A Change in the Attitude of the Palestinian Authority Towards Human Rights: Proof That Pressure Works 

By Bassem Eid

The PHRMG was established to defend the human rights of civil society in the emerging Palestinian state. For organizations and people with political/national agendas, it is a difficult challenge to change the focus from fighting against Israeli Occupation to developing Palestinian democracy. In our society, the development of human rights work has lagged behind political developments.

In such a situation, it was easy for internationally-known figures in the field of human rights (such as Eyad Sarraj) to be arrested and mistreated after making critical comments about the Palestinian Authority (PA). Such people have been practically left to their fate by large parts of the human rights community, which, when push came to shove, was reluctant to view human rights in a non-political manner. This harsh critique takes into account the public campaign waged by the human rights community to assist those human rights activists who were arrested. The problem is the extremely small number of public figures willing to openly criticize President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority on their human rights record.

In August 1995, when the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem published a report on the actions of the Palestinian Preventative Security Services, Palestinian human rights groups had two reactions: shock at the willingness of Bassem Eid to put himself at risk, and criticism of B’Tselem, an Israeli organization, for attacking the PA. Some observers went so far as to claim that Eid was an agent of the Israeli Shabak![1] These observers should instead be asking why such a report was not written by a Palestinian human rights group previously -- and hasn’t been since.

During 1996, Eyad Sarraj was arrested on blatantly false drug charges. Both the international and local human rights communities rushed to defend him by sending letters and faxes to President Arafat. While such action was necessary, it did not counteract the isolation of individuals like Sarraj who were willing to place themselves at risk by openly criticizing the PA. We did not see, for example, new critics taking Sarraj’s place, or new reports criticizing human rights violations by the PA (written by Palestinians, and released publicly in Palestine).

Three years after the arrival of the PA, our human rights community has been transformed from brave leaders in the struggle against the Occupation into a group which is much more sympathetic to the local authorities, if they are Palestinian. The death of resistance fighters in Israeli custody would surely have led to court cases, statements by Palestinian politicians, and the publication (in Arabic) of patriotic articles denouncing the murders. To date, twelve Palestinians have died in the hands of the PA. Is it less patriotic to denounce their murderers? Who will now be our ‘Felicia Langer’ to defend the rights of the weak and oppressed?

Three explanations for the current situation have been presented: the Palestinians mustn’t ‘air dirty laundry in public;’ Arafat and the PA must be given time to establish themselves amid difficult political conditions; and there is genuine (and well-based) fear of what the new regime will do to its critics.

Yet when human rights activists are mistreated, journalists arrested, and hundreds of people jailed only for political reasons or for no reason at all, and above all when our intellectual leadership remains silent, what are people to think? They can only conclude that the problems with human rights are not the fault of a particular political ideology, but part of the Palestinian political culture.

Most political organizations in Palestine have a history of supporting human rights only when it serves their purposes (as demonstrated by their silence in the face of torture and murder of alleged collaborators, and ‘family honor killings’ of Palestinian women). In particular when supporting human rights is part of the struggle for national liberation.

They cannot, therefore, raise the banner of human rights without risking hypocrisy on a grand scale. This fact is even recognized by some leaders of organizations and parties, who therefore support the development of human rights organizations such as the PHRMG. A large part of the Palestinian public has realized that national liberation without freedom and democracy is a hollow prize indeed. How many times do we hear the complaint: “Is this what we were fighting for?!”

The Situation is Changing

In December 1996, the PHRMG and B’Tselem published a joint comprehensive report on human rights violations committed by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. In February 1997, The Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment (LAW) published a similar report. January saw the first issue of Al-Rakib, the PHRMG newspaper in Arabic, which hit the streets with news of human rights abuses, torture, and corruption in the PA. The death in custody of Al-Baba was met not with rioting in the streets, but with public statements from Al-Haq, LAW and other leading human rights groups. For the first time, the family of a torture victim was represented by lawyers who were willing to confront overt and covert threats from the security forces.

In an article published on February 18 by the Arabic daily Al-Quds, Hamdi Farraj wrote the following:

It is about time the Palestinian leadership took the situation in hand and uprooted all forms of torture in its security institutions. The behavior of the members of these institutions reflects badly on both the Palestinian leadership and the people.”

This article was written in response to the murder of Al-Baba (see PAGE #). Two weeks earlier, a different article on the same subject had been rejected. What happened during those two weeks? President Arafat and Justice Minister Abu-Medien had each made public statements on the case, and the murder suspects had been arrested. Attorney General Al-Qidra had opened his office to human rights activists. The public tone assumed by the PA had changed because of the pressure from the Al-Baba death.

This is certainly a far cry from the situation of a year ago, when all human rights activists were collectively accused of being ‘fifth columnists’ (Al-Ayam, July 1996). It is proof that assertive and respectful public activity can produce results, while merely internal letters and pleas are harmful, as they only isolate the bravest defenders of human rights.

While the situation of human rights in Palestine has changed, however, there remains much room for improvement. The onus is now on Palestinian organizations to a) make their voices heard in support of human rights, especially when international reports criticize the PA for human rights violations, and b) pressure the authorities to follow due process in treating those guilty of these violations, as should be done for perpetrators of other crimes. Simply announcing that a low-level officer was sentenced to a long prison sentence does not send the message that the PA is under the rule of law.

The greatest challenge for the Palestinian human rights community will surely come after the next explosion of tensions between Israel and the PA, or the PA and its political opposition. We cannot continue to bury our heads in the sand of Israeli violations, telling ourselves that “the occupation is not yet over” as an excuse to evade responsibility in the fight over Palestinian democracy. Human rights and democracy are not incidental to the ‘big picture.’ They are a central part of the struggle for the Palestinian people for rights and justice. They are ignored at our own risk.