I agree that limits on peoples rights to vote is ‘abhorrent to democracy’, however they were still allowed to vote. Hamas were not allowed to campaign, but you concede that this was maybe understanadable. Well, if it was understandable, whats the problem? Should they have been restricted in all Palestinian areas? Or should Israel have let them campaign in East Jerusalem, and to hell with any security problems that this raises?

I don’t know the name of these independent international observers as you point out. I take that the message you took from Munich is trust nobody. Still, I fail to see how we have benifited by merely avoiding American back slapping over the ‘right result’ when the price we pay is having Hamas in power. The status quo may have been preserved otherwise, but only temporarily. The current situation has placed a fairly large obstacle in the path of progress being made to aid the plight of the Palestinians. In fact things might get worse, with America and Europe threatening to withdraw aid to the Palestinian Government.

A gloating press conference would be one example of the back slapping that would go on were the ‘right’ results achieved, such results would preserve the staus quo of punishment and terror of Palestinians, like I referred to in reviewing ‘Munich’ what is presented by international observers should be questioned. Are these the same international observers that cover suicide bombings extensively but ignore the mass killings orchestrated by Israel in response?

And i’m unsure whether avoiding a ‘gloating press conference from the White House lawn’ is a sufficently good trade for a Hamas led Palestinian Government.