The Palestinian Authority made news ? and generated considerable distress among human rights groups ? by executing four convicted murders on June 12. Officials let it be known that PA President Mahmoud Abbas was planning the authorization of the executions of additional Palestinians who had received death sentences.



When asked about the execution of convicted "collaborators", an Abbas aide replied, "We don't distinguish between one murderer and another." In fact, according to reports, one of the four already executed, Muhammad Khawaja, was suspected of collaboration. He was the only one of the four who met his death facing a firing squad of four masked security officers, which puts the lie to the claim of Abbas' aide that there is no distinction between how different "murders" are treated: seems the "collaborators" are singled out. That the terrorist groups applauded this action makes it all the more apparent. Abbas is buckling to their demands.



It was on February 17 that news first broke in Israel that Abbas had ratified the execution of three "collaborators", who had been charged with treason. According to the reports, the information came from one Sakher Bseiss, governor of the Northern Gaza Strip, who, it would seem, was providing a service to the PA by going public with this.



The full story, as offered by Bseiss, was that there were 51 people on death row who had been convicted of various crimes and sentenced to death within Palestinian Authority courts during Yasser Arafat's regime. Abbas, in accordance with Islamic law, which requires that all death sentences be approved by a religious authority, turned the cases over to Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, the mufti of Jerusalem, who approved the sentences as religiously valid. Abbas then put his signature on some or all of the death warrants.



Why it was said that there were three "collaborators" to be executed was not clear. Perhaps these three were simply those being scheduled to go first. For by the second week of March, the news carried stories of 15 "collaborators" due to be executed.



According to Avi Leitner of the Israel Law Center, Shurat HaDin, there have not been 15 "collaborators" who have been tried and sentenced to death; the Center, which monitors these matters, is aware only of some seven or eight. Many more are inside the prisons, but have not been put on trial. In any event, the trials that have proceeded have been precipitous and have conformed only dubiously to any coherent system of law: from place to place within the PA, the rules vary.



Those who were convicted and sentenced had been sitting for some time on death row. They might have sat there indefinitely. The reason why Abbas decided at this particular juncture to move on the executions is of more than passing interest, and had precious little to do with genuine due process.



"Collaborators" are Palestinians who have cooperated with Israeli authorities to locate wanted arch-terrorists, who then are usually captured or killed. That this cooperation constitutes treason within the PA courts is a matter of considerable significance. The Palestinian Authority itself is supposed to be locating, imprisoning and presumably trying terrorists with blood on their hands. In fact, as the death penalty is a common sentence for murders within the PA, it would not be outrageous to suggest that such terrorists, if tried, might have received such sentences in due course.



Yet, so great is the influence of terrorist groups such as Hamas within the Palestinian society that their extreme displeasure with the "collaborators" had to be taken very seriously. Abbas himself has made it clear in all of his actions that the members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad are brothers who will be incorporated into the society, and not outsiders to it. Increasingly, he bows to their wishes in order to placate them.



However, in spite of his desire to include them, the terrorist groups were creating a problem for Abbas. Particularly embarrassing were extra-judicial executions, in which members of Hamas and other terrorist groups dragged individuals accused of collaboration out of their homes and summarily shot them or hanged them. Needless to say, this does not comport well with Abbas' attempts to generate the impression that he is heading a nation-in-the-making that conforms to democratic principles and functions with law and order. As the Palestinian Authority is on the verge of anarchy and control of renegade forces is close to nil, generating this impression requires a complex balancing act.



While the extra-judicial executions could not be tolerated, Abbas had neither the desire nor the ability to come after those who carry out such executions. His solution was to co-opt the situation and demonstrate to those inclined take part in extra-judicial executions that the system viewed the matter of "collaborators" seriously and would be dealing with them within the bounds of the legal processes of the PA. "Don't worry, guys," he was telling them, "we'll handle this."



This may have moved Abbas one very small step towards creating a semblance of greater order within the society, but it most certainly did not move him closer to principles of democracy. There was first, the significant matter of his seeking the approval of a Muslim religious authority, even after the PA courts had handed down their rulings. With this, Abbas had tipped his hand: the Palestinian state would be ruled by Islamic law.



Then, too, there was the critical fact that the human rights of those "collaborators" scheduled for execution had been abrogated.



US policy with regard to issues of human rights in the international arena has been vastly complex. Recent US history is replete with instances in which realpolitik prevailed and human rights issues went out the window. When it has suited the national interest, totalitarian regimes have been uncritically supported.



And yet, we wouldn't be totally wrong to have favorable expectations with regard to US support for human rights. Thirty years ago, Congress passed the Jackson-Vanick Amendment, which denied most favored nation trade status to nations that did not grant its citizens the right to emigrate. That was a stunning success. The US rose to the occasion when called to do so, and Jews trapped in the Soviet Union were able to find their way out.



As President Bush is a major promoter of the notion of the PA as a nascent democracy, I thought it most appropriate to ask where the United States stood on this issue. It seemed that perhaps now was a time when the US was again being called upon to rise to the occasion.



From Jerusalem, I decided to clarify the United States position. On March 8th, I called the US Embassy Spokesman Paul Patin in Tel Aviv. When I put my question to him, he immediately alluded to extra-judicial executions and made it clear that the US was opposed to them. I in turn then clarified that I was not speaking of anything extra-judicial, but something that had gone through legal process in the PA.



"Was the US going to do anything about this?" I asked.



"Well," he intoned, "we're not going to send in the army."



I was not certain if he was being flippant or if this was a poor and inappropriate attempt at humor, but I decided to play it straight.



"I know you're not sending in the army," I replied.



"There is no official position on this," Patin said.



"Ah," I answered, "but maybe unofficially the US might do something ? like, you know, tell Abbas that if he wants full support from the US this cannot be permitted."



At this, Patin stonewalled. It was not in his jurisdiction, he explained. The Embassy deals only with relations with Israel. It is the Consulate in Jerusalem, which takes its orders not from the Embassy but directly from the State Department, that deals with US relations with the PA.



"Call Chuck Hunter," he advised. I did, and found Mr. Hunter, the Consulate spokesman, to be totally without flippancy or humor as he spoke with me.



"This is an important question," he said. He wanted to check locally and with Washington in order to get more information, and would then get back to me. Late in the day, March 9th, he did call me.



"I've checked with my people locally," he told me, "and there haven't been any executions."



"But," I protested, "Abbas has signed off on the executions and the people are sitting on death row."



"You know how it is with death row," he demurred. "They can sit there forever."



"Then the US doesn't intend to do anything about this situation?" I asked.



"No," he answered, in closing.



Was Mr. Hunter giving me something with his comment about "collaborators" sitting on death row indefinitely? At the time, I strongly suspected that I had stumbled on to a very low key, informal, back-door arrangement (about which he could not speak directly). It seemed insufficient ? for the convicted "collaborators" were still sitting on death row, and no public protest had been made by the US. But as the weeks wore on and there were no executions, I began increasingly to believe that something had been agreed upon discretely.



Perhaps something was. But whatever the quiet agreement may have been, it was ultimately trumped by terrorist demands. Easier for Abbas to flaunt US expectations than displease the terrorists. The terrorists can take him down; the US, eager to "make progress" with ostensible moderates in the Middle East, is likely to look the other way. (Better to strengthen a flawed Abbas than allow Hamas to take over, goes the argument. There is no grappling here with an essential reality: Abbas is controlled by Hamas.)



As this is written, there has been no official public comment from the US regarding the executions. If there is none, then we will know: realpolitik will have prevailed once again, and the US will not have risen to the occasion.



It has been a cornerstone of George Bush's policy that peace between the Palestinians and Israel will not be possible until the Palestinians achieve a democratic state. A true democracy is about more than semi-legitimate elections and a legislative body. It is concerned with the value of human life, protection of civil liberties and genuine due process of law. Yet, the president is prepared to accept a mere semblance of democracy within Palestinian society ? an empty shell without the soul. From Abbas we can hardly expect more than we are now seeing, but the disappointment with Bush runs deeper.



© Arlene Kushner 2005