 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 9 - 15 September 1999 Issue No. 446 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 9 - 15 September 1999 Issue No. 446
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Focus Culture Features Books Special Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Barak's tortuous dilemma
ByGraham UsherIn what was proclaimed by a leading Israeli human rights lawyer as "one of the most important decisions in the history of the [Israeli] nation", on Monday Israel's Supreme Court outlawed "moderate physical pressure" (otherwise known as torture) in interrogation methods routinely used against Palestinian detainees by Israel's domestic intelligence service, Shin Bet. In so doing, the nine judges overturned the notorious 1987 ruling by Israel's then Supreme Court president, Moshe Landau, which authorised the use of "moderate physical pressure" by Shin Bet if the purpose was to "save lives", a decision that has long been seen internationally as the Israeli state's active sanctioning of torture.
The Supreme Court's ruling was a long delayed response to petitions from three Israeli human rights organisations which argued that interrogation methods which employ "physical pressure" constitute torture and are thus illegal under both Israeli law and the International Convention Against Torture, to which Israel is a signatory.
The judges specifically prohibited Shin Bet from using methods that involve the "cruel and inhumane treatment" of suspects. These include the violent "shaking" of suspects to extract information; the "shabach" technique in which a suspect is tied to a low stool for prolonged periods and whose head is covered by a "sealed sack"; the "frog crouch", where a detainee is forced to balance on his fingertips and toes for five minutes at a stretch; and extended sleep deprivation. According to Israel's premier human rights organisation and petitioner to the Supreme Court, B'tselem, these methods are "routinely" used to interrogate an average of 850 Palestinians a year (most of whom are subsequently released without charge) and have been the cause of death of at least 10 Palestinians under Israeli custody, including Abded Hezizat whose death in April 1995 was proved to be a direct result of the "shaking" method.
Given this history, it was no surprise that the ruling was hailed by the petitioners and championed as a victory for law over expediency by sectors of the Israeli left. "I am very proud," commented Justice Minister Yossi Beilin. "The judges reached a decision that wasn't simple, and highlights the dilemma of a state which aspires to protect human rights as well as the security of its citizens." It was a sentiment more or less echoed by Palestinian human rights organisations. It is "a great and courageous decision", said director of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG), Bassem Eid. And, "I hope one day the same decision will emerge from the Palestinian Supreme Court." Eid and the PHRMG have waged a long and largely unsuccessful struggle against the pervasive use of torture in Palestinian Authority prisons.
By the roughly same measure, the decision was denounced by the right and Israel's military establishment. Although current Shin Bet head, Ami Ayalon, said after the Court's ruling that "clear instructions" had been issued to his operatives to refrain from using "moderate physical pressure" in all interrogations, a certain number of his predecessors were less circumspect. "I have no doubt that persons suspected of terrorist activity who are now under Shin Bet investigation, as well as those who will be detained in the future, feel safer, stronger and more determined now," wrote ex-Shin Bet chief, Yaakov Peri, in Israel's Maariv newspaper on Tuesday. The Likud Party also was none too pleased, with MK Ruby Rivlin vowing to introduce new legislation "along the lines of Britain's Prevention of Terrorism Act" which, if passed by the Knesset, would overturn the Supreme Court's ruling.
Beilin has said he will oppose any such legislation. But it is not clear if his boss would do so. So far, Ehud Barak's response to the ruling has been tepid to the point of cold. "I respect the Supreme Court's decision," he said on Monday. "But Israel is not Holland. On the face of things, it appears that the decision will make it very hard for the Shin Bet, and a way should be found to make it possible to interrogate... in order to save lives."
Barak's dilemma is real enough. As a former army chief of staff who oversaw and approved the torture of literally thousands of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and beyond, everyone knows that when it comes to the use of "moderate physical pressure" Barak is closer to Peri and Rivlin than he is to Beilin. Coming so close on the heels of the bomb attacks in Haifa and Tiberias on Sunday, Barak is also aware that compliance with the Court's ruling will expose his government to charges from the right that it is "soft on terror". But Barak is also the victor of an election campaign that promised to rescue the supremacy of law and the sanctity of the Supreme Court from the drubbing they received during the years of former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. For him to now throw his weight behind legislation that will again sanction torture in Israel would thus signal to the world, and especially to the Arabs, that while Israel's Supreme Court can learn the error of its ways, Israeli governments cannot.
