I read the article Black September: Path of violence by Helen Ang who tried very hard to express her understanding of the Palestinian issue in commenting on the landslide victory of Hamas in the recent Palestinian election. Unfortunately for her, the article depicted the issue of Palestine from the basis of a typical Western mindset.

As the usual Western terms were there, 'violence', 'radical', 'terrorist', 'black', 'murder', as well as other connotations supposedly explaining the plight of the Palestinians. I was particularly annoyed by her conclusion, and I quote, "That Palestinians chose a radical guerrilla movement to form their next government shows their true colours ...".

What is this? Who is Ang to accuse the Palestinians of radicalism and supporting violence? The Palestinians went through a tough time but Ang doesn't mention why they reacted in such a way as to form their own unique struggle.

Palestine is today what it is due to the superpowers balancing their acts in the interest of their policies in the Middle East. It is a well-known policy for the West to maintain the state of Israel in the midst of the Palestinian homeland to serve the superpowers' interest.

One more issue on the Hamas victory which Ang failed to comment on was that the Palestinian people were not choosing between two radical movements but that they were actually choosing between a party soaked in corruption and a party with a clean image.

The people wanted a leadership with hands clean from corruption and one that would enable them to obtain the right to self-determination, self-pride and dignity against the Zionist aggressors. Can this be said to be choosing radicalism?

The Palestinians' plight is a plight of all humans who posses dignity and pride. Only with this mindset will we do justice in understanding the latest developments in Palestine.