If Democracy and Islam are incompatible – what’s plan B?

It has been said that President Bush’s push for democracy in Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world is a result of Natan Sharansky's book “The Case for Democracy”. For those not familiar with Mr. Sharansky, he is a highly respected soviet dissident who spent years in captivity because of his activities promoting democracy in the old Soviet Union. His book argues that true security in the Middle East and the world can come only with ballot boxes. President Bush has pressed the book on his top advisers and has been known to reccomend it outside of his inner circle. Of course, Mr. Sharansky’s argument in favor of democracy is not original. Former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu wrote a book 10 years earlier entitled “A Durable Peace” that articulated a similar message, but with a twist – democracy might not be compatible with a truly Islamic state. In other words, in an Islamic state, Islamic law will always trump the ballot box. Islam and government are not separatable – they are inseparatable - one and the same.

Even if Islam and Democracy were somehow compatible, how can democracy bridge the gap between Muslim Sects? Sunni and Shi’a are both Muslims, but they are distinctly different and their followers fall in line behind their religious sects as single-mindedly as the rest of the world identifies itself by national geographical boundaries. Even within the Sunnis or Shi’a, there and literally hundreds of tribes whose power rests on controlling small geographical areas throughout the Mideast.

If anything, the case for spreading democracy across the Mideast will not take 5 years or 10 years…it will require that at least 4 generations to come and go (the living grandfather, father, son and the yet unborn) before tribalism and sectarianism can be eliminated from the collective memory of the Muslim world. How is the world going to judge the success of this push for democracy in the Mideast – in the short term, in which the outcome is predetermined to not be fast enough, or in the long-term, in which small incremental advances are made at tremendous cost in both lives in dollars?

There are those in the US who want to bring the troops home ASAP. To them I ask, what is your plan after the troops come home? There will be a sectarian civil war in Iraq where millions will surely die. Iran can be expected to encroach, if not take over much of Iraq – and the Kurds and Sunnis will surely be slaughtered. The entire region will become de-stabilized and chaos will ensue. Add to that scenario the fact that the removal of American forces will not stop Al-Quada from pursuing their agenda against America (the world trade center was first attacked on February 26, 1993). Even if Israel packed up and moved to Europe as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggested, it would not put an end to Islamic terrorism – after all, the Islamic terrorist acts in Bali, Moscow and Spain had nothing to do with Israel.

Plan B can only be a continuation of a US foreign polciy that supports brutal dictatorships that know how to handle these types of populations. This policy served US interest well until the fall of the Shah of Iran, when we took note of Islamic extremism and moderated US foreign policy away from supporting military governments. The Jordanian monarchy under King Hussien, Egypt’s Mubarak, Pakistan’s Musharraf, and Afghanistan’s Karzai are examples of how US interests can be served at the cost of our own self-image. As pathetic as this type of foreign policy strategy may be, it is the only viable option left to critics of President Bush’s attempt to protect American interests in the region by bringing democratic change to the Mideast. I am not judging plan B as an unreasonable foreign policy alternative - I am just articulating what others refuse to say because of it’s unseemly nature. Americans tend to think of themselves as occupying the moral high ground on the world stage, and while advancing democracy in the Mideast is an act that supports that self-image, I have doubts about our ability to give this matter the long-term resources and political support that it will need to succeed.

Palestinian Moderation - The Myth Buster

Israeli PM Ariel Sharon’s decision to totally withdraw Israeli settlers and soldiers from the Gaza Strip (to the 1967 border) was seen by many as a tangible act meant to jumpstart a stagnant peace process. To others it was capitulation to 38 years of terrorism, and a surrender of Israeli real estate for absolutely nothing in return. In reality, it was a test of Palestinian intentions…to back up their talk of peaceful co-existence and moderation with tangible acts of nation building.

Fast-forward 100 days after the pullout: Instead of building hundreds of badly needed houses for a suffering Palestinian population, they have fired hundreds of rockets into Israel proper (this rarely happened before the pullout). The only tangible result of the Israeli withdrawal is that the Palestinian people no longer feel the need to pretend to want peace. The people have spoken in their latest election, and Hamas is the winner in almost every major enclave - with a 90%+ majority. The Hamas manifesto specifically calls for the destruction of Israel, and their election should not leave any doubt that Palestinian aspirations are anything but moderate.

When the twin towers came down on 9-11, the Palestinians danced in the streets. When Iraqi scuds hit Israel in the first Iraq war, they danced in the streets. Since Palestinians fighters are having a hard time getting into Israel, so they have swarmed to Iraq to fight against the USA and Iraqi interests. That should confirm to all that Palestinian aspirations are anything but moderate.

A phycological awakening is often called a “moment of clarity”, where an issue that was confusing and disturbing - all of a sudden is seen from a clear perspective. The silver lining of the Israeli withdrawal is that the world is coming to the realization that any Palestinians state in Gaza or the West bank will end up like Somalia or Afghanistan – a terrorist state.

Hopefully, the New Year will bring a “moment of clarity” where the world realizes that to create a Palestinian state from Gaza and the West Bank will only destabilize the region further. Even better, maybe the world – including Presidendt George Bush - should forget about creating a Palestinian state out of the West Bank and Gaza, and consider acknowledging that Jordan is aready a a functioning Palestinian country. Better yet, instead of Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s reccomendation that Israelis move to Europe, maybe the Palestinians should move to Jordan.