Palestinian lesson for Israel

Will we learn from the Palestinians, who ousted corrupt leaders in elections?

Orly Noy|Published: 05.21.08 , 00:44

After the few days of grace enjoyed by Olmert during President Bush’s visit, and following the mutual slaps on the back, the joint photos, and the praise which the two worn out politicians lavished on each other, our PM is back to routine – that is, back to the interrogation room.

One should wonder how the prime minister is able to make time for minor issues such as the escalation on the Gaza border and the ongoing fire directed at southern residents while dealing with his legal affairs. This question should have been uttered openly by public figures, Knesset members, and media outlets, yet aside from a few rebellious voices, the majority still sees fit to protect Olmert. Some do it because their political fate is tied to Olmert’s fate, others are scared of the alternatives, and some still believe that Olmert wants to and can significantly push forward the peace process with the Palestinians.

Paradoxically, the latter are parties to the assumption promoted by the Right, namely that Olmert is expected to make far-reaching concessions at this time in order to boost his lowly status somewhat. However, both sides should be reminded that in Israel’s political reality, the way to gain popularity is not to return territory and make diplomatic progress with the Palestinians. The not-so-distant future also taught us that an attempt to do so can end with three lethal bullets to the back.

Olmert’s fragile political status at this time raises the opposite fear – that is, he may be tempted to embark on a wide-scale military move in the Gaza Strip in order to mollify the impassioned calls made after every Qassam and score some public opinion points.

Yet even such pragmatic considerations, as significant as they may be, are dwarfed by the more fundamental question regarding the moral mandate of a serial suspect to manage the affairs of the country. On this issue, it would be proper to learn from the most slandered political system around here – the Palestinian one.

Corruption key factor in PA elections

Two and a half years ago, the Palestinians went to the polls and ousted, through democratic elections, the movement that placed the Palestinian struggle on the global agenda and led it for more than four decades. The many polls undertaken in the Palestinian Authority in the wake of the elections in a bid to explain the unexpected results showed similar findings: Most voters who elected Hamas said that corruption among senior Fatah figures was the factor that influenced their vote the most, even more than the political-national platform of both movements.

These elections were held only six months after the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, when winds of change were still blowing in the area. The majority of Palestinians supported the two-state solution and Fatah was perceived, according to the same polls, as the movement with the best chances to secure this solution. On the face of it, the Palestinian public had all the reasons to unit around Fatah in order to lead the hoped-for changes, yet instead it chose to display its revulsion with the unbearable corruption spread among its leaders, and proceeded to oust them.

The blatant Israeli disregard to its Palestinian partner during disengagement also played a role, but the message conveyed by the Palestinian people to its leaders in the elections was clear: Those suspected of serial corruption are unworthy of leading the people. It appears that in the current political reality in Israel, where ministers, Knesset members, and even the prime minister are suspected (and in some cases convicted) of offences that are difficult to accept, no declaration would be more appropriate than this message.