By now we’ve all heard the January 25th results of the Palestinian elections. Hamas, recognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization, declares itself committed to the destruction of Israel and has now achieved electoral victory in Palestine. It’s time that we look at how our policies might have helped contribute to this outcome.

The United States has already donated almost $2 billion dollars to the Palestinian people, mostly through either the United Nations or various other international organizations. House Representative Henry Hyde, chairman of the Committee on International Relations, believes that “without question, continued assistance from the U.S. and other donors is essential to meeting basic human needs and avoiding a worsening of conditions in general.” That is without question, but what we should be questioning is whether or not it’s a good idea for us to be meeting their needs.

We do not believe a welfare state is good for America. The overwhelming support for welfare reform in the mid-nineties illustrated that Americans believe too big a safety net will result in individuals deciding they don’t have to try and better themselves. Why do we expect a different result in Palestine? But this is about more than just the Palestinian people; it’s also about their government, which is currently a terrorist organization.

Mr. Hyde hopes “that the leaders of Hamas will combine their new mandate with wisdom and compassion for their own people and avoid the exhilarating temptations of apocalyptic visions.” Why should they? Why waste energy trying to help Palestinians when there are countless caring international bodies ready to do it for them? We didn’t prop up Russia’s failed society in the midst of the Cold War, nor should we have as it would have allowed their dangerous government to hold on to power that much longer. Most Russian citizens weren’t involved in that government, they weren’t threatening our country. How come we weren’t as compassionate then and why didn’t we give them financial support? We didn’t because we recognized that to do so would have negative long term consequences. For just the same reason that a welfare state has  negative long term economic and social impact. Why, then, are we propping up terrorist societies in the midst of our so-called war on terror?

Every parent, rather I should say every good parent, knows there is a time when a leeching child must be cut loose for their own good. It might feel more compassionate to give them everything they need, but to do so means they will never learn to support themselves. The Palestinian government has learned they don’t have to support their citizens, as we will compassionately do it for them, allowing them plenty of time to work on their other goals – like the destruction of Israel.