Centerfield

If that is the government those people really, really want, then they have a right to them. The artificial forces we and others have used to prop up "right-thinking" Middle Eastern governments over the decades have generally failed miserably to contain radical Islamist movements. We tried mighty hard to prop up the Shah, and look what happened.

In any event, the non-democratically-elected regimes in power throughout much of the Middle East (Syria, Iran, Libya, to name a few) are already state sponsors of terrorism. I wouldn't like to see Egypt run by an Islamist government of course, but it wouldn't be the absolute end of the world.

And it would make the conflicts more open and obvious. While the previous Palestinian government could argue that it wasn't terrorist, a Hamas-led government can make no such claim. Actions by Hamas will, in effect, become actions by the government of Palestine. So Hamas bombings are no longer acts of terrorism but acts of war. No fig leaves to hide under. And if civilians are harmed in the inevitable retaliatory strikes, well, the people (generally) voted to put that bunch in charge, knowing their policies and beliefs, so the people are not without culpability.

Finally, the theory that democratization will reduce terrorism does not predict immediate positive results. It simply says that the secret to long-term peace and stability for any country is democracy. No overnight miracle cures promised.

Al Capone said "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than with a gun alone."

Hamas did a great job of winning hearts and minds with dramatic humanitarian projects.

Fatah meanwhile seemed to lose hearts and minds with a persistant image of corruption.

I hope that Hamas will be humbled by the responsibilities of governance and reach out for support.

Let's see how fast they learn that it is far easier to destroy than to build.

Pat's right in that the democratization of Middle Eastern states was never seen as an immediate solution to the problems that breed jihadist extremism-- it has always been considered the long-term solution.

This is actually in line with the writings of most scholars of democracy and democratization. Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder, for example, argued several years ago that while Democratic Peace Theory is nonetheless valid when applied to established liberal democracies, the empirical evidence also demonstrates that states in the democratization process are actually far more war-prone than democracies and autocracies. They recently revisited this point in the most recent issue of The National Interest, and have a book, Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War, that came out last summer.

The recent ascension of Hamas does nothing to refute the necon belief (which, by the way, was originally developed by DPT scholars supporting the Clinton Administration's policy of "Enlargement") that democracies and democratization are the long-term solution to international violence and war. Of course, this doesn't make it "settled law" (numerous scholars continue to refute its general premise) but using the Hamas case as evidence doesn't make much sense since it wassn't meant to be a short-term solution.

Insightful comments.
I am reminded that the reason why the Holocaust stands out among other acts of genocide is that Germany was one of the most advanced Civilizations in human history. And they found a way to rationalize so many different acts of inhumanity and horror.
The attraction of Democracy is that more hearts and minds are involved in decisions which we all hope will eventually promote empathy, mercy and a desire for stability.

I saw an article this AM on precisely the same subject, that democracy may not lead to peace, but may instead fail, be careful what we wish for, etc.

There's an element of truth in this. But I regard the topic's rise as an opportunity to help people to understand the argument for democracy in better detail.

Democracy provides little more than a suggested path for hope, for opportunity for everyday people, One election is merely a transient democratic moment. If that results in an immediate rejection of democracy, and democracy itself is not actually tried on for size and tested for efficacy, what does that count as?

It is as Pat says, a method that has shown the ability to produce peace, stability, and opportunity, when practiced with a bit of faith and patience.

Looking at this from a 30,000-foot elevation, I would note that the dynamic until now was not working. The Palestinian-Israeli situation was going almost nowhere. While the change that this election brings my look very bad on the surface, particualarly in the the short term, perhaps major change in general will prove to be a good thing in the long run. Maybe Hamas will evolve for the better. Maybe this thing comes to some inevitable, ugly head, given the failings of human nature, allowing some later resolution that otherwise would never have been possible. I hope something good comes of it. I'm sick of hearing about this unending conflict.

I imagine that the Palestinians and Israelis are tired of it also, but just as our only viable choice was between Bush and Kerry. The Palestinians had Hamas and Fatah. What a sucky choice!
They knew Fatah was corrupt so they went Hamas.

I have to wonder if they have the same atmosphere in Gaza as we do here. I see a similar polarized stereotypes

Republican = Religion = Hamas
Democrat = Sectarian = Fatah

Does Gaza even have a centrist movement? The things I've heard about how Fatah governs kind of implies that the reason Hamas could mount a campaign is that they were as well armed as Fatah.

What a mess!

I think Pat raises an important point. In one respect the victory of Hammas is a potentialy positive step....it removes the "fig" leaf.

As long as Hamas was the opposition party, the PA could try to play it both ways. In negotiations they could pay lip service to decrying terrorist activities and opposition to "extremist" groups.... all the while tolerating and even tacitly supporting such activities to put more pressure on Israel and gain leverage in the negotiations.

Hamas could engage in terrorist violence without the PA ever having to answer for such actions. Now that Hamas IS defacto the PA they can't ask people to "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" anymore. Either they'll have to moderate thier position to accept the peace process....which means convincing thier base about the legitimacy of such a position..... or they'll have to put thier money where thier mouth is and engage in open war against Israel..... which means Israel gets to take the golves off it's millitary....... which means the PA gets wiped off the map.

The Palestinians are finally going to have to face the consequences of thier support for groups like Hamas.... for good or ill.

Right. Since Hamas has been "given what they wished for," governing is their responsibility. Much harder to do than complaining. Hopefully, this is where the democratic learning begins.

Right now, there are some members of Hamas who believe that they have been elected because they took a hard and uncompromising line against Israel. but there are also some who are speculating that they won because they put food in mouths and roofs over heads and books in kids hands, and so on. Bottom line? The fed, clothed, and educated may feel that there is less to blame Israel for. Going forward, The fed, clothed, and educated may have more desire for the continuation of food, clothes, and schools than for exterminating the Zionists.

And Hamas has the option (although I think them unlikely to take it up any time soon) of a "Nixon in China" moment. If Fatah had actually made something like peace with Israel, Hamas would have been there to trash them for it. But if Hamas were to do so, Fatah is hardly in a position to criticize them for doing what Fatah at least claimed to be working towards for decades.

Blind optimism? Probably. But one of the few hopeful possibilities in the mix.

It is not as simple yes or no for democracy. To reduce such complicated political problems, like those in Israel, to that false dilemma is to spout political rhetoric. Democracy is no guarantor of peace, let's recall that Hitler arose out of a democracy. I mean I think you're begging the question of what is meant by the term democracy.

By the Bushies & Co, "democracy" is a euphemism for a "free market" ideology. Fact is, truly free markets have not existed since the depression. And for good reason: they don't work. When Bush uses phrases like "free markets," he means that nations need to open their borders to our corporations. The corporations want to sell their goods to, build factories in, and extract resources from these countries. The problem is U.S. corporations, generally speaking, have a lot more money than the domestic corporations. This makes it very difficult for the domestic corporations to compete. Its kind of like the family-owned hardware store trying to compete against Wal-mart. On the other hand, when it seems that the market forces won't favor U.S. corporations, then the U.S. implements protectionist policies, such as agricultural subsidies and the like. (Actually U.S. corporations is a misnomer since many of these corporations are incorporated in other countries to avoid American taxes.)

Bush's purported "democracy" is a farce.