Here is an at least somewhat better source for the quotation than the vigorously anti-Catholic Georgie Anne Geyer.
Publius | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 2:04 am | #

That Hamas would win a veto-proof absolute majority was generally not foreseen (as opposed to making a strong showing or forming a minority government, which WAS widely foreseen).

But still, Rice does make one good point -- what was the alternative, once a Palestinian state had been agreed to in principle (foolishly in my view, but nevertheless)? You simply had to hold the elections, and nobody but the Palestinians themselves cast those ballots for a party that calls for the extermination of the Jews. The Palestinians have made their bed of nails; they can now lie in it.
Victor Morton | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 2:14 am | #

Or to put it another way, the only realistic alternative to popular elections (the route taken) would have been backing some Palestinian strongman equivalent to Arafat (who in his last poison-gift to his people, and unlike those moral exemplars Assad, Kim Il-sung and Khomeini, never set up anything like a succession).

But a little birdie tells me people would have blanched at that alternative too.
Victor Morton | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 2:19 am | #

Palestinian self-determination has been the policy of 3 successive U.S. administrations - 2 Republican and 1 Democrat. I fail to see how the fact that the Palestinians elected to choose the path of terror can be laid at the feet of the current Bush Administration.

That being said, I lay the blame squarely on the former Bush Administration and the anti-semitic (well, perhaps that's too strong - let's go with anti-Israeli) State Department operated by former Sec. of State James Baker.
Jay Anderson | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 2:23 am | #

what was the alternative, once a Palestinian state had been agreed to in principle (foolishly in my view, but nevertheless)? You simply had to hold the elections

For the sake of argument, is that really so? Why couldn't the Palestinian state be a dictatorship or monarchy if democracy would almost certainly lead to a worse government? Is it not possible that the Palestinians aren't ready for democracy yet?

Remember, our democracy didn't come out of a vacuum. We already had institutions of representative government in the colonies. British democracy itself developed from a powerful monarchy and aristocracy over several centuries.
Publius | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 2:24 am | #

However, I do think this outcome does call into question the basic premise, as Mark has pointed out, of the current Bush Administration's love affair with the democratization of the Middle East.
Jay Anderson | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 2:26 am | #

Publius:

If you want to make the argument for backing dictatorships because the democratic alternative is worse ... I'm right behind you. Behind.


Jay:

Agreed. Democracy is a cultural habit, not a set of positivist structures. But then we'd have to say that decolonization was a foolish move. Again ... be my guest.
Victor Morton | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 2:33 am | #

I knew this had to be the fault of the Bush administration. I was just waiting for the article by Georgie Anne Geyer to confirm it.

Now all we need is an article condemning Israel for the part it played in this debacle.
Tom Connelly | 01.31.06 - 6:33 am | #

Here is the transcript of Rice’s remarks.
Tom Connelly | 01.31.06 - 6:56 am | #

Shows that we haven't learned a damn thing after the intelligence fiascos of 9-11, the Iraq War, and the hunt for Bin Laden. The Bush administration and the US intelligence services don't know squat about the Middle East. They are cluelessly naive utopians in their view of democracy. They remain dangerously ignorant of the area of the world they should have been seeking to know intimately since the first Gulf War.
Bill Cork | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 8:45 am | #

Pray, enlighten them, Bill.
Tom Connelly | 01.31.06 - 9:18 am | #

God bless you, Bill Cork, for pointing out the Emperor has no clothes. I couldn't believe that the rest of the commentators were actually debating the advantages of democratization while yet more tangible evidence of the obvious stupidity and hubris of Bushite/neocon foreign policy parades before them.
Celine | 01.31.06 - 10:40 am | #

What's Celine's solution, if democratic elections is stupidity?

Victor pegged it above, I think:

Or to put it another way, the only realistic alternative to popular elections (the route taken) would have been backing some Palestinian strongman equivalent to Arafat (who in his last poison-gift to his people, and unlike those moral exemplars Assad, Kim Il-sung and Khomeini, never set up anything like a succession).

But a little birdie tells me people would have blanched at that alternative too.
JCL | 01.31.06 - 10:53 am | #

Mark, would you mind providing the link to where YOU predicted the outcome of the PA election. Or where ANYBODY predicted it correctly?

For cryin' out loud man, even Hamas was surprised by their own victory.
Cyprian | 01.31.06 - 10:54 am | #

Contrary to Celine's predictable partisan "shrilliness," a range of observers on friendly terms with the administration, from Bernard Lewis to Daniel Pipes, have suggested that democracy and "Palestine" (mock quotes intended) might end up going together like matches and gasoline.

FWIW, a showing of 30%+ was widely reported before the election.
Rich Leonardi | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 11:32 am | #

I have a hard time believing they could be that clueless

Because why?
Tom | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 11:42 am | #

Tom:

I guess because one hopes for more than dogmatic utopianism that ignores elementary facts about human nature from the people who are charged with running the show and keeping the rest of us safe.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 11:46 am | #

Mark,
The explanation is right here. (And you might want to check out the previous item there too.

Executive summary: there was a Palestinian pollster, Khalil Shikaki, who published the only opinion polls done in the West Bank and Gaza. He was a supporter of Fatah, and his polls showed Fatah in the lead and the Palestinians as very much ready to make peace on the basis of a two-state solution. Everyone hoping the Palestinians would be moderate and peace-loving found confirmation in his polls. Everyone who hoped Fatah would win and be moderate found confirmation in his polls. So they all ended up believing him, despite the fact that his methodology had problems and he was both a pollster and an advocate. Why? Because they wanted too, because it gave them hope.

It was a mistake of Rice, Sharon, et. al. to believe false things that gave them hope; but is it all that incomprehensible? Or even all that reprehensible?
CPA | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 11:56 am | #

Celine and Bill Cork are right on target. The utopian view that elections detached from the cultural presuppositions of democracy have given us Hamas in Palestine (which plans to impose the special tax on Christians connected with dhimmitude), Islamist successes in Lebanon, another Khomeini in Iran, and the victory of theocratic Shi'ite parties in Iraq.

Yes, Victor, I'll say that too rapid decolonization (like too rapid withdrawal from Iraq) is a morally and politically flawed policy. After World War II it would have been far better if Britain and the United States would have told Ghandi "We support decolonization as long as there's no split into Hindu and Muslim states and that their are constitutional guarantees against an Islamic or Hindu state." Then we wouldn't have an Islamic bomb (Pakistan), nor an Indian one.

As for "Palestine", we need to study more deeply Catholic social ethics on the right of self-determination. The proposal for a two-state solution was flawed from the begining. The right of national self-determination can be realized in ways short of a sovereign state. The Palestinians have proved by their support of terrorism that they are unfit as this time for self-rule. They have been cursed with a succession of leaders that have never lost an opportunity to lose an opportunity. "Palestine" should be occupied by the United Nations, followed by total disarmament of all factions, followed by massive infusion of aid, and the banning of all political parties until a new generation educated in a different way can BEGIN the process of moving toward a sovereign state. Of course, none of this will happen. In three months the EU will distinguish between Hamas "hardliners" and "pragmatists"; in a year the Bush administration will do the same.
Tom Haessler | 01.31.06 - 12:27 pm | #

CPA:

I guess I should be used, by now, to the fact that this Administration has an enormous capacity to believe what it wants.

And yes, I think dogmatic utopianism that refuses to take into account the facts on the ground is reprehensible. The *first* demand of prudence is to see what is *so*, not what we wish were so. Any fool that cannot see that a zealously Islamic culture is going to vote itself a zealously Islamic government is simply not capable of seeing the nose on its face.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 12:29 pm | #

So the Catholic approach would be to assume that Palestinians are and always will be suicide-bombing terrorists who respond to nothing but force and deserve nothing but rule with an iron fist.

Well, maybe that's so, but really it would sound a little less incongruous coming from someone who in other circumstances didn't show such glee in making fun of cynical realism.

And strategically speaking, you may find that the "Arabs are just born evil" line into which you (unconsiously, no doubt) buying with your "Of course any idiot can see giving Palestinians the vote is a disaster in the making" line, isn't exactly the best meme you want to put in people's heads when other issues (like torture of Arab suspects, etc.) comes up.
CPA | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 12:39 pm | #

There is a great book out there called Understanding Stupidity. It explains why otherwise smart people make stupid decisions.

It turns out that there are major factors in people's thinking that have nothing to do with the facts or reason. Most of which basically say that stupidity is the price paid for some other social good such as preserving group harmony.

It seems obvious to me that a huge swath of opinion involved in the Palestinian question simply did not want to deal with the fallout from a Hamas victory. So it became a truism that Hamas couldn't win, and the assumption took hold over everyone.

This is a tendency found in everyone. It takes real effort to suppress this (like how JFK handled groupthink during the Cuban Missile Crisis). However, I think the Bush administration may be prone to this more than most because everything I've heard shows Bush values loyalty/obedience more than candor among his people.
Chris Durnell | 01.31.06 - 12:41 pm | #

No, the Catholic approach would be to help the Palestinians by depriving them of their inept leadership, providing massive aid, and laying the foundations for civil society (which would involve temporary restrictions on some of the political rights enjoyed by people in other circumstances). Franco didn't have it ALL wrong. He always advocated democratic participation as the goal. And it happened without a revolution in his lifetime.

Tom Haessler
Tom Haessler | 01.31.06 - 12:53 pm | #

I agree in part with Bill Cork's thesis, but while the Bush administration can be justly slammed for failing to learn the ways of the world post-9/11, the intel agencies and the State Dept. were infested with secular progressive utopianism long before Bush the Elder was president. They should have learned the lession in 1979.

As for what to do in the absence of democracy, the alternatives are: (a) set up a strong man (a.k.a. Our SOB -- see Iran, Shah of) or (b) destroy them utterly, occupy them indefinitely, and dictate changes to their society (see Macarthur, Douglas).
craig | 01.31.06 - 1:53 pm | #

"Palestine" should be occupied by the United Nations, followed by total disarmament of all factions, followed by massive infusion of aid, and the banning of all political parties until a new generation educated in a different way can BEGIN the process of moving toward a sovereign state.

Of course there's such a praiseworthy track record for modest little projects like these.
Rich Leonardi | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 2:02 pm | #

Hello, Rich,

I understand that some scholastics said that those not already addicted to utopianism were permitted (licet sub levi?) to dream dreams.
Tom Haessler | 01.31.06 - 2:06 pm | #

American intelligence didn't even know that the collapse of the USSR was imminent. Incompetence conquers all.
Kevin Jones | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 2:25 pm | #

"American intelligence didn't even know that the collapse of the USSR was imminent."

Yet, somehow Ronald Reagan saw it coming from at least as early as 1980. Sometimes I think our "intelligence" agencies can't see the obvious forest in front of them for all the trees.
Jay Anderson | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 2:34 pm | #

"'Palestine' should be occupied by the United Nations, followed by total disarmament of all factions, followed by massive infusion of aid, and the banning of all political parties until a new generation educated in a different way can BEGIN the process of moving toward a sovereign state."

What if the Palestinians resist? Is the UN justified then in invasion?
doubting thomas | 01.31.06 - 3:21 pm | #

First off I seem to remember a couple of articles by Pat Buchanan pointing out that a Hamas win was a real possibility. Now he did not say it was a guaranteed victory, but everyone should have prepared for it as a *real* possibility.

I am actually hopeful that the peace process can now get moving. Fatah had no chance of selling a peace plan to the Palestinians. I am hoping that Hamas will have enough credibility and strength with the Palestinians to enforce any agreement with Israel. Second, I think the Palestinians believe that Hamas will not sell out the country to enrich themselves the way they feel Fatah did. Finally, Hamas will demand and hopefully get from Israel a concrete statement of where the boundaries for Israel are. I think it is completely legitimate to ask Israel to define its boundaries before Hamas recognizes their country. Certainly, the post election statements from the Hamas leadership seem hopeful.

Finally, I do not believe that the Palestinians need a generation of secular enlightenment brainwashing. If the UN tried to do this, terrorism would sky rocket, because it would be seen as the west trying to pervert them with western decadence (abortion, contraception, divorce, pornography, relativism, etc.)
Christopher Sarsfield | 01.31.06 - 3:35 pm | #

You wonder why they hate us. Does "imperialistic hubris" mean anything to anyone.

We want you to have democracy so long as you vote for governments that are acceptable to the US.

The reasons that these countries are electing extremist governments is not that they are too immature to govern themselves rather it is a reaction to the US mucking around in their internal affairs for the past 60 years.
Marv Wood | 01.31.06 - 3:48 pm | #

I think it is completely legitimate to ask Israel to define its boundaries before Hamas recognizes their country.

At the risk of being accused of believing that "Israel can do no wrong," may I gently suggest that it is not the least bit "legitimate"
for Hamas or any other entity to impose conditions on Israel before deigning to recognize it.
Tom Connelly | 01.31.06 - 4:09 pm | #

Dear Mr. Connelly,

You are my neighbor and ask me to recognize your claim to some land. And I say to you "Could you tell me where your boundaries are so that I know what I am agreeing to?" Is that not a reasonable request? Hamas seems to be open to recognizing Israel after negotiations. This is generally how recognition comes about. After all the Vatican did not recognize Israel until the pontificate of John Paul II. Of course this only came about through diplomatic negotiation. Hopefully, this type of negotiation between Hamas and Israel can lead to peace.
Christopher Sarsfield | 01.31.06 - 4:18 pm | #

Right. That is exactly NOT how border disputes have been negotiated by civilized countries throughout history. But a measure of Muslim arrogance and duplicity.
Victor Morton | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 4:18 pm | #

Obviously my "right" was in reference to Mr. Connelly -- cross-posting issues.


Hamas seems to be open to recognizing Israel after negotiations.

Evidence, please.


"Could you tell me where your boundaries are so that I know what I am agreeing to?" Is that not a reasonable request? ... This is generally how recognition comes about.

Actually, it isn't. Negotiation can only be done with sovereign parties who recognize one another's legitimacy as such in the first instance (otherwise, what is their standing to negotiate). And the question of diplomatic relations, where there are no absolute claims over the other (like the Koreas and Germanies, but NOT the Vatican and Israel) is distinct from accepting a party's legitimate existence.
Victor Morton | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 4:23 pm | #

Mr. Morton,

What are you saying "Right." to?
Christopher Sarsfield | 01.31.06 - 4:23 pm | #

Mr. Morton,

Sorry for the cross post.
Christopher Sarsfield | 01.31.06 - 4:25 pm | #

Dear Mr. Morton,

http://www.albawaba.com/en/count...alestine/ 194116

Hamas member Dr. Adnan Asfour, of the group's West Bank political leadership, recently told Palestinian news agency Ma'an that the group did not seek the destruction of Israel despite such portrayal.

He clarified that Hamas recognizes Israel's existence as a fact, but that it opposes Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land.

Asfour said that Hamas seeks a gradually implemented agreement with Israel, and that it would accept a Palestinian state with the so called "pre-1967" borders of the West Bank and Gaza.

Following such an agreement, he added, "The issue will be left for generations to come."

Asfour stressed that such a state has the right to unconditional sovereignty over its water, land, and air space.

If Palestinians receive such a state, he said, "Hamas may sign a long term and unlimited truce with Israel which will guarantee security for Israelis and Palestinians."

He expressed pessimism that such an agreement would be reached, however, saying, that Israel would most likely "continue on this path by saying there is no Palestinian partner for peace."

He went on to explain that once in power, Hamas would seek to eliminate corruption, and undertake investigations into claims of abuse of power through legitimate, legal means.

He added that the upcoming government would work to raise the standard of living for Palestinians by creating employment in all industries.
Christopher Sarsfield | 01.31.06 - 4:35 pm | #

It does kind of put the US and Israel in a bit of a tough spot - if the US/Israel takes too hard a stand against Hamas, then any failure to move forward on a peace plan can be placed on the US/Israel recalcitrance to deal with Hamas. On the other hand, given the past history of Hamas, it is hard to trust them. But what other choice does Israel have at this point?
c matt | 01.31.06 - 4:53 pm | #

Chalk me up as another person who has been baffled by the overall shock and surprise about the results of this election. The news reports I had been hearing over the past couple of months gave me every reason to believe that this was a likely outcome. I've been scratching my head over why experts are scratching their heads about this.
Ronny | 01.31.06 - 5:02 pm | #

Sorry, Mr. Sarsfield.

I see nothing "legitimate" about Hamas or their demands, any more than I see anything "legitimate" about the demands of Al Queda.
The Israelis may well have to "negotiate" with these gangsters, but only because they have a gun to their head.
Tom Connelly | 01.31.06 - 8:00 pm | #

Tom: the UN and the EU have been providing "massive aid" to the Palestinians for a long time now. Where has that aid money gone? A big chuck of it has disappeared into the pockets (or rather, the Swiss bank accounts) of PA leaders, beginning with the late unlamented Arafat. His wife lived in very high style in Paris, where she was feted by the creme ala creme of France's chic leftists. And some it went to fund terrorism against Israelis. Very little of it helped the people it was supposedly meant to help.

And I would submit that if that aid was doubled or tripled, the Palestinians would be no better off than they are today, because the defining feature of that society has become the urge to destroy, not to create. When the Israelis withdrew from Gaza, they left greenhouses (one of the many ways Israel made "the desert bloom.") Coming in possession of those greenhouses was a small additional bonus for the Palis. They could have said "Great! Here's something we can use to develop our land and employ our people. There are jobs and business opportunities here - let's take advantage of them."

Instead, mobs smashed the greenhouses to bits. That, apparently, represented some sort of "victory" over the Israelis who built them. Real smart move. As Abba Eban said "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

"Aid" is no cure for a mindset like that.
Donna | 01.31.06 - 8:18 pm | #