Unilateral Action and the Price of Democracy
President Bush told the Palestinians, “The United States does not support political parties that want to destroy our ally, Israel, and people must renounce that part of their platform.”
President Bush told the Palestinians, “The United States does not support political parties that want to destroy our ally, Israel, and people must renounce that part of their platform.”
Why must they and what real difference does the Hamas victory make? Neither Fatah nor Hamas was going to make a serious “peace agreement” with Israel; both Fatah and Hamas conduct terrorist operations and are planning to continue to do so; neither Fatah nor Hamas accepts the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East; and neither can be induced to do so by piecemeal Israeli concessions. The Palestinians knew that and voted for the party they wanted to deal with their domestic concerns.
Rather than demanding what we will not get, it might be useful to remind the Palestinians that Hamas has not become king of the hill. It has simply become the majority party in the Palestinian Legislature – like when the Republicans replaced the Democrats in Congress. As such it is the successor to the obligations of the Legislature. And Abu Mazen is still President and still obliged to meet his obligations under the Road Map. The U.S. expects both to meet internationally accepted standards of behavior.
Oh, you don’t think they will? We don’t either; they never have before. But our government has an obligation a) to insist that they do, and b) to find meaningful consequences for when they don’t.
The President should first stop begging the Palestinians to “return” to some mythical “peace process” and let them know that since they put their domestic concerns first, so will we. It would be foolish to cut off the money we currently spend through NGOs on projects in the PA – Iran would happily make up the difference, with the attendant political influence. But the U.S. and the EU should withdraw political support for Palestinian statehood and decline to treat PA personnel like diplomats when they troop through Europe and the UN. [This should include the Olympics – in 2004 the Palestinians marched under their flag as if they were a country.] At the level of public perception, Palestinians relish being the political equivalent of the Israelis – they are not and they should be denied.
At the security level, Israel has every right to assume that the President and the Parliament will control the borders of their territory. Israel will be entitled – as every country is entitled – to unilateral action including “hot pursuit” and retaliation if they don’t. Ariel Sharon first raised the specter of unilateral action when it was clear that the PA was operating as a state sponsor of terror and could not be an acceptable political interlocutor. His point wasn’t to make them stop being what they were – he couldn’t – but to announce his intention to protect the citizens of Israel from them.
The U.S. and the Europeans should be clear and public in advance that if Hamas chooses to maintain itself as an active terrorist organization, when Israel retaliates, the civilized countries will approve.