The Most Democratic Man in the World

In an earlier post, I discussed my visit to the West Bank, and the daily misery of the Palestinians. In recent days, violence in Gaza has intensified, raising the possibility that there may be some acknowledgment in the Israeli press of the state's daily atrocities (for example, a recent attack targeted a wedding party, injuring 45 people).

I'm not discounting that possibility, but the fact is I'm encountering very few Israeli points of view these days. Our supervisor is an Arab (he holds Israeli citizenship but self-identifies as Palestinian), and after growing up in Israel and dealing daily with both the disparate treatment of Arabs and the hardships suffered in Gaza and the West Bank, he is less than fond of the Jewish Israeli people. That being the case, Jewish Israeli news and gossip is, for me, hard to come by.

On the other hand, Arab gossip is plentiful. We returned to Nazareth this afternoon, and were invited for tea at Ahmad's parents' home. Joined there by Ahmad's uncle, we sipped our tea and watched the Lebanese news discuss today's death toll in Gaza (seven). While generally I have been accepted in my travels as an individual, not a representative of America, I have had political conversations before – but never quite so intensely. It's astonishing, and frightening, to realize that the results of our next presidential election will have a not-insignificant impact on the rest of the world, and especially here in the middle east.

Ahmad's family discussed the differences between Clinton's presidency and that of George W. Bush. When Clinton visited Gaza, they said, he cried at the sight of a young, frightened Palestinian girl – and was shamed by the Israelis. (According to Ahmad's uncle, “They expect that when a Jew in Russia gets a head pain, your president should be concerned! But a scared Palestinian girl? That is nothing – she's just an animal!”) When Bush visited last week, the state expended an estimated $50,000 per hour in security, closing down roads, bringing in extra patrols, and so on. The moral: Clinton feels for the Arabs, while Bush just takes.

They feel that when Clinton was president, Israel did not feel free to do whatever it wanted with an excess of force. The state knew that if it tried, the US would stand in its way. But these days, they say, the Arab leaders are nothing more than Bush's yes-men, or even slaves – Israel can do what it wants, and the Arab countries have no choice but to grin and bear it.

Given the historically low voter turn-out in the US, not to mention the limited information on which most of us make our decisions, it seems strange to realize that one election can have such far-reaching impacts. After all, many of us think that the winner of the presidential race doesn't really impact our own lives – how could it matter abroad? But the truth is that the rest of the world, or at least the middle east, is watching with bated breath. Hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of people live or die based on our choices in 2004 – hopefully, voters in 2008 will be more aware of the impact their one vote may have.

There is a bumper sticker floating around that says something like, “Be nice to America, or we'll bring democracy to your country.” It gave me a good chuckle, but really, things have clearly gone wrong when Bush, “the most democratic man in the world,” has turned democracy from a social ideal into a threat.

The moral of the story? Wake up! It's easy for us to say, “Well, I didn't vote for Bush, so I can't be responsible,” but all of us can, and should, be doing more. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for (unless you ask), but please make sure it's a well-researched decision, and keep in mind that a tax break really isn't worth the far-reaching consequences of reprehensible foreign policy.