Arguing for a more “pragmatic” foreign policy, Mohamad Bazzi chastises President Bush for conflating Al Qaeda with Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah and Hamas, he writes, “are political and military movements deeply embedded in their societies.” Thus, in his view, since the the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples respectively have continued to grant Hezbollah and Hamas more power, they are legitimate entities, representative of their constituencies:
At the heart of Bush’s fantasy is that Muslims would reject Islamist groups if they could choose their own political leaders in free and fair elections. But that argument was undercut in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, two of the most liberal and diverse societies in the region. Both Hezbollah and Hamas have gained political power and strength in recent years, partly through the ballot box.
This, according to Bazzi, separates Hezbollah and Hamas from Al Qaeda. Whereas the latter deserves the President’s admonishment since it “is the terrorist group responsible for the September 11 attacks,” “Hamas and Hezbollah are traditional Islamist and nationalist movements based in specific countries.”
In defense of Hamas, Bazzi argues that it has “succeeded in positioning itself as an alternative to the corrupt, inefficient and largely discredited Fatah leadership.” True, Hamas has been able to accomplish what Fatah was unable to do. Let us begin to count the ways. Hamas has
• “illegally detained and tortured” Palestinians in the West Bank
• Maintained a “state of lawlessness”
• Murdered its citizens (to quote one Palestinian, “Even the Israelis do not do this.”)
Incidentally, Bazzi’s article comes mere days before the release of a study conducted by the Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens’ Rights which found that (surprise!) Hamas is responsible for violating the human rights of thousands of Palestinians.
Hezbollah, too, has enjoyed extraordinary success. Most recently:
• Using civilians as human shields during its 2006 war with Israel
• Stifles free speech, to the point that “few Lebanese dare to criticize it openly”
• And continuously undermines the political control of the standing Lebanese government.
Bazzi’s suggestion that America’s policy should strictly favor the spread of pure democracy (as in, whatever the majority says, goes, be it Hezbollah or Hamas) is either alarmingly wrongheaded or frighteningly disingenuous. A key point of American democracy is its recognition of inherent rights belonging to all human beings. Bazzi’s position, however, is that Muslims are different, at once above and below the law. And since they are different, we can sit back and allow some Muslims to trample the human rights of other Muslims without consequence. Pragmatism surely has a place in America’s foreign policy–but not at that price.
