Peace is sustainable when security and justice go hand in hand.
Sacrificing one at the expensae of the other has proven
self-defeating. Yet it is more of a challenge to persuade the
stronger side of the conflict of this - in our case, Israel.
Normally the underdog is more predisposed to accept human rights as
a yardstick, appealing to the support of the international
community to redress the lack of balance in the conflict. The
challenge is to get justice/human rights principles accepted by
both sides. In this article 12 points are advanced with the
explicit purpose of being plausible and realistic in the perception
of the "top dog."
1) The Limits of Power
In the changing international system, the supremacy of military
power does not ensure a peace "diktat." Changing the leader
[Arafat] does not result in a renunciation of national goals. Even
military might cannot ensure the absence of violence. Israel, the
Lion of Judea, the "king of the Middle East jungle," cannot crush
the stream of bees coming from countless hives ready to die while
inflicting severe pain. The weaker part usually believes that it
has experienced so much suffering that there is little left to
lose, which motivates it to continue the struggle by all available
means.
2) The Difference Between Inter- and Intra-State
Conflicts
In the past, the Israeli-Arab confrontation was called the "Middle
East" conflict, without regard for the many other violent disputes
in the region. Israel now has peace agreements with Egypt and
Jordan. From a human rights perspective, an agreement with Syria
(and by proxy with Lebanon) should not have been the next to
follow, even if more than one Israeli government opted to go for
this track for tactical reasons. The conflict is also a regional
issue, with the Palestinians being part of the Arab world that has
united in pressing for Israeli concessions and withdrawals from
territory. But putting people first is a priority for the
international community, evidenced by its greater concern about the
Palestinians' destiny as compared to lower pressures for an
Israel-Syria peace. The individual and collective rights of two and
a half million Palestinians are central to settling the future of
the West Bank and Gaza.
3) Citizenship
In theory, Israel's Knesset could annex "Judea and Samaria," as it
annexed the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, give three million
Palestinian citizens equal rights, and then the Jewish settlers
could remain. What is not admissible is to maintain a dual legal
system in the occupied territories for Arabs and Jews. The moment
of truth for Israeli Jews is to understand that annexing "Judea and
Samaria" can be done only at the "cost" of providing full
citizenship, or by a reprehensible "ethnic cleansing." This last
option, although the platform of an extreme party, is rejected by
most on grounds of morality and expedience. Yet a denial of the
right to vote and be elected to one's own government cannot be
maintained forever.
In many protracted communal conflicts, the parties expect to
coexist under the same government upon achieving peace (as in South
Africa and Northern Ireland), but the consensual arrangement
anticipated for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a two-state
solution and full citizenship in the respective states. While the
relevance of human rights principles may be greater for integrated
solutions than for cases of separation, in our reality, people's
lives remain interwoven. Even if, in the future, issues of
individual rights are considered the domain of each sovereign
state, it will be important to redress the violations of the past,
protect rights during the lengthy peace process, and address the
likelihood that the population of each state may include a
substantial number of the other's nation.
4) The Relevance of Human Dignity
Reducing the level of hatred is a top national security priority
since the main attacks come now from individual volunteers
motivated by the desire to overcome misery and humiliation with the
spirit of vengeance and martyrdom. The respect for the "human
dignity" of the individual is of universal relevance, but in our
Middle East, humiliation and dishonorable treatment create a strong
cultural baggage that needs to be factored in. The impossibility of
ruling over three million Palestinians has been recognized publicly
by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Still, the facts on the ground, the
innumerable roadblocks, the sleepless lines of Palestinians waiting
mostly in vain to gain access to the Interior Ministry's offices in
East Jerusalem, all these inhuman treatments have a most negative
and perhaps lasting impact on practically every Palestinian.
5) Human Rights Language
Even at the levels of protocol and declaration, human rights
semantics can contribute to an atmosphere of mutual respect that is
more conducive to successful negotiations. If the first line of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights preamble: "The inherent
dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the
human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the
world," were repeated frequently, the atmosphere would change. Yet,
in spite of the lobbying of Human Rights Watch in Madrid, no human
rights references were found at the Middle East Peace Conference in
1991. The hundreds of pages of the Oslo agreements only mentioned a
handful of explicit "human rights" references. The current
Israeli-Palestinian Road Map has no mention of human rights at all.
At the local level, no such reference to "human rights" or "rights"
was found in 45 speeches made by Sharon through May 2003, while
Arafat only mentions the term "rights," exclusively referring to
the Palestinian people.
Human rights clauses can reduce the perceived asymmetries. A
language of dignity and respect carries a lot of weight for
persecuted people, who are often reluctant to confront the price to
be paid for an agreement. Rejection, negatives and boycotts are
often perceived as their only remaining source of strength. The use
of a language of "entitlements" by the strong is expedient, since
it may elicit from the underdog a more constructive attitude.
Rather than conceding to "give up" territories in "Judea and
Samaria," let the Israeli authorities stress that Palestinians have
an inherent right to a state in part of historic Israel or
Palestine. Inclusion of a human rights provision may not guarantee
its implementation, but without its inclusion there would be no
chance for implementation at all
Furthermore, it is also expedient to demand that textbooks embrace
the basic principles of universality and equality between all
nations, including Arabs and Jews, as a normative framework. From
an educational point of view, planting the seeds of tolerance
toward the "other" is a long-term investment toward a lasting
peace.
6) Home-Grown Roots of Human Rights
Human rights are not a foreign imposition, a punishment by the
international community. The values stem from the Jewish religion
and books (Talmud, Bible), the early experience with statehood more
than 2,000 years ago, and as a persecuted minority in exile. The
struggle against discrimination in the Dreyfus case in France led
to the formation of the first International League for the Rights
of Men in the 19th century. Rene Cassin, a Nobel Peace Prize
laureate and a proud Jew, when preparing the draft text of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, saw in the background a
reflection of the Ten Commandments.
While establishments often see human rights as the adversary's
weapon, it is no less important to understand that by endorsing
them and claiming some contribution to its shaping, we are also
recognized as contributors to better standards of human behavior.
But if Jews claim a copyright, they also have to understand that
the widespread acceptance of such honorable principles results in
justified demands on Israel.
7) International Standards as an Imperative
Paradoxically, democratic governments often face domestic
constituencies that perceive implementing specific international
resolutions as weakness, concessions that are being granted solely
because of pressure by biased international organizations and world
powers. On the Israeli side, such public reluctance can be diffused
by framing the task as implementation of accepted universal
principles. The concept of "justice" can be better conveyed in
terms of respect for specific principles embodied in the articles
of international covenants. Ratification by the concerned
governments advances the redressing of collective discrimination.
What Sharon has called "painful concessions" is vague and open to a
Middle East bazaar-type bargaining with no clear standards. Israeli
citizens can perhaps better understand that the cost of being a
member of the family of nations requires the acceptance of
principles that will translate into required concessions emanating
not from the weakness or strength of their leadership but from
contractual obligations.
8) Constructive Ambiguity
We are not so naive as to expect that showing governments the right
texts will be enough to get them to comply. Human rights clauses
emanating from declarations and covenants in today's international
arena are drafted in broad terms and subject to different
interpretations, which allows for "constructive ambiguity."
Experience shows that including human rights issues in the
peacemaking process ensures a more durable outcome and satisfaction
with the new status quo. Even when issues of "conflict of rights"
come up (i.e. the refugees right of return to the same land after
2,000 or 55 years), the recognition of such a right for both Jews
and Arabs in principle is a sounder basis for finding creative
compromises than "zero-sum" calculations.
9) Enlightened Self-Interest
When human rights principles are advocated and adhered to, they can
also be invoked for the sake of the citizens of the stronger party.
While enjoying more daily rights than the oppressed minority, their
right to life is challenged daily by acts of indiscriminate terror.
The moral and political leverage for a demand for the respect of
human life can be made universally binding for all. Israel's
justified outcry against terrorist homicidal bombings would gain
more international and regional legitimacy if the IDF would refrain
from targeted assassinations resulting in severe suffering and loss
of life for innocent bystanders.
10) The Relevance of "Democratic Peace"
We can expand the relationship between human rights and peace by
introducing "democracy" as an intervening variable. The
often-invoked argument that democracies tend not to fight wars with
each other could be relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian case. The
likelihood of peace between full-fledged democracies is an
incentive for expediting a compromise based not only on secure
borders but also on the fostering of democratic processes in both
entities. We contend that there are no shortcuts, and even if
fundamental rights are hindered during democratization, the
protection of human rights contributes to the consolidation of
democracy and strengthens the prospects for peace. This seems to
have been relevant for the Palestinian transition to self-rule,
though its momentum was reduced, paradoxically, when advancement in
the peace process was perceived as justifying a regression in the
human rights situation. The lack of respect for human rights in the
occupied territories has also had a negative impact on democratic
values within Israel, particularly vis-a-vis its Arab citizens, as
shown in the excessive use of violence and the killing of Israeli
Palestinians while curbing the October 2000 riots.
11) Carrots and Sticks
The "David versus Goliath" image of Israel is fading away. World
sympathy with Jewish suffering was an important element in the
recognition of the State of Israel after the Holocaust. Nowadays,
support emanates predominantly from the dwindling but
well-organized Jewish diaspora and fundamentalist religious groups.
This narrow base of support can be relevant in US elections but may
be opportunistic and shortsighted, particularly at the global
level. The risk of becoming a pariah state in the eyes of many and
a liability in the hands of top policymakers needs to be addressed.
The world community frequently applies sanctions against states and
individuals, and systematic patterns of gross human rights
violations (see the Annual Report of Amnesty International and
sections of the US State Department's country-by-country report)
could result in the reduction of vast amounts of foreign aid, and
has resulted in some countries in selective boycotts. The universal
jurisdiction of crimes against humanity is not only accepted by a
small number of judges in a few countries, it is part and parcel of
the International Criminal Court, which even before its actual
functioning has generated apprehension among leaders and in the
military and security services. In the long run, individual
sanctions may deter Israelis from being part of repressive policies
and fragment even further the already delicate domestic balance and
morale.
12) Reducing the Asymmetry
In the past, the victor's imposed solution was hardly under
international scrutiny, and impunity allowed the top dog to
administer the outcome at its convenience. The emergence of
principles of justice have raised the expectations of the weaker
side to attain them, increasing the willingness to fight and
sacrifice for them. The stronger party is frequently bestowed with
the responsibility of restraining the weaker side, even at the
price of concessions. The "big brother" paradox is that it can't
use its extra strength to placate the other, and often has to find
ways to reduce the asymmetry to induce the weaker side to calm
down. Narrowing the gap by confidence- building measures of the
strong can create a process where the weak side feels empowered to
negotiate acceptance of claims.
There are more arguments and counter-arguments that could be
mentioned, but to conclude, there is no question that the missing
dimension in the Oslo process is an explicit reference, let alone
adherence, to human rights. We call for the opening of a public
debate on the relevance of human rights principles, and to engage
those who control our destinies in both societies. Challenging our
leadership to pay even lip service to an acceptance of the
universal equality of human beings, of Arabs and Jews, will be a
great step forward.
E. Kaufman and I. Bisharat, "Human Rights and Conflict Resolution:
Searching for Common Ground between Justice and Peace in the
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict." NIDR Forum, December 1998, pp.
16-22.
E. Kaufman with I. Bisharat, "Humanizing the Israeli-Palestinian
Peace Process," Palestine-Israel Journal , (Vol. VI, No.1, 1999,
pp. 8-13.
E. Kaufman and I.Bisharat, "Introducing Human Rights into Conflict
Resolution: The Relevance for the Israeli-Palestinian Peace
Process," Journal of Human Rights, (Vol. 1, No 1, (March 2002), pp.
71-91.