Palestine a democracy?

Last week Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer confirmed the West’s approach to democracy in Palestine. It is one of double standards, one for the Israeli Government and one for the Palestinian Administration.

In the midst of moving towards democracy, the West has demanded Palestine renounces violence while Israel remains unchallenged.

In January this year, Palestinian people freely elected the political party, Hamas, to administer their affairs. It took the United States a begrudging three weeks to acknowledge this milestone as a democratic event.

And as Hamas entered talks with Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and even the Palestinian opposition political party, Fatah, US President George W. Bush attempted to meet these discussions by transforming the Road Map peace process into a list of demands:

“If [Hamas] wants the help of America and the international community to build a prosperous, independent Palestinian state, they must recognise Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace,” he said.

Mirroring the parameters set by the US, in an opinion piece appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald on March 2, Mr Downer congratulated a “peaceful change of government”; demanded Hamas to “renounce violence”; and conveniently reminded Australians that it is illegal under Australian law to release assets to Hamas because it is a terrorist organisation. His central message was, “to exercise power, Hamas will need to change its position”.

Noble advice. But one wonders if the US is not but a little irked that the Palestinian Administration is following a different ally within the Road Map “quartet” than the US: Russia.

During talks with Russia, Hamas agreed to enter a one-year ceasefire with Israel.

It seems that the US is irked. While Hamas is building a democracy out of frustration, anger, poverty and fear, the US and Australia are conveniently reminding Hamas that it is up to them - and only them - to be responsible for changing their party structure, cutting off their para-military branch and renouncing violence.

With or without US encouragement, if Hamas manages to successfully enter negotiations through the second phase of the Road Map peace plan, they may alleviate some of the gross inequalities faced by the Palestinian people and acquire sovereignty of the Palestinian territories.

But if Hamas falls too much into the US’ form of “nation building” they will emerge into a “second-rate” form of democracy. Where the oppressed are asked to “let-up” on the oppressors, while no such request is made on the oppressors. While Israeli violence is assumed as a given, Palestinians are asked to negotiate with a state who has formally squeezed an indigenous group of people out of their native territories for nearly the last 60 years, and whose predecessors had informally started the impulse 100 years ago.

And such a demand is accepted because Israeli violence is not considered to be violence in polite circles such as the Israeli elite.

It is called “use of force”, where individuals are “neutralised”, where retribution comes with “an iron fist”, and where operations are enacted with “special measures”. These are just a few of the euphemisms used by some Israeli leaders speaking of violence against Palestinians.

And the US and Australia turn a blind-eye to violence, that is not properly acknowledged as such, by a state who is a loyal democratic ally.

This is why if Hamas does pursue a US-propelled version of the Road Map they could still suffer gross inequality under a semblance of being a “democracy”. It is frightening to think all the peace negotiations could be wasted if Palestine becomes independent but they then get a raw deal in trade, resource or border management because they were the “terrorists”.

This semantic double-standard reflects both the oppression that is vital to Zionism and the power the US can’t afford to lose in Palestine.

Keeping this in mind, it is not a shock to hear Director of the Israeli Security Service, Yuval Diskin, remark that Hamas "refers in its demands to the 1967 borders, but in its conventions its real goal is the 1948 borders, and even that isn't the end".

To this conservative and hard-line position, terrorism is bad violence. The Israeli response so far to Palestinians - assassinations, forced removal of Palestinians from their homes, bulldozing, shooting, torture, detainment and coercion through lawful and unlawful measures - is good violence which really doesn’t need to be called “violence”. They are merely means necessary to maintain Israeli independence.

Let us not forget the other side of this semantic division. Perhaps that every Palestinian family has had at least one member killed, expelled, or jailed, indicates that peace is not an easy idea to trust. And in the last 15 years of trying to establish stability in the region, the Clinton Administration knew intimately how complicated it is to put trust in front of family, country and religious honour.

If the Road Map peace process is to truly take a foothold, then the Israeli violence must be abolished as well as the violence conducted by Palestinian suicide bombers. Recognition is deserved of any people who wish to seek independence through democratic means.

Regardless of whether Hamas employs US-supported means or not to implement democracy in Palestine, Israel needs to be reminded as much as Hamas about not using violence for political gains.