Book Notes

Zichroni v. State of Israel: The Biography of a Civil Rights Lawyer. By Michael Keren. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2002. Pp. 240. $26.95, paper.

Michael Keren’s biography of Israeli lawyer Amnon Zichroni highlights the challenges of human rights advocacy in an evolving democracy. This book explores the ideologies motivating Zichroni and the tactics which led him to become one of the first advocates of Israeli civil society, and eventually one of Israel’s most respected lawyers.

Zichroni first demonstrated his determination to follow his social conscience and challenge authority precisely when his peers were submitting to commands of the state. At the age of eighteen, Zichroni became Israel’s first well-known conscientious objector; the affair resulted in a highly public trial and a twenty-two-day hunger strike that almost killed the young man. Zichroni rejected the validity of the military, both in Israel and across the globe, and considered himself the accuser of the army, rather than the defendant in a high-stakes trial. He was ultimately excused from military service and his perseverance paved the way for the discussion of fundamental questions that shook the foundations of Israeli society.

Zichroni dedicated his legal career to asking these difficult questions in order to prevent the state from dominating society. Zichroni criticized Israel for lacking important features of a democratic country: there was no separation of state and religion, individual rights were threatened, and the laws perpetuated racial, religious, and gender-based discrimination. Zichroni was particularly enraged by the influence of religious authorities empowered by the proportional voting system and the reality of coalition governments. Early in his career, he tackled these problems as a parliamentary aide to the New Force party. Through his speeches, proposals, and press releases, Zichroni overcame the disadvantage inherent in being a member of a minor party and strengthened parliamentarianism by “exposing the imperfections of democracy through democracy.”

Throughout his career, Zichroni has been fundamentally involved in fighting for the human rights of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. Zichroni fought on behalf of Palestinians at a time when few people knew or cared about the human rights challenges inherent in land occupation. In 1984, the Progressive List for Peace (“PLP”), which called for co-existence between Jews and Arabs, as well as between Israel and a future Palestinian state, was almost denied status as a political party on the grounds that it was subversive. Zichroni fought for PLP to be allowed to run, demanding freedom of association and the right to political expression for Israeli Arabs. Zichroni argued that since PLP posed at most an ideological challenge to Israel, and was not a security threat, its prohibition was unjustified. The success of this campaign, however, underscored an important paradox of humanitarian struggles. In the same election, Kach, the extreme rightist party led by Rabbi Meir Kahane, was permitted to run for office for the same reasons that PLP was protected. Thus Zichroni’s efforts demonstrated that true humani-

tarian battles must aid even those who seek to undermine rights; sometimes we have to fight for our enemies in order to properly defeat them.

Measures designed to prevent terrorism have played a significant role in Israel’s history, and Zichroni has been prominent in guarding against deleterious human rights consequences. In the 1980s, the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance outlawed contact between Israelis and members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (“PLO”). While contact with the PLO was generally resented by the Israeli public because of their overt terrorist activities, Zichroni viewed this first major ban on the freedom of association of Jewish Israelis as a threat against society. Zichroni thus challenged this ordinance by arguing that PLO contact, including peaceful negotiations between PLO members and Israelis, was an act of civil disobedience. He asserted that the law did not comport with morality and was therefore unjust. In doing so, Zichroni sought to challenge the law without shaking the foundation of the rule of law. Here Keren identifies the distinctive responsibility that lawyers have when disagreeing with state authority. As officers of the law, lawyers have a heightened duty not to violate that law. This is a duty which creates a dilemma between counseling obedience and following one’s conscience. Zichroni found his solution by fighting within the legal framework; he challenged the exclusive definition of the PLO as a terrorist organization and later joined Israelis in conducting peace negotiations with PLO members through a Rumanian delegation, thus not explicitly breaking the contact rule.

Civil and human rights lawyers also play a unique role in cases in which state secrecy and legal rights represent competing interests. In the later years of his career, Zichroni represented defendants arrested for treason and espionage. While the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed in democratic societies, is occasionally countered by the need to maintain secrecy, Zichroni demonstrated significant strength in balancing these forces. He learned to use the press without revealing any confidential information and encouraged Israeli citizens to demand open trials whenever possible. Zichroni was also able to distinguish his personal ideology from his professional role and to use each to bolster the other. For example, while defending Mordechai Vanunu, accused of selling nuclear secrets to the Soviets, Zichroni spoke out against nuclear proliferation while defending his client on the grounds that the information conveyed was already public. He successfully combined his responsibilities as a lawyer with his conscience in striving for a just result.

Zichroni’s efforts to protect the rights of security defendants opened up new opportunities in his career. He represented the State of Israel in negotiations to trade captured spies for soldiers missing in action and developed new ties with representatives of the state. Zichroni was consequently accused of associating too strongly with “the establishment” and abandoning his left-wing roots. Keren explains that these accusations fail to recognize the consistency and strength of Zichroni’s ideology. Throughout his career, he has operated as a mediator between civil society and the political state, tak-

ing advantage of available legal procedures while remaining true to his goal of protecting liberty.

Keren’s biography not only demonstrates Zichroni’s dedication to advancing causes in which he believes, but also provides the reader with a comprehensive analysis of Israeli civil society and human rights theory in general. Unfortunately, at times Keren fails to adequately portray both sides of the complex issues he explores, and this deficiency diminishes the legitimacy of his message. Despite this flaw, Keren successfully highlights the unique aspects of human rights challenges in Israel and presents Amnon Zichroni as a strong example of how a lawyer can protect fundamental rights while strengthening the state through his challenges.

—Naomi Loewith

Copyright © 2003 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College
Harvard Human Rights Journal / Vol. 16, Spring 2003