We exist in a rather precarious position with regard to the upcoming American federal elections – removed from agency and voice in the electoral process yet mesmerized by the shear theatricality of it all – and still the debates between candidates often take on new meanings from such a vantage point. Nuances that would otherwise elude our perception seem even more pertinent.
Take, for example, the vice-presidential debate earlier this month. Foreign policy played a prominent role in the debate – second only to the domestic economic woes. In terms of the Middle East in general and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular, buzzwords flew from both podiums, as Republican Sarah Palin and Democrat Joe Biden worked to parallel and one-up each other in expressing their unflinching support for Israel.
That is all well and good.
And yet, something was missing. Amidst the crossfire of words and phrases like sovereignty, right to national defence, two-state solution and non-proliferation of nuclear arms, the word Palestine, and, for that matter, the words Palestinian people, were obviously and inescapably missing.
Contentious phrases such as “Israeli occupation” and “settlements” went unused for obvious politically pragmatic reasons, but surely, innocuous and egalitarian notions – notions that go hand in hand with the accepted platform of the two-state solution – such as the existence of the Palestinian people themselves and recognition of their base role would creep their way into the discussion as a minimum means of identifying the other half of the Israeli-Palestinian question.
These purposeful political evasions, however, should come as no surprise, as they fit the bill, at least cursorily, of the administration’s last eight years of policy.
Democracy – forced down the throat of several Middle Eastern countries either legally and morally or unlawfully and iniquitously – is the stated goal of American foreign policy in theory. In reality, though, it remains so only insofar as it serves the administration’s international purposes. Along those lines, the American government regards Fatah as a legitimate voice of the Palestinian people, while Hamas, despite the fact that it was given its mandate through democratic elections, remains on the periphery of the peace process.
While Israelis are critical of the place of Hamas holds atop Palestinian society for its failure to curtail violence, Palestinians do the same with both the Israeli and American governments for their failure to dismantle settlements and observe international boundaries.
For as many years as I can recall, American politicians have touted the “road map” peace plan as the most promising means through which Israelis and Palestinians can march, hand in hand, toward peace and stability. Yet, both of the candidates merely reinforced the now standard trope of American policy regarding Israel as representing the moral compass – indeed, the only compass – in the Middle East.
This understanding of the predicament, while appealing to Zionists both on paper and on a nationally televised debate, merely serves to further the polarized entrenchment of the two sides. We must understand that by further marginalizing the agency of the Palestinian people, we succeed, not in furthering our goals, but only in creating more disenfranchised, alienated enemies.
There is a deeply embedded hypocrisy in the paradigm through which many view the ongoing conflict. The incoming American president will have to work hard to erase the aftertaste of the George W. Bush administration and establish himself as truly dedicated to an equitable peace process – meaning, the honouring of promises on both sides of the bargaining table.
On a pressing level, the perception of Hamas itself has to change. Like them or not, they represent the will of the majority of the Palestinian people, and any national dialogue must include them in order to be legitimate.
The upcoming elections have been touted as ushering in a time of great change. Indeed, both presidential candidates are running on campaigns, genuine or not, that promise a new era of politics. If, however, change is around the corner, it must begin with the paradigms through which we view the conflict.
If, as Biden claims, he has been Israel’s best friend in Congress, and if, as Palin holds, she is dedicated to America’s strongest democratic ally’s pursuit of peace, then both candidates owe Israel and the Palestinian people more.