09.05.08
Official policy
htRG mail
tp://countercurrents.org/lendman280808.htm
Countercurrents.org 28 August 2008
Torture As Official Israeli Policy
By Stephen Lendman
The UN Convention against Torture defines the practice as:
“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession,
punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a
third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,
when such pain and suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of
or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other
person acting in an official capacity….”
The US and Israel are the only two modern states that legally sanction
torture. An earlier article covered America. This one deals with the
Jewish state, but let there be no doubt:
Although its language in part is vague, contradictory and protects
abusive practices, Section 277 of Israel’s 1977 Penal Law prohibits
torture by providing criminal sanctions against its use. It
specifically states in language similar to the UN Convention against
Torture:
“A public servant who does one of the following is liable to
imprisonment for three years: (1) uses or directs the use of force or
violence against a person for the purpose of extorting from him or
from anyone in whom he is interested a confession of an offense or
information relating to an offense; (2) threatens any person, or
directs any person to be threatened, with injury to his person or
property or to the person or property of anyone in whom he is
interested for the purpose of extorting from him a confession of an
offense or any information relating to an offense.” However, Israel
clearly discriminates against Palestinians, (including Israeli Arab
citizens), denies them rights afforded only to Jews, and gets legal
cover for it by its courts. More on that below.
Nonetheless, the Jewish state is a signatory to the 1984 UN Convention
against Torture and other international laws banning the practice.
It’s thus accountable for any violations under them to all its
citizens and persons it controls in the Occupied Territories.
US statutes leave no ambiguity on torture. Neither do international
laws like The (1949) Third Geneva Convention’s Article 13 (on the
Treatment of Prisoners of War). It states:
They “must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or
omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering
the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited….(these
persons) must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of
violence or intimidation….”
Third Geneva’s Article 17 states:
“No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be
inflicted on prisoners of war” for any reasons whatsoever.
Third Geneva’s Article 87 states:
“Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishments,
imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of
torture or cruelty, are forbidden.
The (1949) Fourth Geneva Convention’s Article 27 (on the treatment of
Civilian Persons in Time of War) states:
Protected persons “shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall
be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats
thereof….”
Fourth Geneva’s Articles 31 and 32 state:
“No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected
persons.”
“This prohibition applies to….torture (and) to any other measures of
brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.”
Fourth Geneva’s Article 147 calls “willful killing, torture or inhuman
treatment….grave breaches” under the Convention and are considered
“war crimes.”
All four Geneva Conventions have a Common Article Three requiring all
non-combatants, including “members of armed forces who laid down their
arms,” to be treated humanely at all times.
The (1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 7 states:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.”
Its Article 10 states:
” All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with
humanity….”
The (1984) UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment is explicit in all its provisions.
It prohibits torture and degrading treatment of all kinds against
anyone for any purpose without exception.
Various other international laws affirm the same thing, including the
UN Charter with respect to human rights, 1945 Nuremberg Charter on
crimes of war and against humanity, the (1948) Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the (1988) UN Body of Principles for the Protection
of All Persons under Any form of Detention or Imprisonment, the UN
(1955) Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, and
(1990) UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. So does Article 5 of
the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Rome Statute with regard to
crimes of war and against humanity. Torture is such a crime – the
gravest of all after genocide.
Israeli Torture Violates International Law
From inception to today, and especially since its 1967 occupation,
Israel’s military and security forces have willfully, systematically
and illegally practiced torture – as official state policy against
Palestinian detainees called “terrorists.” Yet Israel always denies
it, and its 1977 Penal Law prohibits it.
In 1987, the Landau Judicial Commission addressed the practice after
two among many revelations became public:
— defense minister Moshe Dayan’s 1979 statement to Israel’s Maareef
daily regarding Arab prison detainees: “We will make of these
detainees parasites in their societies, and we will not release them
until they become like mummies, empty and full of holes from inside
like Swiss cheese;” and
— the 1980s torture scandals tarnishing Shin Bet’s reputation as a
respected internal security agency.
The Landau Commission condemned the practice but approved the Penal
Law’s “necessary defense” provision (in violation of international
law) and sanctioned “psychological and moderate physical pressure” to
obtain evidence for convictions in criminal proceedings. It said
coercive interrogation tactics were necessary against “hostile
(threats or acts of) terrorist activity” and all expressions of
Palestinian nationalism.
Israel’s High Court of Justice (HCJ) legitimized coercive
interrogations in three 1996 cases – by plaintiffs Bilbeisi, Hamdan
and Mubarak for interim injunctions against abusive General Security
Service (GSS – now the Israeli Security Agency or ISA) practices. Ones
cited included violent shaking, painful shackling, hooding, playing
deafeningly loud music, sleep deprivation, and lengthy detainments.
After due consideration, the HCJ ruled painful shackling illegal, but
not the other practices.
Israel claims it never uses torture and complies with international
laws and norms. International law experts, the UN Committee Against
Torture, and sources like B’Tselem, United Against Torture (UAT), and
the Public Committee against Torture in Israel (PCATI) disagree.
So does Dr. Afi Rabs in testimony to Israel’s High Court on 14
Palestinian prisoners. They were all detained for trivial offenses
like stone-throwing and tire-burning and weren’t “ticking bombs.” Yet
they all were tortured as one detainee explained:
“I was shackled in iron cuffs that entered my flesh, and a bag was put
on my head as a certain music roared in my ears and almost deafened
me. They used to beat me up and kick me, and my body was full of
wounds and bruises. After that I was sent to a doctor who asked me if
I was tortured, and I said yes, but he didn’t reply or say something.
Then I was taken back and tortured again.”
PCATI petitioned the HCJ, and it responded with a landmark September
1999 ruling. It reversed the Landau Commission’s recommendations,
barred the use of torture against detainees, but left a giant
loophole. It ruled that pressure and a measure of discomfort are
legitimate interrogation side-effects provided they’re not used to
break a detainee’s spirit. But it sanctioned physical force in
“ticking time bomb” cases in direct violation of international laws
allowing no exceptions under any circumstances. Moreover, Israeli
security forces routinely claim detainees are security threats enough
to justify its interrogation practices.
In November 2001, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights disagreed. It issued “Conclusions and Recommendations of the
Committee against Torture” and addressed the 1999 HCJ ruling in the
case of the Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. the State of
Israel. It held that: “the use of certain interrogation methods by the
Israel Security Agency (ISA) involving the use of ‘moderate physical
pressure’ was illegal as it violated constitutional protection of the
individual’s right of dignity….While recognizing the right of Israel
to protect its citizens from violence, it reiterates that no
exceptional circumstances may be invoked as justification of torture”
or abusive interrogation practices.
Since its 1967 occupation, the Palestinian peace and justice group
MIFTA estimates that over 650,000 Palestinians have been imprisoned -
or the equivalent of about one-sixth of today’s Occupied Palestinian
population. Currently, Israeli security forces hold around 10 – 12,000
Palestinian men, women and children detainees under deplorable
conditions and many administratively without charge. According to
human rights organizations like B’Tselem, Hamoked, UAT and PCATI, up
to 85% are subjected to torture and abusive treatment.
PCATI’s June 2008 Torture Report
PCATI is a 1990-founded “independent human rights organization” that
monitors and decries “the use of torture in (Israeli) interrogations
(and works for its) complete prohibition.” It also provides legal
counsel, aids victims, and helps lawyers representing them.
Its June 2008 report is titled “No Defense: Soldier Violence against
Palestinian Detainees.” It begins with a question asked Brig. General
Yossi Bachar (former commander of Israel’s Paratrooper Brigade) at the
trial of one of his soldiers accused of abusing a Palestinian
detainee: “How common is the phenomenon of beating shackled
Palestinian prisoners?”
His answer: ” Unfortunately I want to admit something that we are not
fully aware of. These cases are not all that exceptional in their
quantity….to my great regret. Many of them are not the subject of
any complaint and are cloaked in various kinds of conspiracies of
silence,” only revealed years later and “usually only through
anonymous statements….”
PCATI and other human rights organizations break the silence publicly:
— “to describe the scope and frequency of (torture);”
— its “moral, legal, and practical gravity;
— to publicize (it);
— to examine how (those responsible) address (it);
— to clarify (its) absolute prohibition under Israeli and
international law; and
— to demand” its prohibition “by providing the relevant bodies with
useful information and tools.”
PCATI based its report on 90 testimonies: from Palestinian detainees
and soldiers who arrested them. Also from published media information
and comments from Israeli military and political figures. It covers
the period June 2006 through October 2007 and is symptomatic of a
broader phenomenon, largely unrevealed because most abused
Palestinians “refrain from submitting complaints.” As a result,
PCATI’s cases reflect the tip of the iceberg that’s been “particularly
severe over the past eight years” since the outbreak of the second
Intifada in September 2000. From then until now, PCATI describes a
pattern of abuse that begins from the moment of arrest.
It’s done by force in violation of the prohibition of the practice and
the responsibility of soldiers to guarantee detainees’ (in their
custody) safety, dignity and physical integrity. Instead they expose
them to “ill treatment and humiliation” – on arrest and immediately
thereafter, in transit, and at military bases and installations
pending transfer to detention facilities.
Abuse Begins at the Start
Most often, soldiers beat Palestinians during and right after
painfully shackling them. Plastic handcuffs are used that can only be
tightened, not released or loosened, and subjects are kept that way
(generally for hours) long enough to cause permanent injury.
In response to PCATI requests, the IDF Spokesperson provided no
regulations, procedures or orders regarding use of plastic handcuffs.
However, Chief Military Police Officer Order No. 9810 discusses
shackling in detention facilities and states: “only metal (devices)
are to be used, (and) the tightening of the shackles should be
undertaken….to prevent injury to the detainee (particularly to blood
vessels).”
Violence and threats are also common from the start. Besides painful
shackling, subjects describe being blindfolded, threatened with
weapons and death, accused of harboring suicide attackers, shouted at,
beaten, kicked, punched in the face, and in at least one instance told
his house would be destroyed and burned. Complaining did no good. It
incited more abuse.
Treatment During Transport – From Place of Arrest to Detention
Facilities
This is stage two of abuse and humiliation – inside military vehicles.
Subjects are made to sit or lie on their floors and at times are
thrown on them. They’re bare, hot, and when soldiers step on
detainees’ heads or bodies (a frequent practice) abrasions and
injuries result. PCATI again found no orders or procedures regulating
transport, so detainees are subjected to the whims of their captors
while on site commanders look the other way.
Treatment in Temporary Army Base Detention
Here, too, abusive practices continue the way one detainee described:
“I was put in a small room and they beat my legs. They put me on the
floor. Then I felt one of the soldiers take something from the floor
and beat me on my head and shoulders….Then they took me out into a
concrete yard and tied my handcuffs to a concrete pole and made me sit
on the ground and they beat me. Every hour or half hour they would
beat me on the face.”
Lack of oversight and procedures invite ill treatment, and soldiers
take full advantage. It’s painful, protracted and humiliating -
sometimes so extreme that subjects lose consciousness or require
hospitalization.
Sting dogs are also used and trained for one of five purposes:
“assault, identification of explosives, scouting, weapons and
ammunition searches, or rescue and release.” Mere contact with dogs
terrify and humiliate detainees who feel “dishonored whenever (these
animals are) close to” or touch them.
Officially, sting dogs never attack “innocent persons,” according to
the IDF Spokesperson. But one soldier explained that they’re trained
for assault and “seek humans (by) their scent.” Another sergeant
confirmed that these dogs attack people, “more than once,” because
they’re trained to do it:
— on indicators like gunshots or scent; no human order is needed;
— they move at some distance from their handlers, alongside soldiers
not trained to control them; and
— they’re trained to be highly aggressive and capable of causing
serious injury.
A Sting unit commander confirmed that these dogs “neutralize and
attack hostile elements….seizes a subject and won’t let go.” They
present a serious and imminent danger to any designated target – in
some cases children identified as “wanted persons.” Without oversight
and procedures, soldiers can easily abuse them with Sting dogs.
Under Israeli law, minors are of special concern – defined as persons
under 18, or under Occupied Territory military orders, youths under
16. Israeli law affords special protection to minors, yet, in
practice, it’s solely for Jews.
Nonetheless, Israel is a signatory to the 1989 Convention on the
Rights of the Child that’s explicit and binding in its provisions:
— that “every human being” below 18 is a child;
— that the state must ensure that their economic, social and cultural
rights, safety and welfare set forth in the Convention are protected
“without discrimination of any kind” with regard to “race, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic
or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status,”
including their “right to life….survival (and) development;”
— that all measures shall be taken to protect children from physical
and mental violence, exploitation or ill treatment; and
— that children deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity
and not subjected to torture or other abusive or degrading treatment,
in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian law.
Nonetheless, clear evidence shows that soldiers exercise no special
caution in arresting and detaining minors. At times, they exploit
their weaknesses – beating, abusing and terrifying them for merely
throwing stones. PCATI characterizes this treatment as “just one link
in a chain” of abuse beginning with arrest – in violation of
international law and “accepted legal and moral standards
in….Israel.”
A Yesh Din human rights report showed that Occupied Territory
Palestinian minors are prosecuted as adults under Israeli military law
since no military juvenile courts exist. Prosecutors and judges make
no distinction or reference to age nor did the IDF Spokesperson when
asked to clarify special orders or procedures regarding minors. As a
result, they’re treated no differently than adults. No monitoring or
procedures are in place, so the “grave consequences of this action can
be anticipated in advance.”
PCATI describes abusive practices throughout the Occupied Palestinian
Territories (OPT) and “not confined to one or two military units.”
Evidence obtained confirms a much broader phenomenon than testimonies
revealed, and other human rights organizations concur – a pervasive,
systematic practice going back “many years.”
Israel Radio military correspondent, Carmella Menashe, discussed it in
one broadcast:
“How can it be that….these events keep repeating themselves
and….no one is bothered….And this is the morality of the IDF;
these are the most basic values to which soldiers should be educated
from the (start); it isn’t (about) Palestinians….(it’s) about
normative behavior, the most basic things….(how) a soldier in the
IDF (can commit such abusive acts); it (comes down to) some kind of
disregard for the lives of Palestinians” who simply don’t matter to
these soldiers.
For their part, military officials don’t recognize the phenomenon and
thus end up encouraging and reinforcing it. So do the Knesset, courts
and respective governing administrations.
Treatment After Arrest
Israeli military law contains the specific offense of “ill treatment”
that prohibits soldiers from abusing persons in their custody. Those
found guilty face up to three years in prison and under “aggravating
circumstances” up to seven years. In many of the instances PCATI
uncovered, abuse amounted to “torture.”
According to military law, “ill treatment” may be committed by one
soldier against another or against someone “in custody for which the
soldier is responsible” – characterized by denying the person’s
liberty.
A vast discrepancy of power exists between captive and captor. It’s
exploited whenever soldiers use violence and abusive practices against
shackled, blindfolded and defenseless detainees denigrating their
human dignity. Also when they endanger their lives or health or
deviate from standard procedures.
In nearly all cases examined, this, in fact, happened as soldiers
committed assault or assault in “aggravating circumstances.” These are
military “ill treatment” offenses and civilian ones under penal code
articles 378 – 382. Other penal code offenses as well such as injury,
battery, forcible extortion, ill treatment of a minor, and so forth.
In all cases, soldier-committed violence against shackled detainees is
a “criminal phenomenon (subject to penalties) under an entire system
of offenses in Israeli criminal law.”
Even so, in the few cases where soldiers were prosecuted, penalties
imposed were minor compared to similar civil court convictions. And
rarely are commanders charged even when they order detainees harmed,
or they simply witness or know abuses occur but fail to intervene. At
most in these cases, higher-ranking officers go before a disciplinary
hearing, get charged with conduct unbecoming an officer, and receive
suspended sentences. Never do senior commanders answer for ill
treatment charges against their subordinates.
Coercive Field Interrogations
The Military Justice Code authorizes no operational need to beat or
ill treat detainees under arrest. But enforcement, in fact, is lax and
international law dismissed. It results in what PCATI discovered in
spite of military investigatory bodies responsible for interrogation
and prosecution. Three exist under the Military Justice Code:
— an examining officer;
— the Military Police Investigation Unit (MIU); and
— an investigative judge.
In most cases, alleged offenses are examined by an examining officer
or investigative judge (in cases of death) before offenders are
prosecuted in a military court. Examining officers hear witnesses,
examine evidence, order suspect arrests, and recommend if prosecutions
are justified. In practice, investigations are inadequate so few
cases, in fact, enter the legal system and few offenders end up
convicted.
According to Knesset member Ophir Paz-Pines: Unaccountability for
abusing Palestinians is no “small problem – it is a big problem.” It
was so bad during 2003 – 2005 that the Knesset Foreign Affairs and
Defense Committee’s Preparedness and Routine Security Subcommittee
described operational debriefings as “out of control.” Most complaints
charged go unaddressed, and most that are end up dismissed for “lack
of evidence” or because accused soldiers are believed over
complainants.
The result – almost no prosecutions or convictions. At most around two
a year throughout the Intifada period when abuses were rampant and
extreme. Furthermore, months go by before complaints are examined
during which time many accused complete their service, return to
civilian life, and end up free from prosecution or conviction.
Military courts are supportive. They:
— abstain from most investigations;
— rely on non-professional debriefing institutions with clear
conflicts of interest and histories of false reporting;
— manage their few investigations unprofessionally with no regard for
justice; so
— allow criminal abuse to go unpunished or barely so while absolving
perpetrators of their responsibility; even rare convictions show
leniency and send a powerful message: Palestinian rights don’t matter
so act with impunity; an obvious concern is raised; Palestinians face
enormous obstacles getting justice in all Israeli courts; in military
ones (against their own soldiers) it’s near impossible; solution: an
international law requiring:
— civilians to be tried in civil courts;
— soldiers as well when their victims are civilians; and
— military courts for their own personnel solely in cases of military
offenses.
Further, binding rules, procedures and guidelines must be in place as
well as proper training, supervision and monitoring to insure that
arrests, detentions and prosecutions are justly handled. Israel’s
military relies solely on the “values (spirit and norms) of the IDF.”
They’re woefully inadequate, unresponsive to Arab rights, and always
produce injustice. PCATI puts it this way: “Given this reality, it is
hardly surprising that an examination of the actual behavior of the
military, as distinct from its declarations, also reveals denial,
evasion, and obfuscation.”
Thousands of Palestinians are arrested, detained and abused. With
little or no accountability, here’s how one Israeli soldier put it:
“When you deny thousands of people a day (free) movement, it is
impossible to do it in a nice way.” Nonetheless, government and
military officials deny there’s a problem. Examples of publicly
exposed abuse are called exceptions or errors in judgment that are
“dealt with exhaustively,” according to the IDF Spokesperson. In fact,
testimonies and reports reveal a widespread phenomenon.
Denial and cover-up assure its continuance, legitimization, and
destructive consequences. And guilt goes right to the top – to senior
Defense Ministry generals and Ministers of Defense. To Knesset members
as well and ruling party officials. A review of unclassified Knesset
Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee materials from 2003 – 2008
reveals no discussion of Palestinian detainees ill treatment – in
spite of “countless reports in the media….by soldiers,” and by human
rights organizations like PCATI, B’Tselem and others. The Committee
“failed to fulfill its function and obligation” to supervise the
security establishment, identify problems and propose solutions. As a
consequence, human rights abuses continue unabated.
PCATI Recommendations for Change
International law is clear. As an occupying power, Israel is obligated
to assure Palestinians’ welfare, safety and rights:
— recognizing the existence of the problem comes first; widespread
ill treatment exists and must be addressed equitably;
— reporting, inspection and enforcement mechanisms must be
established to do it;
— military and security forces must take the lead – through “tangible
objectives for securing a drastic reduction in as short a period of
time as possible (toward) the ultimate goal of completely eradicating
this phenomenon;
— high level examination of the problem should be made public, shared
with commanders and soldiers, the media, and members of the Knesset -
to send a clear message that this behavior won’t be tolerated;
— Defense Ministry orders, directives, procedures and guidelines
should be established:
(1) to assign responsibility;
(2) define its range;
(3) how it’s transfered;
(4) the command and residual responsibility for abusers to avoid the
excuse that they can’t be located;
(5) identify weak spots where ill treatment occurs;
(6) neutralize them by command presence or through a controlled
physical space;
(7) allow no contact between dogs and detainees;
(8) give special attention to the arrest and detention of minors; and
(9) define arrest, transfer and detention procedures; the nature of an
“imprisonment facility” as well as other defined guidelines and
allowed procedures and practices.
In addition:
— everything must be in writing and available to every soldier;
— they should be fully briefed and trained;
— no deviations should be tolerated;
— adequate resources should be available for arrests through
incarceration;
— all arrests should be documented in detail;
— training and procedures must assure detainee well-being, absolutely
prohibit ill treatment, and require it be reported when observed;
— assure binding and meaningful monitoring and enforcement of the
rules; and
— have the Knesset, administration and appropriate government bodies
and officials involved to assure ill treatment won’t be tolerated, and
when it happens, those at the top share culpability.
It’s up to the entire Israeli establishment to own up to the problem,
recognize its gravity, and establish strong binding measures to
eliminate it. Toward that end, PCATI and other human rights
organizations and their supporters will continue to “expose and
highlight this phenomenon” that continues to inflict great harm on
defenseless Palestinians.
United Against Torture (UAT)
UAT is a (2005 established) “coalition of Israeli, Palestinian and
international NGOs (united) against the practice of torture and
ill-treatment in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(OPT)….”
In December 2007, it issued its second annual report on “torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” – through
the period ending October 2007. It’s based on questionnaires “to
various stakeholders in Israel and the OPT, including the EU Tel Aviv
Delegation (ECD), European Commission Technical Assistance Office for
the West Bank and Gaza (ECTAO), EU Ambassadors and/or other relevant
EU contact persons in EU Missions, and NGOs particularly active in
this field.”
UAT states that its report doesn’t address specific instances of
torture and abuse. Its purpose is to provide an overview of how “the
EU and its Member States contribute to the prevention and eradication
of torture” in Israel and the OPT.
It cites “EU guidelines against torture and ill-treatment.” Some are
as follows:
–”prohibit(ing) torture and ill-treatment in law, including criminal
law;
— condemn(ing), at the highest level, all forms of torture and
ill-treatment;
— tak(ing) effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other
measures (against torture and ill-treatment);
— adher(ing) to international norms and procedures….;” and
— “combat(ing) impunity to hold perpetrators liable, establish(ing)
reporting procedures, and provid(ing) reparation and rehabilitation
for victims.”
UAT cites various international laws against torture and abuse to
which Israel is a signatory, including:
— the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR);
— the 1984 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and
— the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
International laws are clear. They not only prohibit torture and
abuse, they legally bind states to undertake independent, impartial,
and effective investigations into allegations and suspicions of these
practices. They also require perpetrators be prosecuted and punished,
that redress be afforded to victims, and that continuance of these
crimes are banned.
UAT states: “if there is something (all) humanity (can) agree (on at
least theoretically), it is that (preserving individual dignity in
difficult situations requires that) we all conform to some elementary
(common) standards of conduct.” Otherwise, we risk “perishing in a
mutual spiral of non-ending violence.”
Israel on the Issue of Torture
Israel is a self-professed democracy, yet defines itself as a Jewish
state, treats Jews preferentially, and affords them special rights and
privileges denied those of other faiths. The country has no formal
constitution. It’s governed by its Basic Laws that guaranteed no human
rights until the 1992 “Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom” passed.
It authorized the Knesset to overturn laws contrary to the right to
dignity, life, freedom, privacy, and property as well as to leave and
enter the country. The law states:
“There shall be no violation of the life, body or dignity of any
person. All persons are entitled to protection” of these rights, and
“There shall be no deprivation or restriction of the liberty of a
person by imprisonment, arrest, extradition or otherwise.”
Another Basic Law deals with “The Right to Life and Limb in Israeli
Law.” It implies that life is sacred and states: “Israeli law has
abolished the death penalty for murder (and corporal punishment).” The
1998 “Good Samaritan Law” requires assistance be given in situations
“of immediate and severe danger to another.” These provisions are for
Jews only because Basic Law provisions deny equality for non-Jews in
spite of the following language:
Israeli law affirms “Fundamental human rights….founded upon
recognition of the value of the human being, the sanctity of human
life, and the principle that all persons are free.” Israeli Basic Law
exists “to protect human (life,) dignity and (assure that) All
government authorities are bound to respect (these) rights under this
Basic Law” – with one proviso: Israel is a Jewish state so all rights,
benefits, privileges and protections are for Jews only. Others are
unwelcome, unwanted, unequal, and afforded no protections under the
law.
Further, and in spite of unambiguous international laws, torture,
abuse, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment aren’t designated crimes
under Israeli law. But the 1977 Penal Law prohibits torture and
provides criminal sanctions against it in language similar to the UN
Convention against Torture.
Nonetheless, Israel maintains that it “officially proclaimed (a) state
of public emergency from 19 May 1948, four days after its founding,
until the present day.” It remains in force “due to the ongoing state
of war or violent conflict between Israel and its neighbours, and the
attendant attacks on the lives and property of its citizens.” It thus
illegally deviates from international law provisions that differ from
whatever means it chooses to protect its liberty and security. By
implication, torture and ill treatment are permissible. Exceptional
conditions are normal, and temporary is permanent in direct
contradiction to accepted norms and standards.
UAT states: freedom “from torture and other forms of ill-treatment or
punishment may not be violated under any circumstances (and) states of
emergency” allow no exceptions. The right to be free from torture and
abuse is sacrosanct. Permissible “temporary” deviations allow no basic
human rights violations. Such acts are strictly prohibited under
accepted international laws to which State Party signatories are bound
at all times, under all conditions, with no exceptions.
Yet Israel inflicts torture and ill treatment “in the context of the
arrest and interrogation of persons suspected of being security
threats” even when no charges against them are brought and no
substantiating evidence exists. So practices like the following are
common:
— beatings;
— sleep deprivation;
— painfully tightened hand cuffs;
— violent shaking;
— kicking;
— sharp twisting of the head sideways or backwards as well as painful
twisting of arms, wrists and hands under conditions when they’re tied
to backs or other parts of chairs;
— the painful and injury prone “frog” crouch on tiptoes with hands
cuffed behind the back;
— the “banana” position involving bending the back in a painful arch
while extending the body horizontally to the floor on a backless chair
– with arms and feet bound beneath it;
— cuffing behind the back and shackling legs in the “shabah” position
– a prolonged, painful binding of detainees’ hands and feet to a
standard-sized unupholstered, metal frame, rigid plastic chair fixed
to the floor with no armrests;
— using informer-collaborators to get information;
— prolonged isolation, including psychologically harmful solitary
confinement in tiny cells under painfully oppressive conditions
designed to crush human resistance; as well as
— cursing, humiliating and degrading treatment, strip searches,
physical threats, and other practices designed to soften up detainees
for questioning.
NGOs also harshly criticize Israeli prison conditions and family
hardships faced to visit loved ones. Restrictions are onerous:
— only first-degree relatives may come; and
— male visitors between 16 and 35 are severely restricted; brothers
get only one visit a year and sons only two; wives are also
restricted; and
— families need ICRC transport help to visit prisoners inaccessible
to them otherwise because of distances involved and travel
prohibitions.
UAT believes that human rights violations “are at the heart of the
Middle East conflict” and directly affect “Israel’s own stability and
security.” Yet Israel won’t discuss them, and little compliance
pressure is applied because of the country’s “special status” with the
EU and, of course, Washington. As a result, in spite of persistent
human rights violations, the US turns a blind eye, and EU countries
prefer dialogue to punishment, including sanctions against Israel with
teeth.
Palestinians throughout the Territories lose out, but Hamas and Gazans
under siege feel it most. They believe the international community and
fellow Arab states abandoned and betrayed them and are leaving them to
rot in spite of EU member states pledging billions to help build a
Palestinian state at the December 2007 Paris Conference. Given
Israel’s alliance with the West, past pledges made and broken, and
current conditions in Occupied Palestine, it’s hard to imagine any of
these funds going for meaningful improvements on the ground. It’s easy
to believe they’ll finance Israel’s security state and harm
Palestinian interests.
UAT underscores the problem this way:
“Israel’s sensitivity (in) dealing with….human rights (issues) and
the problem of torture and ill-treatment makes any dialogue on these
matter particularly slow and complex….” So much so that EU member
states “may become overly reluctant to raise such issues
systematically, consistently and firmly, notwithstanding their legal
and political duty to put human rights in the centre of their foreign
and security policy.”
Dialogue nonetheless is ongoing. Human rights are addressed, but
“apparently not the subject of torture and ill-treatment….Given the
political realities in Israel and the OPT, progress in preventing and
eradicating torture and ill-treatment must be regarded as a
mid-and-long-term goal” in spite of modest NGO successes.
Overall, challenges to ending torture are formidable and numerous. In
dealing with Israel, “there is never a good moment to raise human
rights questions (and) always a reason for not doing something….”
But UAT is forthright: despite Middle East tensions, political
reality, and complexity of tough issues, no excuses justify EU member
states for not “strongly and consistently promot(ing) full compliance
with basic and absolute legal obligations to protect individuals’ most
fundamental rights.” Action must overcome challenges on issues like
these:
— Israel’s “extreme sensitivity” to criticism of its human rights
record;
— its security argument and state of war to justify abuses and
disdain for international law;
— its lack of political will to end 41 years of occupation;
— its lack of accountability on issues of “necessity,” including
sanctioning torture and abuse;
— its abusive detention conditions, including;
(1) denying Palestinians access to legal counsel during
interrogations;
(2) interrogation methods used;
(3) overall policy brutality, including torture and abuse;
(4) horrific prison conditions;
(5) inadequate medical care and unseemly role of doctors during
interrogations; and
(6) highly restrictive prison visitation rules. Also:
— limited contact between NGOs and the Israeli government and
practically no chance to exert influence;
— the EU’s lack of political will to “interfere” in Israeli
“affairs;” member states have practically given up because “it is not
worth having a fight with Israel;”
— EU-Israeli economic ties relegate human rights issues to second
tier status; and
— mistaken EU Middle East policy allied with America instead of
forging an independent one.
UAT notes that various human rights organizations have lost faith with
the international community, including the EU and UN. They prefer
their own efforts and resources, legally and politically, for whatever
modest gains they can get rather than none at all from ineffective
nations.
UAT conclusions are as follows:
— information on guidelines and their implementation is essential to
eradicating torture and abuse;
— NGOs are highly respected, and their information is considered
accurate; but some of them have more contact with EU members than
others;
— given Israel’s sensitivity and growing economic ties, EU states
have considerable discomfort raising issues of torture and abuse;
however, to some degree (if inadequate) they’ve engaged on matters of
administrative detentions, the Separation Wall, and West Bank
settlements; yet their efforts come down to this: with minor
exceptions, no successes have been achieved and Israeli policies
continue unabated; so EU efforts amount to little more than a
“balancing act” – to maintain good relations with Israel for
appropriate political and economic gains; and
— on a positive note, EU states have contributed “financial
assistance to civil society actors in Israel and the OPT;” but it
doesn’t substitute for positive pressure and action.
Recommendations
— hearts and minds on all sides must be changed to eradicate torture
and abuse;
— America’s moral leadership is defunct so EU states must take the
lead and stick to their legal, political and ethical principles;
— they must overcome individual differences and “act as one entity;”
— they must press their advantage with Israel; economic gains have a
price – improving the country’s human rights record, particularly
regarding torture and abuse, and complying fully with international
law obligations;
— NGOs should press for laws penalizing torture, cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment; they should also lobby for
independent, impartial and competent remedies to these practices in
accordance with international law; and
— they should address all other violations and enforcement of
international laws prohibiting them.
Ending the cycle of violence is challenging. Time and will are needed.
It starts by respecting everyone’s equal rights and their intrinsic
human worth. If agreement on not resorting to violence can be
achieved, “the magic key to peace, justice and true security” may be
at hand, but it’ll take a determined effort to turn it constructively
and no time to waste doing it.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on
Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The
Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from
11AM – 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with
distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.
_______________________________________________