wait, i thought democracy was letting people elect whomever they want...

so the new york times ran this article yesterday about how the governments of the united states and israel want to destabilize the palestinian government so that they'll have to call for new elections in order to get rid of hamas.
or t
ok, so i'm not all for hamas--they don't have an extremely good track record thus far, although they do build hospitals and schools and stuff in palestinian territories, which is more than can be said for israel. they're terrorists, yes, but so are we, and definitely so is israel, if we're trying to destabilize their government!

our current administration (gotta love 'em) puts a lot of emphasis on bringing democracy to the middle east. if a group is democratically elected, shouldn't we at least give them the chance to show that they're going to work through good government policies to have their needs met rather than terrorism before we shut them down? it is not democracy if we say, "you can have democratic elections, as long as you vote for the right people. otherwise we'll make you try again."

to me this seems to break down the whole idea of democracy! if hamas really does want to change their ways, don't htey have to get into governmental power? and if this power is taken from them when they have won it fairly, won't they just go back to terrorism, and probably be stronger than before because now people see that democracy isn't going to work?

it's infuriating!