I contend that the furtherance of democracy in general and more
specifically in the Middle East can be regarded as a strategic pathway toward
regional peace. The philosopher Kant wrote a treatise on a global federation as
a means toward achieving world peace. The founders of the United States
reckoned that all the republics within that regional federation must be
democratic for the Union itself to be sustained. A United States of the Middle
East would also stand a better chance were it's states republics in form. It
follows that especially when democratic bystanders put
short-term tactical and strategic advantage above furthering or just permitting
the development of a young, unstable democracy, the hypocrisy puts off rather
than furthers peace. The reactions of Israel and the United States to a
Palestinian achievement in 2011 are a case in point.
The two main Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, announced on
April 27, 2011 “that they were putting aside years of bitter rivalry to
create an interim unity government and hold elections within a year, a surprise
move that promised to reshape the diplomatic landscape of the Middle East. The
deal, brokered in secret talks by the caretaker Egyptian government, was
announced at a news conference in Cairo where the two negotiators referred to
each side as brothers and declared a new chapter in the Palestinian struggle
for independence, hobbled in recent years by the split between the Fatah-run
West Bank and Hamas-run Gaza. It was the first tangible sign that the upheaval
across the Arab world, especially the Egyptian revolution, was having an impact
on the Palestinians . . . Israel, feeling increasingly surrounded by unfriendly
forces, denounced the unity deal as dooming future peace talks since Hamas
seeks [Israel's] destruction. ‘The Palestinian Authority has to choose between
peace with Israel and peace with Hamas,’ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
declared in a televised statement. The Obama administration warned that Hamas
was a terrorist organization unfit for peacemaking.”[1]
An
agreement that puts aside years of bitter rivalry is in itself morally praiseworthy
not only because of the heightened possibility for peace, but also because just
achieving such an agreement is not easy; rather, this is the road less
traveled. As reported at the time, “A desire for unity has been one
goal that ordinary Palestinians in both areas have consistently said they
sought. Until now it has proved elusive and leaders of the two factions have
spoken of each other in vicious terms and jailed each other’s activists.”[2]
Tit for tat much more conformable to human nature than putting faith in trust
where none has existed.
More specifically, an agreement by rival parties in a young
democracy to have common elections furthers the ideal of representative
self-government. Putting an ideal before partisan advantage is also morally (and
politically) laudable because such a priority is not easy given human nature
(nature and nurture).
This is not to say that the results of an election agreed to by
rivals (assuming a fair and transparent one) are pleasing to interested
bystanders nearby or halfway around the world who gave their own agendas. If
such bystanders brandish themselves as beacons of democracy to the world and
yet act on their own agendas, the charge of self-serving hypocrisy can
stick.
To be sure, both Israel and the United States had at the time a
long-term interest in the furtherance of the democratic form of government, so
assuming a stance of enlightened self-interest would have avoided the noxious
cloud of hypocrisy. Unfortunately, the two bystanders, who still claimed to
value representative democracy, held the furtherance of the form hostage to
their hostility to an enemy. It can be said, in fact, that democratic
governments that refuse an opportunity to permit a young and not yet
stable democracy to strengthen are not themselves worthy of self-government,
for they are not sufficiently mature, politically, in putting their respective
partisan agendas first.
Both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams agreed in retirement after
the American Revolution that a self-governing citizenry must be educated and
virtuous to sustain a viable republic. I submit that both formal education and
virtue require and strengthen self-discipline, as well as foster maturity. To
skip class and not study for tests, for example, flaunt self-discipline,
whereas to follow the rigors of a course of study requires (and builds)
self-discipline and thus maturity. The relationship between self-discipline and
virtue is more widely understood.
To the Israeli government, the sheer possibility of unity among
the Palestinians translated into having a more formidable opponent in
bargaining. Surely, however, more was at stake than jostling for strategic
advantage. As it turned out, such a concern dominated at the expense of peace.
Even the increasing dominance of Israel itself over the Palestinian Authority
did not bring peace any closer.
1. Ethan Bronner and
Isabel Kershner, “Fatah and Hamas Announce Outline of Deal,” The New York Times,
April 28, 2011, p. A1.
2. Ibid.
