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

[Womble]

Enough with the demoagoguery. There's nothing democratic about a group with fundamentally anti-democratic ideology like Hamas running for parliament in the first place. In no real democracy would a racist group with its own army to command be allowed to run for the parliament. Not to mention that such groups are explicitly banned from running in Palestinian elections under the Oslo accords, so the PA is supposed to be treaty bound.

They've dropped their call for Israel's destruction FROM THEIR ELECTION MANIFESTO, the document with a one day life span? Ohh yes, it's SUCH a sign of moderation. Let's see them removing it from the Hamas charter. Along with the anti-Semitic bits.

"Please don’t tell me that it helps the Palestinians to give the far right the time of day, or pretend that Palestinian liberals, socialists, women, gays, freethinkers and Christians (let alone Israeli Jews) would prosper in a Palestine ruled by Hamas. It’s not radical, it’s barely political, to turn a blind eye and say you are for the Palestinian cause. Political seriousness lies in stating which Palestine you are for and which Palestinians you support."

Nick Cohen, himself a pro-Palestinian Leftist.

[adwred]

Speaking of demagougery... describing Nick Cohen as a "pro-Palestinian Leftist" probably fits the bill.

Womble, will you just shut up and womble on out of here?

[Rad Geek]

"... Assuming they are fair, the world must respect the results of the elections. ..."

Why? As an anarchist, I don't respect the results of any government elections.

[scott]

Good point, Rad Geek. I should've put "world governments" instead of "the world." Admittedly, this entry wasn't written from a very anarchist perspective.

Womble, adwred is right. How is Nick Cohen a leftist? Because he calls himself one? Supporting the Iraq war and Labour, and attacking Galloway and Livingstone?

[Rad Geek]

scott: 'Good point, Rad Geek. I should've put "world governments" instead of "the world." Admittedly, this entry wasn't written from a very anarchist perspective.'

Well, fair enough, but I'm still not sure why. I mean, maybe "respect" for elections from other world governments will end up with better results for freedom and justice, and maybe it won't. Part of it probably has to do with what "respect" means in this context. (If it means, e.g., not going to war over it, sure. If it means taking seriously the idea that the election makes the resulting coalition a proper collective bargaining agent with which to dicker about the rights of all Palestinians, probably not.)

I think the important thing here is that government elections don't place any legitimate demands on anyone, and so aren't "respectable" on their own account -- at the very most they may be strategically useful for getting other people who buy into majoritarian popular sovereignty to hold back on doing nasty things that they might otherwise do. But I think that one of the most important insights in anarchism is the observation that at its very best, that's just a means to exchange a more obnoxious band of pirates for a less obnoxious band of pirates. And thus that these kind of appeals need to be taken with a heaping helping of salt, when they are taken at all.

[scott]

In this instance I was using "respect" mainly to imply that the Palestinian people should not suffer more because of the West's interpretation of the election results. I mean that the US, EU, and others, should not cut aid or diplomatic contacts to the Palestinians because of a strong showing by Hamas, and that Israel should not increase its killing or assassinations either.

I agree with your critique of elections in general, but that was not what was at issue in the post. As anarchists, we can denounce the elections, ignore them, say how illegitamate and what a load of crap they are. Yet at the same time, they are still happening, are viewed as a significant event, and the result has implications for the future of the conflict. In a small way, I was trying to address those implications as well as provide some background and context.

And off topic, I thought most pirates were anarchists!

[Womble]

"Speaking of demagougery... describing Nick Cohen as a "pro-Palestinian Leftist" probably fits the bill."

Does it really? Why, because he happens to disagree with you and Galloway?

Cohen is a genuine left winger. He votes Labor, I hear, which was a Left wing party last time I checked. It just isn't of your favorite variety- you seem to prefer those so far on the Left that they fall outside the limits of sanity and common sense. Cohen criticized American politics plenty, I believe he even opposed the invasion of Afghanistan at the time (something not many on the Left did). What he opposes is the alliance of the modern radicalized Western Left with the fascists and the religious fanatics of the Third World- like Galloway's support for Saddam, or your support for Hamas, for that matter.

Oh and mr. anonymous- I intend to womble freely whenever and wherever I feel like it. You have two choices- leaving the place to avoid reading my comments or learning to deal with the fact that there are people who don't agree with you.

[scott]

Womble, Labor in the UK is left wing like the Democrats in the US or Labor in Israel are left wing - as in, they're not.

I opposed the invastion of Afghanistan and still managed to oppose the Iraq war, even while opposed to Hussein. And my attempt to explain why people would vote for Hamas does not count as an endorsement, sorry.

Cohen probably just saw the money that Hitchens made and decided to follow that path.

[Womble]

Well Scott, why don't you actually read a couple of Cohen's articles and find out where he comes from?

In the meanwhile, I am glad none of you disagrees with the essence of my first comment ;)

[adwred]

I do disagree with the essence of your first post, if only because its disingenous in its description of conditions on the ground. Hamas is the political vehicle representing as significant portion of Palestinians in the occupied territories. To not engage them in a parlimentary setting would be insane. Of course their platform politics are insane, as are the minute swath of Israeli parties.

And, I stand by my description of your demagougery, cause if you really are blind enough to not understand that Nick Cohen is anything but a "Leftist", you're just mind-numbingly ignorant. He may be part of the conditional Left, as in a general spectrum, but to try to classify him alongside Palestine solidarity activists is either a) disingenous or b) ignorant. You choose your own title.

[Michael Brenner]

I am not that unhappy about Hamas's election victory for reasons I will put on my blog later, but I wanted to comment on one thing you wrote:

"the US, EU, and others, should not cut aid or diplomatic contacts to the Palestinians because of a strong showing by Hamas, and that Israel should not increase its killing or assassinations either."

It seems to me that you want it both ways. You want a recognition of the Palestinians' democratic choice but no action to be taken as a result of that choice. Nowhere it is written that any government, democratically elected or not, has a right to foreign aid, which the Palestinians, as the world's per capita most expensive welfare case, absolutely cannot do without.

Not that I'm necessarily advocating it, but if democracy is a collective exercise, can we, indeed should we, not now hold the Palestinians responsible collectively for putting a terrorist organization in power? You and others have called for collective punishment toward Israel in the form of boycotts on pretty much the same basis - the democratically elected government of Israel, a Zionist one, is the will of the people and therefore the people deserved to be punished.

[Womble]

"Hamas is the political vehicle representing as significant portion of Palestinians in the occupied territories. To not engage them in a parlimentary setting would be insane."

Nonsense. No matter how significant a portion of Palestinians they represent, their racist, anti-democratic agenda, involvement in terrorism and the very fact of them being an armed group outside of the PA government's control should have rendered them ineligible for elections in a real democracy. The Vlaams Blok in Belgium was the most popular party in Flanders, they were banned under the Anti-Racism Act regardless. The sheer armed force of the Hamas would likely make banning them dangerous, of course- but this is only a further proof of the non-democratic nature of the election process, because this means that the Hamas has thrusted itself into the election process while holding the Palestinian society at gunpoint.

[adwred]

I'd hardly call that a fair analogy, but as yours never are, I'll take the bait...

My point is that, for better or worse, Hamas is the leading political vehicle in the territories. Okay? Can we agree on that? I think it would make little sense for an occupier and the world at large to yet again demand from an occupied people that the clear choice they have made (right or wrong in your eyes) to support Hamas is illegal.
As Scott points out in his write-up, this is a possible step towards engagement and a lessening of violence.

The only point you've made above is that you hate Hamas and would make it illegal for them to run candidates for election. I think that's insane because all it would do is cut off yet another political alternative for Palestinians and probably lead to more violence.

[scott]

Michael,
You're right, no one is guaranteed foreign aid (except Israel - no matter how foul a government they might elect), it was just my opinion on the matter.

Both you and Womble attack Hamas as a racist and terrorist organization, claiming this should exclude them from the elections and "democratic process." I'm not sure about Hamas being racist, though I'm sure you could both produce a record of anti-Jewish statements that could convince me. I don't think Hamas as an entire entity is a terrorist organization. Their military wing commits acts of terrorism, but that's not the sole purpose of Hamas' existence.

So, if they're just racist, how are they different from right-wing Israeli parties? If they're armed and commit violence against civilians, how are they different from the settlers or the Israeli army?

To quote Michael, "It seems to me that you want it both ways."

[Michael Brenner]

I agree that Hamas has a political wing. How independent it is of its political wing is never quite clear. But what happens if there are suicide bombings again? The EU and US would be effectively funding them if they gave money to a Hamas-run government.

Hamas's charter includes passages from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so I think they have a pretty clear antisemitism problem. The world community, at least anyone who gives money to the PA, should immediately call for the removal of such references from the Hamas charter.

"So, if they're just racist, how are they different from right-wing Israeli parties? If they're armed and commit violence against civilians, how are they different from the settlers or the Israeli army?"

The Israeli army does not base its operations around killing civilians. The civilian/combatant ratio of those killed by the IDF is far lower than Hamas, who actively aim to kill women and small children.

Only a very small minority of settlers, who are marginalized in government now, take part in or support violence. The National Union and similar parties, the most direct Israeli equivalent of Hamas in Israel, make up around 10 percent of the Knesset in a good year.

[Womble]

Adwred:

"My point is that, for better or worse, Hamas is the leading political vehicle in the territories. Okay? Can we agree on that? I think it would make little sense for an occupier and the world at large to yet again demand from an occupied people that the clear choice they have made (right or wrong in your eyes) to support Hamas is illegal."

In other words, your reasoning is not based on the logic of democracy or legality, but purely on the "realpolitik". Well, at least it's honest, for once. It doesn't, however, justify calling the election of Hamas to the parliament democratic. It is, in the words of Nick Cohen, "barely political".

"As Scott points out in his write-up, this is a possible step towards engagement and a lessening of violence."
It is likely a step towards more violence actually, both external- against Israel, on a larger scale, with better funding and therefore provoking heavier defensive measures in return- and internal- against the secular and Christian Palestinians who will oppose the Islamist policies Hamas will attempt to implement.

Scott:

"I'm not sure about Hamas being racist, though I'm sure you could both produce a record of anti-Jewish statements that could convince me."
Just read their Charter.

"I don't think Hamas as an entire entity is a terrorist organization. Their military wing commits acts of terrorism, but that's not the sole purpose of Hamas' existence."
Ah yes, the famous nonsensial "their right hand isn't guilty of what their left hand does" defense. Do explain, then, if they are separate, why their leadership can freely jump overnight from being the head of the "political" wing to the head of the "military" one and vice versa like Rantissi did. Or why they are funded from the same budget. Or why their "political" wing constantly uses the "achievements" of the "military" wing in their election campaigns to anything from student councils to the Legislative Council.

[Rad Geek]

scott: "I mean that the US, EU, and others, should not cut aid or diplomatic contacts to the Palestinians because of a strong showing by Hamas, and that Israel should not increase its killing or assassinations either."

I agree with you that neither the U.S. nor the E.U. nor Israel should escalate military conflicts with the P.A. (because I think as a matter of general policy that no governments should escalate military conflicts with anyone over anything). I'm a bit puzzled, though, by the reference to "foreign aid" (i.e., government-to-government transfers). Do you think that the P.A. should be receiving any tax-funded aid at all? Do you trust governments to pick and choose the best places and best people for the money to go to, or that governments are the best entities to receive it? Haven't government-to-government aid payments historically been used as a fuel for tyranny and militarism throughout the Third World and the Middle East for the past several decades?

[Rad Geek]

Womble: No matter how significant a portion of Palestinians they represent, their racist, anti-democratic agenda, involvement in terrorism and the very fact of them being an armed group outside of the PA government's control should have rendered them ineligible for elections in a real democracy. The Vlaams Blok in Belgium was the most popular party in Flanders, they were banned under the Anti-Racism Act regardless. The sheer armed force of the Hamas would likely make banning them dangerous, of course- but this is only a further proof of the non-democratic nature of the election process, because this means that the Hamas has thrusted itself into the election process while holding the Palestinian society at gunpoint.

Womble: In other words, your reasoning is not based on the logic of democracy or legality, but purely on the "realpolitik". Well, at least it's honest, for once. It doesn't, however, justify calling the election of Hamas to the parliament democratic. It is, in the words of Nick Cohen, "barely political".

So, just to be clear, Womble, you believe in having the government forcibly dissolve or suppress political parties (in the name of, what, "democracy"? Leftism?) when you find their political views sufficiently loathsome? And any view to the contrary to be a matter of crude realpolitik rather than any kind of principled political stance?

If not, I look forward to being corrected.

[scott]

Michael, if the suicide bombings by Hamas start again, that's a different story. I was only saying that governments shouldn't make a kneejerk reaction to the election.

You've both made your points about Hamas' anti-Jewish views. However, if we go back to focusing on changing charters, we've gone back decades. That's not to say Hamas shouldn't change their charter, but that alone should not end the discussion.

Rad Geek, From the comments here and at your site, I think we're just coming at things from totally different angles. I'm looking at these things as givens, for the time being, that have to be considered regardless of if we support them or not. You're looking at the more theoretical aspects of all this - governments, elections, etc - which are important questions on the whole, but not as immediately pertinent to me at the moment.

But I do agree with your thoughts on foreign aid. It is manipulative and militaristic. At the same time, because of the occupation and destroyed economy, the Palestinians need aid right now. I don't see anarchists stepping up, or the left, so until then, we're left with the Japanese government giving UNWRA $500,000 donations, and the EU funding PA programs. Certainly not an ideal situation.

Oh, and Womble, just came across this post on Nick Cohen over at Jews sans frontieres, in case your interested. Apparently adwred and I aren't the only ones who think he's not so left.

[Womble]

"So, just to be clear, Womble, you believe in having the government forcibly dissolve or suppress political parties (in the name of, what, "democracy"? Leftism?) when you find their political views sufficiently loathsome?"
Not "sufficiently loathsome", but "sufficiently anti-democratic". It is, in essence, where the difference between a democracy and a majority tyranny lies. Electing a Hitler is no democracy.

"And any view to the contrary to be a matter of crude realpolitik rather than any kind of principled political stance?"
Well, I suppose it can also be the case of sacrificing sanity for consistency of ideology.

Just like ideological principles, the "realpolitik factor" has its uses, but it should also have its limits. Blind ideological fanaticism is usually destructive, limitless cynicism corrupts. As in all things, this is a matter of finding the right balance and the most productive ways of practical application.

[Rad Geek]

Womble, the distinction between meaningful democracy and majority tyranny, as those terms are usually used, has to do with protections for minorities and individual rights. It has nothing in particular to do with whether or not "anti-democratic" parties can be elected to office.

Do you think that believing in an inalienable right of free political association, or simply not trusting the incumbent government to be able to make the decisions about which competing parties are sufficiently "democratic" and which aren't, is not only mistaken, but in fact an insane form of "blind ideological fanaticism"?

And, just to be clear, when you say that anti-democratic political parties ought to be suppressed by the government, just how far do you think that they ought to go in the name of democracy? Banning the anti-democratic party from competing in parliamentary elections? Banning members of the anti-democratic party from standing for individual sets? Dissolving the anti-democratic party by government diktat? Restricting their rights to electioneer or lobby or contribute to campaigns? Restricting their rights to meet or publish political literature? Rounding them up and shooting them? Less? More? (I ask because this bears partly on just what's entailed by your answer to the first question.)

[Rad Geek]

scott: Rad Geek, From the comments here and at your site, I think we're just coming at things from totally different angles. I'm looking at these things as givens, for the time being, that have to be considered regardless of if we support them or not. You're looking at the more theoretical aspects of all this - governments, elections, etc - which are important questions on the whole, but not as immediately pertinent to me at the moment.

Well, I'm sure there is a difference of focus here, but I'm not convinced that it's best understood in terms of the distinctions between theoretical and practical. It seems to me that the very real problems with government-to-government aid make for good practical reasons to take the "purist" stance: because government-to-government aid is actively harmful (in particular, in the P.A., it has propped up and lined the pockets of a corrupt, unaccountable, and co-opted one-party state under Fatah for years), complaining about it being cut seems rather like complaining about someone getting a reduction in their dose of arsenic-laced wine.

scott: At the same time, because of the occupation and destroyed economy, the Palestinians need aid right now. I don't see anarchists stepping up, or the left, so until then, we're left with the Japanese government giving UNWRA $500,000 donations, and the EU funding PA programs. Certainly not an ideal situation.

Well, so why not make an effort to get anarchists (and for that matter, statist Leftists and humanitarians of various stripes) to step up like they should and give direct mutual aid? It seems to me that they're probably more open to persuasion than U.S. policy makers, more likely to give money to the right people, and, if you fail to hit the goals that need to be hit, that's still more money to people who need it than the nothing that results from failed political pressure campaigns.

[Womble]

"Womble, the distinction between meaningful democracy and majority tyranny, as those terms are usually used, has to do with protections for minorities and individual rights. It has nothing in particular to do with whether or not "anti-democratic" parties can be elected to office."
You say it as if one is somehow independent of the other. When a group openly adocating an Islamic theocracy and talking about subjecting the Palestinian Christians to a dhimmi status runs for office, what do you think they are going to do once they get there, protect the freedom of speech and the rights of the religious minorities?

"Do you think that believing in an inalienable right of free political association, or simply not trusting the incumbent government to be able to make the decisions about which competing parties are sufficiently "democratic" and which aren't, is not only mistaken, but in fact an insane form of "blind ideological fanaticism"?"

Not necesserily, but it can be. It depends on the specifics of each case. Distrusting any government anywhere anytime in any matter is a case of a clinically paranoid mindset. People like that should seek professional help. Believing that the rights of any party, however violent, anti-democratic and racist, must be defended no matter the cost is a case of either total loss of morals or deliberate blindness to reality.

Simply put, I may find PETA loathsome, and if they were to form a party in Israel and run for the Knesset aiming to ban meat consumption, it would have been quite undemocratic, but it would not yet warrant a legal ban. But banning Meir Kahane's racist party from running for the Knesset was justified without a doubt.

"And, just to be clear, when you say that anti-democratic political parties ought to be suppressed by the government, just how far do you think that they ought to go in the name of democracy?"
They should do as little as possible, but as much as necessery. The aforementioned Kach was effectively neutralized by being disqualified from the race for the Knesset seats by the law and the High Court. If they were to resist that decision by unlawful methods, it could warrant harsher measures. Rounding them up and shooting is out of the question though; we have no death penalty around here.

[Rad Geek]

Womble: Distrusting any government anywhere anytime in any matter is a case of a clinically paranoid mindset. People like that should seek professional help.

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.

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.

Womble: Believing that the rights of any party, however violent, anti-democratic and racist, must be defended no matter the cost is a case of either total loss of morals or deliberate blindness to reality.

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. I don't really care very much about the ability of folks to challenge in an election either, since I don't regard government elections as having any legitimate authority (I think there are some weak pragmatic reasons to resist moves like that, but not principled moral objections). But 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? Advocating political views? Electioneering for qualified candidates? Printing literature? Meeting? Assembling in public? Something else?)

N.B.: 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.