An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education concludes that a tyrannical government - not poverty or a lack of education - is the chief determinant of terrorism (via Jeff Jarvis via Glenn Reynolds):

Political participation is much more prevalent among people who are educated and wealthy enough to concern themselves with more than mere economic subsistence. Although the opportunity cost of voting is higher for someone with high education and high earnings than for the unemployed, the more affluent are more likely to vote. Similarly, although the impoverished have a low opportunity cost in terms of time, they are less likely to become engaged in terrorist organizations because they are less involved politically in general, and less committed to the objectives of the terrorist organizations.

Instead of viewing terrorism as a response -- either direct or indirect -- to poverty or ignorance, we suggest that it is more accurately viewed as a response to political conditions and longstanding feelings of indignity and frustration that have little to do with economic circumstances. We suspect that is why international terrorist acts are more likely to be committed by people who grew up under repressive political regimes.

There are many good reasons to improve education and reduce poverty in poor countries. Alas, reducing terrorism is probably not one of them.

Except for Israel, Middle Eastern countries are not democracies. They are military dictatorships (like Iraq), monarchies (like Saudi Arabia), or theocracies (like Iran), and in truth, even those last two categories depend of military strength to maintain their unelected power. Treating Middle Eastern countries as legitimate governments is a rookie mistake.

Israel, because it's a Jewish state, makes a great scapegoat. Islamofascist autocrats can take the rage of their subjugated masses and direct it at Israel for the $30,000 bounty to the suicide bomber's family. It's a fantastic bargain that no tyrant in his right mind could pass up. The irony, of course, is that Israel is a democracy that allows Islamic Arabs to vote and to hold office, while Islamic countries in the Middle East don't even allow women, much less Jews, to vote or hold office, and don't have legitimate elections for Arab men to vote for the nation's leader.

If you think the Islamic countries in the Middle East aren't so bad, read Philip Greenspun's Israel essay:

Jerusalem Israel is not a sympathy case. Conventional wisdom in international politics is "Nations do not have friends. They have interests." Nonetheless the U.S. occasionally tries to help suffering people in foreign countries where it serves no apparent U.S. interest. Could Israel be one of these places? Compared to the average person on Planet Earth, Israeli citizens, including the 1.2 million Arabs (2000 census), live in a paradise of economic prosperity and equality with representative government with a functioning and powerful legal system. Looking just within the region we could find many folks more deserving of sympathy, starting with the slaves held in Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (www.iabolish.com). Or we could decide that charity begins at home; one can certainly find a lot more folks begging in the streets of Seattle and San Francisco than in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

If Muslims hate the U.S. more than average it is probably simply because they have a longer than average list of things that are making them unhappy. Most Muslims are poor, getting poorer, and living under dictatorships in which they are essentially the personal property of the rulers. Most Muslims are exposed, at least via television, to a world in which women are permitted to show their heads in public, drive cars, and defy orders from their fathers and husbands. Most Muslims live in societies that lack the technological wherewithal to manufacture lightbulbs, much less the advanced weapons that will be necessary to overpower the infidels. And it can all be blamed on the United States.

Greenspun recently returned from Israel. Visit his blog, or - if you're reading this in the future - his archives.

If you're a liberal and think that Israel is bad because they react (and sometimes over-react) to Palestinian violence with more violence, offer to trade places. Instead of living in a Western-style liberal democracy, volunteer to live as subject of the Saudi family or the Iranian mullahs. In other words, imagine giving up the United States Constitution and living in a theocracy ruled by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. If that's not the life you want, then why would you want Israel to fall to the Islamofascists? Can you really defend a position of "democracy for me, but not for thee"?