I've been wondering how to answer Robert Adam Molnar's rather childish and thoughtless attempt to throw some fashionably anti-Israel sentiment into an unrelated essay, without backing his words up in any way (I should have such gall. Many a beloved post has found its way into that great recycle factory in cyberspace, because I couldn't substantiate it).

This is much better than I could ever have put it:

As an advocate, teacher and student of human rights for almost 40 years, I feel confident in asserting that Israel's record on human rights is among the best in the world, especially among nations that have confronted comparable threats.

Israel has the only independent judiciary in the entire Middle East. Its Supreme Court, one of the most highly regarded in the world, is the only court in the Middle East from which an Arab or a Muslim can expect justice, as many have found in winning dozens of victories against the Israeli government, the Israeli military and individual Israeli citizens. There is no more important component in the protection of human rights and civil liberties than an independent judiciary willing to stand up to its own government. I challenge the proponents of divestment to name a court in any Arab or Muslim country that is comparable to the Israeli Supreme Court.

As the only true democracy in the Middle East, Israel is the only country in the region that has virtually unlimited freedom of speech. Any person in Israel — whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian — can criticize the Israeli government and its leaders. No citizen of any other Middle Eastern or Muslim state can do that without fear of imprisonment or death. As one wag recently put it, citizens of Israel and the Palestinian Authority have exactly the same right of free speech — both may criticize Israel and praise Yasser Arafat.

Israel is the only country in the world that has openly confronted the difficult issue of protecting the civil liberties of the ticking bomb terrorist. The Israeli Supreme Court recently ruled that despite the potential benefits of employing "physical pressure" (that is, using non-lethal torture in order to extract information), such pressure is now illegal in Israel (See my comment about this further down - IJ). Brutal torture, including lethal torture, is commonplace in nearly every other Middle Eastern and Muslim country. Indeed, American authorities sometimes send suspects to Egypt, Jordan and the Philippines precisely because they know that they will be tortured in those countries.

The list could go on and on, and by every single standard Israel would surpass other countries against which no divestiture petition has been directed. To be sure, Israel is far from perfect. I have been critical of some of its policies, as have countless Israeli citizens. Crucially, there are mechanisms within Israel for improving its civil liberties and human rights record. These mechanisms do not exist in other Middle Eastern and Muslim nations.

Even when judged against European nations, Israel's human rights record does very well. It is far better than that of France on virtually any criterion, even if one forgets about the Algerian War, in which the French military tortured and murdered thousands of people. It is least as good as the British record in dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland. The Israeli legal system is far superior to that of Italy, Spain and many other European countries.

It’s by Alan Dershowitz, in case you didn’t recognize it. You can read the rest here.

With regard to torture (you’ll remember Mr. Molnar claims that torture was not illegal in Israel till 1999):

I would first like to point out that I have no legal knowledge or training. What I am about to say is how I understand things, based on what I have read. Legal experts may find my understanding lacking. I apologize if I have misunderstood and therefore may be misleading readers.

When I read young Mr. Molnar's claim, I saw red, because it ignores the years of open public debate on this subject in Israel; it ignores the rule of law in Israel and it ignores the objective conditions that led to the question arising in the first place. It conveys the impression that the horrific, unlimited and unrestrained torture prevalent in dark regimes is what happens in Israel. This is obviously what Mr. Molnar, in his ignorance, believes.

Tamar Gaulan, Adv., Director, Human Rights and International Relations Dept., State of Israel, Ministry of Justice, December 1996:

Israeli law strictly forbids all forms of torture or maltreatment. The Israeli Penal Code (1977) prohibits the use of force or violence against a person for the purpose of extorting from him a confession to an offense or information relating to an offense. Israel signed and ratified the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Humiliating Treatment.

The State of Israel maintains that the basic human rights of all persons under its jurisdiction must never be violated, regardless of the crimes that the individual may have committed. Israel recognizes, however, its responsibility to protect the lives of both Jews and Arabs from harm at the hands of Palestinian terrorist organizations active throughout the world. To prevent terrorism effectively while ensuring that the basic human rights of even the most dangerous of criminals are protected, the Israeli authorities have adopted strict rules for the handling of interrogations. These guidelines are designed to enable investigators to obtain crucial information on terrorist activities or organizations from suspects who, for obvious reasons, would not volunteer information on their activities, while ensuring that the suspects are not maltreated.

These guidelines, set down by the Landau Commission in 1987, are as follows:

1. Disproportionate exertion of pressure on the suspect is not permissible. Pressure must never reach the level of physical torture or maltreatment of the suspect, or grievous harm to his honor which deprives him of his human dignity.

2. The use of less serious measures must be weighed against the degree of anticipated danger, according to the information in the possession of the interrogator.

3. The physical and psychological means of pressure permitted for use by an interrogator must be defined and limited in advance, by issuing binding directives.

4. There must be strict supervision of the implementation in practice of the directives given to GSS interrogators.

5. The interrogators' supervisors must react firmly and without hesitation to every deviation from the permissible, imposing disciplinary punishment, and in serious cases, causing criminal proceedings to be instituted against the offending interrogator.

These are the guidelines of what the Landau Commission called the use of “moderate physical pressure”. You can read a bit about exactly what this means and the sort of people subjected to this, here.

So what happened in 1999 to give young Mr. Molnar (and some other folks, judging by my “comments”) the impression that torture had been outlawed in Israel that year (and not previously)? On September 6 1999, nine Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled that the interrogation methods of the General Security Service (also known as the Shabak or the Shin Bet) which involve the use of moderate physical pressure (according to the guidelines of the Landau Commission) are not legal, according to already existing Israeli law. The judges pointed out that it is for the Legislator (i.e. the Knesset) to decide if it is appropriate to make an exception in the case of the interrogation of terrorists that could lead to the discovery of “ticking time-bombs”.

So what happened in 1999, in effect, was that the Supreme Court decided that even the moderate physical pressure, restricted by strict guidelines, set down in the recommendations of the Landau Commission were actually contrary to existing law in Israel.

The 1999 high court decision meant that the Landau Commission was actually out of line in its recommendations, because this is a question for the Legislator, who would have to CHANGE THE LETTER OF THE LAW to allow even moderate physical pressure, and it is not for the judicial system or for a judicial commission to decide on this matter. According to existing law, they maintained, physical pressure during interrogation, however moderate and taking the circumstances into account, is illegal.

On principle, I am opposed to physical pressure during interrogation. I am of the belief that it is possible to extract information from a suspect using interrogation methods that do not involve physical violence. Information extracted without physical violence is likely to be more reliable.

Our problem here is the element of time. Effective interrogation of a suspect that is in possession of information about an imminent terrorist attack, which endangers people’s lives, does not allow for the gradual development of the necessary psychological pressure that can yield crucial information.

We are told, on the news that the Shabak and the Police manage to prevent 90% of terrorist attacks. Its worth asking, given the situation we now find ourselves in, of nearly daily murderous terrorist attacks on defenseless civilians, how many people could be said to have died as a result of the Shabak giving suspected terrorists "kidd glove treatment" and refraining from any physical pressure whatsoever.