What is the problem with modern democracy? The United States insists on getting Israelis, Palestinians, and other interested parties to hold land for peace talks at the Annapolis Conference. President Mahmoud Abbas demands Eastern Jerusalem to be turned over to his illegitimate government while Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has indicated he is willing if Abbas promises peace and maybe even to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Why does our government persist in pursuing Palestinian self-government while ignoring the legally elected government of the Palestinians?
In January 2006, Palestinians held legitimate elections. The Palestinian people overwhelmingly voted for a Hamas government. According to Muqtedar Khan, professor of politics at the University of Delaware, the Hamas victory was "not only a rejection of corruption in the PA but also a reminder that the roadmap to peace has not alleviated the daily misery and humiliation that Palestinians experience." In 2006, Khan believed the Hamas victory "gave great credibility to Washington's claim that it is serious about democracy in the Middle East." He even acknowledged, "President Bush has not only enshrined Islam in the constitutions of two nations -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- he has paved the way to power for Islamists first in Egypt and now in Palestine."
Why then does the Bush administration have a problem working with Hamas? One reason is their place on the terrorist watch list. Another reason is its avowed goal of eliminating the state of Israel. According to the Israel press, Abbas has encouraged the same violent rhetoric under his control. Thus far, Abbas has not given concrete recognition to the legitimate existence of the Jewish state. Not recognizing the Jewish state is part of the long history of Muslim stated goal to destroy the Zionist state. If this is true, why then does the US persist in working with Abbas who harbors the same goal? He is a moderate is the official reason and the unofficial reason is that he is willing to play by globalist rules. Is it also because he is willing to meet with Olmert in Annapolis?
Because Abbas is willing to disregard the popular will, he was given support by the Israeli and American governments to stage the coup against Hamas, a coup he lost. His inability to regain control of Gaza actually precipitated his retreat into the West Bank. It must be doubted whether that violent turn of events was not partly staged. For how could a strong Palestinian government exist without occupying the West Bank? The war of big egos and political conflict with some disunity are always problems in politics, but Abbas setting up headquarters in the West Bank was necessary to move the two-state solution forward. That move served all liberal and globalist parties at the table where only the consummation of Resolution 242 is desired.
Even if the Hamas-Fatah conflict was not staged, the paternal globalists still exude only contempt for the democratic rights and will of the Palestinian people. The same contempt of any will contrary to the egos at the UN is reflected in the nearly complete disregard of the Israeli people's right to the land, security, and peace. A win-win solution does not really exist. It has been predetermined that only the dictates of the international beast will.
Read the Bible. In the end, a beast arises that rules the world. Like frogs, NGOs plague the world as they peddle the beast's legal and social influence. The good news is the beast is finally defeated.
Today, democracy and law means whatever those in power claim they are. The US Congress and federal courts provide a long history lesson of that reality, which Judge Bork calls lawlessness. Remember, the UN is partly a creation of US political elites who have been comprised mostly of lawyers. Therefore, it is no surprise that the same lawless practices prevail throughout the world. In the Palestinian territory, the legally elected representative government of the Palestinians is denied legitimacy because the globalists merely say so. Their front man's coup gives a pretense of legitimacy comparable to Israel's supposed occupation of pre-1967 lands of a pre-existent Palestinian people, which land they must now vacate-or else.