If the fledgling democracy in Iraq can be labeled a stunning
success despite the blatant theocratic and anti-American tendencies
of vast swaths of the Iraqi electorate, then surely today’s
parliamentary elections in the Palestinian territories can be
viewed, if we are to be fair, as a vital step in the right
direction, even if Hamas takes as many seats as initial projections
suggest.
Consider: The December parliamentary election in Iraq was won by
a Shiite majority that marched off to the polls as part of what
they openly referred to as a “religious duty,” handed down by
fundamentalist clerics who would like to see Iraq become
an Islamic republic with close ties to Iran. (Perpetual problem
child/Baghdad Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr went so far this week
as to pledge his Medhi militia would fight on Iran’s side in a
conflict with the United States.) Meanwhile, minority Sunni voters
came out to vote large numbers hoping to gain enough leverage to
kick the American occupiers out. Some polling stations in Sunni
areas were reportedly even guarded by insurgents, apparently taking
a break from murdering U.S. servicemen and women to defend their
own against foreign fighters seeking to disrupt the election.
Further, any Iraqi politician pursuing normalized relations or even
detente with the Israelis is
marginalized.
Still, those who favored the Iraq war argue that even if
democratic reforms do not immediately create a perfect, peaceful
society, the eventual long-term effect will be a civilizing,
moderating one, creating, in the best case scenario, a mass
movement that will turn the culture of the Middle East irrevocably
away from the nihilistic
fanaticism threatening world stability. Strange, then, the same
standards and arguments cannot be applied to Palestinian
aspirations so often
derided by these same advocates of democracy. Either there is
an inherent right in human beings to some degree of
self-determination, or there is not: We cannot pick and choose
where to support democracy based on whether American troops are
stationed there or not.
As such, while problematic in many ways, Hamas’s political
aspirations are on the whole a positive development. A situation
where Hamas sits out elections antagonizing democratically elected
governments would be much more volatile and dangerous than one in
which it participates. For the first time, in a quantifiable,
verifiable way, Hamas will be accountable to the Palestinian
people. The simplistic rhetoric of a people’s movement will now be
judged by voters. Hamas will be forced to deliver if it hopes to
maintain its newfound political power, which will almost certainly
mean bowing to reason and compromise far more often than it has
previously proven willing to do.
The about-face has already begun on several fronts: A Hamas
leader in Gaza, Sami Abu Zukri, went so far as to call last year’s
municipal elections (in which the organization took 75 of the 118
council seats) “our sweetest victory.” The organization’s official
electioneering slogan, “Change and Reform,” could have been lifted
from any American campaign and is targeted to those frustrated by
years of Fatah rule that has not ended the occupation or abject
poverty.
On Monday, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar traveled through poor Gaza
neighborhoods, promising a continuation of the armed resistance and
calling for an end to the Jewish state. The typical Islamic
fundamentalist line, basically. More interesting, however, was a
series of very public, conciliatory comments Zahar made the week
before. Not only did he declare, “Negotiation [with Israel] is not
a taboo,” but his professed immediate post-election plan is not a
resumption of hostilities or a “million martyr march” on Jerusalem.
No, the first item on the agenda is a meeting with Palestinian
Authority chairman Mamoud Abbas to “tell him we have to solve the
problems in health and domestic security.”
Basic constituent needs, in other words. Hamas is not winning
the majority of its votes based on a policy of resistance. Poll
after poll shows average Palestinians do not believe they have
benefited from the Intifada; that they seek the same thing most
Israelis and a majority of the world’s governments do: a peaceful
two-state solution. Another poll this week placed approval among
Palestinians for the peacemaker Abbas at more than 70 percent.
Below the figurehead Abbas, however, Hamas has electoral strength
as an opposition party that has cultivated support for its less
savory actions by simultaneously running schools, hospitals, and
welfare organizations while Arafat’s Fatah siphoned aid money into
offshore bank accounts to allow Suha Arafat to parade around Paris
like a queen.
It’s worth mentioning as well that the Fatah political campaign
— backed in part by U.S. taxpayer dollars — has not exactly been
a portrait of moderation. Fatah’s major candidates closed out their
runs with a collective “pilgrimage” to Yasser Arafat’s Gaza home
with one of the party’s leaders Mohammed Dahlan intoning, “Just as
we launched our campaign at the grave of Arafat — the symbol, the
martyr, the glorious one — we end it here at his blessed home.”
American dollars supporting pro-Arafat
propaganda: just another irony of American-style democratic
reform.
Democracy has given Palestinians a voice, and considering their
dire situation and seemingly never-ending refugee status, should
there ever have been even a modicum of doubt as to what that voice
would say once un-gagged? It is a given that Fatah would be
punished after so much suffering. But the unambiguous goals of the
Palestinian people do not match the goals of Hamas. If the
terrorist organization does not adapt, its “sweetest victory” will
be short-lived indeed.
