JUST A MONTH ago, American policy in the Middle East seemed to be proceeding fairly smoothly. President Bush's plan to promote democracy in the region, while encountering obstacles, at least showed clear progress in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, in the last few weeks, events have thrown into question whether democracy is truly the best option for the Muslim world.
In the Jan. 26 election of the Palestinian parliament, voters gave the majority of seats to Hamas, a terrorist organization openly dedicated to destroying the state of Israel. While many interpret these events as proof that Islam and democracy are incompatible, a closer examination shows that promoting democracy remains the best option for America in the region.
In fact, the Palestinian elections do not indicate the faultiness of our current pressure for Middle Eastern democracy but instead show the lingering effects of an earlier emphasis on "stability."
This idea, dominant before Sept. 11 and still held by many so-called realists, supported authoritarian regimes on the grounds that they would prevent Islamic radicals from taking over the region. For this reason, governments as brutal as Saddam Hussein's and as corrupt as Saudi Arabia's have received military and financial aid from America so long as they claimed to oppose Islamic fundamentalism. Now that Hamas has won the Palestinian election, some believe that democracy has failed, and instead a new dictator would be preferable.
In 1993 the Oslo Accords set the Palestinian territories on the path to independence, with Yasser Arafat as president. At this point Western leaders made their first mistake andallowed Arafat dictatorial authority. With these powers, conventional wisdom said, Arafat would be able to suppress Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups. Arafat, of course, was very willing to accept this agreement.
During his decade-long reign, he received billions of dollars in international aid, few of which were spent improving life in the Palestinian territories. Without the accountability to voters present in a democracy, the money disappeared into the bank accounts of Arafat and his cronies. By excusing this corruption, the United States earned the hatred of Palestinians and caused them to turn to Hamas.
Arafat died in Nov. 2004, but his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, failed to make any significant changes to the Palestinian Authority. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the ruling party Fatah was defeated by Hamas in last month's election.
Many experts in Israel agree that voters chose Hamas not because of its terrorist leanings but because it was the only logical alternative to Fatah's history of corruption and incompetence.
Had the West supported Palestinian democracy during the 1990s rather than the untrustworthy Arafat, a moderate opposition could have been given time to develop. Instead, the only alternative to corruption for Palestinians was Hamas.
Now America faces a challenge. After so much praise for democracy, President Bush faces a democratically elected terrorist government in Palestine.
While it may be difficult from a rhetorical standpoint, the United States. shouldrefuse to aid the Hamas government without abandoning support for democracy. We advocate democracy because it generally leads to better government, but we are not obligated to support all democracies. Terrorism does not deserve acceptance just because the terrorists were elected.
If a Hamas government still refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, it ought to be ostracized by the global community. Hopefully, withholding international aid will force Hamas to moderate its views and accept peace with Israel.
Understandably, some Western observers regard Hamas's electoral triumph in Palestine as proof that American efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East are flawed. However, while Hamas's victory may have been made immediately possible by American pressure for democracy, many of the votes it earned are due to America's earlier support for Arafat.
Had America refused to sustain Arafat's corruption and incompetence, Hamas's support would have been considerably weaker. As a result, the world faces the unpleasant reality of an elected terrorist government in Palestine.
Until it agrees to recognize Israel, Hamas ought to be shunned by the rest of the world. While U.S. promotion of democracy has suffered a setback, it remains the only viable long term solution to solving the problems posed by the Middle East.
Stephen Parsley's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at sparsley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
