Annapolis Summit: A Bad Example for Democracy

This Middle East summit commencing in Annapolis today sends a clear-cut message to the Arab world that either Annapolis, or democracy, is a sham. Bush and his cronies claim to be champions of democracy, a system whose essence means that the people rule by fairly electing leaders to represent them. The Palestinians had a democratic election back in January of 2006, and the terrorist organization/militia turned political party known as Hamas claimed an election victory more resounding than either of Bush’s two election victories. This victory was less about Hamas’ Islamic ideology, and more about a lack of alternatives. Still, for many in the US and Israel, it was a tough pill to swallow. This is sensible, considering Hamas’ wholesale rejection of Israel’s existence and the liters of civilian blood it has on its hands. The Bush administration faced a tough decision, either to accept a government led by terrorists, or reject democracy when it doesn’t give you the desired results. Annapolis indicates that the latter choice was selected, which gets decoded by the Arab street as further proof that the US stands for nothing but its own self interests.


This is a replica of what’s going on in Pakistan, Egypt, and in many parts of the world. US supported puppet governments perceived as corrupt sellouts are invited to posh summits sponsored by Dasani water, ignoring and infuriating the Muslim masses. Annapolis is not a step in the direction of peace, but is sadly a painful stab in the heart of any Palestinian who ever believed in democracy. The fact that Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and Ahmed Qureia (Abu Alla) are leading the Palestinian delegation at Annapolis is a slap in the face to the Palestinian people for many reasons, but no reason greater than this: The 1 million-plus Palestinian who woke up on the cold, rainy morning of January 26, 2006 in order to vote now feel like they wasted their day. From the perspective of the nearly 500,000 Hamas voters who are now being represented by people they voted against, Annapolis is a particularly bitter pill to swallow.


The Palestinian representatives now in Annapolis are the ghosts from failed negotiations’ past. On the side of the Israelis in Annapolis 2007, the negotiating team today is from a different political party and ideological strain than its Oslo counterparts in 1994 and Camp David 2000. But on the Palestinian side, we see the same exact faces. Abu Mazen was Yassir Arafat’s deputy back in Oslo and in Camp David, which preceded the bloody second Intifadah. Let’s just take a look at Oslo in 94, the negotiations that paved the way for Palestinian sovereignty and a future two state solution. Yitzchak Rabin and Yassir Arafat shook hands and won Nobel peace prizes. Optimism abounded. But on the ground, terror increased, the Palestinian charter was not fully amended to recognize Israel, and Palestinian schoolbooks were not changed to include Israel on the map, all clear violations of the Oslo Accord. While Israel did fulfill most of its obligations by educating for peace, pulling out of certain territories, and allowing for the creation of a Palestinian Authority which it would then arm, Israel did continue building illegal outposts in the West Bank. Neither side is perfect, but at least in Israel there is a degree of accountability for failure. Most undemocratically, an Israeli terrorist assassinated Rabin. But his ideology moved forward, proven by the election of his next of kin in the Labor party, Ehud Barak. At Camp David in 2000, Barak offered the Palestinians total control of Gaza, large chunks of the West Bank, and half of Jerusalem, but Arafat and Abu Mazen rejected this offer. An intifada erupted, leading to a shift in Israel’s politics. Labor was replaced by the more hawkish Likud, which then splintered into the Kadima party after Ariel Sharon pulled Israel out of Gaza. All this has happened in Israel’s dynamic political environment since 1994, indicative of a healthy democracy doing some serious soul searching. Abu Mazen and Abu Allah will be always be respected icons in a Palestinian culture desperate for heroes, but their superpowers have warn off years ago. They represent a stagnant and stale political politburo, completely disconnected from a people thirsting for change.


Instead of hanging out with old “has beens” in Maryland, Israel should try and engage Hamas in their own backyard. This is complicated, but also is relevant for the Americans. In Iraq, Iran, and Palestine, the Arab street needs to see that democracy is the best possible political system and not the club that they are threatened with or beaten with. To defeat an enemy in a war of hearts and minds is to go for the ideological jugular, by supporting democratic institutions that are completely antithetical to a fundamentalist regime. Yes, Hamas today probably prefers total control of the country’s politics under Islamic Sharia law over the democratic ideals of free speech, free press, a diverse array of grassroots political organizations, clean handovers of power, and free elections in the future. Instead of rushing to negotiations with a Palestinian mafia, Israel should wait patiently for an alternative to emerge, or for Hamas to change its stripes. The faux representatives of the Palestinians in Annapolis should know a thing or two about changing stripes. The Fatah organization they founded back in 1965 used to be known as the PLO, which has the dubious title of being the world’s premier terrorist organization. Abu Mazen, once considered a terrorist, is now given red carpet treatment. Ironically, he was perceived exactly the same way Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh is perceived right now. The only difference, of course, is that Mr. Haniyeh, as despicable as he may be to Israel and the West, was democratically elected.