 |
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 2005, pages 7, 74-75 Special Report Elections Alone Can’t Bring Peace to Occupied Palestine and IraqBy Rachelle Marshall
“THEY MADE a wasteland and called it a democracy.”—Jonathan Schell, on the U.S. assault on Fallujah, the Nation, Dec. 12, 2004. If all goes according to plan, Palestinians will vote on Jan. 9 for a new president to replace the late Yasser Arafat, and Iraqis will vote on Jan. 30 to elect a 275-seat national assembly and members of provincial councils. Both elections will be held in countries controlled by foreign troops. Enabling the people of these countries to choose their leaders could be an important first step toward building self-government and ending violence in the region, but only if the new leaders are able to bring an end to the occupation of their lands. Since the incoming governments will face the monumental tasks of unifying rival factions within their countries, rebuilding infrastructure that has been substantially destroyed, and restoring societies ravaged by oppression and deprivation, they will be able to operate effectively only if they represent all segments of the population. Voters will accept the results only if they see the elections as free from outside influence, candidates are able to campaign freely, and no one is barred either from running for office or voting. The conditions for a fair election are so far nonexistent in the West Bank and Gaza, where Palestinians are locked down behind walls and more than 700 checkpoints. Israeli officials have said they would ease travel restrictions and pull back the army, but as of mid-December Palestinians were still having to wait long hours and face abuse at roadblocks. Presidential candidates were no exception. On Dec. 8, Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, the candidate of a pro-democratic party and founder of the nonviolent International Solidarity Movement, was badly beaten at a checkpoint outside Jenin and forced to lie on his face for more than an hour before he was taken to a hospital. Three days later another presidential candidate, Bassam al-Salhi, was arrested and held for questioning while trying to get from Ramallah to Jerusalem. Israel has warned that restrictions will be tightened Jan if militants carry out an attack, which means that an action by any individual or group could shut down the election process. The army continues to provoke retaliatory attacks by hunting down and killing suspected militants at the rate of three and four a day—slayings that are generally overlooked by the press. On the day Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Jerusalem urging both sides to do everything possible to ensure that elections would take place, Israeli troops shot four Palestinians to death. Another obstacle to free elections is the Bush administration’s insistence that Palestinians take action to isolate Hamas and other militant groups. At a press conference shortly after Arafat’s death, Bush said of the Palestinians that the United States would “hold their feet to the fire to make sure democracy prevails,” which U.S. officials said meant Palestinians must choose leaders “willing to work toward peace.” Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said he would cooperate only with “a Palestinian leadership that is willing to fight terror.” Such statements, along with Israel’s continued assassination of Hamas members, put PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei in a bind. Polls show that Hamas is supported by 25 to 30 percent of the people in Gaza, partly because the organization provides much needed social services, but also because of its attacks against Israel. Any Palestinian leader who tries to crack down on Hamas will anger a large part of the population and ensure continued violence. Marwan Daoud Hanania, a Palestinian-Jordanian graduate student in history at Stanford University, suggests that the sensible course would be to include Hamas in a collective Palestinian leadership along with secular groups. “This would make it much harder for the Islamists to pursue suicide bombings,” Hanania wrote in the Stanford Daily. As a partner in the political system, he argued, “Hamas will no longer be able to play the role of spoiler and would have to accept more realistic and constructive goals that are consistent with the views of the vast majority of Palestinians and Israelis.” Hamas so far has refused to take part in the Jan. 9 national vote, saying it wanted a voice in Palestinian governance but did not want to appear to be endorsing the Oslo agreement. Nevertheless, the militant group has promised “restraint,” and a spokesman said it would observe an indefinite cease-fire if Israel would “stop incursions, stop expanding settlements and stop their assassination policy.” Abbas and Qurei have also proposed an agreement whereby Palestinians stop all attacks for the duration of the Gaza withdrawal and Israel ends its incursions and assassinations. The Bush administration, which repeatedly makes demands of the Palestinians, has not urged the Israelis to accept these proposals. Nor has Washington pressured Israel to freeze settlement construction and stop illegal killings, as the road map to peace requires. Even Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza will not take place any time soon. Sharon must still get cabinet approval before a single Gaza settlement can be dismantled, which won’t be for several months. Meanwhile, the government continues to give out building permits for Gaza, and “significant and continuous expansion of settlements” is taking place both in Gaza and the northern West Bank, according to Peace Now. Arafat’s death, and his replacement by new leaders, does not change the fact that Sharon is unalterably opposed to giving up the West Bank and any part of Jerusalem. The Israeli leader persistently refused to meet with Arafat, saying that Arafat preferred bloodshed to peace and sought only the destruction of Israel, even though he knew this was not true. Amos Malka, Israel’s former head of military intelligence, said in an interview with Haaretz last June that intelligence officials had concluded that Arafat’s goal was not a Greater Palestine but a viable state next to Israel, to be achieved by diplomatic means. Contrary to Sharon’s charges, Malka said, the intifada broke out at the grass roots level, and Israel’s massive response escalated it to a confrontation beyond Arafat’s control. No Palestinian president can accept less than what Arafat was asking for: Israel’s withdrawal from at least 97 percent of the West Bank, a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem, and at least token recognition of the Palestinians’ right of return. Mahmoud Abbas, who is favored to be elected president and is strongly opposed to violence, opened his election campaign on Nov. 23 by pledging to pursue these goals and calling for the creation of a Palestinian state in 2005. Sharon, however, has said he would meet with Abbas only to discuss Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. Later he will discuss an “interim Palestinian state.” What Sharon is demanding is that Palestinians act as Israel’s policemen in Gaza while the Israelis carve the West Bank into permanent Bantustans. The election of new Palestinian leaders will not lessen the Palestinians’ commitment to ending the occupation, but it will give George Bush a second chance to act as peacemaker. In a joint appearance with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Nov. 12, Bush seconded Blair’s call for “a viable Palestinian state” and pledged to support renewed peace negotiations. If Bush is serious about peace he must now make it clear that “viable state” means a state that encompasses all of the West Bank and Gaza, and that he will actively push for such a solution. What could influence the prospects of Palestinian self-government more than the January election is the fate of Marwan Barghouti, who on Dec. 1 sent word through his wife Fadwa that he would run for president. Barghouti supported Oslo and worked closely with Israelis on behalf of a two-state solution, but he is now in prison serving five life sentences for murder. During the intifada he directed the resistance against Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank, and as a result was arrested in 2002, along with his 16-year-old son, Qassam, and charged with killing five Israelis. Despite suffering long periods of hooding, sleep deprivation, and being kept bound in painful positions, he continues to maintain that resisting foreign occupation is a legitimate right under international law. Barghouti’s leadership qualities make him widely popular, but he is especially favored by younger activists who are demanding a greater role in government and more openness on the part of the Palestinian leadership. His defiance in the courtroom and courage in prison give him the credibility to persuade militants to put down their guns and accept peaceful coexistence with Israel. Barghouti originally endorsed Abbas’s candidacy in order not to split Fatah, and in return Abbas promised him a seat on the powerful central committee. He may use his candidacy to extract more concessions favored by younger Palestinians, then drop out of the race. As a free man and member of the government Barghouti could make an eloquent case for Palestinian unity and independence. But an effective Palestinian spokesman is not what Sharon wants. “Until the day he dies he’s going to be in prison,” a senior Israeli official has said. Increasing Divisions in IraqA leader who can unite his people is even less likely to emerge from Iraq’s election on Jan. 30. The Americans’ reliance on force alone to end the Iraqi resistance causes increasing misery to ordinary Iraqis and is deepening the rifts that divide them. “A democratic, free Iraq is on the way and life is better,” Bush said last June. Since then infant mortality has doubled, severe malnutrition among children has mounted, and violence has increased. Five days after Bush’s election victory, U.S. and Iraqi troops, accompanied by tanks, bombing planes and C-130 gunships, invaded the Sunni city of Fallujah to “liberate” it, according to an army commander. At the end of two weeks of fighting, Fallujah was in ruins, its buildings flattened, power lines down, water pipes broken, and sewage flowing through its streets. Most of the city’s 300,000 inhabitants had fled, no one is sure where. The Red Cross later estimated that 800 civilians were killed, but the exact figure may never be known, since the Fallujah General Hospital was the first target of the assault. Soldiers kicked down the doors, handcuffed patients and doctors and forced them to the floor, sealed off medical supplies, and arrested members of the medical staff. The army said the purpose of the raid was to prevent the hospital from exaggerating the number of civilian casualties. “It’s a center of propaganda,” an officer said. On Nov. 9 U.S. air strikes destroyed Fallujah’s other large hospital, the Central Health Center, and, according to Dr. Sami al-Jumaili, killed at least 35 patients, including 5 small children, and 15 health workers. Red Crescent medics, who were barred from entering the city, called the health situation in Fallujah “catastrophic.” “Fallujah was a victory for the insurgents,” according to military analyst Anthony Cordesman, since it further alienated the Sunnis and raised questions about the independence of the interim government. Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and former political adviser to the occupation authority, said the chance to bring the Sunnis into the political process was lost just before the invasion of Fallujah when the Bush administration ignored a letter from Sunni leaders offering a political solution. It was “a major blunder,” Diamond said. The ferocity of the attack resulted in the resignation of the Iraqi Islamic Party from the government and a decision by the Sunni Muslim Scholars Association to boycott the January election. Turkmen and Christian groups and several women’s organizations joined in the boycott. By late November, as violence spread, the 15 leading political parties called for a delay of six months. The Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani and other Shi’i clerics have insisted that the elections take place on schedule, but if they do, the new national assembly may be unable to heal the deep divisions that exist. The majority Shi’i have for decades been ruled over by minority Sunnis and see the elections as their chance to gain power. But an election in which Sunnis refuse to vote or can’t get to the polls will further isolate the Sunni population. Correspondents also report that many Iraqis believe the Americans have fixed the elections so that no one who opposes the occupation will be allowed a seat in the next government. What Bush calls Iraq’s “march to freedom” has so far been heading in the wrong direction. The Baghdad offices of the Al-Jazeera news agency have been shut down, and Iraqi reporters are frequently arrested when they try to cover the fighting, and some have been shot. Clerics who speak out against the occupation are arrested for “incitement.” At least 160 members of Muqtada al-Sadr’s political party are still in jail. A member of the interim assembly, Nasir Ayaef, was arrested for supporting the resistance even though members of his party say his only crime was to criticize American policies. As long as the U.S. military remains in Iraq, resistance is certain to grow and the measures taken to counter it will make it more difficult to hold free elections. Yet if the newly elected assembly is not representative of all Iraqis it will lack credibility. An announcement by Washington of a firm date on which the army will leave would eliminate a major cause of Iraqi resentment and create an atmosphere in which Iraqi leaders and insurgents might reach a peaceful settlement. Free of foreign occupation, the various Iraqi factions would be faced with the necessity to work out their differences and begin rebuilding their country. A timetable for U.S. withdrawal would also help dispel a widespread impression that the United States is seeking to dominate the Middle East and impose free-market economies and governments friendly to Israel. Washington’s unwavering support of Israel, and willingness to label as terrorist any resistance to Israel’s occupation, make such an impression unavoidable. It is clearly with Israel’s interests in mind that the Bush administration is threatening to punish Iran for its nuclear energy program while it ignores the nuclear arsenals of India, Pakistan, and Israel itself. The 3,000 one-ton “bunker busters” that Washington sold to Israel last September are undoubtedly intended to reinforce this threat. The January elections may give the illusion that Iraqis and Palestinians are moving toward democratic self-government, but they will lead neither to true independence nor to peace until Israel and the United States bring their troops home and Bush administration hawks relinquish their dreams of empire. Rachelle Marshall is a free-lance editor living in Stanford, CA. A member of the Jewish International Peace Union, she writes frequently on the Middle East. |
|||||
