This last month has witnessed the proliferation of debates and, on one side, a state of puzzled questioning. It is a consequence of Washington’s decision in December to finally move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a city of much contention, not to mention wars, throughout its history. What follows is a comment on the margin of the event that can be used as brain food for further serious inquiry.
For a prolonged period of time, over half a century, the city has been witnessing opposite claims of belonging that are expressed in a variety of forms.
Claims of belonging to Jerusalem and other land in Palestine are prominent, in addition to claims demanding the right of societal autonomy and common political deliberation independent from the influence of other states.
A critical idea at the heart of these discussions: what matters ultimately is the human being, for what is land without the human that treads upon it. A rather thought-provoking statement that was uttered by many invested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Reflecting on this will produce two fundamental questions: what is the nature of a human being? Also, consequently, what rights (and obligations) does this human being have?
Discourses in Western liberal democracies commonly characterize human nature as a fundamentally disengaged rationality. It conceives it as distinct from other realities. This resulted, in addition to other important factors, in a conception of the person as an individuated atom. In order to better understand Palestinians’ relationship and rights to the land, Western understanding of human rights needs to shift from its individualistic basis.
Any conception of human nature ultimately shapes conceptions of human rights. An individualistic idea of human rights will ultimately dissolve much of the ties human beings have with other human and non-human beings. While this idea of human rights will certainly maintain and secure each individual’s autonomy, freedom and bodily integrity, its territory will only encompass one individual. Thus any claim about matters beyond the individual, such as land, communities, common political deliberation, has no weight on this atomistic conception.
Why is this problematic? Well, first of all, this picture, drawn by individualism, is far from the reality of human nature and personal identity. One is cultivated and flourishes within one’s family, one’s community and society at large; the alleys of their neighbourhood, its walls and school; one interacts with history, arts and culture. All of these constitute an integral part of the human being.
One is thoroughly immersed in an intimate relationship with all these realities that shape and are part of one’s identity and being. The shaping of one’s identity is not something that one formulates and expresses independent of others. It follows from this that the province of human rights should expand to encompass all these integral realities of the human being.
How does this relate to Jerusalem and, generally, any political deliberation? Once we have altered and expanded our conception of human nature and hence human rights, we can understand people’s claims in a different, more realistic light. In this specific case, it will be a betrayal of the issue to adopt the language of individual rights.
Specifically because the claims advanced by the Palestinians, extend to such rights as retrieval of the lands that they were displaced from; the right as a society for self-determination; their right for empowerment and exercising this power in political deliberation; and last but certainly not least, their right for their holy places not be transgressed upon in any way.
If we insist on framing human rights claims in an individualistic way, a necessarily limited form, we destroy the claims that are being advanced and remove from those who raise identities largely constituted by other realities. It becomes an imperative then, that any violation of the land which constitutes these people’s identities, and any suppression of the community, culture, or deliberation that is parcel of the person, would be equivalent to a violation of human rights, even if the individual is not harmed. The consequence of, as it were, the reduction of rights, will damage to the justice everyone seeks.
