Israel's use of torture

[Violet_Crumble]

by Mustafa Barghouthi
June 08, 2004


The pictures of American soldiers torturing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq have shocked the world. To the Palestinian people however, these photographs of hooded or naked figures come as no surprise. For the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have served time in Israeli prisons, the pictures only bring back memories of their own torture.

In many cases, the treatment of the Iraqis in Abu Ghraib bear striking similarities to Israeli methods of torture. Accusations are now circling in the world's press that Israeli security officers have actually assisted in training private US security contractors being sent to Iraq.

Regardless of whether there is any truth to these allegations, the world must recognize that torture is commonplace in Israel. It is not enough to condemn the actions of these American soldiers while ignoring the systematic human rights abuses imposed on the Palestinian people.

Like the United States, Israel lays claim to the highest moral standards, yet it is apparent that there are elements within the Israeli armed forces and indeed government for whom torture is a necessary and acceptable weapon. The two nations' refusal to accept the terms of to the International Criminal Court can only enhance the worldwide suspicion that these two countries wish to legitimize the torture of prisoners without ever being held to account by those they abuse.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=5672

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gimel]

4. Relatively speaking

Like the United States, Israel lays claim to the highest moral standards

The standards of comparison to say those practiced by Hamas (and the other radical groups in control of the Palestinian Authority) and the Taliban make the comparison authentic.

[kalian]

5. Yeah....the "terrorists" bomb with suicide bombers....

we're just more technologically advanced...we bomb them with F-16s.
:eyes:

[Gimel]

6. Equivalence

For those of the mind set that this is equivalent, there is no reply. Otherwise, you might look into the details of such incidences.

[drdon326]

7. Gimel.....Palestinian Jurisprudence

Viewer Discretion is STRONGLY advised !!!

http://www.shoebat.com/palestinian_justice.html

[Gimel]

12. Use of terror

This is the use of torture to intimidate Palestinians. They become afraid to talk about anything to outsiders.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. There's no relativity about it...

Both Israel and the US do lay claim to the highest moral standards. Trotting out a bunch of whiffy non-state groups is kind of like a friend of a rapist pointing to a murderer and laying claim to the highest moral standards of the rapist relative to that of the murderer...

Violet...

[Gimel]

11. On trial

The only convicted murderer is Marwan himself.
Marhttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=56422

[Violet_Crumble]

44. What's that got to do with the analogy I posted?

Nothing at all, that I can see. Think I'll read further down the thread and see if there's any discussion of what the article was actually about, rather than click on a link to a racist right-wing pile of drivel...

Violet...

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Touche. Another Tu Quoque

Argumentum ad Hominem: Tu Quoque:

A very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.

The question is: how do the standards practiced by Hamas et al. justify the use of torture by Israelis?

The fact is that Israel, like the US, lays claims to the highest moral standards and then contradicts them with behavior like this.

[Gimel]

10. However

I am not the defendant and I am not on trial. We are discussing the relative adjective "most". There are no absolutes.

On edit: One doesn't "justify" the other. The only justified use of force in interrogation is if it will same lives to use a moderate level of physical force.

[Forkboy]

13. "moderate level of physical force"

Can you explain further on this? What kind of physical force would be moderate?

[number6]

14. what I'd like to use on the criminals in the bush and sharon regimes

"moderate level of physical force"

[Gimel]

16. Sorry

It's not my field.

[Forkboy]

17. Then how do you know it's the right thing to do?

[Darranar]

15. How do you know if it will?

How do you know that the information is true?

How do you know that the victim knows anything?

Torture ("use of force in interrogation", as you put it) is immoral and ineffective. It is banned by international law and should remain so.

[Gimel]

18. Weighing the situation

These things would have to be weighed. I think that usually a court hearing is required for each circumstance.

If your child were held hostage, and his or her life in danger, you would want action. Would it be worth twisting an arm to get it?

[Jack Rabbit]

20. See post 19, below

There are moral and practical problems with torture. Even where it sounds like a good idea, it isn't that good of an idea.

[Gimel]

23. Like medicine

Moderate torture, not that would produce extreme pain, might bring valuable information or might not. It doesn't bring desired results all the time. The same with modern medicine. Sometimes it doesn't work, and sometimes it is counter-productive. Yet, doctors continue to prescribe the medicines that only work 50% or less of the time. As I noted above, a professional who is not related to the victim or the detainee be consulted. Preferably a court hearing on the specifics of the case.

[Forkboy]

21. Would it be worth a needle under the fingernail?

Electrical wires attached to testicles? What level of torture is acceptable to you,just so we have a basis on where this conversation is going?

[Lithos]

22. It has been shown time and time again

That information forcibly retrieved through torture is often tainted and useless and at a cost that often proves counter-productive.

In the case of Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib, the US has undoubtedly engendered more support, both direct and moral, for the opposition, than the value of any information. The attacks on US citizens in Saudi Arabia for instance have increased dramatically since the start of the Abu-Ghraib scandal.

L-

[Jack Rabbit]

19. Interesting reply

If the Hamas' behavior doesn't justify Israel's, there seems little point in discussing the relative merits whose torture is kinder, gentler.

As for your proposal of a "moderate level of physical force", I don't believe that route could be justified on moral or pragmatic grounds, either.

From Democratic Underground
Dated March 11, 2004

Why Torture Doesn't Work: A Critique of Alan Dershowitz' Case for Torture
By Jack Rabbit

Alan Dershowitz, the renowned legal scholar and civil libertarian, has stirred up a small hornets nest since the September 11 attacks by talking openly about the possibilities of sanctioning torture in America. Dershowitz feels it is incumbent on him to lead a discussion on a choice he feels is unpleasant but necessary . . . .
Dershowitz' argument can be easily misconstrued if it is not read. An opinion piece written by Dershowitz for the Los Angeles Times (November 8, 2001) outlines his position; a reader can get a better idea of Dershowitz' thesis by reading Chapter 4 of his recent book, Why Terrorism Works: understanding the threat, responding to the challenge (Yale University, 2002, pp. 131-63; all page numbers refer to this volume). It should be understood from the start that Dershowitz is suggesting only "nonlethal" forms of torture aimed at extracting information in national security cases, such as those involving a planned terrorist attack, and other cases where the potential for loss of human life would be catastrophic. Moreover, Dershowitz is very much aware of the constitutional issues surrounding the use of torture; Dershowitz is quite aware that no information extracted under torture could be used against the informant in any criminal proceedings. Dershowitz deserves to be lauded for having his priorities straight enough to opt, when presented with an exclusive choice of one or the other, for preventing the execution of the crime and saving lives over prosecuting and punishing the criminal.
(P)rogressive civil libertarians seem stuck. Dershowitz' case for legally supervised, nonlethal torture appears to be rooted in good logic in which the conclusions fall neatly from their premises. However, the conclusion reached is so odious that one still strives to reject it. To progressive civil libertarians attempting to hold the line in the context of a national debate in which Mr. Bush and Mr. Ashcroft seek broad powers to abrogate civil liberties, even to strip Americans of their citizenship, and mock the Third Geneva Convention daily in Guantanamo, Dershowitz appears to have gone over to the dark side.
On the other hand, Dershowitz' defenders, many of whom are less committed to progressive principles and the rule of law than was Dershowitz in the past, claim that the post-September 11 world has changed everything and that pre-September 11 notions about civilized behavior regarding the treatment of at least a certain class of criminal suspects is just not practical.
However, progressive civil libertarians need not concede a single point to Dershowitz, let alone the supporters of Bush and Ashcroft. There are at least three problems with Dershowitz' case for torture, all of which are fatal.
One problem with Dershowitz' argument is that it is based on a hypothetical situation. Something so clear would seldom, if ever, exist in the real world. On close examination, the ticking bomb case is exposed as absurd and the problems of Dershowitz' case begins to disappear . . . .
The second problem is that the information gained from a torture victim must be regarded as unreliable. The authorities may torture a suspect (Dershowitz suggests sterile needles placed under fingernails), and he may tell them anything to get them stop. Since the situation is urgent, time is on the side of the terrorist. If he is determined to kill people, he could tell them anything or even nothing at all. The authorities would have to investigate what he says, since they can't assume it is true. Of course, investigating the suspect's statements takes time that the authorities don't have. Torturing the suspect where time is an urgent factor gains the authorities nothing . . . .
The final problem with Dershowitz' argument is that it involves a time-consuming process where time is urgent. In his admirable attempt to balance the needs of modern society facing a threat from the likes of Osama with the demands of rule of law in a democratic society, Dershowitz would not simply have the authorities torture information out of a suspect, but would require that the process be given legal sanction and supervision.

Read more.

[Gimel]

24. Threats

Sometimes the threat of torture is enough to get the suspect to talk. No actual torture need be carried out. If the suspect knows that nothing will happen to him and he needn't divulge information that could (for example) get him in trouble with his peers upon release, he will just keep mum.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gimel]

26. Not applicable

These methods are only used when violent crimes have been committed. In my case, there has been none. As someone here once said, "violence begets more violence". If an innocent person's life is at stake, (perhaps your own) you might find that pressure to reveal information would be allowable. Of course I do not advocate severe injury or means that cause extreme pain. That would be counterproductive.

On edit: If someone's life is at stake, I would gladly reveal any information I had. No need to ask further.

[0rganism]

27. How would you convince your inquisitors of the limits of your knowledge?

Just a little "moderate" torture...

> If someone's life is at stake, I would gladly reveal any information I had. No need to ask further.

"I've told you, I don't know anything more. That's all the information I have. No need to ask further."

"*grumbles* Gimel's clamming up again, you know what to do."

***crank crank crank*** ZAP!

"Aaaaaieeeee! Aaah! Oh God... Please stop..."

"How's the memory, Mr. Gimel?" *pacing*

"*gasp* I've told you, I don't *sob* know anything about what you're asking me. *gasp*"

"The subject's memory needs assistance. Attach one to his scrotum, please. Left side. Thank you. And charge up the cattle prod again. Yes, that's quite good."

"Mr. Gimel, I really don't want to hurt you. This could be over very quickly if you will simply help us save these lives. But if you continue to hold back, my colleagues may lose their patience."

"I've told you everything *sob* already, please, there's nothing more I can tell you."

"Mr. Gimel, you're making my job quite difficult. Would seeing your wife losen your tongue, perhaps? You know, I've taken very good care of her so far, it would be regretful if I were no longer able to protect her, to speak on her behalf."

"Your wasting precious time, Gimel. Discharge, now."

****ZAP**** WHAM ****ZAP****

"Aaaaaaah! Oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck... stop..."

"You have only yourself to blame, Mr. Gimel. People are counting on you, with their very lives, to tell us what you know, and you're simply not helping."

"*gasp* Man, I'll take your *cough* polygr- *gasp* -aph or *cough, hack* truth drugs or whatever *sob* I've told you I don't know, I'm telling you God's Honest Truth, I swear to God. I'll swear to whatever you want, it's all I know. *spittle*"

"We don't have time for the funny drug games, Gimel. Corporal, bring over the sappers. No, not the ones with his blood all over them, some clean ones."

"Mr. Gimel, why must you be so obstinate? You have the information we need, just tell us, and all the pain stops. You could return home. Your family would be quite safe. We could be the best friends you've ever had. Why are you fighting us?"

[Gimel]

28. Hmmm

Nice fiction. I'm not a member of a terrorist organization, however. I state my views for free here on DU.

[thebigidea]

30. but don't you see? Neither are many of the people tortured!

Your neighbor could've been tortured to the point that he named you as a member of the terrorist group, just to end the pain...

Once you open the door to allow torture, innocent people WILL be tortured. Like the hypothetical Mr. Gimel.

[0rganism]

32. Yup

> Nice fiction.

Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it.

> I'm not a member of a terrorist organization, however.

Never said you were. Is that somehow relevant to the topic?

> I state my views for free here on DU.

As do we all.

So, returning to the question at hand, how would you convince your inquisitors that you don't know the information they apparently have reason to believe that you know?

[Gimel]

34. I don't have inquisitors except for some posters here

I never advocated this kind of Nazi treatment, nor said that it was appropriate. Your scenario is one of extreme physical torture, neither of which has been used by the US or Israel.

This article explains what was authorized by the US Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez and referred to it as high-pressure interrogation. I suggested moderate pressure. The Israelis are said to have used loud music, bright lights, sleep deprivation, and threats of greater force.

Your insistence of putting me in the scene assumes that I have been under arrest, and neighbors informing is not enough of an excuse. Some activity that is subversive would have to have taken place.

Say for instance, if Zacharias Moussaoui had been interrogated prior to Sept 11, 2001. Someone had put together information from Internet chatter, threats from other sources, and figured he was in on it. What if by using psychological means to get him to divulge details of the plan he was to take part in. What if Atta and the other hijackers had been detained at the Boston airport and the four planes had not been hijacked. Would it have been worth keeping the man Zacharias Moussaoui awake for three days and giving him a drilling to elicit that information?

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[0rganism]

33. Thanks.

Unfortunately, I suspect you're right about its effectiveness as a means of communication.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cassandra]

52. That's some dumb bunch of inquisitors...

not to notice the lack of a scrotum on Ms. Gimel.

American interrogators in Vietnam found that they gained valuable information by being kind to VC who had resisted speaking during torture by the South Vietnamese, which perhaps argues for a moderate bad cop / good cop approach.

[Jack Rabbit]

29. That does not answer my objections to torture

According to some accounts of the matter which I read, Galileo was never actually tortured; he was merely shown the rack. As the chess player Nimzovich once said, the threat can be stronger than the execution.

When we're speaking of torture, the threat is as immoral as the execution. Torture is something of which we would like to rid the world. Therefore, it should be neither used nor threatened. Moreover, the threat is meaningless unless one intends to execute it. Consequently, threatening with no intent of executing defeats the purpose. If one is going to threaten torture as a means to and end, then one should torture.

If one side in a conflict uses torture to get useful information from those on the other it believes possess it, it is saying this is acceptable behavior for a civilized society. That, of course, implies that it would be acceptable for the other side to use it against those that it detains. Therefore, when one engages in torture of one's enemy, one consents to the possibility that one's own comrades will be tortured should they fall into enemy hands.

Of course, that's the moral argument. Since some people believe in moral double standards and attempt to deny that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, we will go to the pragmatic argument.

You agree that torture is abominable and that it should be used only in extreme circumstances. Dershowitz illustrates this with the ticking bomb scenario and you have given a variation of that theme with the child hostage. However, these have an element of urgency in that time is a factor. All the terrorist need do is withstand pain for a length of time or employ delaying tactics such as providing a false lead and he can easily defeat the torture.

If the element of urgency is removed, then torture becomes unnecessary. If time is not a factor, then there is time to use conventional investigative methods. Dershowitz removes urgency as a factor in the one real-life case he cites, that of Hakim Abdul Marud in the Philippines. If Filipino agents had sixty days to work Marud over to get information out of him, then they had sixty days to follow the same leads that made him a suspect with conventional methods. As a case to support the assertion that the occasional use of torture yields benefits that conventional methods do not, this one is unconvincing.

Finally, Dershowitz says, and you do also, that if torture is to be employed it should be done under court supervision. The authorities would have to get a warrant to authorize the use of torture on a suspect. Yet in an urgent situation, that would only consume valuable time. Therefore, the system defeats the purpose.

Torture is both immoral and impractical. We would do better to simply not use it.

[Gimel]

35. Your concerns

I decline to be able to address your objections. That only you can do.

The word torture, like the word terror, can have many subjective interpretations. Many men use psychological torture on their wives and vice versa. It is a part of existence, unfortunately. It occurs in love as well as war.

There is no guarantee that information obtained with pressure will prove valuable, but in a few cases it could be life-saving.

A court order could be obtained with relative speed as are search warrants, so I don't think that is really an obstacle.

[Jack Rabbit]

36. Response

Since you have not cited a case where one can be certain that torture saved an innocent life, you should entertain the possibility that there is no such case.

Don't worry. Mr. Dershowitz failed to satisfy me in this respect as well. You are in good company.

However, that torture could save lives in some hypothetical circumstances is not sufficient to justify allowing its use. However you slice it, there is no reasonable probability that it would.

Moreover, if time is urgent and obtaining a court order is time consuming, then my objection stands. If a judge is not going to take the time to examine whether torture might possibly do any good, we may as well do things the way Hamas does it. On the other hand, if time is not urgent, then that assumes the authorities have time to carry out a conventional investigation. Under those circumstances, it would be impossible for the authorities to demonstrate the necessity of torture.

[Gimel]

37. Not citing

because I have not cited a case, it does not mean it doesn't exist. I did not recommend torture in the traditional sense, however.

I have few actual cases to draw upon, but I'm sure the legal case works where police have used similar methods for decades are full of them.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. You seem intent on being vague

In order to have a meaningful discussion, we need to agree on terms. However, you say that by torture you don't mean torture in the traditional sense. Mr. Dershowitz at least tells us that he means "non-lethal" torture, which is hardly what's suggested by your link to the photos of Hamas victims. He provides as an example sterile needles under the fingernails.

Also, you haven't cited a case because you don't of one, but you're sure that one exists. I submit that one does not. To satisfy me, you would have to demonstrate that torture worked when nothing else did or nothing else was possible. Dershowitz'' case of Mr. Marud fails to satisfy me because, since the worked the man over for over two months, they obviously had time to pursue a conventional investigation. The torture was employed in that case as a matter of choice, not necessity.

Your move.

[Gimel]

39. See my post 34 above

"This article explains what was authorized by the US Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez and referred to it as high-pressure interrogation. I suggested moderate pressure. The Israelis are said to have used loud music, bright lights, sleep deprivation, and threats of greater force. "

Moderate pressure interrogation is what I intended to mean. Perhaps you didn't notice my statement on two occasions in this thread. I do not mean torture like the Chinese type.


Also, I did not link to the photos on Palestinian justice. That is not at all what I have suggested.

[Jack Rabbit]

40. Read my article. I discuss the Moussaoui case there

It is not a convincing case for any legitimate use of torture.

Also. as far as General Sanchez is concerned, I don't really think the commander of US forces in Iraq is a good moral authority on this subject.

[Gimel]

43. Abstain

I posted the current article by the US general to show what the definition was being used. I didn't even hit that it was "a good moral authority on this subject."

End of my comments. I cannot spend more time on this, and obviously you are goading me into some sort of thorough discourse. This I find not possible to pursue in this sort of dis-jointed posting.

On edit: I agree that torture in interrogation should be banned. I've never stated otherwise, despite the charges leveled at me by some on this board. By the way, Mustafa Barghouti never gave any real examples of Israeli use of torture, and "humiliation" is equivilent to torture in his view. He tried to equate Israel's interrogation practice with that you see on news shows. I think what happend in Abu Ghraib is abhorrent and it should not be linked with Israel in anyway. These are not Israeli practices. Yet, even this is far more moral than decapitation of American Jews as a means of collective punishment.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. What's the difference?

Between torture and a moderate level of physical force, the latter of which you did say you approved the use of...

Violet...

[Gimel]

46. Not blanket approval

I do not approve the use of any force in the majority of cases. Only where a life is proven to be at stake, would this be applicable. That would be determined by the presiding judge.

You will have to answer your question for yourself.

As torture, according to Inernational Law is defined 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…."

So obviously, the pain would have to be considerably less. Pressure includes plea bargaining, where a person's sentence would be reduced.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. The reason I asked you the question...

Is that I'd like to know what you feel is the difference between torture and 'moderate physical force'. How on earth am I supposed to answer a question I ask you on yr behalf when I want to know what *you* think? You say you are opposed to the use of torture, but approve of the use of 'moderate physical force', so you must have some idea as to where you'd draw the line between the two. Or would you leave that to the presiding judge to decide and just hope that their idea of 'moderate physical force' falls into line with yrs? Also, as has been pointed out by Jack Rabbit, as time would be of the essense in situations where there is a real danger to the lives of others, it seems to defeat the purpose of any urgency if a court order is needed before a prisoner can be tortured or have some of that 'moderate physical force' carried out on them...

Since when has plea bargaining been a physical thing, btw?

Violet...

[Gimel]

48. Since

I am not the subject of the thread. Please direct your inquisition elsewhere.

Pressure can be psychological. It is a more positive approach to offer personal reward for information, but it is also pressure. That is why it is used successfully so often. I never said that plea bargaining was a physical thing.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Inquisition?

Sorry, Gimel, but I was asking you a question about something YOU'D said. I'm quite aware that yr not the topic of this thread and don't really understand why you'd mistake my question for thinking you are. Why should I ask someone else what YOU think when you are here supposedly to discuss issues related to the I/P conflict? Besides, I really don't see the problem with discussing yr views on where the line is drawn between torture and 'moderate physical force'. But if you have some sort of problem with discussing it, so be it...

You said 'moderate PHYSICAL force'. Since when has physical force and psychological pressure been the same thing?

Violet...

[Gimel]

50. Your limits

So I said "moderate physical force" on one occasion. That includes sleep deprivation, loud music, and perhaps disorienting positions. However, emotional and psychological pressure are definitely included in the definition of pressure. I'm not going to claim that one phrase covers all my thoughts on the subject. If you want to understand what I think you'll have to give up that fixation.

I really never approve of physical violence in interrogation. Yet sleep deprivation and loud music are also included in physical force in interrogation.

Psychological discomfort is a large part of the force that is used in interrogation.

Hamas uses suicide bombings of Israeli citizens as the physical force to attain a political goal, so I can't really see how Mr Barghouti's charges hold water. The Abu Ghraib incidents that he goes to great lengths to condemn are not "Israeli Torture". The entire article is propaganda and making false connections. Let me hear your comments on that, please.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. We clearly differ on this issue...

I see things like sleep deprivation and loud music as psychological and not a use of physical force. Not that it makes them any more acceptable, mind you...

You said you approved of the use of 'moderate physical force'. My apologies to you for you thinking that me wanting to understand where you see a line drawn between torture and 'moderate physical force' is in any way a fixation, because it wasn't...

I'm not at all understanding why pointing out that Hamas carries out suicide bombings negates what was said in the article I posted, and I'm rather loathe to ask about it lest that fixation word gets trotted out again. If you read the article you'd see that the author indeed points out that the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib is not "Israeli torture'. What he points out is the similarities in the use of torture. For the article to be making false connections, Israel would have to have not used torture on prisoners, and we all know that's not the case, as an Israeli report released in 2000 admitted torture happened...

So, the statements of former Palestinian prisoners are all lies? Does that also apply to claims of Iraqis that they've been tortured by US troops? Or the suspicions that prisoners are being mistreated at Gitmo? What does it take for it to not be lies? Photos, perhaps?

I found an article from the BBC back in 2000 talking about the use of torture, and found an interesting bit about the 'moderate physical force' phrase:

"But the report says the Shin Bet routinely went beyond the "moderate physical pressure" authorised by a 1987 commission headed by then-Supreme Court Justice Moshe Landau.

Human rights groups in Israel maintain that the practices authorised by the Landau commission - keeping prisoners in excruciatingly uncomfortable postures, covering their heads with filthy and malodorous sacks and depriving them of sleep - amount to torture."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/637293.stm

On edit: Some more information on the use of torture by Israeli forces. This one's from B'Tselem...

"Interrogation by torture is absolutely prohibited by Israeli and international law. Despite this, Israeli security forces breach the prohibition and torture Palestinians during interrogation.

In July 2001, B'Tselem published a report on torture that occurred from October 2000 to January 2001 during interrogations of Palestinians in the Gush Etzion police station. The victims were youngsters aged fourteen to seventeen. In most of the cases, the police arrested them at their homes in the middle of the late night and took them to the police station in Gush Etzion, where police interrogators tortured them until morning. The police objective was to obtain confessions and information about other minors. The methods of torture described in the report included: Forcing the minors to stand in painful positions for prolonged periods; Beating the minors severely for many hours, at times with the use of various objects; Splashing cold water on the detainees in the facility's courtyard in wintry conditions; Pushing the minor's head into the toilet bowl and flushing the toilet; Making death threats; Cursing and degrading the minors

Testimonies given to B'Tselem indicate that these are not isolated cases or uncommon conduct by certain police officers, and information received by B'Tselem raises the serious likelihood that torture during interrogations at the Gush Etzion police station continues."

http://www.btselem.org/english/Torture/index.asp


Violet...

[Gimel]

55. Obvious falicies

Torture used on prisoners

First Paragraph:

To the Palestinian people however, these photographs of hooded or naked figures come as no surprise.

The Barghouti article - second paragraph :

In many cases, the treatment of the Iraqis in Abu Ghraib bear striking similarities to Israeli methods of torture. Accusations are now circling in the world's press that Israeli security officers have actually assisted in training private US security contractors being sent to Iraq.


Third paragraph:

Regardless of whether there is any truth to these allegations, the world must recognize that torture is commonplace in Israel. It is not enough to condemn the actions of these American soldiers while ignoring the systematic human rights abuses imposed on the Palestinian people.

Fourth paragraph:
The two nations' refusal to accept the terms of to the International Criminal Court can only enhance the worldwide suspicion that these two countries wish to legitimize the torture of prisoners...

Fifth paragraph is about Israel only:

However, these methods were not completely outlawed. Instead the Court's ruling still allows the Knesset to enact laws that would give intelligence officers the authority to use such methods.

Nowhere are the methods referred to named or described. "These methods" and "such methods" are they the same as those that the high court has forbidden? It is never made clear what those were, was it? If there is authority to use such methods that would be a better indication than saying that it "allows the Knesset to enact laws." Nothing is really said here, only accusations.

The sixth paragraph:

This "ticking bomb" excuse now gives the Israeli security forces carte blanche to abuse any prisoners in their care, including children.


The eighth paragraph:

Just as in Iraq, any humiliation or abuse is permissible if it goes under the spurious banner of security.
Now the terminology is changed to humiliation or abuse. Which is it? Torture or humiliation and abuse? Does he ever draw the line?


The final paragraph:

Photographic evidence is all that is lacking to finally expose and condemn Israel's barbaric treatment of its Palestinian prisoners. This is the only difference between the two cases,


Without any evidence whatsoever, the writer has succeeded in claiming that Israel uses the same techniques that the American Gis used in Abu Ghraib, and even suggesting that iIsrael taught the methods to them. So you come away thinking that the two are identical, only the photographic evidence is missing.


If you read the article you'd see that the author indeed points out that the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib is not "Israeli torture'

Your statement. I don't see anywhere in the article that there is any intention to diferentiate between the treatent of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and what Palestinians have described as toture. By the way, the testimony given to B'Tselem does not qualify as authentic testimony.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. They're not obvious 'falicies'...

Nowhere are the methods referred to named or described. "These methods" and "such methods" are they the same as those that the high court has forbidden? It is never made clear what those were, was it? If there is authority to use such methods that would be a better indication than saying that it "allows the Knesset to enact laws." Nothing is really said here, only accusations.

Jack Rabbit's already pointed out to you that the article was clearly written for an audience who already had some knowledge of the details of Israeli torture. On top of that, there have been quite a few links to specific details posted in this thread. My suggestion is that you should read them, and if you already have looked at them, go read them again...

Now the terminology is changed to humiliation or abuse. Which is it? Torture or humiliation and abuse? Does he ever draw the line?

Let's use Abu Ghraib as an example. No-one bar for die-hard freepers would deny that what happened there was torture. Most people will also agree that the torture consisted of humiliation and abuse. Referring to torture as humiliation or abuse does not make the terms mutually exclusive or mean that torture hasn't happened...

Without any evidence whatsoever, the writer has succeeded in claiming that Israel uses the same techniques that the American Gis used in Abu Ghraib, and even suggesting that iIsrael taught the methods to them. So you come away thinking that the two are identical, only the photographic evidence is missing.

What the author said was there were striking similarities, not that the techniques were exactly the same. After reading some of the stuff that's been posted in this thread, there's no lack of evidence when it comes to similarities. He also did NOT suggest that Israel taught US troops the methods used in Abu Ghraib. Here's what he actually said:

"Accusations are now circling in the world's press that Israeli security officers have actually assisted in training private US security contractors being sent to Iraq.

Regardless of whether there is any truth to these allegations, the world must recognize that torture is commonplace in Israel."

Show me where in that statement he is suggesting that Israeli security officers trained US troops. The only way I could read that into it would be to use a fair bit of twisting of words into something he didn't say....

Your statement. I don't see anywhere in the article that there is any intention to diferentiate between the treatent of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and what Palestinians have described as toture. By the way, the testimony given to B'Tselem does not qualify as authentic testimony.

Well, there's no such thing as a nicer form of torture as far as I'm concerned. It's all morally bankrupt...

Tell me, Gimel. What does qualify as 'authentic' testimony? Are you saying those boys all lied about their treatment? Must there be convenient photo proof for something to be accepted as a case of torture?

Violet...

[Gimel]

60. Intentional falicies

On top of that, there have been quite a few links to specific details posted in this thread. My suggestion is that you should read them, and if you already have looked at them, go read them again...
The article is being discussed, not this thread. The intentional omission of the treatments he is comparing (those treatments at Abu Ghraib are itemized)is a glaring signal that the man is trying to substitute the sexual abuse charges for those methods used by Israel, which are not of that nature. To persuade his readers, and anything posted on the net is for a wide audience, he uses the standard tricks of brainwashing experts.

However, I don't expect you to agree with me.

Let's use Abu Ghraib as an example.

This is exactly what Barghouti wants you to do. Not only as an example, but that it is identical. All that is missing is the evidence, he says.

In your post #49 you said:

You said 'moderate PHYSICAL force'. Since when has physical force and psychological pressure been the same thing?

Now you say:

Most people will also agree that the torture consisted of humiliation and abuse. Referring to torture as humiliation or abuse does not make the terms mutually exclusive or mean that torture hasn't happened...

I never said that they were entirely separate. You were, however, trying to tell me that they were.

As for the rest of your statements, I feel it would be a waste of time to go over them and point out again how suggesting, for example, means implying it in so many words, whether or not he really believes it himself.

Take up a manual of marketing techniques, for example, which use psychological suggestion to sell products. It is exactly what Dr. Barghouti has done, and I know that he is a psychologist.

[Violet_Crumble]

73. No, they're not fallacies...

The article is being discussed, not this thread. The intentional omission of the treatments he is comparing (those treatments at Abu Ghraib are itemized)is a glaring signal that the man is trying to substitute the sexual abuse charges for those methods used by Israel, which are not of that nature. To persuade his readers, and anything posted on the net is for a wide audience, he uses the standard tricks of brainwashing experts.

However, I don't expect you to agree with me.

You expected right. And the reason I don't agree with you is that you've ignored it each time it's been pointed out to you that the article is written aimed at an audience that's already aware of Israel's use of torture. Could you show me where the methods of torture at Abu Ghraib was itemised in the article? I saw a reference to people being hooded (something that Israel has done to prisoners), and prisoners being naked, but I don't really think that's an itemisation of techniques. Sorry, but what Dr. Barghouti wrote about torture isn't brainwashing in any way, shape or form. He is opposed to torture, as I am, and I agree with him. If you want to argue that Israel hasn't used torture on prisoners, there's a lot of evidence to prove otherwise...

Me:'Let's use Abu Ghraib as an example.'

Gimel: 'This is exactly what Barghouti wants you to do. Not only as an example, but that it is identical. All that is missing is the evidence, he says.'

No, common-sense and actually reading and watching the news is what made me want to use Abu Ghraib as an example. Or did you not happen to notice that the terms abuse and humiliation were used to describe the torture that happened there? Nowhere in the article did Dr. Barghouti say or even imply that the techniques were identical. While some techniques are identical (eg. putting sacks on prisoners heads), I don't recall him claiming in the article that Israel played naked human pyramids with prisoners....

In your post #49 you said:

You said 'moderate PHYSICAL force'. Since when has physical force and psychological pressure been the same thing?

Now you say:

Most people will also agree that the torture consisted of humiliation and abuse. Referring to torture as humiliation or abuse does not make the terms mutually exclusive or mean that torture hasn't happened...

I never said that they were entirely separate. You were, however, trying to tell me that they were.

Yes, you did. Right here in post #55. "Now the terminology is changed to humiliation or abuse. Which is it? Torture OR humiliation and abuse?" (emphasis on the word 'or' is added by me to bring it to yr attention). And I've never claimed that humiliation and abuse aren't torture. Where did you come up with that?

As for the rest of your statements, I feel it would be a waste of time to go over them and point out again how suggesting, for example, means implying it in so many words, whether or not he really believes it himself.

You haven't shown even once where he is suggesting anything you claim he is, exactly the same as how you haven't addressed the points Jack Rabbit made, so don't know why yr saying 'again' in there...

Take up a manual of marketing techniques, for example, which use psychological suggestion to sell products. It is exactly what Dr. Barghouti has done, and I know that he is a psychologist.

I'm curious now after the repeated accusations made that Dr. Barghouti is indulging in brainwashing. What makes you so familiar with brainwashing techniques? Personally, I'd rather you'd have taken the time to answer the questions I asked at the end of my post about the testimony of those boys, and what you consider to be 'authentic testimony'....

Violet...

[Gimel]

94. Techniques and testimony

I'm curious now after the repeated accusations made that Dr. Barghouti is indulging in brainwashing. What makes you so familiar with brainwashing techniques? Personally, I'd rather you'd have taken the time to answer the questions I asked at the end of my post about the testimony of those boys, and what you consider to be 'authentic testimony'....

As I have studied psychology, I am aware of the techniques used in advertising that pair a product with an expected response. Other brainwashing techniques are well known. I'm surprised that you haven't been made aware of them. The article is subtle as brainwashing techniques are designed to be. suggestion is subliminal.

The testimony of the Palestinians quoted by B'Tselem are a genre that I've seen often posted on Palestinian we sites. The testimony given in the article posted by Lithos (a PDF file) contains testimony by teens that I do find authentic. It is only my opinion.

Other points that you have remarked upon I find insufficient. The audience that you've pointed out each time (and I did address this in a previous post, and haven't ignored it completely, but I see no point in hammering over and over on this limp excuse).

I have addressed the other points and see no need to engage in further discussion on them.

[Jack Rabbit]

54. Response

So I said "moderate physical force" on one occasion. That includes sleep deprivation, loud music, and perhaps disorienting positions. However, emotional and psychological pressure are definitely included in the definition of pressure. I'm not going to claim that one phrase covers all my thoughts on the subject. If you want to understand what I think you'll have to give up that fixation.
I really never approve of physical violence in interrogation. Yet sleep deprivation and loud music are also included in physical force in interrogation.

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which both Israel and the US are parties and by which both are bound, defines torture as:

(A)ny 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 or 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Torture is what is designed to produce severe physical or psychological discomfort. This would include sleep deprivation, loud music and the placing of the subject in a disorienting position.

Your distinction between "moderate physical force" or "emotional and psychological pressure" and torture is rejected. Sleep deprivation, loud music and disorienting positions may not be a severe as placing the subject on a rack and stretching him, but they are bad enough. You cannot endorse the use of these techniques in an interrogation and say you oppose the use torture. That's like saying "I oppose murder, but it's okay to stab someone to death with a knife."

Psychological discomfort is a large part of the force that is used in interrogation.

Again, that's torture.

Hamas uses suicide bombings of Israeli citizens as the physical force to attain a political goal, so I can't really see how Mr Barghouti's charges hold water.

Hamas' tactics are a red herring in this matter. Again, it's a tu quoque fallacy. As you said earlier, Hamas' tactics can't be used to justify torture by Israeli authorities. Therefore, suicide bombings have nothing to do with Dr. Barghouti's charges. They can be condemned on their own demerits. The subject here is not suicide bombing by Palestinian militants; it is torture by Israeli authorities.

You fault Dr. Barghouti for not providing examples of Israeli torture. This piece appears to be written for an audience that is familiar with the subject, one that would need no elaboration on the matter. It has found its way to this website, where some people may not be familiar with the specifics of charges of human rights violations by Israeli authorities against Palestinian detainees.

While citing no specific example of Israeli torture, Dr. Barghouti makes the following charge:

Like the United States, Israel lays claim to the highest moral standards, yet it is apparent that there are elements within the Israeli armed forces and indeed government for whom torture is a necessary and acceptable weapon. The two nations' refusal to accept the terms of to the International Criminal Court can only enhance the worldwide suspicion that these two countries wish to legitimize the torture of prisoners without ever being held to account by those they abuse.
An Israeli High Court ruling on 6 September 1999 prohibited a number of torture techniques. However, these methods were not completely outlawed. Instead the Court's ruling still allows the Knesset to enact laws that would give intelligence officers the authority to use such methods. The Court deemed the security difficulties faced by Israel to be grave enough to merit granting intelligence services the power to torture . . . .
The Israeli army and police also receive the unconditional backing of the country's legal system, perpetuating the culture of impunity in Israeli prisons. The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel has found that the Israeli Attorney General has approved every case of torture as a necessary security measure. The High Court has rejected every single one of 124 petitions submitted by PCATI, against prisoners being denied access to legal support.

Since Dr. Barghouti cites PCATI, a link to the PCATI website would be helpful. Here, PCATI elaborates on the specific techniques used by Israeli authorities at the time the High Court decision to which Dr. Barghouti refers came down (1999). These include:

• Tying up detainee in painful positions for hours or days on end.
• Solitary Confinement.
• Confinement in tiny cubicles.
• Beatings.
• Violent "shaking".
• Deprivation of sleep and food.
• Exposure to cold or heat.
• Verbal, sexual and psychological abuse.
• Threats against the individual or the individual's family.
• Lack of adequate clothing or hygiene.

A number of these can be defended, but some of these methods are torture in and of themselves.

The PCATI site gives methods, but not specific cases. In this article that originally appeared in The Nation in 1999, Alexander Cockburn writes as follows:

The (Landau) commission duly pondered the conflict between solemn international covenants barring torture and the perceived security needs of Israel. It came down firmly on the side of the latter. A secret annex to its report, later leaked, sanctioned the use of "moderate physical pressure" against Palestinian detainees. Thus, in the very year that the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment-later endorsed by Israel-came into force, Shin Bet's torturers received the imprimatur of the state.
"Moderate physical pressure" sounds almost sedate. So does "shaking," until one discovers that more than once Israel's torturers have shaken their victims to death. One such victim was Abdel Samad Hraizat, brought to hospital unconscious less than twenty-four hours after his arrest on April 22, 1995, and pronounced dead on April 25. Thousands of Palestinians-never Jews-have experienced this "moderate pressure" since Landau made it legal.
Here's a typical account, given by a 15-year-old Palestinian, Riad Faraj, who was arrested for throwing stones in late 1987. "They handcuffed and beat me during the journey to Fara'a . Once we arrived, they took me to a 'doctor' for a 'checkup.' I found out later that this 'checkup' is to locate any physical weakness to concentrate on during torture. They paid particular attention to my leg, which was once injured and was still sensitive. Before they began interrogation, they asked me if I was ready to confess. They then hanged me by my wrists, naked, outside in the cold, and gave me hot and cold showers alternatively. A hood covered in manure was put over my head."

Since Mr. Cockburn now edits CounterPunch, whose anti-Israeli exortations often go beyond the pale, I would not want to allow his tesitmony to stand without further evidence. In its World Report for 1999, Human Rights Watch says of interrogation methods in Israel:

Torture or ill-treatment during interrogation by the General Security Services (GSS) continued to be widespread and systematic. In January and May a nine-member panel of the Supreme Court heard arguments on GSS interrogation methods, but postponed ruling on whether these methods constituted torture under Israeli law, although the U.N. found them to violate two treaties prohibiting torture (see below). The Knesset also debated legislation that would codify these methods in a new GSS Law, in effect legalizing torture, but as of October the bill had not passed its final reading.

The same report also cites a high-profile case, that of Mordecai Vanunu, who was placed by the Israelis in solitary confinement for eleven years. HRW points out that solitary confinement for such an extended length of time is "a form of punishment characterized by the U.N. Human Rights Committee as constituting torture."

That was 1999, when, as Dr. Barghouti points out, an Israeli High Court prohibited a number of torture techniques. In January of this year, HRW briefed the UN Commission on Human Rights. HRW reported:

As of January 2004, some 5,900 Palestinians were being held on security-related grounds. Reports of ill-treatment were widespread, including kicking, beating, squalid conditions, and deprivation of food and drink, and Israeli human rights organizations documented cases of torture. Some 631 persons were administrative detainees, held on the basis of secret evidence without effective judicial review.

The Israeli human rights organization, BTselem, also documents the use of torture by the GSS after the High Court's decision.

You are right to point out that, just as Hamas-directed suicide bombings do not justify torture, neither does the use of torture by the US in Iraq and in other secret prisons justify or condemn Israel's use of torture. They are separate cases in each of which a nation that upholds itself as the zenith of modern civilization acts in a barbarous manner and attempts to justify that behavior. Both case are ironic, the leaders of both nations should be condemned for permitting this sort of thing, but they should be condemned separately.

Nevertheless, Dr. Barghouti's charges of the continued use of torture by Israeli authorities are supported by reputable and independent sources. They deserve to be taken seriously and not dismissed as propaganda.

[Gimel]

56. So, reject it

Torture is what is designed to produce severe physical or psychological discomfort. This would include sleep deprivation, loud music and the placing of the subject in a disorienting position.

I think that your claim of a tu quoque fallacy should be laid exactly at the feet of Mr. Barghouti. It is trying to downplay the tactics of the terrorists, and disassociate themselves and any Palestinian from the responsibility of the intentional targeting, murder and maiming of Israelis that makes his arguments ring hollow and your attacking of moderate force used in intelligence gathering seem immoral to me.

[Jack Rabbit]

57. Your theses remain unproven

The charge of a tu quoque fallacy is your feet, ma'am. Nowhere is Dr. Barghouti attempting to downplay anything in his piece. Nowhere does he deny that the intentional targeting of civilians is wrong. He is saying that the Israeli authorities are guilty of using torture on detainees and that is wrong. I agree with him.

The issue is Israeli use of torture. In almost sixty posts into this thread, you have failed to defend any of your theses. You have failed to demonstrate:

• That "moderate force" such as sleep deprivation is not torture and is permissible, although sleep deprivation is often cited as an example of torture;
That you have any consistent definition of torture or "moderate force";
That torture has any practical value in interrogation;
That legal safeguards, such as those proposed by Mr. Dershowitz, wouldn't defeat the purpose of interrogating the suspect under torture since it would eat up valuable time.

You not only have failed to demonstrate these points, you have refused to discuss them. Instead, you become irate that someone would try to "goad" you into some sort of "thorough discourse" on a discussion board.

Finally, I take umbrage at the charge that attacking the use of "moderate force" is "immoral." I am saying that you have failed to define "moderate force", but provided examples of it without defining it that are, in fact, torture which is prohibited by international conventions to which Israel is a party. If torture is immoral and sleep deprivation is torture, then sleep deprivation is immoral; if sleep deprivation is "moderate force", then some "moderate force" is torture. I am in fact saying that if torture is to be used only in extreme and urgent circumstances where the involvement of the subject is reasonably certain, then it does no good. In your ticking bomb case, how much time will it take through torture to get the suspect to talk when the bomb will go off any minute? The very idea is absurd. There is nothing immoral about pointing out that your idea of a good idea is not only wrong, it won't work.

What is ringing hollow are not Dr. Barghouti's charges of torture by either Israel or the United States, but the claims by the moral, intellectual and political leaders of those two nations that they are the ideal of modern civilization. There is nothing ideal about the use of torture.

[Gimel]

58. Of course not ideal

Where does anyone, and certainly not I, say it is ideal? But Israel was not brought to this rounding up of terrorists by choice. The terrorists proved that it was either them or us. Simple facts that have simple answers.

I really don't care to engage in an adequate proof of some thesis. Israel is a land of basics and survival by using all moral forces at its disposal. The only thesis that needs proven, and if you deny it's relevancy, I have no answer for you.

you become irate that someone would try to "goad" you into some sort of "thorough discourse" on a discussion board.

Now you are quoting me out of context. I did not use those two quoted terms in conjunction with one another.

It is not the luxury of Israel to trust it's survival on the outcome of a philosophical discussion. Yes, I do think that Mr. Barghouti is refusing to acknowledge the crimes against humanity that the Palestinian people are complicit in perpetrating. He is speaking as if they never happened. If he were to acknowledge the horrors that they are in some way responsible for, he would have to admit that they also have to rid themselves of that element in their society before they can begin to claim the moral high-ground, as he most certainly is attempting to do.

Although I have addressed several of your bulleted items, you refuse to acknowledge it. It would take a third party to decide the outcome of any debate, and that is lacking, and actually, I do not feel that this issue can be debated. It is not debatable in my estimation. Israel has the right to use all necessary means to eliminate attacks on its civilians and military, even if it infringes on what are normally accepted human rights.

There is yet an international debate on this matter, and as there has been no definitive decision, it remains for the future generations to determine if the measures taken were necessary and/or sufficient. Our little exchange here will never "prove" anything one way or the other.

[Jack Rabbit]

61. Not an adequate response

One more time, torture doesn't work. Since it is, by your admission, something that "infringes on what are normally accepted human rights", and you have expressed the desirability of a court hearing prior to executing torture (post 18), that should only be used in cases where a violent crime is involved (post 26), then it should only be used with some reasonable certainty that results would be obtained that outweigh the moral deprivation of the practice of torture.

However, I have not seen one case, either from you or Mr. Dershowitz, that demonstrates that torture, used only when there was no other course available, succeeds in gaining useful information that would not have been gained otherwise. You "decline" to address this point (post 35). You merely say that such a case might exist (post 37) without giving me or anyone else any reason to believe that one does.

In post 34, you attempt to distinguish "high-pressure interrogation" from torture by citing the authority of General Sanchez. In that post you also deny that either the US or Israel uses torture, suggesting either that you don't follow the news as closely as most people at DU or you don't regard the events at Abu Ghraib to be examples of torture. You do not mention that General Sanchez is in hot water over this matter; he is in difficulty precisely because his idea of "high-pressure interrogation" is most people's idea of torture.

Also in post 34, you bring up the Moussaoui case as one where "psychological means" might have stopped the September 11 attacks. That is entirely too hypothetical, as I said in my DU article of March 11. It both assumes that if authorities had good reason to believe that Moussaoui was in on a plot and that they had no time to follow leads with a conventional investigation. The fact is that the authorities would have had to have more specific information about the proposed hijackings and known that they were immanent in order to justify torture even under Dershowitz' ideas about using what he calls "non-lethal" torture. Thus, if they knew Moussaoui was in on a plot, they would have been prohibited from torturing him because the authorities would not have been able to show that other avenues of investigation were useless.

Neither the attempt to distinguish torture from something else by citing the example of General Sanchez, who is accused of permitting the something else in Abu Ghraib because it is really torture, nor the Moussaoui case adequately address the bulleted points. Instead, you complain "obviously you are goading me into some sort of thorough discourse" and refuse to discuss the matter (post 43).

The charge that you have failed to address the bulleted points stands. On this thread, you have either willfully avoided the discussion or given justifications that I find adequate and refuse to discuss the reasons that I find them inadequate. You charge that those opposing your position are "inquisitors" (post 34) and that to take a position against Israel's use of torture is "immoral" (post 56).

You now say:

Israel is a land of basics and survival by using all moral forces at its disposal.

The question here is not whether Israel has any right to use all moral forces at her disposal to assure her survival. I would never say she does not. The question is whether Israel has the right to use forms of torture, in which case they are not moral. Again, most people would regard sleep deprivation to be torture. Therefore, when discussing such methods of interrogation, we are not discussing whether Israel's use of all moral forces at her disposal. We are discussing whether she is and has the right to use immoral methods. I maintain that she is and that she does not.

Dr. Barghouti's failure to discuss suicide bombings is a red herring. Terrorist attacks on Israel are somewhat of an enthymeme to this discussion. If it were not for such attacks, Israel would have no justification for using any methods of interrogation against terrorist suspects, whether moral or immoral.

One may just as easily wonder why one condemning attacks against civilians as war crimes (as I and others have often done on this forum) why one does not mention the displacement of the Palestinian people by Israel as a justification for terrorist attacks. Don't the Palestinian people have a right to survive and better their lives by liberating their land from occupation? It is not often, but occasionally we are confronted with such nonsense. In discussing whether terrorism is justified, the displacement of the Palestinian people is as much a red herring as terrorism itself is in any justification for the use of torture.

If we were to permit Israel to use torture in order to assure her survival, should we not also permit the Palestinian militants the right to use terrorism in order to bring about the birth of the Palestinian state? We should allow neither. To say otherwise would contradict any statement made to the effect that one wrong does not justify another.

Both propositions – that terrorism justifies torture in order to assure Israel's survival or that the displacement of the Palestinians justifies terrorism in order to assure the birth of a Palestinian state – have something else in common. I would be more sympathetic to either point of view if it were shown that either torture is necessary and effective in preventing terrorism or that terrorism is at all effective in achieving its goals. Neither is the case. The Israelis cannot be shown to have prevented one terrorist attack by the use of torture where no other method of interrogation would have possibly worked; Palestinian militants cannot show that one Plaestinian home was spared from an Israeli bulldozer by any terrorist attack.

Torture, whether it is the rack or sleep deprivation, is immoral, unnecessary and ineffective. Even if one could argue that a nation surrounded by a sea of enemies has the right to dispense with morality in extreme circumstances, it would not change the fact that the employment of unnecessary and ineffective means to an end is a futile exercise.

[Gimel]

62. In otherwords

Using terminology of a parlor game, like red herring or a tu quoque fallacy, and are dissecting this conflict and throwing out the cause and viewing only the effect. If in fact "Dr. Barghouti, Palestinian terror attacks on Israel are not only insufficient, they are non-existent. Israelis know otherwise. No parlor games please.

As for the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of Israeli investigations (sorry, I have no details of how the information was obtained) read this article:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/439014.html

So a few lives may have been saved. A country was again prevented from going berserk. Red herrings are tasty, yes?

[Forkboy]

63. good grief

:eyes:

[Jack Rabbit]

80. What does the Nablusi case prove?

This is not a parlor game either to Israelis riding busses or to Palestinians detained by Shin Bet. If the Israelis are to be protected, it will require effective means to do so. That should be especially true when resorting to methods the fly in the face modern standards of civilized behavior. Torture flies in the face or civilized standards of behavior and is not effective.

This article does nothing to support your thesis. First of all, as you point out, it doesn't say that Mr. Nablusi was tortured. Second, it indicates that he wasn't. According to the piece, Nablusi led security forces to accomplices "immediately on arrest." Thus, it seems he was cooperating from the start and no need to resort to more desperate methods.

This case is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Sorry, ma'am. You've served up another jar of red herring and you'll have to eat by yourself. I'll have none of it.

Bon appetite.

[Gimel]

83. Interrogation

I am not claiming that the Israeli methods are torture. You have said that there is no difference, and any means other than non-pressured conversation, from what I gather, should be considered torture. Moderate pressure, physical or psychological may have to be used. Threatening violence is pretty much ineffective, I agree. Israeli means of interrogation, of course this is classified information which neither of us know in detail, are effective. Case in point, the posted article with the arrest and interrogation of Nablusi proves that lives have been saved by interrogation.

It is Mr. Barghouti who claims that Israel uses torture. He has not proven thesis allegation , only implied it by alluding to the Abu Ghraib case, and no one here has either. It is mostly hearsay.

I do not think it is irrelevant to point to a case where Israeli interrogation has been successful. There are hundreds of such incidents over the past several years, where interrogation has saved lives. That should be sufficient proof, without evidence to the contrary, that Israeli interrogation techniques are saving lives.

We have not agreed on a definition of torture. The Geneva Convention that states causing severe physical or psychological pain is fine, except that it is also very much subjective and insufficient as far as limiting techniques of interrogation. The pain threshold for individuals varies greatly. What is severe pain to one person may not cause another to flinch. Therefore, we are talking about issues that will take years to resolve, if they ever are resolved completely.

[Jack Rabbit]

85. You're stretching a bit far

You have said that there is no difference, and any means other than non-pressured conversation, from what I gather, should be considered torture.

The definition of torture I am using is the one found in the Convention against Torture. It is necessarily broad:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means 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 or 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

What methods constitute torture are up for discussion. Most would consider sleep deprivation a form of torture. In post 54, I provided a list of methods that PCATI, the organization cited by Dr. Barhouti, calls into question. As I said in that post, a number of these can be defended in particular circumstances (if verbal abuse is torture, we should close down Marine basic training camps); thers are others that are inexcusible in any circumstances. These would include tying a detainee in painful positions for hours, beatings, violent shaking (which I would consider to be a milder form of a beating), deprivation of sleep and food, sexual abuse, threats to the individual or his family and lack of adequate clothing or hygene. Exposure to heat and cold would be contingent on the extremity of the temperature. "Psychological abuse" would also require further elaboration before determining whether or not it is torture. Even verbal abuse, mentioned above, could be considered torture if it is aimed at lowering the detainees' self esteem. Solitary confinement is not necessarily torture, but can be if it is over an extended period of time.

Moderate pressure, physical or psychological may have to be used.

We're not looking for "may haves" here. Unless you demonstrate that it was used, it proves nothing and has no bearing on this discussion. It may not prove anything even if it was used. You would also have to demostrate that there were no conventional avenues of investigation open to the authorities. We don't know that was the case, either.

I direct your attention to post number 82, in which I lay out rules for when torture might be considered derived from Dershowitz' book.

[Gimel]

64. a misreading

In post #34, which I responded to post #32, I said this exactly:

"I never advocated this kind of Nazi treatment, nor said that it was appropriate. Your scenario is one of extreme physical torture, neither of which has been used by the US or Israel. "

Are you then claiming that the scenario in post #32 is what took place at Abu Ghraib? Where was the news item on that? For sure I must have missed it.

You said in the above post that:

In that post you also deny that either the US or Israel uses torture,

That isn't exactly what I said, now is it? You are making a generalization from a specific statement. I did not do so.

[Jack Rabbit]

84. Thank you for the clarification

Would it be fair to say that you do endorse torture, just not all forms of torture?

[Violet_Crumble]

72. If you feel this issue can't be debated, why are you debating it?

So, you think the Palestinian people are complicit in perpetrating crimes against humanity? Just curious, but do you know what the word 'complicit' means, or does it have some other meaning apart from participating in and involvement in a criminal act?


Jack Rabbit: 'you become irate that someone would try to "goad" you into some sort of "thorough discourse" on a discussion board.'

Gimel: 'Now you are quoting me out of context. I did not use those two quoted terms in conjunction with one another.'

Nope, that's exactly what you said in post #43. Here it is: 'End of my comments. I cannot spend more time on this, and obviously you are goading me into some sort of thorough discourse.'

Violet...

[Gimel]

74. Debate

In the formal sense where one side "wins" because of certain formal assessment assigning points to one side or the other.

I do fee that he was directing me to read lengthy articles and posts which are tangential to the main subject of this thread. I read the article posted and am prepared to discuss that, but not those of the subject of the greater issues he raises.

I do not have time to read these, and I would in fact bring in other authoritative articles on the subject, which would be most likely rejected or contested on political grounds by other posters. Therefore, I think the subject is too broad and too inconclusive to be attempted here.

Thanks.

If Mr. Rabbit objects to my statements, I think he should be the one to reply.

[Violet_Crumble]

76. This isn't a formal debate club...

This is a discussion forum, though I thought everyone realised that. Just the same as I thought everyone realised that when they reply to a post, anyone else can come along and reply to the reply. I know you certainly realise that, as you've done it here at DU yrself :)

How on earth can links to information on Israel's use of torture be tangental to the main subject of this thread, which is Israel's use of torture?

Having spent quite a few years on a fair few forums like DU, I never find it particularly convincing when someone who claims to have 'authoritative' articles on a particular subject admits they haven't got the time to read links that lead to information they should already be aware of if they have any knowledge of the subject. It gets even less convincing when the same person who lacks the time to read anything offered to them on the subject has the time in the same thread to go off on tangents totally unrelated to the topic of the thread, for example, posting links to the rascist drivel of Arutz Sheva, and giving some extremely biased views on the UN partition plan...

The excuse that a topic is too broad and too inconclusive to be attempted here is a particularly weak one. After all, the subject of Israel's use of torture is no more broad or inconclusive than any other issue related to the I/P conflict, or any other issue discussed elsewhere at DU. Though when I do find topics that I believe are just too broad to be discussed in any constructive way, I tend not to reappear time and time again in a thread actually arguing the issue. But that's just me, I guess...

Thanks...

And Have A Great Day!

Violet...

[Gimel]

81. Exactly

I agree that it is not. However, I was being brought to task as though I have to comply with a set of debating rules (outside of the site rules). However, that was in another conversation with another poster, so I don't expect you to follow it exactly.

I'd be glad to post outside links. However, the issue of whether or not Israel used Legitimate means to interrogate is still an issue which is unresolved in the world courts. You may feel otherwise, in fact I'm sure you'll trot out your links to the Geneva Conventions and draw your conclusions at the slightest hint of a need for it.

None-the-less, Mr. Barghouti's thesis posted here has not brought the issue to it's fullest. Moreover, the nature of a conflict might have a bearing on this, and I cannot accept anyone's authority here as having the final say on it.

I am willing to discuss when I have a few moments. But to spend most of my day reading articles and formulating rebuttals before I reply is where I have to draw the line. But that is my preference at the moment. I do not see why it should concern you to the point of argument.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

93. pfft... thats what du is all about DEBATE

especially down here.

'I am willing to discuss when I have a few moments. But to spend most of my day reading articles and formulating rebuttals before I reply is where I have to draw the line. But that is my preference at the moment. I do not see why it should concern you to the point of argument.'

quality vs quanity might be a tact you should try :shrug:

peace

[drdon326]

77. Well.....not totally unproven....

http://www.isu.edu/english/esweb/engl_101s/101_comer_fall03/theme_histories/torture/torture-newsweek.html

Some torture clearly works. Jordan broke the most notorious terrorist of the 1980s, Abu Nidal, by threatening his family. Philippine police reportedly helped crack the 1993 World Trade Center bombings (plus a plot to crash 11 U.S. airliners and kill the pope) by convincing a suspect that they were about to turn him over to the Israelis. Then there’s painful Islamic justice, which has the added benefit of greater acceptance among Muslims.

We can’t legalize physical torture; it’s contrary to American values. But even as we continue to speak out against human-rights abuses around the world, we need to keep an open mind about certain measures to fight terrorism, like court-sanctioned psychological interrogation. And we’ll have to think about transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies, even if that’s hypocritical. Nobody said this was going to be pretty.

http://www.isu.edu/english/esweb/engl_101s/101_comer_fall03/theme_histories/torture/torture-newsweek.html

[Jack Rabbit]

82. Since Mr. Alter cites Dershowitz

Since Mr. Alter cites Alan Dershowitz, I will direct you to the same article to which I directed Ms. Gimel. In fact, I discussed the Philippine case (the torture victim's name is Hakim Abdul Marud) at some length. Quoting from my piece (with emphasis in the original):

Dershowitz does not seek to use torture to gain a conviction. He is seeking to gain information to prevent a greater catastrophe. Nevertheless, Dershowitz points out that under English law, the ability to authorize torture was tightly controlled by the Privy Council in order to prevent local authorities from abusing the rights of defendants. This is the model he would use to institute torture in modern society. Dershowitz believes that if his recommendations are followed, torture that would be used only in the most extraordinary cases. As Dershowitz says (pp. 158-59):

I believe that most judges would require compelling evidence before they would authorize so extraordinary a departure from our constitutional norms, and law enforcement officials would be reluctant to seek a warrant unless they had compelling evidence that the suspect had information needed to prevent an imminent terrorist attack.

Nevertheless, Dershowitz does not propose any specific legal standards for the issuing of a torture warrant. If we were examine what his hypothetical cases and see what they have in common, we might arrive at a set of standards that could possibly be used: the situation at hand is potentially catastrophic and the loss of great numbers of human lives is at stake; there is a suspect whose culpability is certain to a high standard of proof; and there is an element of urgency in that the attack is imminent and there is no time to effectively pursue other avenues of investigation.

In the Marud case, the authorities worked him over for 67 days. At the end of the period, there was still no airline bombing plan ready to be executed by terrorists. Does that sound like an urgent situation to you? It doesn't to me. If they had 67 days to beat the crap out the suspect, then they had 67 days to follow the leads the found on his PC. There is nothing in the Marud case that demonstrates that torture was necessary.

[thebigidea]

88. rape & murder is "far more moral?"

[Forkboy]

41. "Moderate pressure interrogation"

Pretty words,like "compassionate conservative".

What a sick fucking world.

[bpilgrim]

65. Israel uses Torture, Rape and Murder to Steal Land

and they wonder why they have so many problems... then we think they can offer us advice to help us solve our illegal invasion and occupation in Iraq. :crazy:

us and them apparently wont stop untill we kill everyone.

it's the OCCUPATION stupid!

peace

[Gimel]

66. Reality jolt

Being attacked by the armies of 5 nations, then giving back the Sinai to Egypt twice, being under daily attack from Lebanon, then unilaterally withdrawing. The rape of Israel is the real event of the past half century.

[bpilgrim]

67. indeed... rape, torture and murder usually is.

though some defend it, depending on who is doing it.

all arab nations recently offered israel full diplomatic relations and what did israel say... NO, but thanks anyways.

i guess they like the status quo. it's much easier for them to get what they've BEEN getting by FORCE rather than negotiation. why should they change?

looks like the palestinians are getting the same deal we gave the indians, PERSECUTION, OPPRESSION and DEATH.

peace

[Gimel]

68. Offers to commit suicide

Full right of return was demanded, however. That is, the elimination of Israel. As I said, that was always their goal. Hopefully, reform is on the way for Arab politics.

[bpilgrim]

69. is all israel offers to palestinians in return for stealing their land

no wonder there are so many suicide bombers.

why negotiate when israel can do whatever it wants to do right now, right?

like i said... they are getting the same deal the indians got.

peace

[Gimel]

71. So you promote

uprisings both in Israel and in the US?

the Palestinians, BTW, were offered a fantastic deal by the UN partition in '48. Their leaders preferred war.

[bpilgrim]

78. NEGOTIATION

yes

peace

[bpilgrim]

70. "Withdrawal for Lebanon has new lesson for Israel"

First, a few facts: After years of bloody guerrilla warfare that cost Israel dearly in lives and expense, on May 22, 2000, Israel unilaterally withdrew from southern Lebanon. On July 27, 2000, the UN passed Resolution 1310, confirming that Israel had "withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in accordance with Resolution 425."

With that UN-approved pullout, Israel completely reversed its situation: It went from holding the strategic and moral low ground to holding the strategic and moral high ground. When Israel was occupying southern Lebanon, it was embroiled in a guerrilla war in which it could never use its vast military superiority. It was going mano a mano with Hezbollah. Worse, any Hezbollah attack on Israel was seen by the world as legitimate resistance. Once Israel was out, it could use its superior air power to retaliate for Hezbollah attacks -- and most of the world didn't care.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/06/15/2003175150

source...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=124&topic_id=71946&mesg_id=71946

peace

[drdon326]

75. Time To Think About Torture by Jonathan Alter

In this autumn of anger, even a liberal can find his thoughts turning to ... torture. OK, not cattle prods or rubber hoses, at least not here in the United States, but something to jump-start the stalled investigation of the greatest crime in American history. Right now, four key hijacking suspects aren’t talking at all.

COULDN’T WE AT LEAST subject them to psychological torture, like tapes of dying rabbits or high-decibel rap? (The military has done that in Panama and elsewhere.) How about truth serum, administered with a mandatory IV? Or deportation to Saudi Arabia, land of beheadings? (As the frustrated FBI has been threatening.) Some people still argue that we needn’t rethink any of our old assumptions about law enforcement, but they’re hopelessly “Sept. 10”—living in a country that no longer exists.

One sign of how much things have changed is the reaction to the antiterrorism bill, which cleared the Senate last week by a vote of 98-1. While the ACLU felt obliged to quibble with a provision or two, the opposition was tepid, even from staunch civil libertarians. That great quote from the late Chief Justice Robert Jackson—”The Constitution is not a suicide pact”—is getting a good workout lately. “This was incomparably more sober and sensible than what some of our revered presidents did,” says Floyd Abrams, the First Amendment lawyer, referring to the severe restrictions on liberty imposed during the Civil War and World War I.

Fortunately, the new law stops short of threatening basic rights like free speech, which is essential in wartime to hold the government accountable. The bill makes it easier to wiretap (under the old rules, you had to get a warrant for each individual phone, an anachronism in a cellular age), easier to detain immigrants who won’t talk and easier to follow money through the international laundering process. A welcome “sunset” provision means the expansion of surveillance will expire after four years. That’s an important precedent, though odds are these changes will end up being permanent. It’s a new world.

http://www.isu.edu/english/esweb/engl_101s/101_comer_fall03/theme_histories/torture/torture-newsweek.html

...............................................................

interesting to say the least.

[bpilgrim]

79. that's sooooooo 2001

Nov. 5 2001 to be exact.

EVERYTHING CHANGED since the abu gharib scandal broke. the above article just contributed in its small but insidious way to it :puke:

here is something more up-to-date...

Defender of the Lash & the Cattle Prod

June 9, 2004



"THE GENEVA Conventions are so outdated and are written so broadly that they have become a sword used by terrorists to kill civilians, rather than a shield to protect civilians from terrorists. These international laws have become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution."

This is the opening passage of Alan Dershowitz's attack on the Geneva Conventions. It sets the tone for a polemic that savages our continued commitment to the humane treatment of prisoners and endorses "varying forms of rough interrogation".

The essay, "The Rules of War Enable Terror", employs the Harvard professor's rhetorical skills to undermine the legal barriers that restrict the use of torture. It is a assault on the fundamental principles of human decency.

This is no exaggeration; Dershowitz is quite forceful in articulating his belief that treating people with dignity and humanity is anathema to the goals of the war on terror.

"The time has come to revisit the laws of war and to make them relevant to new realities," Dershowitz insists.

more...
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney06092004.html

welcome to the future :hi:

peace

[Jack Rabbit]

86. As far as I am concerned, nothing changed between 2001 and now

Torture flies in the face of modern civilized standards and is an ineffective means of interrogation. That is true now; that was true on September 11, 2001.

Mr. Alter is writing about Alan Dershowitz' thesis on torture. See post 19 and follow the link for a refutation of Dershowitz.

[bpilgrim]

87. a lot has changed since then...

now we are having investigations and they have been exposed for all the world to see by patriots on the inside.

that is what i ment by being so old... the attitudes have certainly changed for the better since then, thankfully and i have confidence that changes will be forced upon this admin and hopefully severe consequences for the perps.

:hi:

peace

[bpilgrim]

89. Why Torture Doesn't Work: A Critique of Alan Dershowitz' Case for Torture

Why Torture Doesn\'t Work: A Critique of Alan Dershowitz\' Case for Torture
By Jack Rabbit

Alan Dershowitz, the renowned legal scholar and civil libertarian, has stirred up a small hornets nest since the September 11 attacks by talking openly about the possibilities of sanctioning torture in America. Dershowitz feels it is incumbent on him to lead a discussion on a choice he feels is unpleasant but necessary . . . .
Dershowitz' argument can be easily misconstrued if it is not read. An opinion piece written by Dershowitz for the Los Angeles Times (November 8, 2001) outlines his position; a reader can get a better idea of Dershowitz' thesis by reading Chapter 4 of his recent book, Why Terrorism Works: understanding the threat, responding to the challenge (Yale University, 2002, pp. 131-63; all page numbers refer to this volume). It should be understood from the start that Dershowitz is suggesting only "nonlethal" forms of torture aimed at extracting information in national security cases, such as those involving a planned terrorist attack, and other cases where the potential for loss of human life would be catastrophic. Moreover, Dershowitz is very much aware of the constitutional issues surrounding the use of torture; Dershowitz is quite aware that no information extracted under torture could be used against the informant in any criminal proceedings. Dershowitz deserves to be lauded for having his priorities straight enough to opt, when presented with an exclusive choice of one or the other, for preventing the execution of the crime and saving lives over prosecuting and punishing the criminal.
(P)rogressive civil libertarians seem stuck. Dershowitz' case for legally supervised, nonlethal torture appears to be rooted in good logic in which the conclusions fall neatly from their premises. However, the conclusion reached is so odious that one still strives to reject it. To progressive civil libertarians attempting to hold the line in the context of a national debate in which Mr. Bush and Mr. Ashcroft seek broad powers to abrogate civil liberties, even to strip Americans of their citizenship, and mock the Third Geneva Convention daily in Guantanamo, Dershowitz appears to have gone over to the dark side.
On the other hand, Dershowitz' defenders, many of whom are less committed to progressive principles and the rule of law than was Dershowitz in the past, claim that the post-September 11 world has changed everything and that pre-September 11 notions about civilized behavior regarding the treatment of at least a certain class of criminal suspects is just not practical.
However, progressive civil libertarians need not concede a single point to Dershowitz, let alone the supporters of Bush and Ashcroft. There are at least three problems with Dershowitz' case for torture, all of which are fatal.
One problem with Dershowitz' argument is that it is based on a hypothetical situation. Something so clear would seldom, if ever, exist in the real world. On close examination, the ticking bomb case is exposed as absurd and the problems of Dershowitz' case begins to disappear . . . .
The second problem is that the information gained from a torture victim must be regarded as unreliable. The authorities may torture a suspect (Dershowitz suggests sterile needles placed under fingernails), and he may tell them anything to get them stop. Since the situation is urgent, time is on the side of the terrorist. If he is determined to kill people, he could tell them anything or even nothing at all. The authorities would have to investigate what he says, since they can't assume it is true. Of course, investigating the suspect's statements takes time that the authorities don't have. Torturing the suspect where time is an urgent factor gains the authorities nothing . . . .
The final problem with Dershowitz' argument is that it involves a time-consuming process where time is urgent. In his admirable attempt to balance the needs of modern society facing a threat from the likes of Osama with the demands of rule of law in a democratic society, Dershowitz would not simply have the authorities torture information out of a suspect, but would require that the process be given legal sanction and supervision.

Read more.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/03/11_torture.html

excellent rebuttal/article jr as always, thank you :toast:

peace

[Gimel]

90. Suggestion as a charge

This is indeed an implication of Israel. A former US diplomat in the foreign service, Eugene Bird "pointed an accusing finger at Israel":

Bird said there is a need to determine whether any foreign interrogators, implying Israelis, were among those who recommended the poor treatment of the Iraqi prisoners.

....


"Nothing like that ever happened," said a senior Shin Bet source, referring to the recent allegations. "We did not operate , and did not assist the United States in running the interrogations. This is baseless slander."


....

Even the legal adviser to the Israeli Public Committee Against Torture, Gaby Lasky, does not believe that Israel is involved in the interrogations and torture in Iraq.

"There is no similarity between the complaints we received from Palestinian interogees and what we saw and heard about what was done in Iraq," Lasky said.

.....

Haaretz