Prior to that surprising result, the Palestinians seem to be on their way to an independent state in Gaza and on the West Bank. Israel had already withdrawn from all of Gaza. Sharon’s plan, which was embraced by most Israelis, called for extensive withdrawals of up to ninety percent of the land on the West Bank. Not all issues would have been settled but the Palestinians could have had a state in the areas from which Israel withdrew. With the Hamas election victory, further Israeli withdrawals are highly unlikely. Moreover, the huge amount of funding which the Palestinians have been receiving from the United States and Western Europe and is necessary to maintain the Palestinian economy has been placed in jeopardy. The armed militias from Fatah are refusing to demilitarize or come under a Hamas banner. Finally, Palestinian society, among the most secular in the Arab world, is being threatened with a takeover by the religious fundamentalists of Hamas. Their goal for an Islamic society calls for an end of such activities as dancing between men and women and drinking alcohol. The party is literally over.

This is not to say that Palestinian rule under President Abbas and his Fatah cronies was ideal. Quite the contrary. Corruption was rampant. Government services were not being provided, including the most basic such as garbage removal. Armed bands of militia men affiliated with different organizations roamed the streets at will and made unilateral decisions about sending rockets into Israel or suicide bombers. Fatah’s Al Aksa brigade was more militant even than Hamas.

Commentators have interpreted the election results to mean that the Palestinians voted for Hamas to end corruption in their government and to obtain basic governmental services. What they empowered in Hamas is a party committed to bringing fundamentalist Islamic rule to Palestine. This means converting the Palestinian people into a nation subjugated by the mullahs as is in Iran. Moreover, Hamas by its basic covenant is unequivocally committed to the destruction of Israel and the Palestinian’s occupation of the entire land which is currently Israel. Placing people of this persuasion into office is a very expensive price to pay for having the garbage picked up on a regular basis.

The question now is how the United States and the Western European governments will respond to Hamas’s election. As a starting point, for several years all of these governments have declared that Hamas is a terrorist organization and have refused to deal with them. Nothing has changed in the Hamas orientation or philosophy. Logically, therefore, the U.S. and the Western Europeans should maintain their hard line against Hamas and their refusal to supply funds to the Palestinians to the extent that Hamas will be gaining those funds and using them.

It is true that the Palestinians can elect any government they wish to. On the other hand, the United States is not obligated to support that government. We do have choices which we can make on our policy toward the Palestinians.

Not surprisingly, there are those, including former President Jimmy Carter, who have begun a movement for appeasement with Hamas. These voices are asking Hamas to make some ambiguous vague statements softening their opposition to Israel. In return, it is argued that U.S. and Western European funds should resume flowing to the Palestinians.

This approach is a mockery. Hitler and the Germans before the Second World War made precisely the moderate noises which England wanted to hear with respect to the annexation of a portion of Czechoslovakia. The British government seized those statements and wanted to believe that Hitler had departed from his sworn commitments in his well publicized prior declarations.

We cannot be deceived by mild and ambiguous utterances by Hamas. If there truly was a major change in the Hamas orientation, that would be cause for reevaluation. However, there will not be. The Hamas leaders like Al Qaeda, the rulers in Iran and the Taliban are committed to their radical Islamic program. The United States must have the strength and backbone to hold the line firmly. I am hopeful that President Bush and Condoleezza Rice will do that in the difficult days ahead.