Reading about the reaction to the Palestinian election of Hamas is like watching a someone trying to make a rope out of beach sand.
Predictably, there has been a great surge of wordage from the usual suspects. Jonathan Steele of the Guardian was particularly odious, but certainly not alone on how this was a Palestinian cry for help, a `vote for change' and a vote against corruption that of course must be respected since it was democratic.
And, oh yeah.. being in power is going to make Hamas more pragmatic, will modify its violent agenda and make it less prone to terrorism.
Funny, these were the same people who told us that putting Yasir Arafat in power was going to make him more pragmatic, modify his violent agenda and make the PLO less prone to terrorism.
Let's have a look at this, shall we?
Some of these apologists might think that the `Palestinians' voted for Hamas because they were `upset about corruption'.
Well, some did, but most of them voted for Hamas because they were frustrated at the lack of progress in the War Against the Jews, and wanted a change in that regard. And Hamas made no bones about promising that.
14 convicted terrorist murderers ran for the PLC from prison cells and got elected, including Marwan Barghouti, the head of Fatah's list. It's hard to be more nihilistic than to vote for a convicted murderer behind bars to represent you.
And expecting Hamas, an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood to change its ideology is to expect it to eliminate its primary reason for existing. It won't. At best, expect a short-lived truce until Hamas consolidates power and the next phase of the War Against the Jews is ready.
I like this election. It was indeed democratic. It clarifies things. There was never much difference between Hamas and Fatah anyway, and the mask has fallen off.
And the apologists for Islamic terror will have to decide whether they are on board for Hamas' racist, violent agenda in the name of political correctness or not.
Their excuses will no longer wash.
No comments:
Post a Comment