The Palestinian vote

It is not for outsiders to judge their choice

Andrew Lodge Volunteer Staff

A year ago, the U.S. government was in a jubilant mood. The death of longtime Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and the election of Mahmoud Abbas were trumpeted as yet another phase in the ongoing wave of democracy in the Middle East.

At the same time, Lebanon was, according to Washington, turning the tide by effectively ousting the seemingly never-ending Syrian military presence in that country, following the assassination of businessman and former prime minister Rafik al-Hariri. And, after the elections in Iraq at this time last year, the U.S. was desperately but resolutely holding to the illusion that the “liberation” was going according to plan, however obviously erroneous that view of the neo-colonial quagmire was (and is).

Today, while not much has changed on the ground, the U.S. is not so enamoured with the region. Hezbollah, long having drawn the ire of the U.S., remains as popular as ever in Lebanon. Iraq continues to spiral and the Bush administration is steadfast in its resolution to “stay the course,” no matter how destructive, dangerous and downright wrong that course may be.

And now, for the Americans, the unthinkable: Two weeks ago, the Palestinians elected the fundamentalist group known as Hamas to lead them in the post-Arafat era.

Palestinian democracy was a crucial component of the U.S.-authored “Roadmap for Peace,” which stated, among other things, that “as early as possible, and based upon the above measures and in the context of open debate and transparent candidate selection/electoral campaign based on a free, multi-party process, Palestinians hold free, open, and fair elections.”

But now the reaction in the West to the Hamas victory has been horror and disbelief. Stronger than even these sentiments, though, has been a determined and outright refusal by the U.S. and their allies to deal with Hamas at all. Their democratic victory, according to both George Bush and Tony Blair (and not to mention Stephen Harper), is apparently not democratic at all. This, in light of the numbers: 78 per cent voter turnout, and an overwhelming victory in both seats and popular vote. These results are, perhaps sad to say, far more convincing than the last four electoral victories on this continent, both in terms of the margin of victory and popular participation.

Perhaps the most surprising reaction to Hamas’s win, however, has come from voices within Israel. In the most recent poll, 48 per cent of Israelis suggest that dialogue between the Israeli state and a Hamas government should occur, an incredible statistic given the animosity in the region, and especially considering that only 43 per cent of Israelis claimed to oppose such a dialogue. Of course there is trepidation in Israel, and that trepidation will not be easily dissipated. But, average Israelis, like Palestinians, no doubt want peace and not permanent war, and many realize that massive walls and sustained military strikes are no lasting solution.

Furthermore, it is overly simplistic to suggest that the vote for Hamas was a vote for terror. For one thing, Fatah, like Hamas, has in the past declared outright war on Israel. This was not the central issue. Many observers the world over, including the moderate mainstream in Israel, point out that the election was about two central issues: the now untenable corruption among the Fatah wing, and the unacceptable living conditions that go along with the occupation.

The vote for Hamas was not motivated because the average Palestinian has hated and always will hate peace. Given the level of terror in the occupied territories and all the horrors that go with that, it is ridiculous to suggest that the average mother, for instance, hates peace. Quite the opposite, one suspects.

Among those living in a war zone, a certain pragmatism may develop that is nearly impossible to nuture among fervent supporters on both sides who live outside the region. This pragmatism, though, is perhaps the best hope for establishing dialogue. Prominent Israeli analysts point out that the hawks within the Israeli government have, for years, played Hamas off the Palestinian Authority, thus ensuring a weak formal Palestinian politick. Now it seems that that position may have backfired.

Nonetheless, as Gideon Samat of the daily newspaper Ha’aretz points out, “Why not initiate the talks and hold [Hamas] to their word when it turns out that they are no more monstrous than the PLO and Fatah seemed at the time?” And from another Israeli journalist, Arnon Regular: “Hamas will probably continue observing calm,” a reference to the already year-long cease-fire between Israel and Hamas.

There will be setbacks. These will undoubtedly be violent and painful. This much is certain. But if both Israeli and Palestinian voices are still calling for dialogue, then there remains cause for hope.

The West has clamoured (or pretended to clamour) for Palestinian democracy for years. There should be no question of turning back the clock just because the results are not to our liking. This was not an American vote. This was not an Israeli vote. This was a choice made by the Palestinians. Given their history and the circumstances under which they currently live, it is not for outsiders to judge that choice.

Andrew Lodge is a third-year medical student.