Seeing Clearly Through
a Veil of Blood
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights incorporates
many of the principles found in all world religions and philosophies.
Thus, it serves as a common platform for us all, irrespective of our personal
faith or origins. It is a statement of the different way that, in the
New World, human beings will treat each other, and how they will judge
Several of these laws and the principles that
underpin them have been applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Three
resolutions passed by the United Nations are key to moving towards a just
peace: UN General Assembly Resolutions 181 of 1947 and 194 of 1948, and
UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967. Implementing these three resolutions
would bring peace to the Middle East. What's more, all the parties to
the conflict—Israel, the Palestinians, the Arab states, and the
United States—accept these three resolutions. Implementing the last
resolution—242—first would immediately end the bloodshed.
This is the New World: states are no longer permitted to gain territory by war. In the world of human rights and international law, colonialism is no longer acceptable. We have moved on from the days of colonialism when the Europeans rampaged through Asia, Africa and the Americas, stealing natural resources and creating captive markets and cheap labor.
Yet, although Resolution 242 was accepted by all concerned, the international community has allowed Israel free rein in the Occupied Palestinian Territories for 35 years, imposing no sanctions as Israel took land and water, created captive markets, and supplied itself with cheap labor. This passivity in the face of flagrant illegality is particularly glaring compared to the constant call for application of UN resolutions to Iraq (which no longer occupies Kuwait).Not only is the occupation itself illegal, but all Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories are illegal, according to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which Israel has signed and accepted, as has the US. International law views occupation as a temporary status during which the occupying power is obligated, first, to end the occupation as quickly as possible and, second, to safeguard the rights of the occupied population during the temporary period in which the occupation is maintained.
Any move by the occupier against the rights of the population under occupation, or to change the status of the occupied land through, for example, annexation, confiscation of resources, population transfer, or destruction of civilian property is illegal and may constitute a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. Collective punishments—home demolitions, curfews, and sieges of entire towns and villages—are also against the Geneva Conventions.
Every one of these violations has been and is being perpetrated against the Palestinians under occupation: their basic human rights to life, liberty, freedom of movement and association, education, work, health are denied every day. Before the 1993 Oslo Accords were signed between the Israelis and Palestinians, Israel had settled 200,000 Israelis in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. During the Oslo "peace process" between 1993 and 2000, another 200,000 Israeli settlers moved on to Palestinian land.
There are several flaws in the Oslo process. The most serious is that it did not call for an immediate end to occupation, but rather set in train a process of negotiation around the occupation. The Palestinian Authority agreed to provide security for the Israeli soldiers and settlers of occupation, while various committees held endless negotiations about water, legal affairs, the economy—in short, everything except an end to occupation.
But ending the occupation should not be open to negotiation. The principle of 242 is clear: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We must demand that world powers push for immediate implementation of 242 and an end to Israeli occupation, and end death and destruction. Between September 2000, when the second uprising against the occupation erupted, and August 2002, Israeli soldiers and settlers have killed 1,658 Palestinians. The vast majority of Palestinians killed have been civilians; 294 were children.
And, since that date, 612 Israelis, the majority of them civilians, have been killed by Palestinians. The attacks against Israeli civilians violate human rights and international law. The Palestinian Authority has condemned them, as have respected Palestinian intellectuals and activists who issued a petition against suicide bombings in June. But the complete breakdown of law and order and the pervasive presence of Israeli armed forces and settlers make it impossible to control those who have turned to violence in their desperation to end the military occupation.
In March and April 2002, Israel launched fierce attacks on Palestinian towns, the ostensible aim to bring "security" and end suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. But there were no such attacks before the occupation began—and very few attacks until the peace process collapsed in July 2000 and Palestinian civilians were killed by Israeli forces in the wake of protests against Sharon's September 2000 visit to Al Aqsa mosque, which sparked the uprising. Beginning in June 2002, Israel imposed collective punishment on 800,000 Palestinians, confining them to their homes 24 hours a day for days on end, a curfew enforced by tanks in and around all the major population areas in the West Bank.
"The occupation is killing all of us", is the Israeli peace bloc Gush Shalom's succinct summary of the realities on the ground. The UN Security Council should impose the withdrawal of Israeli soldiers and settlers to the 1967 borders. Not one soldier, not one settler, should be left. Negotiations can take place about outstanding issues after Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories.
It is worth noting that some mainstream Israelis are calling for the same thing. In early June, the former chief of Shin-Bet (the Israeli intelligence service) Ami Ayalon and the Deputy Foreign Minister Michael Melchior called for Israel to leave the occupied territories. "We need to leave the settlements as soon as possible, with or without an agreement with the Palestinians," Melchior said. "We simply cannot afford to be an occupier in today's world."
Several hundred Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the army of occupation. Israeli reservist officer Guy Grossman explained why he had joined Ometz Le'Sarev (Courage to Refuse) in a stand against "the continued occupation of Palestinian land. This war is unjust. It saps my country's sanity and morality and corrupts its soul. There is not and can never be a benign occupation. For 11 years my friends and I risked our lives and sanity to perpetuate this unbearable reality—the daily humiliations at checkpoints, the arbitrary closures and destruction of homes. I saw the kids grow up with hatred in their eyes—eyes that I was ashamed to meet".
Ending the occupation will bring an end to the
bloodshed and enable the Palestinians to pick up the pieces of their shattered
lives. Once the occupation is ended, the other outstanding issues can
be addressed: final borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the Palestinian
refugees. These can be resolved by implementing UN General Assembly Resolutions
181 and 194.
UN Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947 partitioned Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state. Israel came into being but Palestine did not. This was partly because the Palestinians and Arabs rejected the Partition Plan, which they considered unjust.
Based on the historical facts, the Partition
Plan was indeed unjust. Up until 1917, the population of Palestine was
overwhelmingly Arab. On 2 November 1917, Britain promised the Zionist
movement that it would support "the establishment in Palestine of
a national home for the Jewish people . . . it being clearly understood
that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious
rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." 
Moreover, in 1915, Britain had promised the Arabs living under Ottoman rule independence in exchange for their help during World War I—promises violated by the 1917 commitment to the Zionists. Britain went on to conquer Palestine and other Arab lands from the Ottoman Turks, obtained mandatory power over Palestine from the League of Nations, and opened the country to large scale Jewish immigration from Europe. This action set in motion bloody conflict between the Arabs and Britain, Arabs and Zionist immigrants, and Britain and the Zionists.
In 1947, Britain turned the Question of Palestine over to the UN General Assembly, which adopted Resolution 181. This recommended the partition of Palestine into an Arab State and a Jewish State, allocating 56% of the land to the Jewish state and 43% to the Arab state, with Jerusalem and Bethlehem designated as an international zone. At this time, 68% of the population of Palestine was Arab and 32% was Jewish, and Jews owned no more than 6% of the land. The Arabs rejected the very principle of Partition as unjust. The Palestinians had had nothing to do with the pogroms of the Jews in Europe over the centuries, or the Nazi Holocaust of World War II. Why should they pay the price by turning part of over their country to the Zionist movement as part of a British colonial enterprise? The first Arab-Israeli War broke out in 1948. Israel won, occupying not just the 56% of Palestine allocated by the Partition Plan, but 78% of the country. In 1967 Israel occupied the rest of Palestine.
Today, Resolution 181 offers the best hope for just peace—even though it was unjust in 1947. How is what was once unjust now just? It helps to reflect on what we might call absolute justice versus "achievable justice". For Palestinians, absolute justice would mean turning the clock back to 1917. Turning the clock back 100 years to achieve absolute justice is impossible. Even assuming that absolute justice could somehow be achieved, shutting down Israel and evicting five million Israeli Jews would create new injustice today. A two-state solution is the closest thing to justice that can be achieved today.
Israel may perhaps one day recognize how much it owes Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization. The reason that the majority of Palestinians are now willing to accept a two-state solution with a state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza—which constitute just 22% of mandate Palestine—is because the PLO has been talking them into it since 1974. That was the year when the PLO first spoke of establishing a state on any part of Palestine that was liberated (delicate phrasing was necessary because, in those days, PLO officials were killed by radical groups for even hinting at a two-state solution).
The support for a two-state solution was ever more clearly stated by the Palestinians—in 1988 at the Palestine National Council session held in Algiers, and in 1993 as part of the Oslo Accords, which included the PLO's formal recognition of Israel. The Arab states were also ever more clear in accepting a two-state solution, beginning with a Saudi Plan in 1982 and culminating in the Saudi Plan formally endorsed by the League of Arab States in 2002.
Yasser Arafat could not accept Ehud Barak's so-called "generous offer" at Camp David in July 2000 because it did not provide for a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza as US negotiator Robert Malley revealed a year later. "To accommodate the settlers, Israel was to annex 9 percent of the West Bank; in exchange, the new Palestinian state would be granted sovereignty over parts of Israel proper, equivalent to one-ninth of the annexed land. ... In Jerusalem, Palestine É would enjoy custody over the Haram al Sharif, the location of the third-holiest Muslim shrine, Israel would exercise overall sovereignty over this area, known to Jews as the Temple Mount. ... As for the future of refugees—for many Palestinians, the heart of the matter—the ideas put forward at Camp David spoke vaguely of a 'satisfactory solution' ... ."
Currently, the discussion around borders is focused
on what Israel wants to accommodate its settlements, all illegal under
international law. Discussions on permanent borders between Israel and
Palestinian should take into account the land allocations made in the
Partition Plan, and the PLO's willingness to accept much less. Achievable
justice involves a fair agreement on borders. In the meantime, the State
of Palestine should be immediately accepted as a UN member state pending
agreement on borders. The status of Palestine would be the same as that
of Israel, which, unlike most world countries, does not yet have recognized
borders pending agreements on the West Bank, Gaza, and the Syrian Golan
Heights occupied by Israel in 1967.
Resolution 194 adopted on 11 December 1948, provides for the right of return or compensation for the 750,000 Palestinian refugees who fled or were expelled from their homes during the first Arab Israeli war. Another 500,000 Palestinians became refugees during the 1967 War. Today, out of some 8 million Palestinians, 4.6 million live in exile and 2.2 million live in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt (1.2 million are citizens of Israel). Here, again there is a need to look at what might constitute absolute justice and achievable justice. Absolute justice would mean that every single refugee and exile would return to the homes from which they came in present-day Israel.
Achievable justice would mean recognizing the rights of Palestinians in and to Palestine, including the right of return set out in Resolution 194. It would also involve recognition of, and an expression of regret for, Israel's responsibility for the refugee problem, which is now well documented by mainstream Israeli historians. Since not every Palestinian will be able to return to their original homes, achievable justice in implementing the right of return would give priority to those that have the most need to return—the Palestinians who still live in refugee camps and/or are stateless. This would be based on a fair distribution between those returning to Israel and those returning to the future Palestinian state—together with compensation to the Palestinians who do not return, again giving priority to those most in need of compensation.
It is worth noting that the State of Israel has accepted both resolutions 194 and 181. The preamble to the resolution admitting Israel to the UN membership specifically refers to Israel's undertakings to implement 181and 194. Today, the question is not whether but how to finally implement these resolutions to achieve what the majority consider just.
A main reason for Israel's refusal to implement the Palestinian right of return is its desire to preserve the Jewish character of the State of Israel. Let us assume for a moment that not a single Palestinian refugee will return to Israel. As things stand today, the population of Israel includes over a million Arabs who carry Israeli passports. However, because Israel is defined as a Jewish state, the Israeli Arabs are, by definition, not full citizens of the Jewish state. This is not just a matter of definition: Israeli Palestinians have identified 20 laws that discriminate against them in basic aspects of civic life, including laws of citizenship, emigration, education, and land ownership.
Therefore, irrespective of the Palestinian right of return, the State of Israel will need to address discrimination by law and in fact against those of its citizens who are not Jews. This includes the need to address and amend the Israeli Law of Return, which allows any Jewish citizen of any country in the world to immigrate to Israel. Meanwhile, Palestinians languish in refugee camps. Where's the justice in that?
There needs to be a point, very soon, when Israel becomes the state of all the citizens who live in it (as must the future Palestine). States must be states of all their citizens: non-discrimination is a basic principle of human rights. The US is the model: wherever they come from, all immigrants become US citizens, equal in rights and duties. The US model is not perfectly implemented in practice, but it is better even than in Europe. The separation of religion and state is one of the factors that make it possible for all citizens to be equal in the United States. Another factor is the application of the rule of law. A third is respect, so far, for civil and political rights, such as freedom of speech.
Defining citizenship on the basis of faith or ethnicity is a recipe for civil war, as can be seen from the modern history of other states in the region such as Lebanon. There are different ways to define a Jewish state. Israel has succeeded in coming into existence, and has created a home for many Jews and a bond with Jews worldwide. At some stage, the relationship of other Jews to Israel must become that of historic, religious and cultural ties, rather than seeing Israel as a haven of last resort for all Jews for all time.
But, for this to happen, we must all fight against anti-Semitism, latent and blatant, which remains a threat to Jews wherever they are. At the same time, we should also be aware that some anti-Jewish feeling today has no roots in the anti-Semitism that originated in Europe, but is fuelled by the injustice of Israel's occupation of Palestine. As part of the struggle both against Israeli occupation as well as against anti-Semitism, it is important to highlight the growing number of Jews and Israelis—including those refusing to serve in the army of occupation—who speak up and take action for the human rights of Palestinians.
The Law Protects: Ways US Citizens Can Help Apply the Law
In sum, UN resolutions provide for:
1) An end to the Israeli occupation of territories
taken in 1967—Resolution 242;
The law protects. It protects Israel, which was accorded statehood by UN Resolution 181. However, the law cannot be applied piecemeal. It must also be applied to protect Palestine and the Palestinians who are exposed to death and destruction and have been for decades.
September 2002 marks the 20th anniversary of Sabra and Shatila (16—18 September 1982), when Israeli forces surrounded two Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and sent in rightwing Lebanese militias who massacred unarmed Palestinians over the course of three days. As part of an agreement to end the 80-day siege of Beirut by Israeli forces during its invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the US had promised the PLO that it would protect Palestinian civilians after the PLO left Lebanon. Yet the US withdrew its marines, and the Israelis went in. An Israeli court found Ariel Sharon "personally responsible" for the massacre of Sabra and Shatila and said he should never hold office again. Yet here he is today, Prime Minister of Israel during two of the bloodiest years of the 35-year-old Israeli occupation. When justice is denied, blood flows, and continues to flow.
Citizens of the US have a responsibility to demand that their Government apply the law to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The US is the strongest supporter of Israel politically and financially, with aid and military equipment worth close to $4 billion a year, much of which has been used to devastate Palestinian society and economy. There are many actions US citizens can take in support of a just peace:
1) Work to
Change US Policy on Military Aid to Israel
the Human Rights of Palestinians Under Occupation
International Protection for the Palestinians
Non-Violent Resistance to Occupation
There is a Campaign taking shape in the US today to apply the law: the US Campaign to End Israeli Occupation. The US Campaign is a coalition of organizations and individuals focused on changing US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in support of freedom from occupation and equal rights for all. The Campaign is based on human rights and international law, providing a non-sectarian framework for everyone supporting its Call to Action. Its strategy is to inform, educate, and mobilize the public regarding the US role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, working through organized constituencies interested in promoting an end to occupation and a just peace. Working together, we can spell peace with a "j".
paper is based on talks delivered between April and June 2002 to several
audiences, including: the New York University Law School panel organized
by the Middle Eastern Law Students Association, the Jewish Law Students
Association, and the International Law Society; the Black Radical Congress
(Harlem); the Council for the National Interest (Washington DC); and the
Friends Philadelphia Yearly Meeting M.E. Working Group. Nadia Hijab has
written widely on the M.E. Her first book, Womanpower: The Arab debate
on women at work, was published by Cambridge University Press. She
co-authored Citizens Apart: A Portrait of Palestinians in Israel
(I. B. Tauris). She was Editor-in-Chief of the London-based Middle East
magazine and a frequent commentator on the BBC before moving to New York
in 1989 as senior advisor to an international organization. Since 1999,
she has been an independent consultant on human rights, human development,
gender, and the media. She is past president of the Association of Arab
American University Graduates, and a member of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination