Hamas and Palestine

Dennis Prager has stated he's not that upset about Hamas winning the elections in the Palestinian territory. It may not be what he'd prefer, but at least it's now clear where the country stands.

Max Borders makes similar points:

With clarity comes responsibility

In fact, it will now be easier politically for Israel to do what it must to protect itself. Now that Hamas is “legitimate,” Israel can simply defend itself against Palestine instead of a murky Palestinian faction – and such would be justified even under international law. Israel is no longer dealing with a terror group hiding behind an enfeebled Fatah.

They’re dealing with a government that has been elected upon an existing right of self-determination – even if it determines itself to be a terror state. And real states (elected by a real majority) may legitimately get their clocks cleaned if they commit acts of war against other states. This may be the clarity the region needed. In the short term, it may mean all out war. In the long term, it may bring some finality to things in a place that has seen only a series of wars and intifadas anyway.

But isn't democracy supposed to be a good thing? Not necessarily.

Democracy: Four wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

What a nation decides to do is far more important than how the decision was made.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, Hitler was democratically elected.

On a related point, this might be a good opportunity to revise our manner of speaking about the spread of democracy. In short, we must take greater pains to emphasize “the rule of law” and “democracy” simultaneously.

And while we're at it, "the rule of law" works better if it's the rule of good law.

In a September, 2004 blog entry, I mentioned, among other criteria for "success" in Iraq,

Non-violent social field

(This will take years, possibly a generation or two.) The society must adopt a – zeitgeist, if you will – which considers violence to be something completely separate from other methods of settling disputes. When violence is initiated, the initiator has crossed a line into an area that is not part of the social norm. In this way, the mental and emotional barriers to violence are strengthened.

(That entry is the fourth of a series, addressing questions about the Iraq war. It, as well as parts two, and three, are well worth revisiting.) (IMAO, YMMV)

If Palestine democratically chooses to become a wolf, with Israel as the putative lamb, it will have failed. If it can somehow transform its social field into a peaceful, liberal (in the original sense) one, it will have succeeded.