Shin Bet evidence proposal confirms official ambivalence towards detainees’ rights

Citing the redundant, yet still macabre metaphor of the “war on terror”, Israel’s domestic intelligence agency, Shin Bet, has requested amendments to the law which would allow for evidence not sworn in court to be used as testimony against defendants, even prior to investigation. According to Ma’an news agency, an unidentified Shin Bet official declared that the agency “has been forced to release many terrorists and will continue to do so without a major change to the laws.” The premise was endorsed by Israel’s attorney general Yehuda Weinsten, who said that the change would “bring justice to terrorists who otherwise get put in administrative detention.”

The Knesset legal committee’s advisor objected, stating that such a clause would contradict basic principles of criminal law and deprive the defendant of the right to cross-examine the accuser. However, the objection was countered quickly by support from the parliamentary committee members, who exhibited the usual Israeli penchant for violating human rights. Committee members from both the Jewish Home Party and Likud approved Shin Bet’s suggestion. According to committee chairman Nissan Slomiansky it is permissible “to deviate from criminal law when dealing with terror.” MK Haim Jelin called the proposal to include incriminating statements made out of court as “humane” and asserted, “I don’t care about cross-examination.” A very revealing statement was made by Likud MK Anat Berko: “The war on terror is not an exact science. We must give the forces the tools to gather as much intelligence as possible.”

Apart from perfecting colonialism, Israel has proved to be dependent upon discrepancies which it can then manipulate to suit its purposes. The use of administrative detention sanctioned by international law in exceptional circumstances has provided Israel with justification for the routine application of the British-Mandate era process, although the “exceptional circumstance” in this case is simply the intention to demonstrate the ideology of Greater Israel through colonial expansion. The combination of evidence not sworn in court and administrative detention is a lethal cocktail for Palestinian political prisoners. It is unclear what kind of justice Weinstein means by claiming that the proposed amendment could serve as an alternative to unlimited detention with neither charge nor trial.

It is unlikely that the use of administrative detention will dwindle if the amendment is approved; at the moment, estimates Addameer, Israel is holding at least 600 political prisoners in this way. Indeed, given the extent of Israel’s existing and very serious human rights violations under the pretext of security concerns, the nature of how evidence or testimony is obtained or utilised is part and parcel of the well-established practice of extracting false confessions through torture.

Despite the differences between the punitive methods practiced and proposed by Israel, the outcome is unlikely to make that much difference to its oppression of the Palestinians. The premise for non-sworn testimony and administrative detention is one that induces intentional ambivalence towards the rights of detainees, which can be used for Israel’s benefit. Exploiting the possibility of “better” statistics regarding incarcerated Palestinians will produce more security rhetoric and facilitate further impunity internationally. Such an objective has to be assessed and promoted constantly in order to uphold the fable of Israel’s much-heralded but actually invalid legitimacy.

Also read:

• MK: Netanyahu government failing to protect settlements on Gaza periphery.
• PA hails Swedish calls to probe Israeli crimes.
• Five Videos Israel Doesn’t Want You To See.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.