the war on terrorism not always black and white

Now to the more political... Today's NYT reports that Israel's interim PM says peace negotiations cannot succeed if Hamas is politically involved. This is more tricky than it sounds, I think. Yes, Hamas is most definitely a terrorist group (i.e., a group that has uses terrorist methods--in my view defined by targeting civilians--to send a political message); but are they not also, in large part because of the absence of a responsible state in the occupied territories, esp. Gaza, a social work and local governance organization? If, as such, they are really recognized by a fair number of Palestinians as their political representatives (this point is of course debatable), how can a sustainable political solution then be negotiated without their involvement? Hmmm.

While we're on the topic, I still cringe when I hear the phrase "war on terror"? It is first of all an even scarier way of saying "war on terrorism," which is in turn just a fight against a method of conflict. Shouldn't the U.S. government say what it really means, which is a war on armed islamism?