Reason.com
New at Reason
Jonathan Rauch sees hope for building an Arab democracy—in a country where there aren't even thousands of U.S. troops.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|11.14.05 @ 9:47AM|#
I remember reading something that impressed me greatly about the first intifada. Unlike the second, more terror-oriented disaster, the first intifada was a non-lethal demonstration of Palestinian self-organization and resolve. If this capacity could be restored, it could serve as the basis for an emerging democracy.
As I recall, the roots of the first intifada's bottom-up organization could be traced to a voluntary medical program that was instituted by Palestinian doctors. The doctors agreed to provide medical treatment to various villages and neighborhoods, but only if those areas formed organizational committees to direct how this treatment would be delivered. These budding democratic structures were then utilized by the intifada, providing organization without any one obvious leader.
As a result, Israel was baffled by the ability of the intifada to endure despite mass arrests, suspension of services (the services were replaced by the Palestinians themselves), and other disruptive techniques. As I understand it, this demonstration of resolve provided the first clear evidence that there was indeed a Palestinian nation that had to negotiated with.
Of course, this all quickly turned to crap with the return of Yasser Arafat to the West Bank. He marginalized the West Bank Palestinians of the intifada, and proceeded to destroy all the gains they had achieved, beginning with Arafat's support for Saddam Hussein in Gulf War I.
Now that Arafat has gone to his reward, and his terror-loving cronies somewhat demoted in status, there is a possibility that the original West Bank Palestinians might emerge as champions of a new democracy. Or not.
My information came from an essay (whose title and author I forget) I read maybe 15 years ago when I studied Arab politics in university. I have not heard mention of the Palestinian medical programs since, and I am beginning to wonder if I imagined the whole thing. The idea of offering services only when local democratic committees were in place made a big impression on me, and still comes to mind whenever I hear talk of imposing top-down democracy on other countries. The grassroots, micro model seems like an attractive alternative.
Do I have the story right? Does anyone else know anything about these local Palestinina committees?
R C Dean|11.14.05 @ 11:14AM|#
The doctors agreed to provide medical treatment to various villages and neighborhoods, but only if those areas formed organizational committees to direct how this treatment would be delivered.
I like the idea of bottom-up v. top-down, but there's something about withholding essential services until certain political steps are taken that makes me uneasy.
Shannon Love|11.14.05 @ 12:00PM|#
Raunch's assertion that the U.S. has played little role in the recent positive developments is gigglingly funny.
The U.S. has always been (to mix metaphors) the 800-pound gorilla in the parlor of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides pay keen attention to everything the U.S. does, says or doesn't say or do. Our inactions have as much impact as our actions and it was our inaction that triggered the recent developments.
After 9/11, the U.S. simply stopped giving the Palestinians any benefit of the doubt and we stopped exerting any pressure on the Israeli's to do so either. The U.S. stopped interacting with the Palestinian authority and by doing so cut off its legs. Without U.S. support or at least attention, the Palestinians' ability to influence events simply evaporated. Israel was free to make tough decisions and they did so.
Had the U.S. followed the same playbook as it did pre-9/11 matters in the area would look exactly like they did before, regardless or who died or what the E.U. and U.N. did.
|11.14.05 @ 12:09PM|#
If Palestine is the test market for democracy, does it make the neocons look even stupider for what they have us involved in in Iraq?
|11.14.05 @ 12:16PM|#
Uh, excuse me, but wasn't Arafat himself re-elected twice in internationally monitored elections?
|11.14.05 @ 4:19PM|#
"Hamas and other militant groups, however, are no friends of Abbas, and Abbas lacks either the means (as he claims) or the will (as Israel insists) to disarm the militants. The highest obstacle remains in place: confronting the militants and bringing them under the rule of law. Doing so might spark a Palestinian civil war. Or it might produce Somalia-style chaos."
Israel pulled out of Gaza. Yet, there are still militants in Gaza firing rockets into Israel. The ball is in Abbas's court. He has to crack down on militants for peace to start.
R C Dean|11.14.05 @ 4:19PM|#
Probably so, joe, which should induce a great deal of skepticism about "internationally monitored elections" in corrupt, one-party states.
|11.14.05 @ 9:24PM|#
RC,
Palestine is certainly corrupt - nearly Chalabite in its corruption.
But "one party?" Eh, not so much. Many parties ran in the elections - more than can run in Egypt, I'll tell you that right now. Open elections, multiple parties, Arafat was the popular choice. Sorry to burst your bubble.
|11.15.05 @ 1:21AM|#
California ought to be enough to ruin anyone's faith in democracy. With the "revolt" that "moderates" in the House recently threw -- against an attempt to cut Fed spedning -- whoever said around here (shem?) that the Fed would follow California down the financial drain was probably right.
And if California isn't enough to ruin your faith in democracy, then surely joe can finish the job.
Arafat was the popular choice. Sorry to burst your bubble.
i give up
*pop*
Note: joe's bubble cannot be burst, because joe's does not consist of mere faith. Don't waste your time.
Okay, so lessee here. You can have a tyrant dictator and he'll ruin your life for you. Or you can have a group of tryants rule, and they'll all ruin your life for you. Or once you've reached Nirvana, you can have a democracy and we can all ruin each other's lives, as the majority wills.
*pop*
Ruthless!! Maybe I need to become your diciple. Tell me again about that anarchy stuff.
|11.15.05 @ 1:40AM|#
The purpose of anarchy is to create the pre-condition for a Mongol or Viking invasion. It's a good deal if you're a Mongol or a Viking.
This is sounding more and more like the second law of thermodynamics. Excuse me, The Second Law of Thermodynamics. I know that. I went to college once.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics: you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit.
I still think my idea of carving the globe up into segments, and rigorously imposing various political arrangements on each segment, ranging from anarchy to totalitarian dictatorship, is the best solution.
That way, nobody will be inspired to go "change" everything all the time. If you get tired of what's happening where you live, just pick up your shit and move on to the next slice of the globe. Keep moving until it feels like home.
Capitalism is the best system I've seen for creating wealth, and in the long run maybe it's more likely to correct its own stupdities than most other systems. But this libertarian says capitalism sure ain't perfect. It's just that everything else is worse.
Choose your poison, ladies and gentlemen.
Anarchopia will be mainly inhabited by teen agers, hippies, and serious drug addicts. And Mongols, and Vikings too.
|11.15.05 @ 1:52AM|#
The real problem with the modern world is that there aren't any serious barbarian forces left around to threaten the established orders. Damned artillery anyway, the very demise of the Mongol cavalry.
Barbarians actually used to do good things for the world. They kept nations on their toes. They introduced an element of anarchy and unpredictability into things. Civilizations do best with just the right amount of anarchy thrown into the mix.
You see, established orders need to get wiped out every so often, so they can start over again. Their memory leaks, and gets corrupted and stuff. It's like rebooting Windows. Barbarian hordes were the reset button of civilization.
*snif* And now, they're all gone.....
|11.15.05 @ 9:51AM|#
"Barbarian hordes were the reset button of civilization.
*snif* And now, they're all gone....."
Take heart, Kahn! Look at what's happening in gay Paree.
That's gonna spread faster than bird flu!