u235

An oversimplification would be to say the newly elected government of Palestine has one hand outstretched for alms and the other waving a large caliber gun. It's completely understandable to me that First-World nations are queasy with the thought of their dollars going directly into the savings accounts of potential suicide bombers. But before delving into this - back up a sec, is there a place where the US went wrong in pushing it's view of democracy?

For some reason America is lead to believe that democracy is the solution to all the world's woes. I personally am not so sure about this. Taking a look at the places where democracy has been a recent imposition, certain social structures have not been quite so ready to adapt. And the results have been, well - sure disappointing from the pov of our cosy section of the world, but less than beneficial to those on whom it was imposed. Is Russia better off? As a Nation? As an individual in the population? What about Afghanistan? Is employment up in those nations? Is there more peace and stability? You don't need me to answer that. Not if you read the news on a regular basis.

Lets look more directly at the Fertile Crescent however. A democratic process that "We" the US has pushed resulted in the election of a quandary. The Palestinians decided they didn't want Fatah, they wanted Hamas. Overwhelmingly. For whatever their reasons, this wasn't a radical handful - this was a clear and distinct message. But Hamas has its basis in fundamentalist roots, espousing the destruction of Israel and violent death over discussion. There is simply no way that the sugar daddies that have spent billions to keep the machinery of the Palestinian state moving will fund that message. No way, no how. So what happens next?

Two easy scenarios come to mind: 1. Hamas pulls an about face, much in the style of Sharon himself, and decides to shake hands with the devil. They renounce terrorism and acknowledge the existence of Israel in exchange for legal recognition within the international community. They basically trade bombs for business suits - bad boy all grown up and ready to get married and support a house, a wife and a family.

2. They decide to stick to who they are, and their message. The money dries up and they find themselves clinging to the neck of a runaway horse. How do you control people if you can't pay them to do their jobs? You can threaten to shoot them, but if you don't have money for bullets, much less medicine or food, you can't wield a hella lot of influence, can you?

You have to wonder what the voters were thinking. I don't think they understood that the only reason they have a government is because the rest of the world is willing to pay for it. Yes, they made their point, but the people they elected can't do the job they were elected to based on the platform they were elected from. Someone, somewhere will have to change. What will be most interesting in this show-down will be to see who twitches first. Given the fact that they are out of money now, today, there's not a lot of time for them to decide if they'll be negotiating from a chair in a meeting room, or from a sandbag in a bunker.