Those closely watching events unfold in the Palestine/Israel conflict weren't surprised by Hamas' recent election victory. Hamas, after all, has a long history of being "of the people." In contrast, Fatah is often considered an "outsider" organization due to its years in exile.
Hamas rose to power in the refugee camps. Its members are often younger than the aging Fatah party and over the years have provided food, education and medical services to desperate Palestinians. Because of this, Hamas is not totally na•ve in matters of governing.

Most peace activist would like the different factions, Fatah, Hamas and other parties to form a healthy democracy. Only when the real problem is remedied, however, will true democracy bloom. That's when Israel pulls back to the 1967 Green Line and gives up its Greater Israel aspirations.

Due to Hamas' active military wing and their own power plays, Israel and the western nations are creating a smoke screen centered on Hamas' refusal to lay down their arms, to stop attacking Israelis and to accept Israel's right to exist. These points must be met or Palestine will be cut off from living-giving Western aid. Israel has already denied Palestine their share of tax receipts. It's upon examination of these bogus demands that Israel's hypocrisy becomes clear.

On the first point of bearing arms, according to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in a resolution dated February 14, 1992, the United Nations:

2. "Affirms the right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation by all means, in accordance withÉ United Nations resolutionsÉ as has been expressed by the Palestinian people in their brave intifada since December 1987, in legitimate resistance against the Israeli military occupation;

3. "Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to desist from all forms of violation of human rights in the Palestinian landsÉ and to respect the bases of international law, the principles of international humanitarian lawÉ

4. "Calls upon Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian territory, including JerusalemÉ in accordance withÉ the United Nations and the Commission on Human Rights in this regard."

What could be clearer than that?
Palestine, as an occupied country, has a legal right to defend itself against its occupier. If Palestinians give up their ability to protect their land by laying down their weapons, experience has shown Israel will intrude even further. Examples are the expansion of Israeli settlements and the assassinations of Hamas and other political leaders during peace negotiations.

More importantly, if Hamas were to lay down its arms, Palestine would, in effect, be surrendering. Isn't that what it means when only one side lays down its weapons and the other side keeps theirs? Israel certainly doesn't have any intention of disarming. Instead it's working actively to contain Palestinians behind a wall. Palestinians would be forced to accept an Israeli envisioned Palestine, a mere wisp of it's former self, surrounded by prison walls and slowly but surely being torn down and gobbled up by Israeli contractors.

On the second point of stopping attacks on Israeli citizens, let's examine the figures for deaths and injuries attributed to the conflict on both sides. While the dates don't match absolutely, the figures are close enough to see the trend.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, between Sept. 30, 2000, (Sharon's trip to the Al Aqsa Mosque) and Feb. 9, 2006, there were 3,808 Palestinian deaths and 29,432 injuries. According to the Israeli Prime Minister's Office from Jan. 1, 2001 to Dec. 31, 2005, there were 1,035 Israeli deaths and 4,308 injuries.

But even more amazing is Israel's demand that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist. Arafat and other Fatah officials did this ad nauseam for years. In the meantime, the Israeli government has prominent members who have called for the extermination of Palestinians and the confiscation of their lands. Consider what the prominent Likud Party has written into its platform.

"The permanent status arrangement [between Israel and Palestine] shall be based on the following principles: ÉThe Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan RiverÉ The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, Étheir activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.

"Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide JerusalemÉ The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan River will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel."

Boy, that attitude sure helps negotiations. Then, there is the question of Israel's continuing policy of assassination. In a letter dated Feb. 10, 2006, almost three weeks after the Hamas election victory, numerous Middle East human rights groups wrote to diplomatic missions in the area. The prologue to this letter stated:

"Human rights groups based in the occupied Palestinian territories are concerned regarding the intensified Israeli campaign of targeted assassinations of Palestinian activistsÉ the policy of targeted assassination 'not only circumvents the fundamental right to due process but also risks the further destabilization of an already volatile political situation.' With ten Palestinians killed in the last five days the human rights groups call on the international community to demand an end to the illegal Israeli practice and to ensure the respect of international humanitarian law. É'The international community must do all it can to break the culture of Israeli impunity and ensure the enforcement of international human rights and humanitarian law.'"

Perhaps the answer lies with a pragmatic speech given Feb. 2, 2006 at Cooper Union in New York by Shlomo Ben-Ami, concerning the Hamas victory. Ben-Ami was Israel's Foreign Minister under Ehud Barak (2000-01) and was at the Camp David talks.

"We should have changed our attitude when the second intifada came." Instead, he went on, Barak followed his predecessor's attitude of "we'll pursue negotiations like there was no terrorism and we'll fight terrorism as if there was no negotiations." Ben-Ami feels what Israel should do now is withdraw from Palestine. "Let us create rational bordersÉ But if we disengage from the West Bank we need subtle coordinationÉ Will we be able to do it with Hamas? I have my doubtsÉ A third party has to take over peace keeping in the territories." He also advised that rather than Israel being confrontational on the subject of recognition of Israel by Hamas, Israel should just allow acceptance of Israel to seep in as peace is reinstated and commerce between the two countries increases.