And the loser is.....?

One thing politicians do well is identify problems. Coming up with solutions to those problems is another matter.

In this case, the international community has brilliantly outlined a seemingly intractable position.

Hamas looks to appoint a hard-line administration, therefore, the Palestinian government will be defined as a terrorist state. They don't want to give money to terrorist states.

However, if the international community withdraws their generous aid, the results will be catastrophic.

The dismissal of large numbers of armed, trained police without pay creates security problems. The anemic economy would be hit hard, being heavily reliant on government employees as an artificial "middle class". (I think in this economy, bureaucrats are "upper middle-class"). These people will be let go and the effect will trickle-down. Small merchants will be hit and it creates "economic fallout". Most pointedly, delivery of basic services like water and electricity, will be severely diminished.

It will exasperate what is already a serious humanitarian problem.

So the international community, being self-declared and proven humanitarians, as well as non-supportors of known terrorist states, find themselves in the auspicious position of having to define themselves. Are they primarily concerned with international security (and specifically this particular security doctrine), or are they primarily concerned with economic and humanitarian issues?

In poker terms, this is call. In Oscar terms, the envelope please.

Once again, they have succeeded in identifying the problem. Once again, easy answers are nowhere to be found.