Torture As Official Israeli Policy

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.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9899