Is Hamas takeover so bad?

[shira]

Is Hamas takeover so bad?
Op-ed: Israel has much to gain by allowing Hamas terrorists to take over Judea and Samaria
Guy Bechor
Published: 09.16.10, 18:46

In the Israeli-Palestinian-American discourse, Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are presented as the last resort before the worst happens: A Hamas takeover of Judea and Samaria. This is the reason why both the Americans and Israelis cling to Abbas and to the talks with him. Yet would a Hamas takeover really be worse than the Palestinian Authority’s tricks and schemes against Israel?

What’s so bad about the new situation created in the Gaza Strip, which has almost no ties to Israel? If they fire at us from there, we fire back at them. If they don’t shoot, we don’t shoot either. Overall, the Hamas state provides Israel with stability: There is a master of the house there that can be presented with demands, just likeHezbollah in Lebanon, and the stability we get is much cheaper than what Abbas is willing to give us - at the price of a refugee flood, Jerusalem’s handover, and a return of the territories.

<snip>

We should now make it clear to Abbas: This is your and your administration’s last chance. If we fail to secure a quick agreement, where Israel’s demands are recognized, we shall unilaterally evacuate most of Judea and Samaria, annex the settlement blocs and Jerusalem’s Old City, and abandon you and your regime to Hamas’ and Jordan’s mercy.

As Abbas is in power today only because of the IDF’s presence on the ground, the implication of such move would be elimination of the Palestinian Authority by Hamas within a few weeks or months.

more...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3955246,00.html

[leveymg]

1. OMG - When did Ynet get a brain?

"There is a master of the house there that can be presented with demands, just like Hezbollah in Lebanon" - Precisely - What exactly is the point of negotiating with someone who doesn't even speak for the party in power? The appearance of negotiation is the point.

[ixion]

2. the word 'terrorists' in the sub-title discredits the aricle from the onset

Nothing is moving forward as long as both groups call each other "terrorist."

[RC]

3. Not Really

Both sides do engage in terrorism.

[ixion]

6. Indeed, but when talking diplomacy, it's not a good word to use

and in fact gets used far too often these days.

[stray cat]

4. Have they governed well and bettered the lives of their country's people

Improved education possibilities etc.

[azurnoir]

5. nice thought except for one detail

where does the water for the settlement blocs and the old city come from?

[aranthus]

7. There's more than one detail, but that will do for a start. n/t