+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

‘The occupation has no future’

+972 speaks with Shawan Jabarin, general director of Palestinian human rights NGO Al-Haq, about how and why the organization decided to start using the term Apartheid, and what role accountability and international intervention could play in guaranteeing human rights.

Al-Haq director Shawan Jabarin in his office (Courtesy of Al-Haq)

Sitting on a green leather couch in his Ramallah office not far from Al-Manara Square, Shawan Jabarin talks about his hopes and beliefs – primarily, a belief that oppressive regimes have no future.

“I have no hope for the short-term. But I have more than hope for the long-term,” explains Jabarin, the general director of Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights NGO. “There is no future for occupation. I have no doubt of that. For me, it’s a matter of time.”

He says he views his role as fighting to shorten the amount of time until Palestinians can enjoy human rights. “Maybe it will take years. I keep hope that it will happen in my lifetime. I don’t know, to be honest.”

Jabarin, 52, began volunteering with Al-Haq while studying sociology at Birzeit University. He later went on to study law in Ireland. Jabarin joined the organization in 1987 as a field researcher and became its director in 2006.

Read +972’s full series: ‘Q&A: The state of human rights in Israel and Palestine’

Are human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories more or less protected today compared to when you started with Al-Haq in 1987?

I think the indicators show a worsening human rights situation. It doesn’t mean the situation in 1987 was good, but it’s deteriorated since then. There is more land confiscation; freedom of movement is more restricted. There is more destruction of property, like house demolitions. More than ever, the people have lost hope of living in peace with the Israelis. The economic situation has deteriorated. Everything deteriorated. Before, we used to close the roads, not the Israelis. We used to go to Gaza freely. Before we used to look at the Israeli settlements as isolated areas. Today, they’re everywhere.

What human rights issue facing Palestinians concerns you most right now and why?

The most important thing is land because it includes natural resources and [relates to] Palestinians fighting for their self-determination and independence. Palestinians look at their freedom without land, and it means nothing. Palestinians look at their economic development; without natural resources and land, it means nothing. I also connect the land issue with settlements. Every aspect of the settlements affects Palestinians’ lives, economically, psychologically, socially, physically and administratively. It’s not just houses here and there. Settlements need bypass roads, water, land and troops to protect them. Land is the main issue.

Is using the term Apartheid to describe the occupation a constructive tool in fighting for human rights, and is the analogy applicable to the occupation?

It took us a long time before we started using this term. We studied it carefully, professionally, academically, and then we concluded that, yeah, based on the nature of this occupation and parts of its practices, we could say it meets the criteria of an Apartheid system. Because of that we started to use the term in the last three of four years. It wasn’t easy for us and we don’t use it politically. We use it legally.

It’s a constructive tool for two reasons. One, on the level of people’s conscience, the Apartheid term is negative and leaves a bad impression. Another thing is that the international community has been obliged to help end Apartheid. There is a convention. There are many different international resolutions from the U.N. regarding Apartheid. So there is a legal obligation to act against and pressure the Apartheid system and to sanction it. But in the end, without political will, nothing will move forward. The international community deals with and treats Israel differently. But that will not continue forever.

Do you think Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) can be effective in ending the occupation?

Legally, professionally and formally, I do believe this, but at Al-Haq, we don’t use the term “boycott.” Not because we don’t believe in it, but because there is no legal basis or obligation for it. Our points of reference are human rights, international humanitarian law and public law. There is a legal basis for “sanctions” and “divestment” under international law, but there is no legal basis for boycott. With a boycott, the public is responsible.

What strategies have been most effective in fighting to protect human rights?

Without going after the criminals, without pushing them to pay the price for their crimes, there is no way things will change. This is the main strategy — accountability. We understand it in a bigger picture, not just against a person. Part of it is against businesses. So accountability is one of the main components of our work. We look at it as a preventive strategy; it’s not a goal in and of itself. If Israel paid a political, economic or personal price, I think this is the way you can help things move forward.

How specifically do you hold individuals or Israel accountable?

By addressing the U.N. reports, interventions, campaigns by third party states and using judiciary mechanisms and domestic law. We are also pushing the Palestinian Authority (PA) to join the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Did Al-Haq ever utilize the Israeli legal system in fighting for human rights?

We did in the beginning, but we reached the conclusion in the late 1980s that this system doesn’t work when it comes to the Palestinians. It’s not effective and there’s no hope in using it, except – and we keep the door open – for selective cases and to exhaust the local remedy, as a step before we go outside. And here we cooperate with other organizations, but at Al-Haq we try not to use the system because it doesn’t work for us.

As the leader of a Palestinian NGO, do you encounter criticism for speaking out against human rights abuses committed by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas?

Yes, we receive criticism, even publicly, because we criticize publicly. We try to share information and our position with the public. Most of the time we try to offer our help, to integrate human rights standards and principles in the Palestinian draft laws. And now they send us every draft law so we can add our comments.

It’s also important, for instance, when we make unannounced visits to interrogation centers. That’s not happening in the rest of the world, in any country.

A surprise visit. Just to knock on the door of the interrogation center to speak with the officer. “I’m from Al-Haq. I’m coming to visit, and to see X, Y, Z and to see the situation inside.” And they open the doors for us. This is what happens these days. Only for Al-Haq. We still refuse planned or organized visits.

What is the greatest challenge Al-Haq faces in promoting its mission?

The main challenge is how to push states to respect their legal and human rights obligations – even the Palestinian Authority, to act according to its obligation to human rights, to push Israel to act according to its obligation as an occupying power.

You can’t have peace without justice. You can’t make peace without international law as its basis, and you can’t have it without human rights. We face a challenge of changing how politicians look at human rights and how they look at peace. For them it’s not just a process. They are ready to compromise and undermine human rights. The first things that they sacrifice are human rights. Even on the Palestinian side, even the Palestinian Authority.

Is there room within the international human rights regime for some sort of international intervention in Israel/Palestine, legal or otherwise?

There is a lot of room for intervention. For instance, the Fourth Geneva Conventions. It obliges states to act and stop grave violations of human rights, but they don’t act according to their obligations. For political reasons, they don’t want to do it.

If Israel were Iran, I’m sure they would intervene. They would from day one. If Israel was in the place of Libya, Egypt or somewhere else, they would say, “This is human rights. This is our obligation.” But international law doesn’t work without political will, which is essential for the implementation and protection of human rights.

What type of intervention is there room for?

Using nonviolent tools. Some of the Israelis called it “lawfare.” If you don’t want us to use the law, what do you want us to use? Guns? Please, could you tell me?

What has been your most humbling experience working in the human rights field?

It was a case [during Operation Cast Lead] in Gaza in 2009, when the Israelis attacked and invaded. A man in his twenties, a civilian, was in his house, surrounded by soldiers shooting at him and he was injured. We tried to help. He talked to his brother in the U.S. His brother in the U.S. talked to us here but we couldn’t do anything. We contacted the ICRC, the Red Crescent and Physicians for Human Rights, just to evacuate him and to take him to the hospital. The ambulance was nearby, but the soldiers blocked the road, and didn’t allow it to reach the man. He bled to death. It took maybe five or six hours. You just feel that you could have all the organizations, and still you can’t do anything to help this person.

What do you hope Al-Haq will accomplish next?

One of our short-term goals is to exchange our experience and to learn from others, mainly on the regional and local levels. We share our experience with Arab human rights activists. We train them on different issues, human rights, humanitarian law and documentation. In the long-term, I hope to remove from our agenda some of the main, horrible violations – the killing, house demolitions and displacement – and to start thinking about how to improve people’s lives.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. XYZ

      He’ll try anything except making peace with Israel.

      Reply to Comment
      • Haifawi

        In the non-irredentist world, you don’t propose peace, you propose ‘surrender, and be our client state.’

        Reply to Comment
        • Kolumn9

          In the real world you claim any Palestinian State that doesn’t undermine Israeli security to be a surrender, a client state or a bantustan.

          Reply to Comment
      • David T.

        “He’ll try anything except making peace with Israel.”

        In the meantime, peace making Israel:
        “There is more land confiscation; freedom of movement is more restricted. There is more destruction of property, like house demolitions.”

        Reply to Comment
    2. “A surprise visit. Just to knock on the door of the interrogation center to speak with the officer. “I’m from Al-Haq. I’m coming to visit, and to see X, Y, Z and to see the situation inside.” And they open the doors for us. This is what happens these days. Only for Al-Haq. We still refuse planned or organized visits.” : This is really good, but I strongly suspect there are some interrogations off these sites you know nothing about. Nor do I think the judicial system of the PA truly independent. This is not criticism of Jabarin, just likely reality.

      Reply to Comment
    3. kate

      sadly he’s wrong Israel can and will keep the occupation going forever as long as the US protects it and back underhandedly promotes the settlement project, and as long as the US can use withholding aid including food and medical care from Palestinian women children in the West Bank to blackmail the Palestinians from going to ICC the occupation will remain and grow.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Weinstein Henry

      “If Israel were Iran, I’m sure they would intervene. From day one”.
      Total and utter LIE, check Human Rights In The Islamic Republic Of Iran if you think I’m gossiping.
      Seriously: check Iranian reformist sources, check Green Movement repression & leaders arrested, check Evin prison, check Women Rights in the IRI, death penalty in the IRI.
      And this guy pretends to fight for Palestinian human rights…

      Reply to Comment
      • David T.

        So because he thinks that if Iran was occupying and colonializing another country the international community would intervene he only pretends to fight for Palestinian human rights?

        Please think before you write.

        Reply to Comment
        • Weinstein Henry

          Ok David T I admit I was confused by the wording of Shawan Jabarin.
          When he said “If Israel were Iran, I’m sure they would intervene. They would intervene from day one.”, he meant by using the word “they” international intervention.
          To my defence I would say that it wasn’t very clear, “they”.
          So for him Israel is the only state in the world left uncriticized, it sounds familiar.

          Reply to Comment
          • David T.

            “So for him Israel is the only state in the world left uncriticized, it sounds familiar.”

            Again, he only said that there would be an INTERVENTION if it was Iran.

            Reply to Comment
          • Weinstein Henry

            In the end to my opinion this interview is not about human rights in the first place: the coded language of Shawan Jabarin is the language of a politician. He uses the term Human rights like he uses the term Apartheid system, and for the same political motives.
            I suppose that’s why +972 titled this interview on human rights “The occupation has no future”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Weinstein Henry

            “Again, he only said that there would be an INTERVENTION if it was Iran”.

            Ahem David T, he also said earlier in the interview, explaining why the term Arpatheid was such a good tool, that alas “The International community deals with and treats Israel differently”, no?

            You should apply for Shawan Jabarin’s spokesperson position, David T!

            Reply to Comment
    5. Kolumn9

      Yet another European funded anti-Israel political propaganda organization that pretends to work for human rights. A staff of about 20 churning out anti-Israel English-language propaganda around the clock and around the world and all paid for and sponsored by European and other international left-wing organizations. Then the same European governments and other sponsors promote the documents produced by this organization to demonize Israel while pretending that it is generated independently at the grass-roots level.

      Christian Aid – UK

      Diakonia – Sweden

      EED (Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst e.v.) – Germany

      The Ford Foundation – US

      Irish Aid (Department of Foreign Affairs)

      Medico International – Germany

      Open Society Institute – US

      The Representative Office of Norway

      The pooled funds of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), the Royal Danish Representative Office to the PA, the Swedish International Development Cooperation (Sida) and the Netherlands Representative Office to the PA channelled through the NGO Development Center (NDC) – HR/GG secretariat.

      Reply to Comment
      • On the evidence presented in this piece, the organizations you list are also funding something of a watch dog over the Palestinian police system. It is not always all about Israel.

        Reply to Comment
    6. David T.

      “Yet another European funded anti-Israel political propaganda organization that pretends to work for human rights.”

      Let’s keep it simple. Any organisation which works for international law or human rights is somehow an anti-Israel political propaganda organisation, because Israel is immpeccable when it comes to international law and human rights. After all it has the most moral army of the world and that is not the most stupid propaganda BS ever. LOL.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        Let’s keep it simple indeed. An organization whose primary purpose is to produce propaganda and lobby international organizations against Israel funded by European organizations and governments hostile to Israeli positions that pretends to be a ‘human rights organization’ is not a human rights organization. It is a Palestinian political propaganda organization that works towards Palestinian political goals under the pretense of human rights and this is precisely what it is paid to do by its foreign funders.

        Reply to Comment
    7. David T.

      Yes, yes!

      Israel doesn’t violate human rights at all, so their primary purpose can only be propaganda. There’s no explanation why any organisation or goverment can even be hostile to Israel – the most humane democracy with the most moral army of the world. Except – Antisemitism.

      Please go on. LOL.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        So, you accept that it is a political organization hostile to Israel sponsored primarily by governments and organizations hostile to Israeli positions. What value does this organization provide except generating an unending amount of propaganda that it pushes out to various international organizations and governments? Its sole purpose is as a lobby against Israel under the pretense of being a human rights organization.

        I still remember this human rights organizations protesting any time Israel tried to defend itself against suicide bombers. The lives of Israeli civilians was never a consideration, but the security checks imposed on Palestinian civilians was an intolerable infringement on the rights of Palestinians. Human rights organization my ass.

        Reply to Comment
        • The problem with winning, K9, is that it morphs into losing over time. Although I think progressives (some on this site) are wrong to not discuss suicide bombing and other bombings of the past, the longer we go without such the less relevant they appear. That Israel allows young men to climb the Wall during Ramadan suggests something has changed. What that might be is the real question. It will not be answered by continual referral to the past. I would think that the prospect of an altered culture/psychology in this area would be intriguing to you as well as me.

          Reply to Comment
    8. Weinstein Henry

      Hey David T, you should apply for Shawan Jabarin’s spokesperson position!
      But earlier in the interview explaining why the use of Aparteid system was such a good tool (“We don’t use it politically. We use it legally.”, deadpan humour I guess), he stated that alas “The International community deals with and treats Israel differently”, no?

      Reply to Comment
    9. Miron

      Can a foreign state send money to political organization in US that demand partition? Maybe some crackpots in Rocky mountains with their local militia want a monetary assistance from Russia? Why not, its a democracy.

      Reply to Comment
    10. KD

      There is NO occupation. Who/What is occupied?

      Reply to Comment
      • JG

        Maybe in the cave where you live there is no occupation. Please stay there

        Reply to Comment
      • Chaim

        KD you can’t simultaneously argue that the WB is part of Israel, and that there is no apartheid. Either the WB/GS is a foreign occupied entity and that is why Palestinians do not have the same rights as Israelis living there, or you must admit it is One State with very different rights for Jews and Arabs to ensure the economic and political hegemony of the Jewish minority.

        Reply to Comment
    11. Click here to load previous comments