The possibility that Hamas may evolve in the short term is an illusion. Unlike Israel the fact that there is no "Palestinians for Peace" movement amongst that population makes Hamas' need for evolution less an imperative. Sharon finally realized that there was a demographic time bomb that he could do nothing about. There was already a large part of the Israeli population who were more than willing to compromise.

The Palestinians have been brain washed with anti-Semitic propaganda for decades. Recall that there is no place for an infidel state in the midst of the caliphate.

What will make Hamas evolve is pressure from a unified West, including Europe and the USA, and what happens with the other experiments in democracy in the area.

Hamas will evolve because it has to provide Palestinians with security and economic growth and win elections. Period.

The Palestinians have been offered economic growth and been given security while under Israeli "occupation." Their "leadership" rejected or embezeled most of the aide provided and refused to build any businesses with the Israelis.

What makes you think that Hamas will ever stand for elections again? One man one vote one time is the likely stand of the Hamas leadership. It is a shame that the Palestinian people have been highjacked by the most radical elelments of their society. People who are so motivated to kill others by their own suicide are not likely to embrace any possibility of compromise with an enemy (of Islam).

Palestinians want elections. They'll get them.

OJ, your contention would carry a lot more weight if the territories today looked like 1921 in Germany, rather than 1930-33. Absent the lack of a strong central figure, life in 'Palestine' has more in common with a post-Depression milieu than that of a pre-boom. Though I would like to be proven wrong.

And even you aren't going to argue that the most radical elements in the terror crowd are willing to sit out the perceived weakness in Israeli politics (following Sharon's collapse). If Hamas is going to wrap itself under an Iranian umbrella (as seems likely after last week's meeting in Tehran), then Ehud Olmert better be made of some pretty stern stuff.

jim:

Obviously the fact that the Palestinians have been denied statehood warps the situation and makes them not unlike post-WWI Germany in terms of their inferiority complex and resentments.

Yes, I'd argue that no one who matters in Palestine is going to try and take on Israel. They need to talk tough for domestic consumption but need to deliver order and growth for the same reason.

Morry the palestinians weren't hijacked and for that reason Hamas' evolution won't be soon. But they better do something before the next election or there won't be one. Iran et al must come through with the bucks. What Hamas does with the money will finish the story, or at least the first chapter. Iran has the ball. Let's stay out of bounds, keep the EU out, and let the game begin.

What I really don't understand is why, granting all the terrible things people say about Hamas, they believe that Fatah -- Hamas with corruption and lying -- would be better.

Because the people saying it are secularists.

OJ:

True enough - the 'radical' nature of Hamas has scared a lot of people. Although it seems that Hamas is just as secular (in its own way) as Fatah.

Heard on Hannity during the drive home that the Saudis are planning to give Hamas $15 million a month.

There shall be no economic growth among the Palestinians because they are occupied and thier legal infrastructure has been decimated by the Israelis. There shall be no unified authority among the palestinians because they lack the security that is required to establish a real governing authority. The only successes the Palestinians have attained have been through violence. So when the US and its associates ask Palestinians that real negociation will come when they abjure violence, the palestinians rightlyl percieve a lie. The United States is respectful only of power. This is not a bad thing, in fact its very normal. But it does mean that in situations like this, the US makes a lousy peacemaker. For example, in the nuclear debate, the United States respects people who already have the bomb. So every country that is in any way threatened by the US will be trying to get a bomb as quickly as poss. Which is not what we want.

Its dumb and Kissinger did nothing to change this mode of behaviour. Why he is so respected, I do not know.

Which is why we need to take out a couple regimes that claim to have the bomb already.

Precisely my point. Respect is always given after the infraction. For example Iran: does not have the bomb and so admin officials say scarey things that upset the Iranians like "maybe we'll invade". This convinces Iranians that getting the bomb is a good idea. If Iran gets the bomb ( and I have no doubt that with our president they will ) then they will be instantly respected in the west. Suddenly we will be making friends. It is the lamest policy possible. But thats our George.

No, we'll stop Iran, but we need to do North Korea too, which claims to already have one.

It would be nice if you were right. But I really think that the present administration will put Iran in a position where they will make a deal with China, rather than buckle under to the west's disengenuous demands. They will end up with a bomb and strong ties to China. I just don't think GW has got the guts or the brains to do the right thing.

China can't handle its own problems or North Korea--they aren't going to take on Iran's. But if the Axis of Evil does firm out we just juke it out with them all.

exclab;

The flaw in your thesis is that the Palestinians haven't had any successes, only failures. Everything they've done has made their situation worse. As for the occupation being the problem, why couldn't the Palestinians do as the Iraqis (and particularly the Kurds) have / are doing? That's the contrast that shows just how self destructive the Palestinians have been since before they were Palestinians and how much of a failure their policy of violence has been.

AOG:

They've virtual autonomy, free elections, and broke the will of Israel to try and realize Greater Israel.

They've virtual autonomy, free elections, and broke the will of Israel to try and realize Greater Israel.

If this be victory, then it's certainly of the Pyrrhic sort.

You've argued that they've been given virtual autonomy so that Israel can pound them with impunity, it remains to be seen if they'll continue to have elections, free or not, and the Palestinians would have been four times better off being part of Greater Israel, rather than consigned to the garbage heap.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at February 27, 2006 9:50 PM

Terror was Fatah's weapon, and Fatah did very well with it -- other than the guys who got blown up, of course.

OJ has previously admitted that getting a state is of no benefit to the Palestinians, so I'm not sure why he is now counting virtual autonomy as one. As Mr. Herdegen points out, preventing Greater Israel was a loss, not a victory. And the Palestinians had a free election back in 1996 and went back to violence, so that doesn't seem to be something they value. That leaves ... a clean sweep of failures once again.

Fatah did have Arafat, who's celebrity in a perverse way gave him credibility with certain people in the West, which in turn allowed him to say one thing to Europe and the U.S. and another to the Palestinians, because too many people were more than willing to let him get away with it.

Hamas at this juncture has no one with the same sort of world-wide reputation Arafat had, which makes their leaders less interesting to the intellectual set that fawned over Yassir for all those years. It doesn't mean Hamas won't try the Arafat playbook, and try to schmooze the West with conciliatory words while continuing to preach war inside their borders, but for now its less likely the West will shut their hearing down and meekly fork over the cash the way they did for the better part of 30 years. And if Hamas doesn't get the cash to paper over their failings , it means they're actually going to have to govern, or force an inter-Palestinian civil war, to remain in power.

Michael:

The successful demand for self-determination has historically almost always been Pyrrhic -- leading to war, chaos, civil war, etc. -- not least our own.

But it's what people want. Palestinians are people.

AOG:

It was their goal and they achieved it. Intelligent design doesn't render smart results.

You all talk as though the Palestinians had choices. They don't have many. They have been alienated by one power after another and have always been kept off-balance. They have never had the chance to stop and organized themselves. Any recognition they have achieved has been the result of their violence against others. Violence against them is largely ignored until they do something terrible. From the day of the Balfour Declaration other people have been telling them what is good for them. When they don't embrace this parsiminous wisdom with absolute generosity they are called things I wouldn't call my worst enemy. I can not understand why anyone the Palestinians would trust anyone - even each other.

Of course they have choices. To pretend they don't is to degrade them as human beings. Choices have consequences, often beyond our own control.