The So-Called "Palestinian Elections"

As I write this, Palestinians are beginning to vote in elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council.  According to all watchers, Hamas will likely do very well and is almost certain to play a role in the new Palestinian Authority government. 

While initially the U.S. and Israel have balked at any Hamas role in the PA - the U.S. even sent the PA $2 million dollars to make Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party look good before the election - they seem to be changing their tune.  Slightly.  Shimon Peres has indicated Israel will negotiate with Hamas, and the US says it will deal with a PA government that includes Hamas.

That is a good thing.  It is already hypocritical enough for Israel and the U.S. to claim to support "democracy" in Palestine while the U.S. monetarily favors one party and Israel to tries to block voting in East Jerusalem.  Assuming they are fair, the world must respect the results of the elections.  I have heard that there may be some irregularities, as those who have learned from their occupier how effective force can be may try to exert some of their own, but Palestinians have experience with democracy.

Of all the coverage of the election, I find three things are particularly important to keep in mind:

1.  The elections are occurring under a military occupation.  Though there may be democracy, there is no freedom to accompany it. 

For example, just from January 3 to January 22, the Israeli army killed eight Palestinians and injured 52. Israel carried out 151 air and ground attacks and 340 raids on Palestinian towns and refugee camps.  The Wall continues to be built, checkpoints continue to hinder movement, and an average of 27 main West Bank roads are closed on a daily basis. 

Dr. Hanan Ashrawi and Hatem Abdul Qader, both members of the current PLC, were detained and beaten by Israeli forces while campaigning in East Jerusalem.

2.  These are not "Palestinian elections," but elections in the Occupied Territories.  The vast majority of Palestinians cannot vote - those in Israel and the Diaspora are ineligible - and the PA represents only those Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.  Thus, while the PA may negotiate about issues such as the refugees, those refugees living outside the Occupied Territories have no say in choosing who can bargain with their future.

3.  Hamas is popular not because of its ideology or its violence, but because of the alternative it offers.  Palestinians are fed up with the Fatah party, which has had power for decades but achieved nothing except for becoming corrupt.  Hamas is seen as honest, responsible and incorruptible, as well as admired for its social services which are more efficient that the PA's. 

If I were the U.S. or Israel, I would see Hamas joining the political process as a positive step.  It could lead to further moderation and eventual disarmament.  Already, they've dropped their call for Israel's destruction from their election manifesto.  A knee-jerk reaction to a Hamas victory would be inappropriate.  Especially cause they're most likely in communications with each other anyway.  After all, Israel actively supported Hamas in its beginning, seeing it as a counter to the PLO.

In the end, I don't think much will change.  Regardless of who wins, the occupation continues and daily life is controlled not by the PA but by the Israeli army.  Until that issue is addressed, a truly democratic Palestinian society cannot exist.  As Saree Makdisi says, what we have now is "political cynicism born of despair."

Comments

[Echo Hunter]

After a deep review of the preliminary actions taken by the exponentially growing turdiciary committee of geological morphical coexistence society of Bali, I have come across some very interesting deprimerizating proof about Chromlick and his goons. The legislative fortitude strikes on grape fields have to stop, or the wine industry will vanish out of existence. In order for us, the mad white people who seem to have most of every opportunity in our grasp, to gain some power, we'll have to grab the next valuable plot of earth. We have to take Tokyo. Their technology is just what we need to eliminate all of communism in the world. If in the Florida Keys region we had a huge tower that could beam a high energy light wave blast towards Cuba, the Al Kiline would stop infiltrating our country. It's simple, stop communism, stop hunger. My vision is clear, my vision is gold, my vision is that all hungry people should be placed in the middle of north Dakota, and fend for themselves. That's a solution, a final solution. We can move on to rights for all. Form all into one being, give them rule, euthanize the weak. Strong Economy. I have story!

In the recent pas.., I mean Long ago, in a land called Nacirema, there were these villainous creatures which aimed to control all economi.., I mean all land. They had been successful in building the greatest army that era had ever seen. In there recent conflic.., I mean conquests, the Naciremans had occu.., placed their troo.., soldiers into the land known as Neitselep.

. Neitselep wasn't seen by the Naciremans before because in their history the Naissurs had a wicked sized penis. Naciremans don't take kindly to big penis, to they grew their penis, using all their resources. The masturbation went on for decades until the Naissurs had started to chafe. The Naissurs stopped the masturbation and fell in defeat. Naciremans ever since has had to show the entire world how big their penis is. The Naciremans didn't want their penis to chafe and begin to look for lube. The holy land in Neitselep has vast amounts of lube, although if you use all the lube now, there won't be any more in a few decades. What about the rest of the world? Fuck Them! I have a huge penis, and I'm not going to lose it.

As history shows the Naciremans liberated the people of Neitselep and made governments to lube penis. But in one session of wicked masturbation, the Naciremans identified a turn off that would only hinder the penis masturbation. The Naciremans didn't annihilate the turn off, just pushed it down, and saved it for later. Even with missiles in the Clinton administration, and war in the bushes, we have found it necessary to whack off a lot. and that is our problem. In order for the Naciremans to help anyone with chores, we have to put our magazine down and quit beaten our enormous sausage.

[Womble]

"Sham medical diagnoses for political disagreements isn't going to get you very far in rational argument. It is, frankly, a sleazy rhetorical tactic, and you ought to feel guilty about having indulged in it."
Why should I? If the shoe fits...

"That said, the issue I mentioned didn't have to do with whether or not you categorically distrust all government action. It specifically has to do with how far you trust incumbent parties (who have the power to set the legal criteria, if we allow legal criteria to be set) to put up legislative barriers against competing parties. Because the ability to exclude your own challengers is a dangerous thing for governing parties to have."

It is not the governing parties who should do the exclusion. It should be the judicial branch, those who interprete the law rather than those who make it. The democratic criteria for eligibility must be incorporated into the very system of the democratic governance.

"I don't care about the rights of any "party;" I don't think they've got any. I do care about the rights of party members to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, etc."

And its all fine, until the question of the price arises. Everything has its price, and there are gambles the society simply cannot afford to take. How high a price are you willing to pay for giving the neo-Nazis the freedom of being elected? Is a neo-Nazi takeover, with all the consequences it entails, acceptable to you? Is it moral, is it pragmatic, is it consistent with democracy?

"...your dark suggestions that you'd be fine with using "harsher measures" against anti-democratic parties is troubling, because it's hard to imagine what that would mean other than compromising those rights, and suggests that you're fine with violent retaliation beyond simply delisting their candidates (for what crime? If their candidates can't be recognized as standing in the election, what "resistance" do you have in mind suppressing through the use of violence?"

You are building strawmen at such a rate that you will soon exhaust your country's supplies of straw, and they'll be forced to import from Israel.

Re-read what I said. Delisting of the candidates with undemocratic agenda is quite sufficient. The harsher measures can be taken IF THE PARTY REFUSES TO ACCEPT THIS AND PROCEEDS TO PURSUE THEIR AGENDA BY USE OF UNLAWFUL MEANS. They can contest the decision in the court of law, no problem- but if the party resorts to using politically motivated violence, for instance, I see nothing wrong with forcefully dissolving it and making the membership in such a party after it's been banned a criminal offense.

"I am quite willing to take the stance in question for Kach as well as Hamas, for Maoists, for the Ku Klux Klan, and just about any other example of bare-fanged evil organized that I can think of."

That you are, but I doubt that you would be willing to pay the price if the Ku Klux Klan were to win the elections and come knocking on your door. As it's been noted by Plato, "Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.” The goal of the true democratic government is to not allow this to happen.