Release of All Prisoners Would Be Welcome Sign for Middle East Peace

By Geoffrey D. Schad

The staged release of Palestinian prisoners by Israel, starting with some 660 ill, female, juvenile, and aged detainees on Oct. 25, is a welcome sign that the PLO/Israel Declaration of Principles can actually work. However, too much should not be read into this gesture. It is arguable that Israel should not be holding any of these prisoners at all, and it is clear that the conditions under which they are detained violate international standards. Moreover, the release is taking place against the backdrop of a serious internal Palestinian debate over the terms of the agreement and how it was negotiated.

The prisoner release, agreed to by Palestinian and Israeli negotiators at Taba, Egypt on Oct. 21, was foreshadowed by the release two days earlier of Salim Hussein Al-Zerai, the longest-held Palestinian prisoner of Israel. Al-Zerai, sentenced to life imprisonment in 1970 for an infiltration attempt, was a leader of the prisoners and a symbol of all the Palestinians detained by Israel. Although Al-Zerai is perhaps not a leader of the same stature as Nelson Mandela, his release nonetheless was a sign that things are changing dramatically.

Under the terms of the Taba agreement, some 760 prisoners were to be freed. These were to include all women in prison, prisoners in bad health, youth under 18, and men over 50. As it turned out, Israel approved the release of only 660, with the freeing of another 23 delayed for procedural reasons. Only three women were among those released. No members of the Hamas or Islamic Jihad organizations were let free, since the Israelis regard them as their most dangerous opponents and they were deliberately excluded from the terms of the Taba agreement.

It should be noted that these 660 prisoners represent only a drop in the bucket. Since 1967 half a million Palestinians have spent time in Israeli prisons; since the intifada erupted in December 1987, 120,000 Palestinians have been detained. Some 15,000 of these were held under "administrative detention," that is, without charges or trial. Currently about 12,000 Palestinians are in Israeli jails, prisons, and military detention facilities. Included in this figure are at least 300 Arabs from other countries, many of them abducted in Lebanon by the Israeli army or its client militia, the South Lebanon Army.

The vast majority of Palestinian prisoners are held in violation of international accords to which Israel is a party. To begin with, most prisoners are held in Israel proper, not in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, which is a clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Israeli prisons consistently fail to meet international standards. Palestinians are routinely arrested without notice to their families, held in isolation for extended periods, denied access to lawyers, convicted on the basis of perjured testimony by Israeli Shin Bet officers or on coerced confessions, and subjected to collective punishment. They are also tortured, both prior to and after conviction, a fact acknowledged by the Israeli government and explicitly permitted under the euphemism of "moderate physical pressure."

Pragmatism or Weakness?

It is perhaps a mark of the PLO's pragmatism that these points were not (apparently) raised during the Taba talks. The PLO negotiators know that they are dealing from a position of weakness, and are willing to get what they can rather than all they want. But other Palestinians–both inside and outside the occupied territories– regard such pragmatism as a sign that the PLO has lost its moorings and is aggrandizing itself at the expense of ordinary Palestinians.

Moderate Palestinian critics are chary of the willingness of the Israelis to follow through on their commitments under the Sept. 13 agreement and doubtful of the PLO's ability to exploit the opportunity presented by the Declaration of Principles. The more extreme of these critics are opposed to the peace process in any form and are working hard to sabotage it. An uneasy alliance between religious and leftist factions, first forged in 1992, received new life after the signing of the PLO-Israel accord. These groups are using violence against both Israelis and Palestinians– including, reportedly, attempts against the life of PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat–in an effort to compel the Israelis to crack down harder and turn Palestinian public opinion against the agreement.

Violence is not the only tool being used by opponents of the accord; neither is violence restricted to such opponents. Palestinian figures in exile–notably Columbia University professor Edward Said and former PLO representative in Lebanon Shafiq Al-Hut–have used words rather than knives and guns to express their dissatisfaction with the accord. Sometimes these words have been reasoned arguments. Other times they have degenerated into ad hominem attacks, as at the Association of Arab American University Graduates conference in the Washington suburbs, where Said lashed out at supporters of the accord as collaborators or worse.

Among supporters of the accord, violence has come to be used as well. Since the agreement was signed, three prominent leaders of Fatah in Gaza have been assassinated. Most observers have interpreted this wave of killing as an internal struggle within Fatah, with those critical of the accord who feel their sacrifices have been in vain lashing out at the political leadership. Whether such violence will increase or subside is dependent not only on the assertion of group discipline within Fatah but also on concrete progress toward Palestinian independence, as represented by the prisoner release.

Despite the opposition, whether mild or extreme, peaceful or violent, it appears that the current process is the only way out for the Palestinians. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the vast majority of Palestinians uncle'` occupation support the agreement, if only because they regard it as the only option. The struggle for Palestinian freedom will now center on the preparations for the election of a Palestinian interim self-governing authority. As one Palestinian academic who recently visited the occupied territories observed, if the Palestinians can make the elections a success, Israel will no longer have an excuse to deny the Palestinians their right to self-determination, including sovereignty.

Geoffrey D. Schad is a Washington-based columnist for the Saudi Gazette, in which a version of this article appeared Oct. 30, 1993.