The Feld-Blog

I am about to utter a disconcerting statement: “Bush said something intelligent.” That said, he also uttered a series of disturbing statements surrounding that intelligent one. All this confusion surrounds the recent Palestinian legislative elections in which Hamas won a majority of the seats – 72 out of a total of 132. The Israeli and American governments both contend that Hammas is a terrorist organization and as such are understandably reprehensive about the consequences of this election.

Here was Bush’s intelligent statement: he said that no organization party can be a partner in piece if there is an “armed wing” of its party. Good job. If part of the ruling party platform of the Palestinian government includes the military destruction of Israel, this obviously presents a formidable obstacle to the peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis.

On the other hand, Bush has staunchly stood by his affirmation that advancing the causes of democracy in the middle East will increase the security in that area and mollify the security threats this area poses to our own country. Well…so far the empirical evidence seems contrary to this point. Iran has elected a president who has openly called for the destruction of both Israel and America. The recent Iraqi elections gave a majority of seats to Shiites who haven’t exactly had positive effects on the internal relations between Sunnis and Shiites. Finally, the Palestinian elections have put a party into power who many think is a terrorist organization. Well Mr. Bush you are 0 for 3 in making me feel safer.

There is one interesting tac that should be discussed here surrounding the election of a Hamas government. Perhaps I am naïve, but their election may serve to temper their extremism. Before the election there was a great deal of chatter that Hamas didn’t want a majority of the seats. As a strong minority they could still set the moral and legislative agenda without also adopting the responsibilities of running a government responsible for the well-being of its citizens. As the ruling party, they must now focus the majority of their efforts on ruling their people rather than moving to destroy Israel and Israeli citizens. Though it may be idealism, I would like to think that this added responsibility could take the edge off of Hamas’ extremism.

In accordance with my theory above, Hamas has mentioned that although it has earned enough seats to rule without a coalition, it may seek to create a coalition government with some of the other parties. Lets see what they do with a coalition. They have stirred up their people for decades now. Now, in ruling them, Hamas will need to find a way to rope them in for fear of losing control and being perceived as a weak and ineffectual government. If they can’t rule effectively, they will lose the confidence of their people both in the civil/political spheres and in the military spheres which some claim are more aligned with terrorism.

There is much more to come on this point as I learn more on this topic and do more research, but these are my preliminary musings.