I enjoy history. Any period, any culture, history simply appeals to me. One of the nice things about it is that you can learn quite a lot just by reading, which I do. And another nice thing is that it provides perspective on the events of today. So one of the lessons of history I draw is that a major problem with rule by a single person, whether by king or despot, emporer or strong-man, whether accepted by the governed or subject to constant rebellion and resistance, is that its quality depends on the quality of a single individual. The character of government depends on the character of the ruler; even where the ruler wasn’t particularly able, they could recruit and rely on able subordinates if they were of a mind to. So looking at a nation under such a single person rule over time you see how the overall fortune of the nation depends on how good a ruler is curently ruling.

And its not just true of single person rule, it’s just easier to see there. The exact same thing is true of any government — it’s character depends on the character of the ruler(s). And so for representative governments, the character of the government depends on the character of the people. Harsh people lead to harsh rule; tolerant people to tolerant rule, wise people to wise rule, and foolish people to foolish rule. You get the idea.

That brings us to the results in the Palestinian election where Hamas, a terror organization (or not), was voted into office. Some people tell me that Hamas doesn’t reflect the Palestinian people. Oh really? Who does it represent then? The Israelis? Look, if the Palestinians wanted a less corrupt government and mutual existance with Israel, then a political party that espoused that view would have formed and been voted into office.

They’ll moderate under the pressures of governance alone I’m told. Really? Why should they? When have Palestinian governments every lived up to their end of agreements?

Maybe Hamas is just the natural response to Israeli intransience? Such a view ignores the reality – Israel is ready to coexist with a Palestinian state that is not out to destroy it, the Palestinians are not. (If Israel wanted all the Palestinians dead, they’d be dead already). And as far as Israeli violating a voluntary truce on the part of Hamas, why should Israel hold back against an avowed foe just because the foe wants a break?

And of course, what to do about funds for Palestine. Should the US and the EU continue to subsidize the Palestinian government, or should they be cut off? What about the money Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinian government? What will the effect be on the Palestinian people? Should the plight of the people who voted for terrorists to take over sway us? Sometimes, there are no good solutions, just muddling through as best as you can, and guess what – we have been in that situation in the middle east for a long time now.

We need to really keep in mind what the desired end state is, and work towards that with as much focus as we can — and that is two healthy states at peace with each other. The trick is in figuring out if that requires a firm stand on principle or flexible pragmatism. I think it requires what President Bush has been doing all along – clear expectations for both Palestine and Israel, and keeping our commitments either to withold or provide based on their behavior. The previous and current goverments of Palestine have not reflected favorably on the Palestinian character. I’m hoping that that changes.

Tags: Hamas, Israel, Palestine