The reputation of the European Court of Human Rights is looking tarnished, writes Bassem Hassan* The Israeli occupation has received a boost from an unexpected quarter, the European Court of Human Rights. Since it was established in the late 1950s the court has made a significant contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights, most notably through a series of resolutions condemning the Greek military junta in the 1960s and some of the interrogation techniques employed by the British authorities in Northern Ireland which the judges deemed inhumane and degrading. This impressive record has made many people think of the European Court of Human Rights as one of the most reliable forums for the enforcement of human rights. There are reasons, though, why those same people might begin to reconsider their position. Last month the court made what many observers agree is one of its most controversial rulings to date. In a 6-1 decision, the court upheld a 2003 French court conviction against Jean-Claude Fernand Willem. A French court had found Willem guilty of provoking discrimination on national, racial and religious grounds under a 19th century law. But what had Willem actually done to be found guilty of violating two of the most cherished values of the French Revolution, equality and fraternity? In 2002 Willem, the then mayor of the French town of Seclin, called for a boycott of Israeli products in solidarity with Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. Keeping in mind the infamous colonialist legacy of both imperial and republican France -- particularly in the 19th century -- one might assume that hundreds of the planners and advocates of French colonialism were convicted under this law. It would be a foolhardy assumption. Willem, in calling for a boycott, was inspired by the international campaign that targeted the apartheid regime in South Africa. He is one of many people who are trying to promote a global campaign to boycott Israeli products and institutions. While the impact economic sanctions had on the apartheid regime in South Africa is debatable, the deep psychological and moral effect of the sport and cultural boycott is beyond doubt. It is worth noting that sanctions against South Africa in the last century were the product of grassroots campaigns that gained momentum following the Sharpeville massacre of 1960. Eventually these movements managed to impose their agenda on reluctant Western states, including the United States and Britain, both of which dragged their feet for as long as possible over the issue. One can only wonder what the outcome would have been had the organisers of these campaigns been convicted under the same legislation that has indicted Willem. The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights comes at a point when the campaign targeting Israeli goods and institutions has started to gain momentum, as evinced by the call for a boycott of Israeli universities by British academics. Some Israelis were actually starting to feel the heat. As a former head of the Israeli Science Foundation explained, many academics in the West have in recent years refused to review articles and papers produced by Israeli researchers. The Israeli reaction to the ruling comes as no surprise. Yigal Palmor, spokesperson of the Israeli Foreign Ministry (headed by Avigdor Lieberman, who has advocated transfer as part of the solution to the present conflict), triumphantly described the ruling as "an important precedent, one that says very clearly that boycott calls are discriminatory". He didn't feel the need to keep his ministry's intentions to use the ruling to "push back against all calls for boycotts of Israeli goods" a secret, especially since "it is now clear that in every country in Europe there is a precedent for calling boycotts of Israeli goods a violation of the law." This is not the only occasion when notions of equality and discrimination have been evoked to serve the colonialist project in Palestine. A few days after the European Court ruling was issued Michael Ben Ari, a Knesset member from the National Union Party, argued that allowing Bedouins, who are -- at least formally -- Israeli citizens, to build on what he perceives to be Israeli hilltops, while not allowing Israeli settlers to colonise the West Bank, is a form of discrimination. As bizarre as this comparison sounds -- especially in light of discriminatory policies that make it almost impossible for the Arab segment of the population to get building permits � one should not be surprised if it becomes a leitmotif of future statements of official Israeli spokespersons. These two episodes, particularly the ruling of the European Court, reflect an ideational shift in international politics that has become ever more apparent with the end of the Cold War. It seems that with the heyday of decolonisation now behind us, the normative differentiation between coloniser and the colonised has collapsed, much to the detriment of the Palestinians and other peoples still living under occupation. While, despite the relentless efforts of neoconservatives over the last eight years, we might not have retreated fully to the world of the 19th century, it is quite clear that the stigma attached to the coloniser has waned and a formalistic, legalist understanding of rights that equates the coloniser with the colonised is on the rise. Such an understanding comes perilously close to "washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless" which, as Paulo Freiri correctly notes, "means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral". The judges who convicted Willem in the name of human rights might have deprived the Palestinians and their allies of an effective, non-violent tactic of resistance. They seem to have failed to anticipate that by doing so they have made armed resistance look even more attractive to many Palestinians, if not the only feasible option. * The writer is a lecturer in the Political Science Department, British University in Egypt.
