ARTICLE: “Hamas Routs Ruling Faction, Casting Pall on Peace Process: Palestinian Vote; Israel Won’t Negotiate With Radical Group in Government,” by Steven Erlanger, New York Times, 27 January 2006, p. A1.

EDITORIAL: “In the Mideast, a Giant Step Back,” New York Times, 27 January 2006, p. A22.

ARTICLE: “Hamas Victory Roils Middle East Peace Process: U.S., Israel, Europe Insist Palestinian Group Renounce Violence After Election Win,” by Karby Leggett and Neil King Jr., Wall Street Journal, 27 January 2006, p. A1.

EDITORIAL: “Hamas Rules: A chance to show it has an agenda beyond terror,” Wall Street Journal, 27 January 2006, p. A8.

ARTICLE: “Joyful Arabs Voice Concern at How Hamas Will Swim in the Mainstream,” by Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, 27 January 2006, p. A9.

OP-ED: “Hamas at the Helm: The U.S. can’t ignore Palestinian voters,” by Fotini Christia and Sreemati Mitter, New York Times, 27 January 2006, p. A23.

ARTICLE: “Vote seen as rejecting corruption: Palestinians see hope for better governance,” by Matthew Gutman, USA Today, 27 January 2006, p. 6A.

ARTICLE: “Bush Defends His Goal of Spreading Democracy to the Mideast,” by Steven R. Weisman, New York Times, 27 January 2006, p. A9.

ARTICLE: “Israel’s Likely Course: Unilateral Action, Separation and No Talks With Hamas,” by Grey Myre, New York Times, 27 January 2006, p. A8.

ARTICLE: “A Shift of Biblical Proportions? Israels’ Demolition of West Bank Homes May Signal Wider Pullout,” by Karby Leggett, Wall Street Journal, 27 January 2006, p. A7.

The Times drools and the Journal rules. The NYT is all frantic doom and gloom, whereas the WSJ takes a wait and see attitude.

It’s foolish not to expect a lot of idiotic crowing from Hamas right now. Any party that finds itself so unexpectedly in power as this crew did just now has to be forgiven a lot of foolish talk. Hamas may be full of seasoned terrorists, but it doesn’t have a single statesman.

We can do our best to help grow one from our side, and I believe the Bush Administration and the EU and Israel itself are all taking the right initial stance: put up or expect to be put out on the ash heap of history. Hamas can either prove itself a decent alternative to Fatah, which never accomplished anything whatsoever through either its terror or its corrupt politics except make Yassir one rich bastard, or it can serve merely as a lesson to Fatah that its swings at the bat are not unlimited and that Palestine can suffer the consequences (and the historical delay) imposed upon it by electing a leadership that has no capacity whatsoever to move this godawful pile toward peace.

It’s clear why the people chose Hamas, and the choice for less corruption is the same one that brought Ahmadinejad to power in Iran. So let’s get real (as Hamas itself will need to if it hopes to keep the goodwill of the people it now owes far more than just mindless martyrs) and not give into the silly temptation to somehow blame this outcome on Bush’s push for democracy.

Democracy is not about only getting the party you want in power. That’s called authoritarianism, or the sort of single-party rule we see so much of in this world. Democracy is about the ability to change parties when the current one sucks enough to motivate the public toward the alternative, however risky that might seem.

We need to view Hamas as a possibility that works one way or the other: either it changes its stripes and “Nixon goes to Tel Aviv” or we get something better on the backside once this experiment fails. Either way, we need to be thinking about how we exploit this situation, not merely stonewall it.

Hezbollah in Lebanon hasn’t been the disaster that some portended. No picnic, but Lebanon not on top of the shit list right now.

Still, with Hamas’ links to patrons Syria and Iran, and Hezbollah’s links to patrons Syria and Iran, and Syria’s links to Iran, you have to wonder if isolating Iran is the best strategic play we can manage right now in this fluid environment.

Because if we don’t move or work to keep this region moving somehow, the Israelis will solidify their hard-line, hard-border answer to the question of the two-state solution, and we’ll get that Berlin Wall for the 21st century that I’ve been talking about going back to PNM. Not the worse outcome by any stretch, but a calcifying one to be sure.

If we do the slow strangle on Iran and let Israel put up that wall, the only good strategic reason for sitting on the Middle East’s sidelines through the rest of this term (an outcome that looks more and more likely with this administration) would be to lock in China at today’s prices.

But given the QDR’s unimaginative outcome, and the continuing strength of the China hawks in the national security community, that path seems equally unlikely, which leaves me retreating to my depressing notion that the Bush post-presidency has already begun.