REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Democracy for Palestine
A real election, thanks in no small part to Bush's diplomacy.
WSJ.com OpinionJournal
Saturday, January 8, 2005 12:01 a.m.
"World to Bush: Get Real!" So read the headline of a June 30, 2002, media roundup in the Los Angeles Times, summing up enlightened reaction to President Bush's June 24 speech on the future of Palestine. "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror," Mr. Bush had said. "I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty." Such conditions for U.S. support, said one British critic, were "stringent, indeed impossible."
We recall these gloomy forecasts as Palestinians prepare to stand in long lines this weekend to participate in only the second genuine presidential election in the Arab world in modern memory, after Algeria's. We say "genuine," because the presidential referendums that have kept Egypt's Hosni Mubarak in power for a quarter-century are uncontested, as, in effect, was the 1996 election of Yasser Arafat.
By contrast, this election looks like it will be conducted freely and fairly. And while Mahmoud Abbas's victory is expected, he has had to sell his candidacy to a public skeptical of his ability to deliver. It's not Western-style democracy, but it's a good new beginning for that shaky enterprise known as Palestine.
Where do we go from here? It pays to understand how we've gotten this far. Begin with Mr. Bush's consistent refusal to negotiate with Arafat, which was broadly lamented as a retreat from diplomacy. In fact, it was essential diplomacy. It signaled that the U.S. would not hazard its prestige by dealing again with a man who'd made a fool of President Clinton at the Camp David summit in July 2000. It also sent a message to Palestinians that Arafat's continued leadership would pay no dividends on the international scene.
Equally important was Mr. Bush's decision to junk the failed land-for-peace formula that had defined U.S. Mideast policy for decades. In this new reckoning, the problem in the Middle East was not primarily a function of territory, but of ideology and politics; that is, of the nature of existing Arab regimes. Israel can always be arm-twisted into giving up land. But what is the point of creating a Palestinian state that is a haven for terrorists and a springboard for continued aggression against its neighbors? By treating statehood as a reward for performance, not an entitlement for existence, Mr. Bush helped lay the groundwork for Sunday's elections.
Finally, Mr. Bush gave the Israelis a green light to pursue counterterrorism measures despite broad international condemnation. As a result, Israelis demonstrated, to Palestinians as well as themselves, that terrorism could be defeated militarily. The decimation of Hamas and other radical groups created the space in which Mr. Abbas, who had long opposed the intifada, could prosper. By the same token, it would have been politically impossible for Ariel Sharon to plan an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza if Israeli civilians were still under routine terrorist attack. The prime minister's right-wing challengers would have ousted him.
Today, the task for the Administration is to maintain the emphasis on expectations. It won't be easy. British Prime Minister Tony Blair will surely push him to re-engage in the peace process, and there will be strong urgings, particularly from the State Department, to do so as a way of repairing relations with Europe. In the past, that has meant putting pressure on the Israelis to make some kind of political gesture, such as the release of thousands of Palestinian security prisoners.
Leaving aside the dubious merits of this idea, the onus remains on the Palestinians to meet the terms laid out in the June 24 speech. Mr. Abbas certainly compares favorably to his infamous predecessor. Yet he continues to insist on the so-called right of return for Palestinian refugees--code for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state--and he has steadfastly refused to punish terrorists.
He recently told a crowd in Gaza that "the struggle against the Zionist enemy will continue until the establishment of an independent Palestinian state." Maybe that's campaign rhetoric. But until Mr. Abbas is willing to speak honestly to his own people about what peace with Israel will require of them, and assert his authority to that end, he will be an uncertain partner in any serious negotiation.
More broadly, Mr. Bush needs to keep some perspective on the importance of this conflict to his second-term agenda. The 5,000 killed on both sides during the four years of the intifada is tragic, but 50,000 were killed last year in Darfur. The threat posed to U.S. interests by Israeli-Palestinian tensions is trivial next to that posed by the Iraqi insurgency, to say nothing of a nuclearizing Iran. Despite the media attention the issue receives, a breakthrough on Palestine does not guarantee a stable Mideast.
Still, it is hard not to take huge satisfaction from the sight of Palestinians exercising their democratic rights, a sight that will reverberate among Arabs denied the vote by their own governments. Now it is up to Palestinians to exercise their rights constructively, and for Israel to respond in kind if and as they do.
Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |
