http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/5611-israels-impunity-and-its-culture-of-torture

Israel's impunity and its culture of torture
 Ramona Wadi
Thursday, 28 March 2013 11:00

The recognition of torture in Israeli prisons is subject to a host of
narratives, entrenching it within a distinct, yet hidden realm. Since the
start of Israel's illegal occupation, thousands of Palestinians have been
tortured in a manner reminiscent of the macabre extravagance now associated
with Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. The revelation that torture was taking
place in Israel's prisons in 1977 was met with an incredulous reaction from
Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who refused to acknowledge its existence.

The Landau Commission in 1987 failed to ban torture in Israel. Instead of
condemning the practice as a breach of international law, torture was
deemed to be permissible in certain cases, governed by a set of secret
rules which torturers adhered to. The foundation for impunity was given a
solid structure; "lying to the court" about torture was "intolerable" but
the practice itself was allowed. Thus was the relevance of the impact of
torture upon Palestinian prisoners pushed to one side. In 1999, a Supreme
Court ruling that torture was illegal became mired in ambiguity, owing to
the same court's allowance of torture in situations of "necessity". Aided
by experts in the medical and psychological fields, torturers would follow
a set programme which stipulated the limits of physical resistance prior to
the victim suffering irreparable damage. The vagueness of the term used
resulted in an effective safeguard for torturers, who ensured the isolation
of prisoners in order to fetter the emotional and physical scars of torture.

The death of Arafat Jaradat at the hands of the Israeli internal security
agency Shin Bet in February brought state-sanctioned torture onto the front
pages. An autopsy revealed that Jaradat had been subjected to brutal
torture; several bones in the neck, spine, arms and legs were broken, and
blood clots, bruising and blisters were evident. As expected, Israel failed
to acknowledge the veracity of the autopsy report, calling it inconclusive
and clinging to a fabricated version of events which claimed that "cardiac
arrest" was the cause of death.

Apart from the physical isolation of tortured prisoners, the isolation of
individual recollections of torture within the collective Palestinian
memory contributes to its displacement by other narratives. The instant
glorification of martyrdom is centred upon an individual living under
decades of oppression, whereas if we focus on the decades of oppression the
subject of torture can rise to the communal level. Maintaining a false
dichotomy between individual and collective memory can prove
counterproductive to Palestinian resistance, allowing sub-narratives to
sink without trace.

Shin Bet's reliance on medical practitioners to help with torture are
documented in legal rights group Adalah's report "On Torture". Physicians
have been known to disregard torture complaints, help to send prisoners
back to their torturers, disclose medical conditions to make torture "more
effective" and fail to report complaints about, or personal observation of,
torture. While the elimination of socio-political processes plays a role in
transforming the torture victim's identity into a stereotype, there is an
inherent culture promoted by the Israeli state that Palestinians are a
target the disposal of which is necessary in order to achieve the Zionist
dream. In such a context, while medical practitioners' identification with
the oppressor is an affirmation of allegiance to a "superior" state, the
same state is responsible for the dissemination and application of
apartheid practices.

The protection of human rights cannot take place if the political views of
the oppressor eliminate any possibility of such discourse by encouraging
its citizens to become active participants in oppression. Israeli society
is not oblivious to the torture of Palestinians, yet it has willingly
conformed to the requirements of stereotyping and dehumanisation of the
victims. Rhetoric abounds about the preservation of the Jewish state and
references to Zionism, with these influences being articulated with venom
on social media, advocating the use of further violence against
Palestinians. It has become commonplace for Israelis sticking to the
Zionist agenda to suggest "breaking the bones" of Palestinians or
castration, shooting, death by nerve gas or burning of Palestinian
children. The culture of violence has been embraced eagerly, with the
Holocaust card trumping any outrage at torture taking place in the name of
the state and creating irrational fears about "existential" threats.

Sanctioned by almost every strata of society, Shin Bet's impunity with
regard to torture has lasting consequences on Palestinian victims. An
absence of criminal proceedings, despite over 600 complaints in recent
years, has resulted in a series of myths regarding the practice. Claims
that certain techniques are no longer used, such as prolonged beatings or
hangings, thrive within the parameters of bureaucratic form-filling and
secret proceedings. It is also implied that certain torture techniques veer
towards the psychological, such as using Palestinians willing to
collaborate with the Israeli secret service in exchange for material
benefits, which help to weaken the defences of the prisoner under
interrogation. However, the physical violence has not diminished, as
demonstrated by the lacerations evident on Jaradat's body. What is
remarkable, notoriously so, is Israel's absolute impunity which allows it
to regard torture and murder as collateral damage in a "war against terror".

Having broken a multitude of UN resolutions and regulations pertaining to
international law and never been held accountable, it is apparent that the
culture of impunity which normalises and sanctions violence in Israel has
been ignored by the international community. Understandably, the US is
incapable of condemning human rights violations and torture since it is an
advocate of both; criticism of others would attract attention to its own
illegal activities. Indeed, Israel and the US have sanctioned torture in
remarkably similar circumstances; ostensibly to provide security for their
citizens at the expense of thousands of people whose existence amounts to
nothing more than a name or number on a list.

Imprisonment and torture as a means to safeguard Israeli security have
distorted the identity of Palestinian prisoners. If the transformation and
misrepresentation of torture into the lesser of many evils can be removed
from the international consciousness, then there is a chance that Israel
and other states could be called to account for their crimes. The
alternative is that the Palestinian struggle will be bludgeoned into
oblivion by Israel's torturers aided by the silence and complicity of its
friends and allies.

-----------------

Making the case for Israel Apartheid Week

*For two student activists in Washington D.C., Israel Apartheid Week – and
using the term ‘apartheid’ – is an opportunity to alter perceptions and the
discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whereas
‘occupation’ defines Israel/Palestine as a military struggle with ambiguous
moral implications, ‘apartheid’ describes a civil rights struggle with a
clear moral imperative.*

By Joshua B. Michaels and Benjamin L. Mandel
<http://972mag.com/making-the-case-for-israel-apartheid-week/68297/jvp-2/>

Jewish Voice for Peace supporters in Washington D.C. January 19, 2013
(Photo: Joshua B. Michaels)

This month, cities and campuses across the U.S. participated in the 9th
Annual Israeli Apartheid Week. As the apartheid paradigm becomes more and
more pervasive throughout American political discourse when discussing
Israel, it is fair to ask: what is meant by “apartheid?”

Here, clarifications are in order: We are not talking about a system of
oppression identical to apartheid South Africa. What we are talking about
is a system that is similar to the oppression of South Africa, but also
unique. The occupation in Israel/Palestine is more extreme than the older
apartheid, while the segregation inside Israel proper is somewhat milder.
We believe that in law and in spirit, the term “Israeli Apartheid” is fair
when describing the sum of that regime. Instead of presenting a technical
argument about whether the term is appropriate (more qualified figures have
already done so), we want to argue why applying this term, and supporting
Israeli Apartheid Week, are so important.

One of the biggest challenges to changing the status quo in the region is
that the Israeli narrative dominates American media. Framing the discussion
has been one of Israel’s strongest and most successful weapons against the
Palestinians for the last 66 years. In the American media, Israel is almost
always the protagonist. Even unflattering reports tend to elicit sympathy
for the Israeli position. This is only just beginning to change, and slowly.

The most prominent example is the widely accepted understanding of the
occupation. While the occupation itself is not viewed positively, the
American media portrays it on Israel’s terms. For viewers here in the U.S.,
the term “occupation” invokes a temporary situation (in reality it is
endless) based on security needs, which paints Israel as the victim.
Adopting the term “apartheid” will re-direct this discussion away from
Israeli anxiety and toward the everyday suffering of Palestinians. The
oppressed will become the new protagonists. Occupation defines Israel/
Palestine as a military struggle with ambiguous moral implications, whereas
apartheid describes a civil rights struggle with a clear moral imperative.
It is this redistribution of sympathy, which makes Israeli Apartheid Week
so powerful, and it is especially valuable in reaching out to American Jews
for whom civil rights is almost secular religion.

Generally, apartheid week involves campuses and cities hosting talks
relating to the nature of Israel’s apartheid system, and promotes the
tactics laid out in the global BDS call <http://www.bdsmovement.net/call>.
This is another important development because in our own history Americans
have used similar tactics to right societal wrongs, from Montgomery to
South Africa. Whether or not one supports such measures against Israel at
large, or only against specific targets, we believe that Israel will not
reform from within and international pressure is the only way to force a
change. Such pressure will only follow widespread awareness and Apartheid
Week has already grown rapidly over the last nine years. We believe that if
the term is used by more and more actors; the more people read it in the
paper, see it on the news, and hear it on the streets, the less it can be
avoided.

Apartheid Week is therefore a chance to influence communities who are not
being taught the realities of the conflict or never took the time to
question the accepted narrative. We hope that when these realities become
obvious, the demand for change will mount.

In our own experience on American campuses, we have already seen how
effective the new Apartheid lexicon can be. After a recent screening of the
film Roadmap to Apartheid at American University, a score of young student
activists stayed after the film to discuss the validity and effectiveness
of the apartheid claim. Certainly the discussion about how to best describe
and combat Israel’s system of occupation and segregation should not end
here, but there was a unanimous feeling that just four years ago, when many
of us started out with Palestinian activism at American University, it was
much more difficult to criticize Israel at all.

We believe IAW has contributed to the growth of a community of impassioned
activists who understand that there is a system in place, which makes
Palestinians prisoners in their own homes and Israelis prisoners of their
own fear. And among them are a growing coalition of American Jews, who are
speaking out because they are Jewish, not in spite of it.

*Joshua B. Michaels is a student at American University, and the founder
and president of the university’s chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace.
Benjamin L. Mandel is the Jewish Voice for Peace liaison to the chapter at
American University, where he is an alumnus.*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/laamn@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to