Soccer Dad has already revealed the blatant inconsistency. Meryl has already explained the obvious contradictions. Boker Tov Boulder has already pointed out the flat denial.
What more is there to say about this repugnant WaPo editorial?
Having prescribed democracy as an essential condition for a Palestinian state, the Bush administration can hardly stand in the way of electoral participation by a movement that represents a large fraction of Palestinians. It must hope that Hamas eventually will embrace democracy as the sole means of advancing its agenda, rather than as a mere tool to prevent its own disarmament or any Palestinian concessions to Israel, and that it will feel obliged to moderate its tactics and agenda while serving in government. Whether or not that happens, a Palestinian Authority backed by Hamas may be able to restore a semblance of order to Gaza. In the dismal present circumstances, that would be a step forward.
What kind of myopia gives rise to an editorial like this? Let's back up the page a bit to one of the faulty premises underlying this fantasy.
The voting's greatest beneficiary is likely to be the Islamic movement Hamas, which is participating in a Palestinian national election for the first time and expects to win control of at least a third of the legislature. If denied that chance to gain power, Hamas would likely return to open war against Israel and maybe against the Palestinian Authority. The hope offered by the election is that it will lead the Islamic movement further down a political path that could eventually lead to its disarmament.
If terrorist groups are given a chance at political control, the argument goes, they will ultimately prefer the power of the ballot box to the power of the sword (or, in this case, the explosive belt). I only wish I had time to collect the dozen or so articles debunking this myth that I've read over the past several years, many of them in The Middle East Quarterly. Judith Miller is one of those who has long championed the notion that militant Islamists could be co-opted by political power, but the following quote from the Conclusions of her 1996 book "God Has Ninety-nine Names" (reprinted in the MEQ as "Fundamentalist Islam at Large: A Cresting Wave") puts the lie to its own premise:
Lebanon's Hizbullah has evolved from a group of holy warriors who fight Israel into a political party, however unorthodox, that still fights Israel but which now also controls the largest bloc of seats in Lebanon's parliament. While denouncing Christian dominance in Lebanon, Hizbullah works closely with some Maronite Christians to thwart growing Sunni Muslim influence. The men who once kidnapped and tortured Western hostages in the Bekaa Valley are now inviting Westerners to return to Baalbek as tourists.
She goes on to say (remember, this was in 1996) that "The current wave of Islamic militancy seems to me at least to have crested, . . .."
Did the political ascendancy of Hizbullah in Lebanon represent the sort of "step forward" that the Washington Post envisions will result from a Hamas victory (or even participation) in tomorrow's elections? Is it an attractive model? If the men who once kidnapped and murdered Western diplomats in Gaza are next year inviting Westerners to tour the ruins of Gush Katif, so what if they're also launching rocket attacks and mortar shells into the Negev and Ashkelon and suicide bombers into Beersheva and Tel Aviv?
The same myopia that led Middle East "experts" back in 1996 (five years before 9-11) to predict that the wave of Islamic militancy had already crested is today guiding the editors of one of America's most influential newspapers. Read it and weep.
