Horus says:

"But, an argument can be made that the Emirs of The UAE , The Hashemites of Jordan and even the house of Saud are more liberally inclined that many of their “democratic” opponents."

Yes, an argument can be made. But factually for the House of Saud I think it is wrong. Wahabbism is the creature of these brutal dictators. They have however had a falling out with their ideological brother Bin Laden. That does not make them any better than him. But I prefer the democratic rule of the Saudi people as a starting point. As I do for all the peoples of the Middle East.

What if the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power in Egypt? (I think they may well have majority passive support.) Or the FIS in Algeria (which clearly at the 92 elections had majority support)?

They will all find an accommodation with the West. The Iranian regime balances between the medievalsim of its religious views and the modernism imposed on it by its oil and the desire of its people for better economic lives.

Horus then asks:

I am also somewhat intrigued by your comment:
“Palestinians want to be citizens of Palestine, not Jordan or Lebanon or Syria or wherever they fled to or were driven to. They want their homes back.”
[ How many thousands of Palestinians did you interview to determine that? "

Horus, Hamas was elected on a rejectionist ticket, expressing the desire of the Palestinian people for the right of return.

Interestingly the Palestinians could have taken power in Jordan in 1970 but did not do so because of their false political view that they should not interfere in the affairs of other Arab states. If they had taken power in the September revolution then the possibility of the liberation of the whole region may have been on the agenda.

Passy,
Re : “ the Palestinians could have taken power in Jordan in 1970 … If they had …then the possibility of the liberation of the whole region may have been on the agenda”

Considering that everywhere the militant groups ‘govern’ they need to be bank rolled by the donor nations (ie EU, USA, & The Saudis). The donor nations are probably mighty happy that the whole region wasn’t ‘liberated’ in the 1970s.

Re: “Hamas was elected on a rejectionist ticket, expressing the desire of the Palestinian people for the right of return.”

Considering the lack of alternatives the electors were offered , it is not surprising that Hama or something very like them was elected. They would likely to have been elected even in the absence of the ‘right of return’ policy, and any number of others policies.

Just where on the voting ticket did it say – tick either 1 or 2 :
1) If you want right of return .
2) If you want to emigrate to Saudi or Kuwait .

What might the result have been if they had a third party that had said,
vote for us & we’ll give you a green card to the USA?

Passy > “Hamas is the democratically elected Government of the Palestinian people. Israel should accept their ceasefire offer.”

Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party were able to achieve much of their success due to the democratic system. They were unarguably a party with majority support among the German people at their height. Should Chamberlain be the real hero of 1939 for his “peace in our time debacle”? Just because Hamas are democratically elected doesn’t mean that they should be accorded any legitimacy by the rest of the world. Slobodan Milosevic had popular support.

The problem with apologists like you is that you refuse to take the terrorists at their word. Have you not read the Hamas charter? Do you not understand that Hamas only wants a cease fire to rebuild strength in order to fight another day? The hamas charter refuses the possibility of ever sharing Palestine with the Jews. Cease fires and delays suit Hamas perfectly. The current fertility-rate among Palestinians is 5.09 births per woman. Among Israelis that number is 2.3. The required rate to sustain your existing population is between 2.1 and 2.2. 5.09 births per woman doubles your society every generation. Clearly the Palestinians have time on their side. The only peace Hamas are interested in is the peace of total victory and the expulsion or ethnic cleansing of all jews in Palestine.

Passy says> “Any peace deal would give at best 20 per cent of the pre-1948 Palestine to the Palestinians.”

But this is ignoring the offer given to Arafat at Camp David which would have included more than 95% of what, pre-1967, was referred to as Palestine.

What really stands out more than anything else is the failure of Marxist theory to explain modern muslim fundamentalism, or anthing much else for that matter. Marxist theory is for those who haven’t left the sandbox of university or academia.

Thanks Paul.L. It appears that Israel has negotiated with Hamas - no Gaza rockets and Israel withdraws troops and stops bombing.

You say correctly that "Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party were able to achieve much of their success due to the democratic system." The failure of the German left to unite against their common enemy led to an opening for Hitler to attain power and smash the defensive and political organs of the working class before turning on Jews.

The rise of Hamas is in part a reaction to Zionism,a creed which is racist and wants to finish the job of driving the Palestinians out of greater Israel.

Zionism was not always the dominant trend in Jewish thought. The failure of the Russian revolution to spread, its degeneration, the collapse and/or destruction of the left in Western Europe and the rise of fascism saw Zionism gain mass support.

The rise of Hamas is in part a consequence of the failure of national secularism in the region. It is in part a consequence of the failure of humanity to move out of its backward phase of religiosity. It is in part a a result of US sponsorship of religious alternatives to counterbalance the USSR and left nationalists in the Arab world. For example Al-Qaeda is Uncle Sam's bastard baby.

Then you say:The problem with apologists like you is that you refuse to take the terrorists at their word.

I am not an apologist for Hamas. I condemn individual and state terrorism. I know that Hamas cannot succeed. Its terrorist actions are immoral. But so too is the strategy of Zionism in killing innocent Palestinians, in imposing collective punishment on the Gaza strip, in setting up settlements.

Hamas's strategy will only make the situation worse given the strength of Israel. The real alternative to me is the working class in the region. That is not going to happen tomorrow or the day after. But class is the way forward, not terrorism. If that puts me into the sandbox of academia, so be it.