Two historic elections

I think the world community has yet to realize the significance of what is happening right now in the Middle East, both in Iraq and the Palestinian territories. I just can't stand how many times I've seen speculation in the mainstream media that America's attempt to force Western-style democracy will ultimately be rejected by "a region that has little experience with anything but winner-take-all politics." -The New York Times

Sure, it's a risk, but then again, everything in the Middle East is a risk. In order for there to be change in the region, democracy is a must have. Just look at what happened in the Palestinian territories earlier this month. The election of Mahmoud Abbas as President of the Palestinian Authority is seemingly our best hope yet for a break in the stalemate between militant groups and Israeli forces. Not only is Abbas a moderate whom both the U.S. and Israeli governments are looking forward to doing business with, but his experience inside Arafat's Fatah organization gives him the credibility needed to make deals with militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Of course, any sort of deals made between opposite sides of the fence in the Middle East have a reputation of going to hell rather quickly. Nonetheless, by examining the principle of the matter, it is clear that the practice of democracy in the region is doing exactly what it is meant to do. That is, fully express the feelings and aspirations of a people sunk within the depths of destitude. Initial reports suggested that Abbas would have no chance in the election, especially among the younger generation of Palestinians. What a shock it must have been to analysts when he won a landslide victory. So what can be concluded from this? The Palestinians are tired of it all, that's what. They have enough brains to know which candidate has the best chance of bringing an end to all the meaningless bloodshed. And hopefully, in Iraq tomorrow, we will see a similar course of action unfold.