The advancement of financial penalties upon granting Hamas, the elected Palestinian government, the political chance to prove what they have promised will better serve Hamas and will not, as many imagine, harm it. In that case, Hamas will resort to the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt that will provide it with financial aid, exactly as other movements did before. The society of Islamic activists would not spare one dollar in supporting the Palestinian movement, Hamas that it would not find much difficulty in raising a billion dollars, which is the sum that Hamas needs to sustain its employers for the rest of the current year.

Opposition movements and discarded governments are in search of a challenging battle, and here comes the battle of Hamas. Hamas has huge financial reserves and this has been proven in the past, besides a successful historical record of collecting sums of money for cases they support.

Threatening Hamas by the freezing of financial aid that has been granted to the Fatah government previously, will further drive Hamas members to call for support and will help other parties in their claims that they fell victim to international conspiracies against them. Therefore, an attempt at cornering Hamas will transform the movement into an invincible local and regional hero.

Here we must seek to analyze the dilemma that came with Hamas’ electoral victory. The dilemma could be regarded from two main aspects; a legal one and a political one. Politically, it seems that prohibition of financial aid granted to Hamas aims at weakening Hamas as a movement, and such a goal serves a number of other parties that are against the Hamas movement. From a legal perspective, there are obligations upon all forms of administrations, whether they are corporations or states. These legal obligations include that whatever documents and pacts are signed by any administration are binding to future administrations. Thus, Hamas has no right in refusing previous pacts by former Palestinian governments as long as it agreed to be in charge of the political process. Chaos would have spread throughout the world if all administrations would refuse what their preceding governments had agreed. Despite the protests and threats of Sharon, Israel could not send Palestinians back to Tunisia, as Israel is bound by the Oslo Accords even though Sharon himself had not signed this treaty.

Hamas can say whatever it wants, but at the end of the day, it must commit to previous treaties. That is the reason why Saddam Hussein’s argument was rejected when he unjustifiably broke a pact with Algeria that Iraq had signed along with Iran, on the pretext that the treaty was unfair. Signed treaties are to be respected regardless of any objections to them, however, the new Palestinian government has the right to resume what is left of issues to be negotiated from its own political outlook and it has the full right to refuse any new treaty that does not correspond with its own orientations.

I believe that the Hamas leaders are much wiser than to get involved with external movements that endorse a trend of rejection. These movements have their own considerations that could better serve their goals in their local and regional agendas.

The western party had illustrated foolishness in its eagerness to reject the endeavors of Hamas before they even came to power. We are in a state of a deteriorating political stance that is taking place in a central location of events, and in a region that contains people of various conflicting causes who claim to support the Palestinian case but only to serve their own interests. Hamas has an exceptional chance and an important endeavor through which it can accomplish the dreams of Palestinians that had been set on so many agendas of so many governments and nations, but achieved nothing except a long history of failing attempts.