Jed -- it's true: they chose poorly. But (to mix gambling
metaphors) the Russian roulette of letting the Palestinians pick
their own horse and allowing the chips to fall where they may has
its own mad logic to it. In a world of rotten policy options,
forcing the issues of terror and chaos by legitimizing a process
that votes terrorists into power continues the idea behind
unilateral Israeli withdrawal: you want a state? Here -- make
one.
A Palestinian Authority under Hamas may be a squalid monster of
a semi-state, but it will be increasingly held to account as a
would-be legitimate real state with a freely elected government.
This could mean a lot of things -- including the cutoff of funding
-- but what it does mean for sure is that raising the stakes by
legitimizing the Palestinian vote, whatever its outcome, boldly
bets on the wisdom of putting responsibility for their actions as a
would-be state in their very own democratic hands.
Is that bet the synergy of neoconservatism and realism? Yes.
topics:
Russia, Israel, Conservatism, Neoconservatism
About the Author
James Poulos is a doctoral student at Georgetown and the former Political Editor of Culture11. His writing has been published by The American Conservative, The National Interest, The New Atlantis, Partnership for a Secure America, and The Weekly Standard. In addition to AmSpecBlog, he has blogged at The American Scene, Doublethink, and Postmodern Conservative, which he founded. With degrees in political science and law from Duke and USC, he is currently at work on a dissertation about life after Napoleon. In his spare time he anti-blogs at Pish Tosh.
