US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared that a party cannot have "one foot in politics and the other in terror." The Quartet (US, EU,UN, and Russia) is already on record as saying that "there is a fundamental contradiction between armed group and militia activities and building of a democratic state."

The West insists that Hamas must recognise Israel's right to exist (not that Israel's existence is dependent on Hamas's recognition) and join the negotiating political process by first disbanding its militia.

While Hamas's rhetoric to destroy Israel needs to be excised from its political platform, one needs to explore the question as to why Hamas needs to resort to violence and why Hamas's violent activities are so popular among the Palestinians living in the occupied territories.

Initially Hamas targeted Israeli soldiers and settlers in occupied lands. The party later extended its operations to suicide attacks on Israeli civilians, justifying the attacks as retaliation for Israeli killing of Palestinian civilians. Hamas is believed to have offered on several occasions to the Israeli authorities that both sides refrain from attacking civilians, but the offers were rejected by the Israelis.

The problem with the West and its loss of credibility lies in the fact that while the West condemns Palestinian terrorism, it turns a blind eye to state terrorism incessantly practiced by the state of Israel.

Why else did Negroponte, the then US ambassador to the UN, refuse to vote for an Algerian resolution in the UNSC denouncing Israel for the murder of Hamas's spiritual leader Sheikh Yassin, unless the resolution described Sheikh Yassin as a terrorist?

The European media questioned the logic behind the use of state of the art weapons to kill a paralysed wheelchair-bound Sheikh Yassin as self-defense against terrorists. The Europeans to a greater degree than the Americans had described Israel way back in 2003 as the greatest threat to global peace. Stung by this description by the Europeans, Israel urged the European Union "to stop rampant brainwashing against and demonising of Israel before Europe deteriorates once again to the dark sections of its past."

Israeli delusion about global "support" of its genocidal behaviour resides in its arrogant and "inerrant" belief theorised by Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, that Palestine was "a land without people for a people without land." Therefore Israel continues to believe that extra-judicial killings of unarmed Palestinians (including women and children) are justifiable self-defense measures against interlopers.

The terrorist acts of 9/11 which have defined world politics has intensified global debate on terrorism. It is uniformly accepted that terrorism can never be supported in any form and must be repulsed at any cost. It has become equally important to understand the root causes and the driving force behind the making of a terrorist.

Political analyst Khalid Shikaki traces the growing support for Islamic groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad's suicide bombings and violence against Israelis from "Palestinians' growing fear and thirst for revenge. Average Palestinians [are] feeling more and more threatened by Israeli imposed check points, curfews, and siege of Palestinian cities, and towns; by the separation barrier being built deep in the West Bank; and the continued Israeli confiscation and settlement construction."

Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was seen by many Palestinians more as a culmination of the war of attrition waged by Hamas than as a result of negotiations by President Mahmoud Abbas. The people were also frustrated by widespread corruption, cronyism, and mismanagement by the Palestinian Authority (PA) dominated by Fatah. This was compounded by factionalism in post-Arafat Fatah. The Fatah General Congress, the supreme body which elects the Central Committee and the Revolutionary Council, has not met since 1989, and consequently the powerful elements of the party apparatus continue to be dominated by the old guards.

According to a Middle East analyst: "The battle within Fatah is waged by multiple antagonists, not two (old guard and the new guard), meaning that rather than the possibility of a neat split, the fragmented party is facing the prospect of disintegration."

As opposed to Fatah's disintegrative personality, Hamas, an offspring of Muslim Brotherhood, cultivated the electorate through addressing their religious, social and cultural needs. Gaining the city halls in the municipal elections, Hamas affiliates started to deliver on their promises to the people. In addition to fielding some of the best talents, Hamas presents itself as honest public officials imbued with superior discipline and coherent ideology.

Hamas's long term policy, beyond the Peace Process, aims at replacing Fatah as the main political party in Palestine. Its agenda lays emphasis more on social and religious transformation than national liberation through armed struggle. Contrary to propaganda, Hamas has adhered to the truce with Israel over the past year and elected officials (in municipalities) have coordinated their activities with the Israeli administration.

Hamas finds the Western chorus to disarm as premature when the Palestinians are facing Israeli tanks and planes raining down death and destruction on a daily basis. If Hamas is allowed to form a government despite Western criticism of its militancy, the party can be expected to behave responsibly and devote itself to domestic issues, e.g. improve the quality of life of the people, reduce corruption, tackle lawlessness and let Mahmoud Abbas to deal with foreign affairs.

As it is, a solution to the Palestinian problem is not in sight, as Ariel Sharon for all practical purposes is destined to disappear from the Israeli political scene and his newly founded political party, Kadima, may find it difficult to hold on to the slim lead till the Israeli general elections scheduled to be held in two months time.

President Abbas, Washington's favourite man in Palestine, has delivered very little since his election to the presidency. Being dubbed as Bush's man can be by itself the kiss of death for Abbas, and if non-performance is added to his record, then Mahmoud Abbas could become expendable.

Western threat to stop financial assistance to a Hamas-led government could destabilise the Palestinian Authority. The $1.5 billion budget is mainly externally sourced (more than half coming from European nations). Though US aid forms a small part of the total assistance package, preponderant US influence could stifle the financial flow to the PA, which either could force the Hamas to adopt a pliant attitude towards the West or could act as an incendiary element fuelling further anti-US feeling and show up the hollowness of the American advocacy of democracy but flouting the wishes of the Palestinians expressed through their votes for the Hamas.

The US hard-liners who reject the Hamas victory argue that building a genuine democracy needs more than elections. It requires supportive role of civil society, rule of law, and protection of minority rights against the tyranny of the majority. They argue that a democratic political party must disavow violence, intimidation and terrorism. Hamas's popularity alone should nor be regarded as sufficient to merit the recognition of the Bush administration.

The hard-liners who continue to look at the Palestine issue through the Israeli prism and that of historian Bernard Lewis's millennial rivalry between Islamic and Judeo-Christian civilisations should take note of an emerging trend throughout the Middle East and possibly beyond "of a shift towards religion based Islamist parties" as a revolt against the traditionally corrupt political class and system.

In Egypt, candidates for the Muslim Brotherhood (who ran as independents due to ban on religious parties) did significantly well in legislative elections. In Iran, a puritanical ideologue has been elected president. In Iraq, secular Bathists have been replaced by conservative Shias. Municipal elections in Saudi Arabia saw significant gains for conservative religious candidates. In Turkey, the ruling party has Islamic orientation. In Pakistan, successive military regimes sought to promote an Islamist agenda as bulwark against comparatively less Islamic-minded political parties. In Bangladesh, not only are Islamists part of the government, but violence wrought by Islamists portends ominous signs for the country's future, inviting Western concern.

Perhaps the world at large may wish to face up to the possibility that the Islamic world may not seek liberal democracy, considered by Francis Fukuyama as constituting the "end point of mankind's ideological evolution" and "the final form of government."

Islamic values could be fundamentally different from the religious and social, if not political values, nursed by the West. The West, contends Yale Professor Paul Bloom, is no less wedded to religious fundamentalism. It has been found that more than half of the supporters of a major political party in the US believe that God gave Israel to the Jews and that its existence fulfills the prophecy about the second coming of Jesus Christ.

In such a situation, the appeal of Hamas is more likely to increase, perhaps aided by Western efforts to asphyxiate the natural tendency of the Palestinians to free themselves from the Israeli yoke. Perhaps the most responsible course for the West would be to invite Hamas for constructive engagement and gradually lead the party to disarmament, while at the same time to encourage Israel to negotiate both with Hamas and President Abbas. Only then the world may find a solution to the decades old Palestinian crisis.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.