Sharansky on Hamas election
[For the record, I participated yesterday in a meeting with Palestinian civil-society activists evaluating the election results, and the one thing they all agreed upon was that the majority of Palestinians, including at least 30% of those who voted for Hamas in the district and national lists, recognize Israel, are against terror, and are desirous of peace. It is clear (from surveys, not gut feelings) that much of the vote was against Fatah corruption, not for Hamas. Not to be too sanguine about it: it is clear that at least 60% of those voting for Hamas are supportive of some part of their agenda. But of Palestinians eligible to vote that’s still only 40%, so it appears that a majority of Palestinians are in favor of accepting Israel’s right to exist, in favor of a peace settlement, and against terror. I’m still very afraid of the other 40%, especially the fanatics among them, but it’s a somewhat comforting sign. The question is who will emerge ascendant over the next few years. See end-note below.]
--------
The price of ignoring Palestinians' needs
Natan Sharansky
International Herald Tribune
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2006
Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections is the logical outcome of a "peace process" more than a decade long that completely ignored what was happening within Palestinian society.
Rather than seriously link the peace process to the building of a free society among the Palestinians, the democratic world, including Israel, turned a blind eye as Palestinian civil society was hollowed out, its streets taken over by armed thugs and its youth indoctrinated to glorify suicide bombers and despise Israel and America, Jews and Christians.
The international community repeated its shallow formula for peace like a broken record. International legitimacy, Israeli concessions and billions of dollars in aid were used to strengthen Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority - the "moderates" who had ostensibly renounced violence and accepted Israel's existence - and marginalize extremist groups like Hamas.
The Palestinian election result is the fruit of this failed approach to peacemaking, which amounted to nothing more than supporting a corrupt dictatorship. The world believed that seriously pressing Palestinian leaders to enact real reform would only weaken the Palestinian Authority internally and strengthen Hamas. The truth is precisely the opposite. By failing to insist that the Palestinian Authority dedicate itself to improving the lives of Palestinians, the United States, Israel, the EU and other players in the peace process made themselves contemptible in the eyes of Palestinians who saw their lives only getting worse.
When Arafat died, I had hopes that perhaps a new path to peace would be taken. But it was not to be. Abbas was not told unequivocally that without serious reforms, he would receive no support from the free world. On the contrary, he was given a pass when he blatantly refused to confront terror groups.
For its part, Israel's government, encouraged by the effusive praise of the international community, embarked on a foolish policy of one-sided concessions, which, as I feared when I resigned from the government last May, only strengthened the forces of terror within Palestinian society.
To the outside world, the Palestinians have now chosen the party of terror over the party of peace. But in the eyes of most Palestinians, the differences between Hamas and the "moderate" Fatah were not primarily in their views toward Israel. In fact, satellites of Fatah, such as Tanzim and the Al Aksa brigades, were no less responsible for the terrorism against Israel than were Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Indeed, the leading figure on Fatah's list was Marwan Barghouti, a man serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison for his role in terror attacks.
No, the real difference for the Palestinians was that a Fatah-run Palestinian Authority was rightly seen as a corrupt and feckless organization that had done and would continue to do nothing to improve Palestinian lives, whereas Hamas was untainted by corruption and appreciated for providing real social services.
With the vote being a choice between corrupt terrorists dedicated only to themselves and honest terrorists who are also dedicated to others, is it any surprise that Hamas won by a landslide?
I believe that many Palestinians who voted for Hamas voted to end corruption, to restore law and order and to implement real reform; the slogan that Hamas chose in its election campaign was not "Throw the Jews into the Sea," but rather "Change and Reform." The paradox is that the only party that Palestinians see as credible on this internal reform agenda was a terror organization dedicated to Israel's destruction and which has declared President George W. Bush "the enemy of God" and "the enemy of Islam."
Now that the Palestinian Authority's corrupt dictatorship has collapsed and a terror organization riding a wave of resentment with the status quo is assuming power, the free world has an opportunity to restore moral clarity to the peace process.
The world must base their support for this new regime on two ironclad conditions. First, Hamas must explicitly abandon the goal of destroying Israel and renounce terrorism. Second, it must dedicate itself toward building a free society for the Palestinians.
For 12 years, Israel and the world have imposed the first condition and ignored evidence when it was violated. As for the second condition, not only were democratic reforms seen as irrelevant to peace, supporting a corrupt dictatorship was seen as essential.
If the new Palestinian regime does not abide by these conditions, the free world, including Israel, must actively confront it and withhold legitimacy, money and concessions. But we must also seek ways to support any Palestinian individuals and organizations that do abide by these conditions.
My fear is that the results of the Palestinian elections will discredit the whole concept of democratic reform in the Middle East. But that would be to discredit an idea without it having been tried. For all the talk of the need for Palestinian reform and democracy, the only thing that the world insisted upon was holding elections. Elections do not a make free society. Elections in a "fear society" in which there is no law and order and in which democratic institutions are nonexistent, can bring the worst elements to power.
I hope that the policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East has not been dealt a fatal blow. Like so many tens of millions of Arabs in the region, there are countless Palestinians who want a better future, and we must seek every way to work with them. If we do not, we will end up not only betraying them once again, but also endangering ourselves.
(Natan Sharansky is the co-author of the best-selling book ''The Case For Democracy'' and a candidate for the Likud Party in Israel's forthcoming parliamentary elections.)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/01/opinion/edsharan.php
[A final note (from Aryeh): The true test of a democracy in transition is what happens in the NEXT round of elections (first, that there BE a next round). If Hamas does not deliver real benefit to its citizens, and is voted out of power by the electorate in the next parliamentary election, and enables a smooth transition – then we’re looking at a functioning democracy – though of course issues of personal freedom, freedom of the press and religion and speech and the like, remain central too. One of the discussants yesterday suggested that a Hamas government will fall in 6-9 months because it won’t be able to deliver and the population won’t accept its fundamentalist policies (internally, separating men and women in the workplace and boys and girls in schools, etc.); the sizable ‘swing-vote’ segment which elected them will turn either back to Fatah or to independent democrats. I raised the point that what happens when they fall will be our real indication of whether the norms of civil society have taken root. (And I also pressed for international support of independent democrats to be able to campaign successfully as an alternative to the well-funded Hamas and Fatah groups, a challenge which the free world has yet to meet….)]
--------
The price of ignoring Palestinians' needs
Natan Sharansky
International Herald Tribune
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2006
Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections is the logical outcome of a "peace process" more than a decade long that completely ignored what was happening within Palestinian society.
Rather than seriously link the peace process to the building of a free society among the Palestinians, the democratic world, including Israel, turned a blind eye as Palestinian civil society was hollowed out, its streets taken over by armed thugs and its youth indoctrinated to glorify suicide bombers and despise Israel and America, Jews and Christians.
The international community repeated its shallow formula for peace like a broken record. International legitimacy, Israeli concessions and billions of dollars in aid were used to strengthen Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority - the "moderates" who had ostensibly renounced violence and accepted Israel's existence - and marginalize extremist groups like Hamas.
The Palestinian election result is the fruit of this failed approach to peacemaking, which amounted to nothing more than supporting a corrupt dictatorship. The world believed that seriously pressing Palestinian leaders to enact real reform would only weaken the Palestinian Authority internally and strengthen Hamas. The truth is precisely the opposite. By failing to insist that the Palestinian Authority dedicate itself to improving the lives of Palestinians, the United States, Israel, the EU and other players in the peace process made themselves contemptible in the eyes of Palestinians who saw their lives only getting worse.
When Arafat died, I had hopes that perhaps a new path to peace would be taken. But it was not to be. Abbas was not told unequivocally that without serious reforms, he would receive no support from the free world. On the contrary, he was given a pass when he blatantly refused to confront terror groups.
For its part, Israel's government, encouraged by the effusive praise of the international community, embarked on a foolish policy of one-sided concessions, which, as I feared when I resigned from the government last May, only strengthened the forces of terror within Palestinian society.
To the outside world, the Palestinians have now chosen the party of terror over the party of peace. But in the eyes of most Palestinians, the differences between Hamas and the "moderate" Fatah were not primarily in their views toward Israel. In fact, satellites of Fatah, such as Tanzim and the Al Aksa brigades, were no less responsible for the terrorism against Israel than were Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Indeed, the leading figure on Fatah's list was Marwan Barghouti, a man serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison for his role in terror attacks.
No, the real difference for the Palestinians was that a Fatah-run Palestinian Authority was rightly seen as a corrupt and feckless organization that had done and would continue to do nothing to improve Palestinian lives, whereas Hamas was untainted by corruption and appreciated for providing real social services.
With the vote being a choice between corrupt terrorists dedicated only to themselves and honest terrorists who are also dedicated to others, is it any surprise that Hamas won by a landslide?
I believe that many Palestinians who voted for Hamas voted to end corruption, to restore law and order and to implement real reform; the slogan that Hamas chose in its election campaign was not "Throw the Jews into the Sea," but rather "Change and Reform." The paradox is that the only party that Palestinians see as credible on this internal reform agenda was a terror organization dedicated to Israel's destruction and which has declared President George W. Bush "the enemy of God" and "the enemy of Islam."
Now that the Palestinian Authority's corrupt dictatorship has collapsed and a terror organization riding a wave of resentment with the status quo is assuming power, the free world has an opportunity to restore moral clarity to the peace process.
The world must base their support for this new regime on two ironclad conditions. First, Hamas must explicitly abandon the goal of destroying Israel and renounce terrorism. Second, it must dedicate itself toward building a free society for the Palestinians.
For 12 years, Israel and the world have imposed the first condition and ignored evidence when it was violated. As for the second condition, not only were democratic reforms seen as irrelevant to peace, supporting a corrupt dictatorship was seen as essential.
If the new Palestinian regime does not abide by these conditions, the free world, including Israel, must actively confront it and withhold legitimacy, money and concessions. But we must also seek ways to support any Palestinian individuals and organizations that do abide by these conditions.
My fear is that the results of the Palestinian elections will discredit the whole concept of democratic reform in the Middle East. But that would be to discredit an idea without it having been tried. For all the talk of the need for Palestinian reform and democracy, the only thing that the world insisted upon was holding elections. Elections do not a make free society. Elections in a "fear society" in which there is no law and order and in which democratic institutions are nonexistent, can bring the worst elements to power.
I hope that the policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East has not been dealt a fatal blow. Like so many tens of millions of Arabs in the region, there are countless Palestinians who want a better future, and we must seek every way to work with them. If we do not, we will end up not only betraying them once again, but also endangering ourselves.
(Natan Sharansky is the co-author of the best-selling book ''The Case For Democracy'' and a candidate for the Likud Party in Israel's forthcoming parliamentary elections.)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/01/opinion/edsharan.php
[A final note (from Aryeh): The true test of a democracy in transition is what happens in the NEXT round of elections (first, that there BE a next round). If Hamas does not deliver real benefit to its citizens, and is voted out of power by the electorate in the next parliamentary election, and enables a smooth transition – then we’re looking at a functioning democracy – though of course issues of personal freedom, freedom of the press and religion and speech and the like, remain central too. One of the discussants yesterday suggested that a Hamas government will fall in 6-9 months because it won’t be able to deliver and the population won’t accept its fundamentalist policies (internally, separating men and women in the workplace and boys and girls in schools, etc.); the sizable ‘swing-vote’ segment which elected them will turn either back to Fatah or to independent democrats. I raised the point that what happens when they fall will be our real indication of whether the norms of civil society have taken root. (And I also pressed for international support of independent democrats to be able to campaign successfully as an alternative to the well-funded Hamas and Fatah groups, a challenge which the free world has yet to meet….)]
Comments