RSS 2.0
Democracy Not For Everyone?
Anne Gearan clamors for the moral high ground as she questions Bush’s commitment to democracy in the Middle East. Calling it a “rhetorical cornerstone,” she accuses Bush of using the goal of establishing an Arab democracy as window dressing for his war in Iraq.
What has Bush done to earn Gearan’s scathing assessment? Apparently, he had the audacity to throw his support behind Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who “evicted Hamas radicals from his government over the weekend and is now the sole elected figure running the Western-backed Palestinian government in the West Bank.” Abbas’ actions were prompted by a bloody coup in which Hamas took control of Gaza. Gearan adds that Abbas was trying “to consolidate power and avert all-out civil war with his Islamist Hamas rivals.” The evicted Hamas leaders were elected in January of 2006, when Hamas took 76 out of 132 seats in the Palestinian parliament.1
Gearan tries to paint Bush as a hypocrite who supports democracy at all costs in Iraq, but quickly defends the supposedly un-democratic actions of Abbas. Shame on President Bush for not realizing that civil war in Iraq is bad (so bad that we should get our troops out of there before one breaks out), but civil war in Palestine is good, especially when it is perpetrated by a militant Islamic terror organization such as Hamas. Elected or not, Hamas does not deserve the sympathy of those who would have us believe that the U.S. and Israel are to blame for all the trouble in the Middle East.
Credited with hundreds of suicide bombings, rocket attacks against civilian targets, and frequent calls for Muslim attacks against Americans, Hamas has no right to claim legitimacy as a political party. The results of one election are not enough to change the identity of a party whose charter states that “There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game. As the hadith has it: “The people of Syria are Allah’s whip on this land; He takes revenge by their intermediary from whoever he wished among his worshipers” (Article 13).
That’s obviously not a problem for good ol’ Jimmy Carter, who supports Hamas and calls the refusal of the U.S., Israel, and European nations to lend their support to Hamas “criminal.” According to Jimmy, “The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine (for electing Hamas) and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah.” In other words, *we* are the ones to blame for the violent and divisive acts of a radical Islamic terror group who has a long and distinguished history of violent and divisive acts. Carter is, as you might guess, in lock-step with Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zurhi, who said, “This confirms the falseness of the international community’s support for democracy.” Refusing to support organized terror is not the same as withdrawing support for democracy.
Frankly, I’m starting to wonder if we are being naive to think that a country whose citizens would elect a terror organization to power is capable of democracy. Consider Benjamin Franklin’s sobering observation:
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.2
A people who would elect murderers into political office could hardly be described as virtuous. Bush is right to support Abbas as he confronts thugs who would pass themselves off as politicians. If that means he’s not in favor of democracy in Palestine, so be it. I’m not sure that I am either.