July 7, 1993
Office of the Attorney General
State of Israel
Israel's Comments on the
1992 Amnesty International Annual Report
The Amnesty International 1992 Report has just been published. We regret
that we feel compelled to point out that the section on Israel (the
"Report") is marred by a lack of balance and the use of misleading
terminology. It frequently relies upon unsubstantiated claims and
generalizes from atypical examples in a manner which causes the reader
to erroneously conclude that abuses are widespread. It also completely
ignores Israel's active participation in the peace talks and the
unilateral concessions Israel has made to advance them.
The Report falls to fulfill the landmark commitment undertaken by
Amnesty at its 1991 International Council Meeting in Yokohama, Japan.
According to that decision, AI committed itself to fully investigate and
condemn human rights abuses practiced by what it euphemistically
referred to as "armed political opposition groups." For instance, the
Report gives short shrift to attacks against Israelis. The Report's
cursory remarks fail to detail the reign of terror which included 800
attacks with knives, machetes, axes, etc., 454 attacks with firearms and
live ammunition, 82 grenades thrown and 134 explosive devices set off,
all inside the administered areas. In 1992, 18 soldiers and members of
the security forces were killed and 21 Israeli civilians were murdered,
including 9 inside the Green Line. These figures represent a 1,200
percent increase in the number of soldiers and security personnel killed
from last year and a 70 percent increase for civilians murdered. In
addition, intifada attackers injured 233 Israeli civilians and 650 IDF
soldiers.
The Report's coverage of Palestinian terrorism committed against other
Palestinians is also incomplete. Although naming the PLO and the Hamas
as perpetrators of these attacks, the Report fails to refer to these
groups for what they are: terrorist organizations. The Report states
that over 200 Palestinians were murdered by fellow Palestinians during
1992. The exact figure was 239, about twice the number killed in clashes
with Israeli security forces. The Report decontextualizes the figures it
cites for Palestinians arrested and killed in the administered areas.
The IDF's use of force occurred against a background of 28,392 public
disturbances, 1,043 petrol bomb attacks, 211 cases of arson, as well as
the shooting and grenade attacks noted above.
The Report fails to note that during 1992, the number of administrative
detainees dropped to its lowest level since the beginning of the
intifada. Administrative detention is expressly authorized by article 78
of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949). Even so, Israel employs
administrative detention, with extensive legal safeguards, only when
ordinary criminal procedures would jeopardize the lives of witnesses or
reveal classified information.
The Report states that the number of days a minor can be held before
being brought before a judge has been reduced from 18 to eight. It
should be noted that in early 1993, the same reduction was also
instituted for adults suspected of committing all but the most serious
offenses.
The Report mentions the expulsion of 415 Hamas and Islamic Jihad
militants, leaders of a terrorist network bent on the disruption of the
peace process and the destruction of the State of Israel. It ignores the
fact that these expulsions were of a temporary nature. Shortly after the
expulsions, the Supreme Court of Israel heard petitions on behalf of the
expellees. In a carefully weighed and unanimous decision, the Court
found that the expellees' incitement had directly led to six deaths in
one week, including the brutal kidnapping and murder of police officer
Nissim Toledano (The Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. Minister
of Defense, HCJ 5973/92). Nevertheless, the Government of Israel, in
order to advance the peace process offered to allow the immediate return
of 126 expellees and to shorten by half the period of expulsion of the
others. These gestures were rejected by the expellees. Similarly, the,
expellees have not taken advantage of the appeals tribunals established
pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision.
The Report consistently fails to give a full and fair description of the
activities of those it characterizes as victims of Israeli human rights
violations. For example, the six Lebanese Shi'a Muslim detainees
referred to by Amnesty are all members of or associated with the
Hizbollah, a fanatical Iranian-backed terrorist group. The Hizbollah
openly pursues its self-stated goal: eliminating the State of Israel
through terrorist violence. The detainees were all involved in terrorist
activities in Lebanon. They are being held legally in Israel, and their
detention is subject to continuous judicial review. As with every
detainee in Israel, the Lebanese detainees receive full medical care and
their religious practices are completely respected.
The Report's use of the term "prisoners of conscience" with regard to
Palestinians held by Israeli authorities is not in accord with Amnesty's
stated policy, i.e. that Amnesty will "not demand the release of anyone
imprisoned for using or for advocating violence." (AI Handbook p. 28)
For instance, both Sarni Abu Samhadanah and Nayef Sweitat have been
involved in terrorist activities on behalf of the Fatah faction of the
PLO for many years. As senior Fatah commanders, they directed violent
demonstrations, recruited new members and planned terrorist activities.
In 1990, Samhadanah was placed under administrative detention for acts
which included the establishment of contacts with a terrorist
organization in Egypt and the receipt of money to further his terrorist
activities. Sweitat transferred funds to armed Fatah terrorists who
committed attacks against Israeli security forces. Information also
indicates that Sweitat ordered the violent interrogation of local Arab
residents suspected of cooperating with Israeli authorities, Walid Zaqut
is a commander in the Abd-Rabu faction of the DFLP terrorist
organization. Upon his arrest in 1989, he admitted to taking part in
organizational meetings which directed and coordinated terrorist
activities in the Gaza Strip.
The Report also includes as prisoners of conscience Israeli soldiers who
refuse to perform certain duties, such as service in the administered
areas. This is misguided. As citizens of a democracy, Israeli soldiers
are encouraged to vote, join political parties and shape their
government and its policies, However, the IDF itself is non-political
and must carry out the policies of Israel's democratically elected
government. The IDF could not effectively fulfill its mission to defend
the State of Israel if Amnesty's viewpoint were implemented. As the
Israeli Supreme Court stated in Elgazi v. Minister of Defense, "No
military system can reconcile itself with the existence of a principle
whereby soldiers can dictate to it where they will serve..." (HCJ
470/80). Few, if any, democracies permit selective conscientious
objection. British soldier Vic Williams received 14 months imprisonment
for desertion during the Gulf War. The United States sentenced 32 of its
soldiers to 4 to 30 month prison terms for their refusal to serve in the
Gulf War. By contrast, the IDF typically sentences selective objectors
to terms of less than one month.
The Report's claim of systematic torture or ill-treatment during
interrogation lacks any basis in fact. Israeli law strictly forbids all
forms of torture and maltreatment. Israel has also signed and ratified
the U.N. Convention Against Torture, and Cruel, Inhuman or Humiliating
Treatment. In order to maintain its commitment to human rights while
effectively confronting the threat of terrorism, in 1987, Israel adopted
strict guidelines on interrogation, established by the Landau Commission
of Inquiry. Under the guidelines, physical means of pressure are
strictly limited and are only allowed when questioning a suspected
terrorist who is concealing plans for future attacks, or other vital
information which could save innocent lives. The techniques employed
must never reach the level of physical torture or maltreatment, or
deprive a terrorist suspect of his human dignity.
As recommended by the Landau Commission, a Special Ministerial
Committee, headed by the Prime Minister, was formed to review the
guidelines, After the June, 1992 elections, a new Ministerial Committee,
headed by the Prime Minister, and including the Ministers of Justice and
Police continued reviewing the guidelines and recently issued certain
modifications. Finally, the Supreme Court is currently hearing a case,
challenging the legality of the guidelines and urging that specific
methods used by the interrogators be made, public. Naturally, whatever
the High Court rules will become the law of the land.
In attributing several specific deaths to maltreatment during detention,
the Report completely ignores the findings of Dr. Yehuda Hiss, Director
of the Greenberg Legal Medicine Institute, who actually performed the
autopsies himself, as well as investigations conducted by the Police and
the State and District Attorney offices.
For instance, in the case of Mustafa Akawi, Dr. Hiss determined that
death was caused by heart disease a preexisting illness unknown to
either the General Security Service investigators or Akawi and
undiscoverable through the routine medical examination that Akawi
underwent upon entering the detention facility. Contrary to Amnesty's
unnamed pathologist, Dr. Hiss concluded that Akawi's death was
definitely not the, result of physical pressure, although the conditions
of his detention and the circumstances preceding his death may have
affected the onset of his heart failure. The State Attorney determined
that no causal connection could be proven and closed the file. The
investigation of Akawi's death did find that the prison medic had not
acted in accordance with professional norms of behavior and that the
on-duty General Security Services officer did not act in accordance with
what was expected of him under the circumstance. Although it was
determined that their conduct neither caused nor contributed to Akawi's
death, the State Attorney recommended that disciplinary measures be
taken against them. Clearly, the handful of cases cited by the Report do
not substantiate its claim of systematic torture or ill-treatment.
Even under AI's loose definition for extrajudicial executions ("unlawful
and deliberate killings carried out by order of a government or with its
complicity or acquiescence,", Appendix X, p. 352), the Report's
application of the term to Israel's use of force in the administered
areas is manifestly unfair and inappropriate. The reasonable and
proportionate use of force by the IDF to prevent terrorist attacks and
preserve and restore safety in the streets cannot be described as
"unlawful". Indeed, Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, the relevant
international Jaw, obligates Israel to maintain public order and
security in the administered areas.
Moreover, AI's use of the term "executions" is inconsistent with the
common meaning of the term. True cases of extrajudicial execution are
the kidnapping, interrogation, torture, and subsequent murder of
Palestinian "collaborators" by the Hamas and the PLO. The Report itself
cites the case of Jamal Faddah. In December, Faddah was dragged from his
house and shot in the street, before an assembled crowd and a news
photographer in broad daylight, upon the orders of the Fatah leadership.
If this is not a clear case of an extrajudicial execution, then what is?
In their use of force, IDF soldiers operate under strict guidelines so
as to safeguard human rights. IDF soldiers may not open fire unless: a)
their lives or those of civilians are in immediate danger; or b) they
are apprehending an escaping suspect whom they have reason to believe
has committed a life-endangering crime. In the latter situation,
security forces may only fire single, aimed shots at the suspect's legs
or, if he is in a vehicle, at its tires, and only after sufficient prior
warning has been given. The IDF regulations concerning live fire are
based on accepted legal principles and are compatible with international
law. The regulations have been challenged before the Israeli Supreme
Court and upheld (League for Human and Civil Rights in Israel v.
Minister of Defense, HCJ 66/89).
Again in the case of Jamal Ghanem, wanted for violent acts against
security forces and local Arab residents, the Report gives a prejudicial
and incomplete description of tile relevant circumstances. The case was
referred to the Attorney General who requested that an investigation be
commenced by the police. The undercover officers stated that they called
out in Arabic. "Stop, Army", and Arab witnesses confirmed that the
police initially fired warning shots. However, Ghanem continued to run
towards a hole in the fence. As police fired at his legs, he slipped in
a puddle and was hit in the torso. One of the officers, a medic, began
to administer first aid, and contrary to the Report, an ambulance did
arrive on the scene.
Unfortunately, because of the large-scale intifada violence and
terrorism IDF troops have been confronted with, deviations from the
established guidelines have occurred. Allegations of misconduct are
regularly investigated and prosecuted by the IDF. In 1992, 34 soldiers
were subject to courts-martial for violating IDF rules. Only two of
these cases have resulted in acquittals. In addition, others have been
demoted or otherwise disciplined for minor deviations.
The Report labels the solitary confinement of Mordechai Vanunu, "cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment." This assertion is unsupported by any
international or local law. Vanunu, a worker at Israel's Atomic Research
Reactor in Dimona, was convicted in 1988 on three charges of espionage
and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. Vanunu has clearly declared his
intention to make public additional secret information at his first
opportunity. In order to prevent him from revealing further secrets, and
to keep other inmates from harming him in light of his crimes, the
Commissioner of Prisons decided that Vanunu should remain In solitary
confinement. The Jerusalem District Court upheld the Commissioner's
order in July, 1991. Nevertheless, Vanunu enjoys many privileges. For
instance, his cell is larger than the standard size in Israeli prisons
and has its own adjoining lavatory and shower. He spends time outdoors
daily. He has a radio and walkman tape-player with many cassettes, as
well as a television and video. Vanunu is allowed to receive without any
limitation as to subject matter as many books and newspapers as he
wishes. His lawyer may see him in private at any time, and his family is
permitted to visit him once every two weeks.
The Report's coverage of the case of John Demjanjuk is incomplete and
highly misleading. it disregards his conviction for atrocities committed
while, operating the gas-chamber at Treblinka, a Nazi death camp. The
Report also fails to mention that Israel has imposed the death penalty
only once before in its history, in 1962, against the architect of the
Nazi genocide, Adolf Eichmann. Thus, the Report distorts the role of the
death penalty in the Israeli Justice system. Moreover, by raising this
issue alongside allegations related to the Palestinian uprising, the
Report confuses two entirely different matters.
In conclusion, a fairer assessment of Israel's human rights record would
have given equal treatment to violations committed by Palestinian terror
groups and would have placed in context the use of force by the IDF in
the administered areas. The Report should also have noted that despite
an upsurge in violence by Palestinian terrorists, Israel has pressed on
in its peace discussions with Palestinians from the administered areas,
and with its Arab neighbors. Finally, it is regrettable that the Report,
under the guise of addressing murders by the Hamas and the PLO, provides
these terrorist groups a platform for justifying their wanton violence.
There can be no equation between measures implemented by the Government
of Israel to maintain public order and safety, and the deliberate and
brutal killings perpetrated by terrorist organizations.