Considering the current state of the region and the policy mistakes of the recent past, David Pollock and Robert Satloff outline a strategy that is “both virtuous and realistic” for defending human rights and encouraging democratization in a region plagued by autocracy, chaos, and brutality. They argue that “in the long run, more democratic, tolerant, and inclusive governments are likely to be better at defending themselves, and more reliable and effective security partners for the United States.”

It is . . . essential to pursue progress [on issues of human rights and democracy] in ways that complement, rather than contradict, . . . security, stability, and conflict resolution. This coordinated approach should apply, for example, to Arab countries that make peace with Israel: Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, and others that may join the list. It should apply as well to partners that play positive roles in resolving other regional conflicts, as in Yemen, Libya, or Syria.

Great Power competition is [itself an] intersection of this broader agenda with Middle East regional realities. Governments drawn to authoritari­anism rather than models based on democracy or individual liberties may more readily align with China or Russia, and vice versa. Conversely, Chinese or Russian economic and strategic inroads in the region will be more likely to support authoritarianism than democracy or human rights.

But, Pollock and Satloff emphasize, modest goals and prudent methods are necessary, and they provide some pertinent guidelines:

Don’t be harder on U.S. allies than on adversaries. A common complaint against U.S. campaigns for democracy and human rights abroad is that they appear selective and even hypocritical, targeting friendly governments while tolerating worse abuses by unfriendly ones. In part, this reflects the reality that American aid, which may be brandished as leverage in these encounters, is naturally directed toward U.S. allies and not adversaries. But it is essential, for the sake of American credibility and effec­tiveness, to demonstrate in words and deeds that the United States can fairly balance its posture toward both sets of foreign powers. In practice, this means that Washington must be exceedingly wary of using the cudgel of foreign-aid cuts as an instrument of pressure, even on behalf of laudable democracy or human-rights objectives.

Start with basic individual freedoms, then consider larger political reforms. Human rights and democracy go together, but they are not the same. Civil liberties, including freedom of expression, religion, and association, are the building blocks of liberal democracy—as opposed to the possible “tyranny of the majority.” In the contemporary Middle East, there is much work to do on these fundamental personal rights, without risking either revolution or repression that might follow major political upheaval.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.