With the celebration, in 1998, of the 50th Anniversary of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) worldwide, a ceremony
took place also at the Knesset. The three main speakers from the
Israeli parliament, the Supreme Court and a university academic
center made reference only to the civil-rights issues within Israel
and totally ignored the double standards existing between Jews and
Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. The Ministry of Education has
launched a two-year program on the dignity of man, and again no
reference has been made to the precarious situation in the occupied
territories. We can ask ourselves what could have been the reasons
for ignoring what for us seems to be a top priority.
Facing the spotlights of the world community, the Israeli political
establishment would, of course, prefer to bring up the relatively
"good¬news" picture of the overall situation of the respect
for civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights within
the Green Line. So framed, the Israeli record is comparable, in
many ways, to the standards of not a few other democracies. The
judiciary would prefer to overlook the situation in the occupied
territories as an anomaly. As for the Israeli civil society, often
a vibrant force in the commitment to peace with the Palestinians,
we do not see it engaged in any large-scale activity in defense of
human rights.
In many ways, it is understandable that Israelis tend to perceive a
"lasting" peace with the Palestinians as a priority based on their
own "enlightened self-interest." We are not surprised that the
Israeli peace movement has been able to mobilize masses, while the
human-rights organizations are staff¬driven skeleton
organizations. It has been a global phenomenon that we tend to
fight for the human rights of our own people facing despotic or
ruthless governments, but in ethnopolitical conflicts it is most
difficult to persuade large numbers to identify with the rights of
the "Other."
On the Palestinian side, we find an impressive number of
human-rights organizations and recognize their ability to bring
people into the streets in demanding the release of political
prisoners - even those who have committed acts of terror, who are
often seen as heroes. The term "just" before the word "peace" is
much more popular among Palestinians than among their Israeli
counterparts. "A just and lasting peace" as a compromise wording
has been suggested by the United Nations, the Europeans and the
United States in trying to address the expectations of both sides.
But unless both Arabs and Jews recognize the validity of both
principles, the peace process will continue to be very
vulnerable.
Human Rights Excluded
The deterioration of the peace process is not only due to our poor
leadership, but, also, in a deeper sense, to a misunderstanding of
the paradigms needed to advance it. Unfortunately, almost no
explicit reference to human-rights principles and covenants was
made in the Madrid peace conference, or the subsequent Oslo
Accords, or in the recent Wye River Memorandum. At Madrid, it
became clear that the silent complicity of Israel and the Arab
governments regarding the lack of a human-rights dimension in the
bilateral or multilateral tracks was not just an oversight.
Human-rights activists were in Madrid lobbying for such a relevant
addition. Even in the very important progress made in Oslo, the
pragmatic stages towards peace that were envisaged by the parties
did not explicitly associate the concrete steps with universally
accepted human-rights principles. They left the clauses of the
Declaration of Principles and subsequent accords wide open to
misinterpretation. We believe had the parties conducted a
human-rights discourse, this might have engendered a level of
mutual respect and tolerance that could have deterred those
politicians who have preferred to abort the whole deal.
Would it make a difference if Prime Minister Netanyahu had
specifically confirmed the State of Israel's adherence to the 1948
Declaration of Human Rights instead of justifying the acceptance of
the Oslo process only in terms of the international contractual
obligation of a previous government? Could Netanyahu not have
committed himself to these words from the opening paragraphs of the
Declaration?
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world; Whereas
disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous
acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind; ... Whereas it
is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a
last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that
human rights should be protected by the rule of law ....
More a 'People' Than a 'Territorial' Problem
We contend that on the Israeli-Palestinian track, the issues at
stake are different from the other previous and current bilateral
issues in the Israeli¬Arab dispute. With Egypt, and now with
Syria, the conflict has been a clear issue of territories for
peace, and it would be reasonable to claim that "the depth of
withdrawal is related to the depth of peace." On the other hand,
peace with the Palestinians is an issue of a dispossessed people.
In many ways, this dispute is closer in nature to other
ethnopolitical conflicts as those that took place, and are taking
place, in Cyprus, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, South Africa, former
Yugoslavia and the Caucasus. Here we face what have been called
"identity-driven conflicts" of peoples versus states, rather than
interstate disputes. These "civil wars" are not only about borders
or common-pooled resources, but touch upon more intractable issues,
many related to redressing tangible and intangible injustices and
suffering. The Israeli-Palestinian problem is more a "people"
problem than a "territorial" problem.
At the collective level, the self-determination of the Jews has
been manifested time and again in stressing the importance and
necessity of a Jewish state among the family of nations. The
Palestinians considered other options in the past, including
becoming citizens of a united Arab world at large, or of the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, or the replacement of Israel by an
Arab Palestine, or constituting a binational state. They are now
clearly convinced that becoming the masters of their own destiny is
their preferred option. If we do not take this expression of
collective will into account, we can foresee continuous problems in
trying to implement a peaceful solution.
The Contribution of Human Rights
We do not have the space here to systematically address the many
potential contributions of human-rights principles to the
pre-negotiation, negotiation and, hopefully, the post-negotiation
periods of the peace process. This time, we can only list brief
examples of the different items, ones related to
"confidence-building measures" - release of political prisoners,
and others related to final-status issues like settlements and
refugees.
The release of political prisoners. This very emotional issue for
both sides is typically a main component in the resolution of
protracted communal conflicts where the level of violence has been
high. It is necessary to try to "heal" the open wounds in order to
make possible a more rational dealing with tangible long-term
issues. Many families have been affected on both sides, adding a
human dimension that transcends debates about percentages or status
of territories. We can ask a universal question about what are the
human rights of those who have been involved in acts of violence
and terror. If we look into other conflicts that are being
resolved, an amnesty to political prisoners, often regardless of
the level of severity of the crime, is usually discussed. In the
Israeli-Palestinian case, drawing the line in 1993 as the beginning
of the current peace process seems to be acceptable to both sides.
There are those who have committed severe crimes, including the
murder of members of their own society (alleged collaborators or
traitors) or of the other society, either acting individually or as
members of underground organizations. Here it would be fair to set
the same standard for both Arab and Jewish perpetrators. The
consideration of an amnesty could be conditioned on a thorough
process by a parole board, in which each prisoner could be asked to
seriously consider and make a solemn pledge that, if freed, s/he
will endeavor not to use or advocate the use of violence. Setting a
precedent of possible amnesties to both sides as a
confidence-building measure may also be important for
standard-setting towards the future.
The Palestinian refugees. According to V.N. resolutions, these
refugees can either be compensated or return to their homes. The
writers both agree that, in principle, the refugees should be given
the right to choose whether to stay abroad and to be compensated,
or to return. We both have yet to agree whether the right should be
confined only to the State of Pal£stine, or to Israel, as
well, in selected cases of family reunification. Some Israelis
believe that Jews from Arab countries should have similar rights.
In any event, in terms of socioeconomic rights, the top priority is
to solve the human suffering of those in refugee camps.
The Jewish settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories. After
redeployment, this issue needs to be looked upon in the universal
perspective of individuals who will be offered national and
minority rights (ICCPR, Art. 27), an issue that could be comparable
to the status of Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel. For instance,
both should be offered the right of nationality (VDHR, Art. 15).
Hence, the Jewish settlers as well as the Palestinians in Israel
would be offered the option of dual citizenship, Israeli and
Palestinian, if they choose to. The inherent right to life, liberty
and security, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, can best
be negotiated in the framework of an agreement between the parties.
This includes the shared future of Jerusalem and the right to
self-determination there of Israelis and Palestinians.
New Priorities
A human-rights paradigm leads logically to the acceptance of a
viable Palestinian state where the full rights of its citizens
could be fulfilled. Granted that there are and will be problems,
but the process of democratization will be strengthened by an
acceptance, by the Israeli partner, of the just Palestinian claim
for full independence. And to the contrary, absence of progress in
the peace process is already causing a deterioration in the
standards of democracy in Israel and back-tracking the process of
democratization in the Palestinian territories.
We can sympathize with those in Israel who said that the first
priority is to "end occupation" rather than "humanize it." But
peace processes of protracted communal conflicts seem to be long
and produce a lot of hardship. We must ask ourselves: if the
present suffering could be alleviated, to what extent could this
contribute towards improving trust and confidence among the parties
to the process? In protest against the massacre of the Sabra and
Shatila Palestinian camps in Lebanon in 1982, the largest-ever
number of Israelis demonstrated in the streets of Tel Aviv. We pray
that tragic events of such magnitude will not recur. The question
is how to reach the same levels of support for the respect of human
rights during the current peace process, and even use it as a
confidence-building measure and an incentive to reach a final
status, based on these universal principles to which we all
adhere.
In many ways "Peace now" as a slogan is unrealistic. Based on our
own experience and ones in other protracted communal conflicts, we
know that the peace-making of the leaders, as the term itself
indicates, is a drawn-out process. Palestinians say to their
Israeli friends and colleagues that making a meaningful
contribution to bring peace "now," means fighting for "human rights
now." Meanwhile~ Israelis say to their Palestinian brothers and
sisters that the most effective way to achieve justice is by a
systematic and open rejection of the use of force against
civilians, and a commitment to nonviolence and civil disobedience.
Simultaneously, claiming justice and peace will help the
Palestinian civil society to build more and effective bridges with
their Israeli peers. We are not only the inheritors of an Abrahamic
civilization but also the descendants of Adam. "Human rights" in
Hebrew (zchuyot adam) relates to this concept.