A question

One of the problems of having a blog is the temptation to write about things you don't know that much about. For me Israel and Palestine is certainly one of those issues. While my belief in self-determination gives me a starting point for my analysis, I've never felt like I had a very firm grip on the facts, which makes my analysis not that important (for instance I didn't figure out till really recently that the West Bank was in the East, and the west referred to the bank of the river - feel entitled to ignore everything else I say, because that is pretty monumentally stupid).

So instead of a big comment on the results of the Palestinian elections, I'm just going to ask a question: I've heard lots of Is there a logical argument for the claim that a party with a armed wing, which operates outside the country, can't participate in government/parliament?

If you think representative democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread, then I can understand the logic behind the argument that a party that is participating in armed struggle within the country should not be part of parliament. You should choose between the two different ways of trying to get power.

But there are lots of parliaments/governments that are all about armed struggle in other countries. Hamas is directing its armed goal at Israel not at Palestine. If, by voting for Hamas, the people of Palestine are endorsing that armed struggle. How is that different that the re-election of George Bush endorsing the Iraq invasion?