To return to the new Peace Now website click here.

Democracy Din - APN OpEd from Mark Rosenblum

President George Bush's willingness to make the Israeli-Palestinian peace process a top priority during his second term is cause for cautious celebration.

President George Bush's willingness to make the Israeli-Palestinian peace process a top priority during his second term is cause for cautious celebration. His enthusiasm for tackling the issue is a welcome change from White House policy during the previous four years. He deserves high marks for recognizing the historic opportunity that has been created with the passing of Yasser Arafat and the important role that the U.S. must play in bringing about an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. However, it's worrying to hear him make Palestinian democracy a precondition for dealing with other issues. Democracy is certainly desirable for the Palestinian people, and it's a key part of the Road Map for Middle East peace. But it is not a panacea for reaching an accord with Israel. It is just one of many elements that must be addressed simultaneously if the president is to realize his vision of "two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security."

In a recent speech, President Bush said, "Achieving peace in the Holy Land is not just a matter of pressuring one side or the other on the shape of a border or the site of a settlement. This approach has been tried before, without success. As we negotiate the details of peace, we must look at the heart of the matter, which is the need for a Palestinian democracy. The Palestinian people deserve a peaceful government that truly serves their interests, and the Israeli people need a true partner in peace."

The nature of national political systems is vitally important to people who are governed by them, but not necessarily "the heart of the matter" for relations between states. If the president's insistence on democracy had been applied to previous Israeli-Arab disputes, Israel would never have achieved a peace accord with Egypt, which has provided Israel with over 25 years of security, nor would it have reached an agreement with Jordan, which just marked its tenth anniversary.

Natan Sharansky-the former refusenik whose recent book about democracy is said to have greatly influenced the president-could still be languishing in the gulag if American leaders had failed to engage politically with the brutal Soviet dictatorship during the Cold War. By the same token, President Bush has not insisted that China, Libya, and Uzbekistan adopt a Jeffersonian outlook before negotiating with them.

The president is also too quick to dismiss the Oslo peace process as a failure because it didn't put enough emphasis on democracy. The Palestinian Authority was set up under Oslo and established through democratic elections for the Palestinian legislature and presidency. Although Arafat proved to be a unique figure who would not or could not be subjected to checks and balances built into the political system, Oslo laid the groundwork for the upcoming round of Palestinian elections that President Bush is embracing.

All of this is not to diminish the powerfully positive impact that democracy can have for Palestinians. Indeed, the president is pushing on an open door. Palestinians themselves already embrace democracy as the most legitimate method of government, and they have high demands for the performance of their system: more security, jobs, greater accountability, a vigorous legislature, and an end to corruption. With the help of the international community, democratic elections can help deliver all of these much needed changes for the Palestinian people.

But such elections, by themselves, will not make it easier to achieve peace. Even the most moderate Palestinian leaders-ones who condemn terrorism and welcome democracy-hold the same basic Palestinian negotiating demands for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza based on the Green Line, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a just, comprehensive solution for the problem of Palestinian refugees.

At the same time, fundamental Israeli negotiating positions on security, Jerusalem, and refugees will not be altered just because the Palestinians manage to pull off credible elections and establish rule of law.

Disputes over boundaries, Israeli settlements, refugees, holy sites, and Jerusalem will still need to be addressed. But if President Bush fails to pay adequate attention to these problems until he's satisfied with the level of Palestinian democracy, developments on the ground will only exacerbate the points of contention between the two sides, making it far more difficult to resolve them. The unchecked growth of settlements alone could make the establishment of a viable Palestinian state-and the end of the conflict-nearly impossible, no matter how many votes are cast in the upcoming elections.

President Bush should be applauded for his dedication to achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace. But he needs to recalibrate the balance of his approach to the conflict if he is to be successful.
_______________________________________________________________________

Mark Rosenblum is the Founder and Policy Director of Americans for Peace Now.