I would like to respond to Helen Ang's article entitled Black September: Path to violence .

I am perplexed by the writer's assertion that Hamas' recent election victory is a reflection of the violence-prone nature of the Palestinian people. Several questions come to mind: Is the writer saying that she knows Hamas better than the Palestinians themselves? Is she saying that Palestinians are fools and support violence by voting in to power a 'terrorist group'?

Could there be other possible explanations to this phenomenon? It may well be there are many enough ordinary and decent Palestinians who do not consider Hamas to be a terrorist organisation despite it being labeled as such by many pro-Israel countries and opinion-makers. Instead, the results appear to show that ordinary Palestinians recognise and appreciate the fight put up by groups such as Hamas towards Palestinian self-determination and independence.

Going further, the victory is vindication of Hamas' role in providing much needed basic social services to the impoverished Palestinian society as well as its reputation for having clean hands in the conduct of the local municipalities.

Ang's article seems to forward the view that groups that aim for the liberation of Palestine through force of arms are inherently criminal and terrorist in their outlook. Her examples only talk of events occurring after 1967 thus conveniently omitting the series of events and incidents that stretch all the way back when Palestine was a British Mandate.

Before talking about Hamas, the writer ought to have provided the chain of events that has led to the present situation and by first addressing the issue of the legality of Israel as a state. The state of Israel is a state imposed upon the Palestinians by the UN through UN General Assembly Resolution 181 in 1947. The UNGA Resolution 181, however, was never ratified by the Security Council. Moreover, the resolution is only binding if all parties to it agree to be bound by its terms, which in this case, did not happen.

Therefore, the state of Israel is an illegal state. And therefore, the Palestinians have every right to claim their land which was illegally given to Israel. Hamas' right to defend their home soil, to liberate their country from illegitimate aggressors is God given and unquestionable.

The writer also makes the outrageous claim that Palestinians remain stateless and displaced due to their "penchant for violence". The real reason for the Palestinian displacement is their inability to match Israel's capacity and capability to commit violence. The unstinting support given to the Israelis by the West means that the Jewish state can commit almost any transgression with impunity to the extent that it is also permitted to possess the world's sixth largest nuclear arsenal after China.

I am also perplexed by the hypocrisy shown by the West towards Hamas. Americans openly lent their support to the IRA and Sein Fein. Americans openly donated to that cause and Sein Fein leaders were almost always invited to attend St Patrick's Day parade in Boston. At the same time, the IRA detonated countless number of bombs in public places killing scores of innocent British civilians. But the Americans never came close to labeling the IRA as terrorists.

On the issue of Shabra and Shatilla, I find Ang's account of the story very one-sided. For one, most of her references are from pro-Israeli writers. Ang will never get a balanced view of the incident if she sticks only to pro-Israeli views while omitting other more credible accounts of the incident.

For instance, even the Kahan Commission report on Shabra Shatilla says: "We have found [...] that the Minister of Defense bears personal responsibility." (p104). The Minister of Defense is none other than Ariel Sharon.

It seems that Ang is not alone in deploying the 'painting of victims as terrorists' tactic. The Israeli government uses the same tactic and Ang is merely jumping on the bandwagon.

In sum, her article presents a distorted and unbalanced view of the Palestinian situation. Instead of illuminating the problem and offering an original analysis, the writer has chosen to cast her own slant to the events by offering a clichd viewpoint often used by neo-conservatives and Zionists to mask their illegal and immoral standpoints.

It is at best a half-baked and sloppy attempt at commenting on international politics and my suggestion to the writer is to spend a little more time on developing a more balanced view otherwise the end result will always be dismissed as lame and hackneyed propaganda.