Israeli blockade 'forces Palestinians to search rubbish dumps for food'

ddt said:
I have the impression that you have to add the results of all four rounds. The four rounds are not consecutive stages, as you have with, e.g., the French presidency, but it just means that the elections were not held at the same time in all municipalities - at least, I see in round 1 and round 2 different names of municipalities.

Moreover, the election law changed between rounds 1/2 and rounds 3/4. You'll note that the PDFs for rounds 3 & 4 mention vote totals for lists, not for individual candidates - under the new law, lists ran for the councils and the seats were allotted proportionally. I haven't read yet how the old law worked. Anyway, claiming that Hamas (or "Change and Reform") had a certain number of votes is going to be a gruesome calculation.


:) Well, it very well can be that I misinterpret things. The data presented doesn't look as clear-cut as with the presidential elections.
Click to expand...

yes its quite complicated. i dont even went true the rules and changes :s
 
BirdStrike said:
I'll tell ya what guys. I'm not your enemy, so while you are trying to find ways to negate the 2005 elections in Gaza I shall rely on the following links to support my position.


"Results collated by Reuters for the 118 seats on 10 councils showed that candidates from the Hamas list had won just over 65 percent in Thursday's ballot against nearly 30 percent for Fatah."


I can keep going if you want. But the thing is, I don't want to.
Click to expand...

Congratulations. You have found 4 different web sites that confirm that Hamas won 65% of the seats and one which makes a statement that is ambiguous, as it could refer to the percent of seats or the percent of the vote. Since no one else, not even the official web site, lists the vote totals, I think it is not unreasonable to assume they are reporting the same 65% of seats that everyone else is.

Of course, you have every right to continue to make a claim based on one ambiguous statement. We have every right to doubt it, as well as your objectivity.
 
DPU aka FIDA, runned together with the DFLP...
Click to expand...

(Yawn)

The "Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine" is one of the usual pseudo-marxist terrorist organizations. It has a long, long history of killing any Jew they can lay their hand on. To say that the DFLP, or parties who joined with it in an election, are for "democracy" because the word appears in the party's name is equivalent to saying that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is "Democratic".

It's just another terrorist organization trying to get votes for its particular method of Jew-killing, the usual situation in the Palestinian elections.

Sorry.
 
Skeptic said:
(Yawn)

The "Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine" is one of the usual pseudo-marxist terrorist organizations. It has a long, long history of killing any Jew they can lay their hand on. To say that the DFLP, or parties who joined with it in an election, are for "democracy" because the word appears in the party's name is equivalent to saying that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is "Democratic".

It's just another terrorist organization trying to get votes for its particular method of Jew-killing, the usual situation in the Palestinian elections.

Sorry.
Click to expand...

Not according to Wikipedia.
The DFLP has been largely unable to make its presence felt during the al-Aqsa Intifada, which began in 2000. The leadership is stationed in Damascus, and most of the DFLP organization on the Occupied Territories unraveled in the FIDA split. Its military capacity has been fading fast since the 1993 cease-fire between the PLO and Israel, which the DFLP respected despite its objections to the Oslo Accords.
Since the beginning of the second Intifada the DFLP has carried out a number of shooting attacks against Israeli targets, such as the 25 August 2001 attack on a military base in Gaza that killed three Israeli soldiers and wounded seven others[6][7]. However, its military capabilities in the Occupied Territories remain limited, and the refocusing on armed struggle during the Intifada has further weakened the organization.
The DFLP confines all its military activities to the Occupied Territories, and publicly argues against targeting anyone or anything inside the Green Line, saying Palestinians must fight only the occupation, not Israeli civilians.
On September 11, 2001, an anonymous caller claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks in the United States on behalf of the DFLP. This was immediately denied by Nayef Hawatmeh, who strongly condemned the attacks[8]. Although the accusations gained some attention in the days following the attacks, they are now universally regarded as false.[7]
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic said:
(Yawn)

The "Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine" is one of the usual pseudo-marxist terrorist organizations. It has a long, long history of killing any Jew they can lay their hand on. To say that the DFLP, or parties who joined with it in an election, are for "democracy" because the word appears in the party's name is equivalent to saying that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is "Democratic".

It's just another terrorist organization trying to get votes for its particular method of Jew-killing, the usual situation in the Palestinian elections.

Sorry.
Click to expand...

yeah skeptic we know, all palestinians above 3 years old have only one goal in live, kill all the jews.

funny is, i asked about the terroristic founders of the PPP and FIDA, but not about the DFLP, but i get alot of answers about DFLP.

it was claimed that only one party was not founded by terrorists.
it was not about if they are Democratic or not. dunno why you bring that up.

but hey, a good place to post your frustration.
 
The DFLP has been largely unable to make its presence felt during the al-Aqsa Intifada, which began in 2000. The leadership is stationed in Damascus, and most of the DFLP organization on the Occupied Territories unraveled in the FIDA split. Its military capacity has been fading fast since
Click to expand...

Okay, OKAY! It is an UNSUCCESFUL terrorist organization who didn't SUCCEED in killing Jews, lately.

funny is, i asked about the terroristic founders of the PPP and FIDA
Click to expand...

...which ran together with the DFLP in a united party. I think that shows us all we need to know about them, don't we? Or perhaps you'd say that if the Republican party went totally bananas and decided to form a unified "alternative party" together with the KKK and the American Nazi Party, you'd see nothing wrong with that.

Yes, I'm sure you won't.

But hey, you got to love the apologestics: the closest thing the Palestinians could manage to a "pro-democracy" and "peace" party (apart from one unsuccesful independent) is a party that:

(a) Has "Democratic" in its name,
(b) Is only joined with a well-known terrorist organization as part of its party, and
(c) Said terrorist organization had been unsuccesful in killing Jews... lately.

Yup, that's a real pro-democratic renouncing of terror right there... but I guess AUP and DC have to make the best of a bad lot, eh?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
Okay, OKAY! It is an UNSUCCESFUL terrorist organization who didn't SUCCEED in killing Jews, lately.



...which ran together with the DFLP in a united party. I think that shows us all we need to know about them, don't we? Or perhaps you'd say that if the Republican party went totally bananas and decided to form a unified "alternative party" together with the KKK and the American Nazi Party, you'd see nothing wrong with that.

Yes, I'm sure you won't.

But hey, you got to love the apologestics: the closest thing the Palestinians could manage to a "pro-democracy" and "peace" party (apart from one unsuccesful independent) is a party that:

(a) Has "Democratic" in its name,
(b) Is only joined with a well-known terrorist organization as part of its party, and
(c) Said terrorist organization had been unsuccesful in killing Jews... lately.

Yup, that's a real pro-democratic renouncing of terror right there... but I guess AUP and DC have to make the best of a bad lot, eh?
Click to expand...


are they against Democracy? or why are you so upset they use Democratic in theyr name? what exactly makes them undemocratic?
 
BirdStrike said:
I'll tell ya what guys. I'm not your enemy, so while you are trying to find ways to negate the 2005 elections in Gaza I shall rely on the following links to support my position.

"Results collated by Reuters for the 118 seats on 10 councils showed that candidates from the Hamas list had won just over 65 percent in Thursday's ballot against nearly 30 percent for Fatah."

I can keep going if you want. But the thing is, I don't want to.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can go on and it doesn't make it suddenly right. The Reuters statement above is (technically) wrong. Apart from the official election site DC gave, there's an obvious source everyone overlooked: the wiki page on the Palestinian Municipial Elections 2005. It also contains links to reports from the National Democratic Institute, a US organization that observed the elections.

The elections were not held in one go: there were four rounds at different dates, and each round different municipal councils were elected. Moreover, the election law differed between the different rounds.

The first round was on 27 January 2005 in the Gaza Strip, with elections for 10 councils. In this round, there were no parties, only "independent" candidates. You can see this if you open the PDF from the election site. So that's why my table lists 0 Hamas seats. All your (Birdstrike's) newspaper articles refer to this first round and claim that Hamas had won control of 7 out of these 10 councils, but technically this is untrue. These candidates may have fielded themselves on instigation of Hamas, they may have been active Hamas members or supporters, but they didn't run as a Hamas candidate.

Moreover, as far as I have studied it, the allocation of seats was based on a district system, so it very well may be that the number of Hamas-affiliated seats (NDI mentions 77 out of 118) does not reflect the number of votes.

So your claim about the overwhelming Hamas support is based on only one part of the election in which there were no formal party candidates; and moreover on the number of seats rather than the popular vote.

Let's also look at the other rounds.

The second round was on 19 May 2005 in the Gaza Strip. There were 8 councils in Gaza on the roster this time, and this time there were party lists. Hamas (under the name "Change and Reform") managed to get a majority in 3 of them, and no seats at all in 4. The 8th council, in Rafah, is not included in the list. The NDI report says its outcome was contested.

The third round was on 29 September 2005. There were no councils in Gaza on the roster.

The fourth round was on 15 December 2005. There were 3 councils in Gaza on the roster. In 2 of them, Hamas didn't get a single seat and in the 3rd, a large minority (6 seats of 13).

There should have been a fifth round in 2006 for the remaining councils, but this has been canceled due to the troubles after the Parliamentary Elections.

Conclusion: overall, the municipal elections were no landslide for Hamas as you depict. Hamas did poorly in the 2nd and 4th round, "Hamas" was only successful in the first round in which the candidates were not officially on a party list. Even if you disregard the "no party lists in round 1" phenomenon, with all the 0 seat results in rounds 2 and 4, I don't see how you realistically can get to an aggregate of 65% of the votes in all rounds combined. But you're free to do the number crunching yourself, Birdstrike: you're the one who raised the point, so the onus is on you to prove your point.
 
Last edited:
gdnp said:
Congratulations. You have found 4 different web sites that confirm that Hamas won 65% of the seats and one which makes a statement that is ambiguous, as it could refer to the percent of seats or the percent of the vote.

Of course, you have every right to continue to make a claim based on one ambiguous statement. We have every right to doubt it, as well as your objectivity.
Click to expand...


I reject the reality that the Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters present... and replace it with a list ddt made up which doesn't list the number of voters. (p.s. it was 5 different web sites gdnp, but don't let that get in the way of your reality.)


ddt said:
Well, I compiled a list of the various local authorities in the Gaza strip and the number of Hamas (or Change and Reform) councillors elected:

[That's not the number of voters, of course, but with these numbers it seems highly unlikely to me that Birdstrike's claim that Hamas achieved a 60%+ result in these elections were true.
Click to expand...


Once again, I reject the reality that the Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters present... and replace it with my own list. Man you guys are no different than truthers. Seriously. From now on I shall call you the Middle East Truthers.


:dl:
 
Dictator Cheney said:
what is their source?
Click to expand...

Look Dictator Cheney,

I was kind enough to find 5 different sources to back up my position. You, gdnp, and ddt reject the information provided by the Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters and came up with your own incomplete list!

Why did you guys do that? Because you didn't like the information those 5 sources presented. So I am done with you'all.

If the Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters aren't good enough sources for you, gdnp, and ddt, and you start making up your own lists as evidence.... well then you guys really are a Middle East Truthers.
 
Last edited:
BirdStrike said:
Look Dictator Cheney,

I was kind enough to find 5 different sources to back up my position. You and ddt reject the information provided by the Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters and came up with your own incomplete list!

Why did you two do that? Because you don't like the information those 5 sources presented. So I am done with you.

If the Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters aren't good enough sources for you and ddt, then you guys really are a Middle East Truthers.
Click to expand...

i just wonder what the source of Reuters was on 28 January 2005, the data they used to get to that 65%. It must be from the first round, and i cant find the numbers that would lead to that 65%. and in the article there is no source mentioned.

when the reuters number is correct, we should be able to find those numbers and come to the same result.

i dont deny that hamas won 2/3 of the seats, but i would like to look closer of the claim of 65% of the vote.

thats all.

and btw, i didnt make any list, i just searched for the exact data. and still im puzzeled how Reuters came to that 65%.
 
Last edited:
BirdStrike said:
I reject the reality that the Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters present... and replace it with a list ddt made up which doesn't list the number of voters. (p.s. it was 5 different web sites gdnp, but don't let that get in the way of your reality.)

Once again, I reject the reality that the Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters present... and replace it with my own list. Man you guys are no different than truthers. Seriously. From now on I shall call you the Middle East Truthers.
Click to expand...

Let's get this straight. You rely on second-hand information, from newspaper clippings. I used first-hand information: the results from the actual election site, and the reports from the observers of the NDI. And you call me a troofer?

I very much resent that. You owe me a big apology.

What your newspaper clippings amount to is: in the first round of the local elections, 2/3 of the seats in the Gaza Strip went to candidates supported by Hamas.
Not to "Hamas candidates". And not 2/3 of the popular vote. As you try to spin it. Your spin is like "Obama won with 2/3 of the votes", while he actually only had 55% of the votes. Or in the UK "Labour won with 60% of the votes" - no, 60% of the seats, but only 36% of the votes.

You might also read the summary on the wiki page:
Turn out was quite high. Over all, the local election showed Hamas relative strength and preparedness to deal with the block voting election system. One other side, it showed weakness and disorganization of Fatah and inability to understand the consequences of the voting system.
Click to expand...

To all lurkers, it must be obvious who here tries to get to the truth of the matter and who here only tries to put out propaganda slogans.

PS. Thanks should go to Dictator Cheney who provided the link to the Palestinian election office.

PS2. Birdstrike: if you're honestly interested in wanting to know the number of voters for Hamas or for candidates supported by Hamas, then you provide us with a list which those candidates are. If you're honestly interested, you put in some real work too, instead of a cheap googling of newspaper articles.
 
Last edited:
no need to thank :)

and afaik i am the only twoofer posting here atm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom