Occupation and human rights

Below are Tony Klug's comments, following the debate on his article "Is Israel a serious human rights violator on the West Bank?" These first appeared on the Guardian's Comment is Free site, below Tony's article: Comment is free debate


By remaining in the West Bank, Israel has done enormous harm to itself, its reputation and its long-term future.
Tony Klug
February 9, 2007 11:00 AM

To my mind, the issue is not whether Israel is a serious human rights violator in the occupied territories, but why. The carefully documented pattern of abuses by respected Israeli organisations like B'Tselem and esteemed international human rights bodies such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch speak for themselves.
Homes are demolished, civilians are mistreated, prisoners are abused, elderly people are humiliated, basic freedoms are curtailed and non-combatants are killed. And that's just a part of it. It gets us nowhere to keep denying the reports or justifying everything on security grounds or claiming these bodies are prejudiced.


I worked for Amnesty International for many years and know that the primacy of political impartiality is drilled into all its workers. Of course, this didn't then and doesn't now stop the governments of numerous countries around the world, including Israel's (and many Arab governments too), from accusing the organisation of having a particular bias against them.

But Israel was not always a serious violator of human rights. As a researcher, I used to move about virtually unhindered through the West Bank in the 1970s, often in the company of Palestinians or Israelis or both. There were few checkpoints, few Israeli settlements and few terror attacks. Even travel across the old green line was barely monitored. As occupations go, it was relatively benign (if occupations can ever be benign). But then the land confiscations started in earnest and the settlement programme accelerated. The occupation began to look as if it had come to stay.
If there is one cast-iron law of history, it is probably that all occupations and other forms of colonial rule are, eventually, resisted. The occupier then has a choice of pulling out and letting the native people exercise their self-determination, or remaining and clamping down. Despite its avowal in the years immediately following the 1967 war to stay only temporarily, Israel unfortunately chose to remain, and over time it came to resemble the harsh - at times brutal - occupier that it had falsely been claimed to be in earlier years.

 

As British citizens, Jewish or non-Jewish, we should be careful not to be too smug or sanctimonious about this. There were times during the British empire when colonial rule was likewise relatively benign and other times when it was unbelievably cruel. Although it is invidious to make comparisons, some if its excesses were far worse and on a much larger scale than any Israel has committed. A parallel point may be made with regard to some of the atrocities perpetrated by the resistance groups. These practices stopped when colonial rule ended.

This has been the familiar pattern through history, regardless of the geographical origin or political affiliation of the colonial ruler. The contemporary US/British occupation of Iraq and even the prolonged Nato presence in Afghanistan are treading a worryingly similar path. This is not to excuse Israeli conduct - nor either the murderous attacks on Israeli civilians by certain armed Palestinian groups, that the aforementioned human rights organisations have also condemned - but to place it in context.

There are serious human rights violations in the occupied territories not because the perpetrators are Israelis, nor even because they are Zionists - patriotic Israelis and self-proclaimed Zionists have been among the most vocal critics - and certainly not because they are Jews. It is because they are occupiers, and the violations will end when the occupation ends.

 

Enforced rule over another people brutalises the occupier as well as the occupied. By remaining in the West Bank, if only to protect the settlers it unwisely and illegally planted there, Israel has done enormous harm to itself, its reputation and its long-term future in the region of which it strives to be a part, to say nothing of the profound damage the occupation has done to the Palestinians who live there. It should not be left to Israel's enemies to call for a full and final end to Israel's occupation, now in its 40th year. True friends of Israel should be asserting the same demand.

Tony Klug’s subsequent response to the following questions:
has the occupation been a 40 year one, or a 60 year one?
Why do you think things have changed since the 1970s?

tonyklug
February 9
Please excuse the delay. A few quick responses:
As far as the Palestinians are concerned, the occupation subjectively started in 1948. This is understandable. What was liberation for one tormented people was catastrophe for another. In the immediate aftermath of the Nazi atrocities and the double dealing of the western powers, it is hard to judge either of these desperate peoples, although many apparently find it easy to do so.

Objectively, under international law, the occupation began in 1967. Within its 1967 borders, Israel is an internationally recognized state and a member of the UN. I have used the objective meaning. I believe it is important to be clear about the use of words. Subjectively, many peoples around the world would claim to be living under occupation.

Two main attitude changes occurred in the years following the 1967 war. Gradually, the Palestinians came to realize that Israel had taken root in the region and wasn't going to disappear. Over time, they lowered their sights (not necessarily their dreams) and came to accept the need for a state in part of the land, ie in the 22% of mandatory Palestine that was not Israel. This became official PLO policy in 1988.

In parallel, Israel became accustomed to running the West Bank and over the years its political and military leaders started to acquire the mind set of colonial rulers. This was bound to happen if Israel held onto the OT. I saw the changes very clearly for myself during periodic visits to the country. Meanwhile, the settlement programme started in earnest - and created a new, potentially powerful political constituency - and many Israelis began to claim the territories as their own.

The occupied territories became the administered territories, became the disputed territories and something in Israel's gift. Thus when Barak offered Arafat roughly 90% at Camp David in 2000, it was seen within Israel as a 'generous offer'. After all, that was 40% more than fifty-fifty. By the time Taba was reached six months later, more realistic proposals were on the table. But by then, as we know, it was too late.

One cause of Israel's complaceny in the 1970s into the 1980s was the relative quiet in the OT, especially the West Bank. The Palestinians can reasonably claim that when they didn't resist, Israel steadily confiscated territory and implanted more and more settlers. There was no discernible progress towards an Israeli withdrawal from the OT. And when, eventually, the Palestinians did resist, Israel cried 'security' as the reason it couldn't withdraw. It is no doubt sincerely meant by a lot of ordinary Israelis, many of whom still live in fear but, when we hear it from the political leadership, it sounds disingenuous.

I put the emphasis on the West Bank as this is the main focus of Palestinian national aspirations and is considerably larger in size than the Gaza Strip. It is also the territory that some Israelis are most keen to keep. So the withdrawal of settlers from Gaza does not really affect this. Indeed, it may have been thought that this would make it easier to retain the West Bank.

Is there anyone to return the WB too? There has been in the past and will very likely be again in the future. But this is the secondary question. The first question is is Israel ready to relinquish the territory and accept the 78% / 22% formula, which is the only one that can work? Spoils of war or fruits of peace?

My proposal would be, if it is truly serious about peace and its own future and that of its people, for the Israeli government to declare in principle its preparedness to withdraw in full from the WB - subject to agreed equitable land swaps - in exchange for full peace. That is the test. Will it make such a clear, low-risk, declaration? At the least, it would throw the ball into the Palestinians' court. How would they respond? More than that, it could create a new momentum, which is so essential to getting a new peace process off the ground.

The Arab Peace Initiative has already come up with this very proposal (extended to the Golan Heights) - although it's true to say they haven't made much of an effort to persuade the Israeli people of the sincerity of their intention. Most Israeli have either never heard of the proposal or don't believe a word of it. The Arab League badly needs to go and sell the initiative to the Israeli people.

If Israel were to make a matching declaration, the dynamic this could trigger well may help to bring the Palestinians together and to bring them on board. Both the Palestinians and Israelis, as we know, have supported mutual recognition in a state each by large majorities for a long time. But no one listens to them. Once the momentum gets going, and one reciprocal gesture follows another, the future may not look so bleak after all.
=============

Tony Klug’s subsequent response to the following questions and comments:


  • Many Jewish people, perhaps even Tony Klug, seem to exhibit a quite extreme sense of self denial with regard to Israel.
    Klug is quite right in urging the end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land in the West Bank. But he is wrong and, worse, willfully naive in thinking that this is an unproblematical recommendation.
    Klug seems oblivious … and thinks that "withdrawal" will solve everything instantaneously.
    Tony Klug's argument is flawed. He is suggesting that a simple withdrawal from the West Bank would solve the conflict. He is ignoring that the root to the conflict is essentially the rejection by the Palestinians to accept Jewish sovereignty over any part of former Palestine.

tonyklug
February 10
I have followed this discussion with interest but forgive me if I wonder why some contributors participate in it when their sole purpose appears to be to assert the same fixed position over and over again - or occasionally to smear an entire people - and to pay not a blind bit of notice to anything that anyone else says? Where does this get us?
May I suggest that we pause for a moment and ask ourselves why each of us holds certain positions so firmly and rejects others with equal passion? Why do we select (or assert) certain 'facts', and give them a particular interpretation, and don't seem even to notice others with no less objective validity (or subjective justification)? Maybe Abraham Lincoln was on to something when he reputedly said 'If you were born where they were born and you were taught what they were taught you'd believe what they believe'. But if we are to move on we need to be able to think outside the boxes we inherited and open our minds to other perspectives.


Just imagine if these two small peoples had not clashed on the same piece of territory at the same period of time. What incentives would each side then have had to manufacture so many absurd myths about the other and ridicule their histories and trash their national characters? There are two peoples with two histories - not easy ones - and we need to be able to understand and empathize with them both if we are properly to get to grips with this conflict and how to solve it.

The constant repetition of the same arguments for (or against) one side or the other is barren and I would like to suggest that, to be productive, we try to avoid doing this again for the duration of this conversation. It might also be helpful if people thought for a moment or two before making bizzare or baseless accusations. What purpose is served by doing this? Eg, with regard to myself, I have variously been accused in this stream of 'self denial', of being 'wilfully naive' (can one be both?), 'oblivious' to whatever happens to be the preoccupation of the accusing party, of advancing a 'flawed' argument and 'ignoring .. the root to the conflict'. That's an impressive list of flaws. Further, it seems I think that 'withdrawal will solve everything instantaneously' and 'end the conflict'.

Of course I don't and haven't suggested this. Let me be clear: I believe, first, that it is stongly in the interests of both Israelis and Palestinians for Israel to get out of the West Bank and for a Palestinian state to be established there. I first argued this in a Jan 1973 Fabian pamphlet. Secondly, this can only be accomplished as part of a negotiated peace agreement. Thirdly, setting up negotiations now would be sterile and would almost certainly collapse and lead to greater acrimony. Fourthly, and most importantly, the current stalemate needs to be unblocked and a new momentum sparked off that is capable of restoring hope in the hearts and minds of people and that ultimately leads to serious formal talks.

I believe these things are not as far-fetched as they may seem. They are achievable and the most compelling way to trigger the process is, as suggested in my previous intervention, for the Israeli prime minister to declare publicly the Israeli government's willingness in principle to relinquish the West Bank in full (subject to previously stated provisos about land swaps) in exchange for full peace. This is a proposal for a unilateral declaration, not for a unilateral withdrawal which I would not advocate in the prevailing circumstances. Unlike the unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza, this is a low (or no) risk strategy. It is just a statement. But it has to be meant if it is to provoke a productive response from the other side. And, potentially, it could change the face of the Middle East.

To put it another way, why not make such a statement - unless the reason is that this does not reflect the true intention of the Israeli government? If this is the case, there will never be peace, for the Palestinians will not accept anything less for their future state. So let's get to the political horizon right away - and let us all impress upon the Israeli government the imperative of adopting such a position - and use it to trigger a fresh dynamic to which both the Palestinians and the wider Arab world may be able to contribute constructively in response.

I have some thoughts about what those responses could be to further unblock the bottlenecks and fuel the momentum. But this is long enough for now and I shall leave that for another time.
-----------
Tony Klug’s subsequent response to the following further questions and comments:

Tony , I'd really like to ask you the following and I'd really appreciate a reply because this is what really puts me off IJV.


1) I emailed IJV to ask them about suicide bombings , the campaign for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel , anti-zionism when it denies the right of Israel to exist in a 2 states settlement. The reply i received was that IJV does not take a position on these issues. Well i do and i think they should all be condemned ! I would have thought you would also be against them. It seems like IJV pick and mix , ready to attack Jewish institutions , etc but unwilling to speak out as Jews unless it is to criticise Israel and the perceived Jewish leadership.

2) Amongst the signatories are Jacqueline Rose and Abe Hayeem. Jacqueline is one of the people behind the boycott campaign , Abe believes that Israel does not have a right to exist. I'm sorry but how can you co-sign with people who have these views ?

They have the right to state their views and they often do (both have pieces in CIF. But these are two things that myself (and most Jews) are dead set against.

To people reading this , i would suggest taking a look at the Engage website , which actually tackles the issues of left antisemitism , the boycott campaign , the IJV debate. This is done by people who are also highly critical of Israeli government policy but unlike IJV they are not proud to be embarrassed to be Jewish. Infact several of the leadership of Engage are not Jewish.

tonyklug
February 12
Shachtman, to respond to your questions. Apologies for the delay:
I am completely against deliberate attacks on non-combatants (and therefore against 'suicide bombings'), whether or not the perpetrators harm themselves at the same time, irrespective of the identity of the perpetrators (state or non-state) and in whatever country they take place (unfortunately many). These acts are forbidden under international human rights and humanitarian law and are regularly condemned by the leading international human rights organizations and the UN.

Since IJV pledges itself to universal human rights, my understanding is that opposition to such acts is implicit in its statement.

This said, it is important to try to understand the circumstances in which people commit such atrocities and what propels them to do so. They are not born evil. Condemning them is the easy part. This is not to justify such acts - in my opinion there is no justification - but to seek to make some sense of them in context.

Generally speaking, I am opposed to boycotts (whether of Israeli academics and artists or of the democratically elected Palestinian Authority and its members). When the boycott is targeted at individuals on the basis of their nationality or origin, this contravenes the international human rights covenants. So many parties and countries all over the world are calling for or are boycotting so many others (I sometimes wonder whether British academics should not consider boycotting themselves in the light of Britain's involvement in the occupation of Iraq and the silence of British universities?). Often such demands involves demonizing the other and they are usually not helpful to resolving conflicts, which is my main preoccupation. I would prefer to see a more constructive and creative approach to problem solving. I have tried to develop a new approach along such lines in a forthcoming article ‘At last, peace in the Middle East’.

As for the future, my view is that a two-state framework is vital for progress. As I initially argued in a Fabian pamphlet 34 years ago, the attempt by either side to destroy the national imperative of the other - whether or not we who live in distant parts approve of other peoples’ nationalisms or nation states - is likely only to lead to stalemate and perpetual conflict. No one gains from that. Once the states are established and the threats removed, it would then be up to the two peoples at the heart of this conflict to evolve the relationships over time between themselves and their respective national entities in a climate that is more congenial and, in an important way, more equal. How it would end up in the more distant future - and whether it would involve a federal, confederal or binational arrangement and whether this would embrace other countries too - would be for them to determine in a peaceful and democratic way.

When people take a look at the IJV statement, they sometimes see in it more of what it doesn’t say than what it does say. And what they don’t see tends to be what is closest to their own hearts. Yet a brief statement necessarily omits very many things. It is a statement of certain basic principles, not more than that. It does not seek to be an organization with firm policies on a wide range of issues. It has not set itself up as a rival to, say, the Jewish Board of Deputies. Best not to judge it for what it is not. It is merely a loose, broad-based network of Jewish individuals with different affinities who probably have quite diverse positions on specific questions. What they have in common are the underlying human rights principles and a belief that it is important to open up a space for discussion of these vital matters without anyone being made to feel their views are fundamentally unworthy. It already seems to have made good progress in this direction, and this discussion - of which you are a vital participant - is an immediate beneficiary. So, necessarily, IJV does not take positions beyond its statement. Individual signatories, such as myself - and yourself too if you would care to sign up to the principles - are free or not to do so.

You also mention the question of ‘left antisemitism’. The IJV is very clear in its condemnation of antisemitism - from whatever quarter - and indeed of all forms of racism. Finally, you suggest that IJV is somehow embarrassed to be Jewish. This is a very strange observation and I wonder where you got it from? People who are so embarrassed presumably try not to mention their Jewishness and maybe sign all sorts of other petitions where their Jewish identity is concealed. I can’t speak for Engage, but you may note that IJV proudly parades its Jewish affiliation as part of its name.
Tony
======
(Copyright: Guardian News and Media Limited 2007)