which has held for 12 months now, there' no way Hamas has been given a mandate to destroy Israel.

Above all, elections very rarely except in referenda confer mandates upon specific policies, rather they confer mandates for values in a government's actions in matters. The Palestinians gave a mandate to policies more closely aligned with Hamas, than Fatah, values.

Which underlying causes are the most important for the tensions under which this region suffers?
There is a great heap of them.
Whatever they are, it is sobering to consider that they will be multiplied by a factor of two in forty years. If they survive that long.
By that time, in the combined lands of Israel, Palestinian Territory, Lebanon and Jordan, at the present rate of increase twice as many people will be jostling shoulders for a fair go on these overstressed landscapes.