By comforting oneself with the idea that it will be extremely short-term?

You could, after all, get the Polish situation, as it were, where, once freedom came in, the Catholic Church, the only viable opposition to the communists during the Soviet occupation, gradually began to lose influence.

In an analogous way, perhaps the Islamists will begin to fade now that people are becoming more free to express themselves, and of course once they slowly wake up to the idea that the Islamists are as human as the rest of us and will make the same stupid mistakes anyone else would when they're in the government trying to lead a country.

This presupposes an economic revival to go along with the political one, of course, and in that regard the plotting to cut Hamas off at the knees, discussed earlier on this blog, looks even stupider.

Better to let the economic fruits of freedom ripen right along with the political ones. People with full stomachs have never, in the history of mankind, been particularly fanatical about religion, politics, or anything else but their own welfares and protecting what makes those stomachs full. By and large, of course.

Every once in a while you do get a Timothy Mcveigh, never mind a Pat Robertson, but their isolation is proof enough that the general proposition is true enough.

The Bush Admin may, just may, accomplish what it says it was after, despite itself.

The Bush Admin may, just may, accomplish what it says it was after, despite itself.

Just what I was thinking, inertia vs. actual clearheaded policy.

Of course, the sectarian/ethnic issue complicates things in some countries. Might be difficult to escape that paradigm, as with Lebanon.

how does one manage the short-term unpredictability and volatility arising from the expression of popular will?

By letting Islamists govern, and offering them some carrots and sticks as the situation requires. We have to judge them on their actions, not their rhetoric. We can offer the PA for example the carrot of a Free Trade Agreement if they renounce their pledge to drive Israel to the see, or preferred trade status if they at least promise to uphold the truce they've implemented so far. We need to get the economy moving, and per capita incomes rising. The richer you are, the more you have to loose in any conflict. As you said, if despite all that Hamas or other islamist groups fail to deliver, then Palestinians will deal with them. Until then, we have to let them rule as long as they don't decide to try to annihilate Israel or become a haven for al Qaeda, not much more we can do.

Agreed. Each side has been posturing for their respective domestic audiences. Hamas rejected negotiations under "current circumstances", which suggests some potential wiggle room. The US has a bit of egg on its face from the NYT article on ousting Hamas, but Condi has said that democracy is not about only electing candidates that are friendly to America. They may use PA funding as a potential carrot/stick, similar to what you described, or they may simply cut the PA off and force it to resort to shadier sources. Israel is discussing cutting off tax revenue, isolating Gaza and otherwse putting a squeeze on the PA. While it still expects to allow merchants into Israel, this will not compensate for the impact of the PA being unable to pay its employees. The EU is pleading for a 'wait and see' strategy.

Economic punishment will prevent Hamas from meeting its political commitments. It is a point of leverage for the US/Israel, just as Hamas' tight control over military/security operations is a point of leverage for them. Both sides have to set their initial "bids" far above what they might actually be willing to pay.

Of course democracy is a weapon.
The Republicans use it to show a mandate to do
what they want, the Democrats use it to show
a mandate for what they want, Sharon and Peres
and others in Israel jostle for their validation,
Blair jostles for his. Yes, Hamas won the elections,
and should be treated as the new leaders (just as
Aristide should have been). There's no reason to
treat Abbass any different - he was tenuously
leading a difficult populace before, and thinking
that because he listens to the US, the rest of
Palestine does too...well, that's foolish. Now,
withholding aid is a weapon as well, but so are
bombs and other terrorist acts. I would like to
see Hamas happy with the success of their new
found weapon, and see them give up the old ones
that didn't work very well and were extremely
barbaric. Take a tip from Northern Ireland -
nobody really loves the other side, nothing's been
completely resolved, but Northern Ireland is much
more liveable than it was 15 years ago. Looking
for the magic solution or the magic partner will
leave us rubbing the lamp for a long time. And
it's spiteful and poor sportsmanship and
counterproductive to deny a winner the right to
gloat a little. Hardly the way to pull them into
a constructive dialogue.