Now it is clear, at least from its recent actions and words, that the Bush administration suffers from its own delusions in the region, principally that Arabs want to and are ready create liberal democracies that will support American foreign policy goals for the region. Foremost among these is the protection of Israel, by means of billions of dollars in military and economic aid, loan support, and a seemingly unlimited supply of diplomatic goodwill. The fact remains, however, that deep anger at Israel and at America’s increasingly unconditional support for it is widespread across nearly all political currents. Nothing (except perhaps for higher bread prices) brings people to the streets faster than graphic images of Arab children killed by Israeli bombs. Consequently, nothing does more to lay bare the unrepresentative nature of autocrats allied with the United States than their willingness to buck popular opinion and more or less align themselves with U.S. policy. Since the outset of the current conflict in Lebanon, Arab satellite channels and newspapers have deluged viewers and readers with gut-wrenching photographs of dead civilians

many of them children, while juxtaposing these with Arab leaders’ statements that demonstrate either co-option or powerlessness.

Islamist groups that vociferously reject Israel (most notably Hamas, Hizbullah, and the non-violent Muslim Brotherhood here in Egypt) find it easy to gain still more ground upon their political competitors in such an environment. Liberal activists, by contrast, find their voices drowned out and their causes shunted to the sidelines. It is as if the war in Lebanon is a giant vortex, pulling all and sundry into its deadly spiral. For instance, the Egyptian Lawyers’ Syndicate (the equivalent of the U.S. Bar Association), a key player in the past few years of reformist activism, has shifted its focus from internal political reform to largely symbolic solidarity with Hamas, Hizbullah, and Palestinian and Lebanon civilians. Nearly every columnist now seems to be training his rhetorical guns on Israel and the United States, criticizing the Egyptian government’s foreign policy while mostly ignoring domestic concerns.

As for street activists, they have temporarily put aside calls for freedom of expression and judicial independence, as evidenced by the growing demonstrations in Cairo over the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza. On July 29th, a heated demonstration against Israel that took place after Friday prayers at Al-Azhar was violently dispersed by Egyptian riot police. Then on the following Sunday, about 100 opposition and independent members of the People’s Assembly, the vast majority of whom are Muslim Brothers, staged a walkout in the Parliament in protest of the NDP’s refusal to allow for a debate of the current situation in Lebanon. Joined by another few hundred other Egyptians as well as the media, the deputies marched on the Arab League to demand a meeting with its General Secretary, Amr Moussa. The walkout was intended to show solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza and with Hizballah in Lebanon, but it was also designed to embarrass the NDP, none of whose members attended. Shouts of “O Nasrallah, O Beloved, Strike, Strike Tel Aviv” and calls for jihad. Populist rabble-rouser Mustapha Bakry, an independent member of the People’s Assembly and the editor of The Week (Al-Osboa) said that the lack of presence of the NDP deputies confirms that the government does not express the will of the people.

In a recent speech, U.S. President Bush said that groups like Hamas “fear democracy”. These groups do not “fear democracy,” however, insofar as democracy means little more than direct elections--as Washington itself has unfortunately come to define the term (e.g., in Iraq). It has been demonstrated that these entities can do quite well in elections, and that, as they themselves are fond of reminding us, their legitimacy comes “from the street” and not from outside.

Analysts who have linked terrorism to a lack of democracy are correct when they argue that groups that are barred from participating in politics will seek to attain their goals by other, i.e. violent means. This analysis is most applicable when it refers to entities like al-Gama’at al-Islamiyya, although it becomes slightly complicated when referring self-labeled resistance groups like Hizbullah and Hamas. But in general, the theory goes that greater political participation will decrease terrorism. Terrorism is a complex problem whose solution will only come with progress along a range of fronts (for example, solving regional disputes such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Kashmir is equally if not more important), but democracy certainly has to be a major part of any lasting solution.

The Bush Administration appears to be “pulling an Algeria” in Palestine, Lebanon, and possibly Egypt by encouraging Islamist groups to participate in elections and then seeking to isolate or crush them when they, given the current environment, win. Condoleezza Rice admitted that the United States was caught by surprise in January when Hamas beat its more moderate rival Fatah in an election that was judged largely free and fair by international observers. Based on the U.S. behavior since that time—for example, its barely audible response to Mubarak’s cancellation of the municipal elections as well as the passage of Judicial and Press Laws that fall far short of reformist demands—it is clear that had the U.S. known that Hamas would do so well, it would not have been calling so vocally for free and fair elections in Palestine. Raising expectations and them dashing them in this manner is a dangerous game that has already led to great bloodshed and misery in Gaza—now a failed state if it was not already.

An adjunct of this erratic American approach is to isolate the two countries, Syria, and Iran, that fiercely oppose U.S. and Israeli policies and support rejectionist groups such as Hamas, Hizballah, Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine to one extent or another. One can imagine few strategies more conducive to provoking a violent, asymmetrical response by these actors. Syria and Iran are ideological states to a certain extent, but they are also shrewd, realistic players that sponsor violence in order to create leverage. The Islamist groups fighting Israel enjoy widespread popular support, and as such are authentic expressions of Palestinian and Lebanese sentiments; there is, however, some debate over to what extent Syria and Iran controls each one. In any case, both states have an interest in promoting instability in the region, whereby they give themselves bargaining chips. Since the Bush administration has indicated that it views negotiation itself as the equivalent of capitulation, and does not want to “legitimate” authoritarian governments that oppose American policies, Iran and Syria are likely to continue. Neither government is seriously threatened by its disorganized opposition, and in fact both have been strengthened internally by the threat of American intervention. Refusing to talk to them other than to issue diktats that no leader can accept and save face, then, appears to serve no purpose whatsoever.

The Democrats in Congress appear to be little smarter than the Bush administration. Last week Democratic leaders condemned Iraqi Prime Minister Jawad Al-Malaki for comments he made of that were critical of Israel, and demanded that he retract his remarks before addressing a special joint session of Congress. They got nowhere due to Republican opposition, but such political posturing to a domestic audience threatens to undermine a key U.S. ally (one who actually does enjoy some popular legitimacy) at a critical time for a deteriorating Iraq. Radical Shi’ite cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr is seizing the opportunity to boost his own popularity at Al-Malaki’s expense by calling the latter a U.S. puppet and by sending members of his Mahdi Army militia to Lebanon to fight the Israelis, and there are even rumors within the dominant Shi’ite bloc of a coup in the works.

There’s a kind of raccoon trap where you drill or countersink a hole in a log, then nail a few nails pointing downward that are spaced just wide enough to allow a furry paw to enter. You put a shiny object, like a piece of tinfoil, in the hole and wait for the raccoon to discover it. So entranced by his treasure, he won’t be willing to let go, and thus his balled little fist won’t make it past the nails. Sound familiar?

The only way out of the current trap in the Middle East is for American leaders to let go of the fiction that there are American-style liberals waiting in the wings who will make peace with Israel and implement free-market reforms. The U.S. needs to accept that one can still be a democrat and oppose American support for Israel. The short-run reality is that Islamists who oppose U.S. foreign policy in the region will be the immediate beneficiaries of a genuine democratization policy. A vacillating policy only makes this outcome more likely by providing confirmation of widespread suspicions in the region that the U.S. does not really want democracy here.