The western, Israeli or American sword did not kill the Palestinian case, where Hamas is the one that paralyzed it by the clashes of its un-national goals, where it came to the authority to get a way to the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations to acknowledge the Palestinian Country to go out of the useless discussions with Israel. The enemies of everything Palestinian yesterday such as Britain and France, may not vote in the Security Nation against the Palestinian request, and the ultimate support to Israel is starting to draw back in its positions by acknowledging the rights of people that were exiled by a conspiracy and invaded by another, meaning that the list of the supporter to the Palestinian case is getting bigger, and that transferring it to the United Nations will give it a big momentum by achieving this goal. If great powers in the United Nations, and an international viewpoint supports and sympathizes with Palestinians, directing its general feeling against the violations that Israel continued to commit despite its contradiction with the international legitimacy, the strangeness comes from Hamas's position that didn't find an exit that justifies its opposition except that Mahmood Abbas, the president of the country, didn't take its opinion, and in this situation, is the conflict is only on taking a national step that is not opposed by the people should be stood against because of this justification? And if the president got an international acknowledgement for this country, will it contradict with Hamas's goals? Or is the case is more of personal and sect, meaning that Abbas's assumed victory will change the equation inside the Palestinian entity, where he'll take the political and social merits? Or an external guidance wants the division of the Palestinian front for regional aims regardless of achieving a necessary national benefit? Hamas's flaw is that its ideology comes parallel to the country, and if the positions were based on minimal clashes rather than major ones, then it's acceptable, considering that the problems are judged by the majority if there was a voting on a project, and in case of the Security Nation and United Nation, and proposing the Palestinian Country, where the clash here matches with Israel's position, which some Palestinian characters said by accusing hamas of this. Its not anyone's right to betray a side and show other of the Palestinian groups, but in front of this complex confrontation in huge international gathering a unity of those groups are required regardless of the overlapping views, because the necessity is what judge the achievement of the goal. Otherwise the clash on the position between the leaders that have maturity and experience and understanding the nature of the fight with the wild enemies assumes a change of the bases of this ideology that adopts false arguments, and goes always in a confirmed failure or unachievable promises. The international compassion didn't happen because Hamas fired missiles that strike any active or normal site inside Israel, rather a series of assaults, and the pictures that are spread everyday from the Palestinian land that the whole world is able to see because of the advanced technologies, and this reason was supposed to be used and invested as a matching point in the armless conflict with an armed country that has a continuous aggressive spirit, until the case is moved from the office of discussions to acknowledging a Palestinian government in the borders of 1967 A.D.
