“We don’t have a police state here in Palestine. We have two police states. One in Gaza and one in the West Bank,” says Rabie Latifah from the Palestinian human rights organization Al Haq.
“The abuse of Palestinian civilians by both Fatah and Hamas security forces has become systematic and is no longer the exception to the rule,” Latifah told IPS.
Mysterious bomb blasts, assassinations by masked gunmen, detainees denied access to their lawyers, torture and death in detention, the random arrest of critical journalists, and the banning of peaceful demonstrations are but a few of the human rights violations sweeping the Palestinian territories.
While armed men are being arrested, politically motivated arrest campaigns are also targeting citizens suspected of merely sympathizing with the opposition.
“We have endured over 40 years of occupation and human rights abuses by the Israelis, and now we are doing it to ourselves,” says Raji Sourani, director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR).
Stories like this make me feel that even if a two-state solution leads to a genuinely independent Palestine being created, the civil rights outlook for ordinary Palestinians is not bright. (Via.)
The outlook is certainly not good in the short term. But what about the longer term? Would an independent Palestine, at peace with Israel, have a better chance of evolving into a democracy than a constantly warring territory? Or is the problem the opposite: that until the government of the Palestinian territories looks at least moderately peaceful and democratic, reasonable Israelis will not consider a peaceful two state solution possible?
Regardless of your position on Israel and Palestine, it’s clear that a) the Middle East is not composed of regimes that respect the human rights of their subjects and b) none of the parties involved in running Palestine have any particular interest in changing that. They appear to wish to rule, not govern.
What process would it take to create a regime in Palestine that DOES respect and preserve human rights? One where the populace could be described as citizens rather than subjects? It’s not like it can’t happen – Iraq is getting there if it hasn’t already. But Iraq isn’t Palestine and has a much different history.
I would imagine that the ordinary Israeli is worried about clasping the asp to their bosom if a two-state solution results in a state run by Hamas or Fatah.
It’s not like it can’t happen – Iraq is getting there if it hasn’t already
It is? Based on what evidence? I’m sure that no one misses Saddam Hussein too much, but I hadn’t heard too much in the way of acutal progress toward democracy apart from a couple of show elections.
I would imagine that the ordinary Israeli is worried about clasping the asp to their bosom if a two-state solution results in a state run by Hamas or Fatah.
Assuming that the “ordinary Israeli”, whoever she is, would be satisifed with a two state solution if the second state didn’t spend all its time snarling at the first, how can she convey this to the ordinary Palestinian? Or would she be content with that solution? The Israelis have made enough land grabs to make me think that peace is not the top priority of the country as a whole. Most Israelis may want peace, but do the politically active Israelis want it as bad as they want more territory?
BTW: The questions I asked about the Israel-Palestine situation are just that: questions, not rhetorical questions. I must admit that my understanding of the situation is weak and I have no more idea of how to solve their problems than I do of how to levitate. In fact, I probably have a better chance of working out levitation. It’s a simpler problem.
You’re painting with too broad a brush; this makes it sound like there isn’t a single person in all of Palestine, who is at any level involved in governing/the PA/Hamas, who wants change. That’s not true (and it’s not true of the Israeli government, either).
The stereotype that there is no one in Palestine (or Israel) politics who would want or accept reform is not only untrue; it’s actually harmful, because it perpetuates a myth of hopelessness, and undermines the case for negotiations.
The members of Hamas, for example, are not an undifferentiated mass. Within the spectrum of Hamas beliefs, there are some who are more open to reform than others. Furthermore, most people can act in different ways, depending on the incentives they face.
The real question is, or should be, is there anything that outside nations can do to change the incentives for both Palestinian and Israeli politicians so that they will benefit more, rather than less, by moving towards a peaceful solution?
I came to this very thread late.
Yes, I agree totally that the prospects for a democratic, secular, human rights-loving Palestine are very remote. But nobody here (although Ampersand alludes to it in his comment) is seeing cause and effect. The history of why Palestinian politics has deteriorated to this point is complex and long, but regardless we are showing a shitload of privilege here debating this. This a form of concern trolling, and is used often by liberal Zionists in particular who truly don’t want to see an independent Palestine, lofty theorizing on how they support Palestinian rights in the abstract to the contrary.
The Palestinians have been held hostage too long by this line of thinking (that they deserve to be rid of the world’s longest military occupation, one that has directly contributed to the current mess in Palestinian politics, only if they “behave”).
Oh, and RonF, the corrupt, venal and oppressive Fatah is Israel’s and the US’s guard dog in the West Bank. You should ask yourself why this is, and how this contributes to the process of building a Palestine that does respect human rights, as you claim to want.