Rival faction accuses Hamas of bringing upon a ‘worst catastrophe than 1948,’ pointing out the bloody 2007 coup and wondering if Hamas would be interested in appointing a Prime Minister from Iran.
I feel like this paints Hamas in a much more forgiving light that it deserves. Hamas “won” the election after a violent campaign of intimidation and even then only by a plurality. While Fatah has many flaws, it’s not a religio-fascist organization prone to arbitrary violent cruelty. Yes, Fatah criticizing Hamas is nothing new, but more because they’re fundamentally opposed groups than Western preferences.
It seems to be inconsistent with election monitoring statements at the time.
It seemed obvious to us and other observers that the election was orderly and peaceful and that there was a clear preference for Hamas candidates even in historically strong Fatah communities. Even so, we were all surprised at the enormity of the Hamas victory.
Thanks there is so much misinformation flying with respect to this conflict it can be hard to make sense of things. But the fact that several respected authors I had read on this election did not mention it made me skeptical.
In the 25 January 2006 Palestinian legislative election, Hamas won 74 or 76 seats of the 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council, an absolute majority. Fatah only won 43, four seats went to independents supporting Hamas.[187] The elections were judged by international observers to have been “competitive and genuinely democratic”. The EU said that they had been run better than elections in some member countries of the EU.
Maybe the upvotes have nothing to do with the statement about how Hamas was elected, which is frankly not that interesting, and everything to do with the fact that the commenter correctly identified Hamas as a religio-fascist organization. You can disagree without calling someone a liar. It is more conducive to conversation to assume that someone is mistaken or has different information than you do. Calling someone a liar is contrary to the spirit of good faith debate.
No, calling someone a liar is making an assumption about their intentions,
which, in most cases, you do not know.
Sure, when you hear false statements from a public figure all the time, like Trump for example, you can eventually have enough data to conclude that he is a liar. Do you have that kind of data on the commenter you replied to? No? Well, then it is more appropriate to assume they are mistaken. At least in English, calling someone a liar is very, very aggressive.
I feel like this paints Hamas in a much more forgiving light that it deserves. Hamas “won” the election after a violent campaign of intimidation and even then only by a plurality. While Fatah has many flaws, it’s not a religio-fascist organization prone to arbitrary violent cruelty. Yes, Fatah criticizing Hamas is nothing new, but more because they’re fundamentally opposed groups than Western preferences.
Is this true? Where can I read about this intimidation campaign?
It seems to be inconsistent with election monitoring statements at the time.
Thanks there is so much misinformation flying with respect to this conflict it can be hard to make sense of things. But the fact that several respected authors I had read on this election did not mention it made me skeptical.
You’re a liar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#2006_legislative_elections
It’s sad you have all those upvotes while spouting lies, but it’s another reason why what’s upvoted is not necessarily correct.
Maybe the upvotes have nothing to do with the statement about how Hamas was elected, which is frankly not that interesting, and everything to do with the fact that the commenter correctly identified Hamas as a religio-fascist organization. You can disagree without calling someone a liar. It is more conducive to conversation to assume that someone is mistaken or has different information than you do. Calling someone a liar is contrary to the spirit of good faith debate.
Lol, what? If someone is lying, then calling them out on it is good for debate.
Just going along with it is bad for debate. You got things backwards, bub.
It’s okay, though. I suspect you’re just a tribalist who twists his head in knots to do whatever will make you look good in front of the tribe.
I see it all the time and don’t expect more from you people at this point.
No, calling someone a liar is making an assumption about their intentions, which, in most cases, you do not know.
Sure, when you hear false statements from a public figure all the time, like Trump for example, you can eventually have enough data to conclude that he is a liar. Do you have that kind of data on the commenter you replied to? No? Well, then it is more appropriate to assume they are mistaken. At least in English, calling someone a liar is very, very aggressive.
Hey man, believe whatever you want and discuss however you please.
I disagree with what you’re saying and stand by my previous assertions.
Have a nice day.
Tough guy calling people names while hiding behind a keyboard. I loooove meeting guys like you in real life, LOL.