Hamas and Fatah are the two militias/mobs/political parties competing for cotnrol over the west bank and gaza strip. Fatah is the more peaceful, progressive, unIslamic militia. This is of course in relative terms. Hamas is the more militant and Islamic one. It is the one that refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and wants to stone unfaithful child brides to death in the street. There is a fucntioning democracy and Fatah has been very successful. However, Hamas won the last election. Abu claims that this validates his view that the people are supportive of Sharia law. However, experts agree that it is more to do with corruption in Fatah. Any political party that holds power for too long inevitably becomes corrupt. Hamas did not win by having popular support for their policies, but by being the only viable alternative and waiting for the inevitable.

To suggest their victory means that Palestinians support Sharia law is like claiming that Australians support Laissez-faire capitalism every time the coalition wins, then claiming they all changed their mind and now support communism whenever Labor wins. Islam does not even allow democracy or political parties, so to suggest that a democratic victory supports Sharia law is like saying the people voted for dictatorship. What do you think would happen if hamas used their fifteen minutes to suspend democracy?

I second that Calanen.
What would the do?
Nothing!