A 'bargaining chip' policy

A 'bargaining chip' policy on captives assailed in Israel

By Aliza Marcus, Globe Correspondent, 1/14/2000

TEL AVIV - Hasan Hijazi has spent nearly half of his life behind bars in
Israel, prisoner of a high-stakes battle for release of an Israeli Air Force
navigator captured in Lebanon nearly 14 years ago.

It does not matter that Hijazi, who was 15-years-old when Israeli soldiers
picked him up in south Lebanon in 1986, never met Israeli Air Force
navigator Ron Arad, who was captured by a Shiite Muslim guerrilla group in
south Lebanon the same year.

Nor does it matter that Hijazi, now 28, long ago served a three-year prison
sentence for membership in the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, a Shiite group
fighting Israel's occupation of south Lebanon.

Hijazi is what Israel's Supreme Court has called a ''bargaining chip,'' one
of 16 citizens of Lebanon who were held by Israel in the hope that they
could be traded for Arad or other Israeli soldiers missing in the course of
Israel's nearly 20 year occupation of south Lebanon.

The 16 men - some detained in Lebanon by Israeli soldiers, others handed
over by pro-Israeli Lebanese militia - were held for up to 14 years in
Israeli prisons.

Some were tried for links to guerrilla groups fighting Israel but were not
released after completing their sentences. Others were never charged. One
man, Ghassan Dirani, a bank clerk on his way to the United States when he
was detained in Beirut by a Christian Lebanese militia, has been diagnosed
by Israeli doctors as mentally ill, according to human rights groups.

Holding these men is a controversial policy that is shrouded behind
court-imposed and state secrecy. Little is known about the detainees, who
have limited contact with the outside world and are not allowed to be
photographed by the media.

The decision to seize the men was made after years of failed attempts to
negotiate for the release of soldiers who went missing during and after
Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. It was seen at the time as a way to
pressure forces in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon to free Israeli soldiers
captured dead or alive.

But more than a decade later, questions are being raised about the
effectiveness and legality of such actions, and the issue is under appeal
before Israel's Supreme Court.

''Let's call the baby by its right name, they are hostages and international
law forbids holding hostages,'' said Zvi Rish, the Israeli lawyer fighting
for the release of the Shiite Muslim detainees.

''Taking hostages is like a terrorist act and Israel condemns terrorists for
taking hostages, then at the same time Israel is using the same method,'' he
said.

The government has argued before the Supreme Court that holding foreign
nationals is justified because it may help win the release of Israeli
soldiers held by enemy forces.

Two years ago the high court, in a 2-1 decision on an appeal filed by Rish,
sided with the state. The court ruled that it was legitimate to hold people
as ''bargaining chips'' given the goal of freeing Israelis held captive
outside the country.

The issue is now in front of the full panel of nine high court justices. The
court had promised to issue a decision by the end of December, but last week
the state presented new evidence - at a hearing closed to the media and Rish
- to back its position that the detentions are legal and justified.

About a week before the hearing, five of the original 21 detainees were
secretly flown to freedom, sparking speculation in the Israeli media that
the release was tied to the resumption of peace talks with Syria and new
information about missing soldiers.

But human rights activists say the release of the five, while a welcome
move, does not overcome the general problem that Israel is holding people to
trade them for other people held captive. Dismissing Israel's legal
justifications, human rights activists say the policy runs counter to
international conventions signed by Israel and basic human rights.

''Taking hostages for any purpose, no matter how worthy, is the method used
by terrorist organizations, not by modern democracies,'' the Israeli human
rights group B'Tselem wrote in a report issued this month.

Israeli supporters of the policy say their country must do what it can to
protect itself and the lives of its soldiers, even if some of the actions
might seem unjust or distasteful.

''It's not fair but it's more unfair [for enemy groups] not to give
information to Israel about prisoners in Lebanon,'' said Gideon Ezra, former
deputy head of the Shin Bet internal security and a Likud member of
parliament

''We are not lucky because we are surrounded by countries that are not so
democratic,'' he said.

The question of whether or not Israel should resort to holding even
Hezbollah rebels as ''bargaining chips'' is not something that has been
widely debated here.

One reason is that in a country where almost every Jewish citizen has either
been a soldier or is related to one, saving soldiers lives is seen as an act
of paramount importance.

There is also little sympathy for the detainees, said to have been
supporters or members of groups fighting Israel.

One of the detainees is Mustafa Dirani, who split from the Amal group that
captured Arad and took the Israeli soldier with him. In 1989, after holding
Arad in harsh conditions, Dirani reportedly gave the Israeli airman to the
commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon. If Arad, who has a
teenage daughter, is still alive, he would be 41.

Finally, few Israelis really know much about the Lebanese detainees. At
various times Israel has denied holding them. Court rulings have been held
back from publication. Even the true number of detainees was only officially
released a few weeks ago by the Defense Ministry.

''It seemed to make sense at the time,'' said Gerald Steinberg, a professor
of political science at Bar-Ilan University outside Tel Aviv. ''When Ron
Arad or when somebody is shot down and taken prisoner, there's a moral
obligation to the soldier and his family to do everything to rescue him.''

Dan Yakir, a lawyer with the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, said
the issue should be viewed in strict moral and legal terms.

''I too am concerned about our missing soldiers, and everything must be done
to get them back,'' he said. ''But this is a clear violation of morals, of
international law, and of Israeli law.''