Democracy, it seems, is not unlike marriage. The ceremony and celebrations attract all the attention, the honeymoon is brief, and promises made are often broken or unfulfilled. The ballot is not unlike the pledge, “for better or for worse,” with one notable exception. If “worse” is all the winner ends up offering, “’til death do us part” is not the voters’ last recourse.
In the case of Palestinian elections, voters struck back at chaotic governance, corrupt leadership and societal decay by voting in, perhaps unwittingly, Hamas. As one Palestinian minister put it, “They wanted to slap us; they ended up amputating a leg.”
The meddling in-laws, Washington and Tel Aviv, were certainly more of a hindrance than help. They belatedly backed the woefully deficient incumbents, Fatah though for the preceding year they did little to sustain and effectively undercut President Mahmoud Abbas’ authority.
Now Hamas will formally take charge of the Palestinian National Authority, a milestone in the history of the Palestinian people. Some worry that it could become their tombstone.
The EU, particularly Denmark, usually acts as a counterweight to Washington. Copenhagen was instrumental in convincing Washington to accept Hamas’ participation in the elections. Yet, despite having anticipated the Hamas win, EU member nations remain divided on “next steps” and the legal implications of terror financing prohibitions. In addition, the cartoon controversy’s aftermath has shifted attention from PNA funding alternatives to debates on the responsibilities and consequences of free speech.
As the EU attempts to find a cohesive approach, Washington and Tel Aviv have managed to concoct a scheme of their own.
On Tuesday a front-page article in the New York Times revealed that a plan is afoot in both capitals to “starve” the PNA of funds and international support. Such a tactic is collective punishment dressed up as bilateral sanctions.
The real objective is to compel 150,000 civil servants, and the roughly 900,000 relatives their salaries support, to take to the streets, demand the government resign, spark new elections and return Fatah.
Yet the “you reap what you sow” policy (i.e., Palestinians elected Hamas, so Palestinians suffer the consequences) is a dangerous, double-edged sword that should not be wielded without adequate appreciation for the possible outcomes.
With over 70 percent of the Palestinians hovering just above or well below the poverty line, they may well blame Hamas for their economic strangulation, particularly if the party fails to adopt a compromise position. In such an event, the scenario outlined above is plausible. Yet this seemingly perfect plan has a significant downside. Fatah will not reform.
Why should they? The process is painful and destabilizing in the short-term as positions are cut, security services reordered and patronage excesses curbed. What’s the incentive? They are assured that the reins of power (and the government purse) are theirs to misuse and plunder at will.
There is another option.
Hamas’ leadership may shrewdly decide to buy some time by adopting Ariel Sharon’s strategy. Sharon staked out such hard-line positions that he transformed the most modest compromise into a major event. Hamas can do the same. After taking a few credible steps forward, the international community will debate the merits of the effort, fissures will deepen, and a number of countries will continue to provide assistance in the interim. Hamas can use this “cushion” to raise funds in the region, improve governance and services at home, and slowly broaden its electoral base.
Were this to occur, then Palestinians may just as easily turn their anger on Washington and Tel Aviv. The streets of Ramallah and Gaza City are not the only ones likely to show a surge of anti-American and anti-Israeli demonstrations.
With outrage over the cartoons simmering in the SMS-connected and IT-savvy Muslim Ummah, an obvious and catastrophic demonstration of American and Israeli pique could galvanize public opinion once more. Countries bordering Palestine are likely to erupt in opposition. Lebanon, whose own law and order is largely dependent on its neighbors’, will face yet another challenge to its security. As always, Damascus is likely to exploit the situation to its own advantage. Enough reason for Washington to reconsider.
The potential for Hamas to outflank the US and Israel is quite real, particularly as elections in both countries hobble already straight jacketed political sense and sensibility. Oddly enough, one of the less obvious results of the election seems to have escaped strategists’ attention: Hamas did not win or failed to secure large margins in towns and municipalities that it already controls.
In other words, were sound minds to prevail, they might counsel patience. Hamas showed remarkable discipline in the run-up to the elections and maintained the cease-fire with Israel, though other groups broke it. Let Hamas govern, have to deliver on pre-election pledges, and suffer the consequences of its own, not Washington or Tel Aviv-inspired, actions.
Fortunately, there are a few individuals with enough sense, and perhaps enough “wasta”, to urge Bush to reconsider.
In an interview last week, former US Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer said, “We have principles, we’re not going to deal with terrorists, and we’re not going to deal with parties which don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist. But we can deal with a Palestinian Authority which remains loyal to those positions, even if the parliamentary support of the authority has a different aspect.”
Kurtzer added, “I think if we’re agile enough in our diplomacy, we can at least keep alive the prospect of an engagement with the PA, should that kind of government emerge.”
Such political finesse could give all parties enough cover to constructively, if cautiously, engage. Shrewd allies should mobilize to encourage such an outcome. There is much more at stake than Palestinians’ salaries.
— Maggie Mitchel Salem is a public affairs and media consultant in Washington D.C.
