Israeli Torture of Palestinians

The Supreme Court’s judgment in HCJ 5100/94, Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. State of Israel, established that the General Security Service lacked legal authority to employ specified physical interrogation methods.[1] The case addressed shaking, painful positioning and restraint, and sleep deprivation, while distinguishing unavoidable tiredness during questioning from deliberately prolonged deprivation intended to break a suspect.[1] It also separated the authority to conduct an interrogation from the possibility that an individual interrogator might subsequently invoke the criminal-law defense of necessity.[1]

The subject extends beyond interrogation techniques to treatment in prisons, military detention facilities, and the conditions in which Palestinians are held.[2] Accounts concerning these settings include physical and sexual violence, threats, food and water restrictions, extreme temperatures, prolonged isolation, and inadequate medical care.[2] Some accounts concern allegations by former detainees or human-rights organizations; others concern official descriptions of interrogation policy, criminal charges, or court findings against particular defendants.[2][4]

Israeli authorities have stated that interrogations operate under the 1999 ruling and have described complaint procedures, legal supervision, and monitoring of interrogation rooms.[5] At the same time, the government has acknowledged using exceptional interrogation measures while withholding their details and frequency on security grounds.[2] Military courts have convicted soldiers of detainee abuse, including a reservist who admitted beating bound and blindfolded detainees at Sde Teiman during 2024.[4] These legal proceedings and oversight arrangements form part of the record[4][5] alongside complaints about the treatment of Palestinian detainees and the handling of their allegations.[2]

The Israeli government appointed the Landau Commission in 1987 to examine the General Security Service’s interrogation methods.[6] The commission recommended predominantly psychological pressure and permitted “moderate physical pressure” in limited circumstances involving considerable anticipated danger, including situations in which information could prevent an imminent killing or provide vital intelligence unavailable elsewhere.[6] Public controversies during the 1980s had exposed severe physical abuse in interrogations, and the commission also criticized deceptive practices associated with the interrogation system.[7]

The resulting framework relied on the criminal-law defense of necessity to justify limited unlawful acts in emergencies and included an undisclosed appendix specifying actions and their permitted duration and intensity.[8] It guided security-service interrogation practices from 1987 until the Supreme Court’s September 1999 ruling.[8] A later historical account also described complaints, deaths in custody, and instances in which the Landau rules were exceeded at an interrogation facility in Gaza.[7]

Petitions challenging interrogation methods had been pending since 1994 when an expanded panel of nine judges delivered its decision on September 6, 1999.[8] The state maintained that physical pressure was used in extreme circumstances, particularly when an imminent attack was feared.[9] Petitioners described shaking, beatings, painful restraint, prolonged sleep deprivation, the “Shabach” position, and the “frog crouch.”[9] The Court did not individually examine every factual description in each petition, but it addressed the authority to employ the methods and the legal arguments offered in their defense.[9]

The judgment held that the service lacked authority under the law then in force to shake suspects, use the specified Shabach and frog-crouch positions, or deprive suspects of sleep beyond what interrogation inherently required.[1] It rejected the proposition that necessity could supply advance authorization or standing instructions for these methods.[1] A possible necessity defense could instead arise afterward, when deciding whether to prosecute an interrogator or during criminal proceedings.[1] The judgment also stated that torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment were prohibited.[1]

International scrutiny continued after the ruling.[10] In 2001, the UN Committee Against Torture welcomed both the judgment and a security-service directive requiring personnel to follow it, while expressing concerns about the formulation of the prohibition, sleep deprivation, and the possible invocation of necessity in extreme cases.[10] Its observations also addressed continuing allegations of prohibited methods against Palestinian detainees, allegations involving Palestinian minors, and the small number of prosecutions of alleged perpetrators.[10]

Recommendations associated with Israel’s fifth periodic review in 2016 called for incorporating a specific offense of torture and an absolute prohibition into domestic law, including unequivocal rejection of the necessity defense.[11] They also called for applying the Convention Against Torture throughout territories within Israel’s jurisdiction, including the occupied territories, and addressed detention oversight, legal counsel, medical care, investigation, and victims’ access to redress.[11]

Israel’s 2020 periodic report described its interrogation policy as operating in accordance with the 1999 judgment and maintained the confidentiality of methods and internal procedures.[5] Reports covering 2022 and 2023 nevertheless continued to describe the absence of a specific statutory prohibition of torture, alongside prohibitions on physical force, assault, or pressure by public officials.[2][12] They also recorded the state attorney’s position that exceptional interrogation methods could be exempt from prosecution when the Ministry of Justice subsequently determined that an imminent threat had existed.[2][12]

The Shabach method examined in the 1999 judgment combined several elements: a suspect seated on a low chair with hands tied behind the back, a covered head, and loud music.[1] The state did not deny using the method but argued that the restraints, covering, and music served security purposes.[1] The Court found that the combined method caused pain and suffering and was not authorized as a fair interrogation technique.[1] Its treatment of sleep deprivation likewise focused on purpose and duration: incidental sleep loss during lengthy questioning differed from prolonged deprivation intended to exhaust or break the person being questioned.[1]

Later allegations concerning exceptional interrogation measures included beatings, prolonged stress positions, incommunicado detention, painful pressure from restraints, sexual harassment, threats of rape or other harm, religious humiliation, sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme heat or cold, and threats against detainees’ families.[12] Accounts of interrogation cells described insect infestation, unsanitary conditions, inadequate food and water, constant lighting, and extreme temperatures.[12] In 2021, 75 cases of alleged physical torture during interrogation were compiled through interviews and examinations of Palestinians incarcerated or formerly detained on suspicion of security offenses.[12]

A Palestinian petitioner whose case was reported in 2015 alleged painful handcuffing, shaking, sleep deprivation, loud noises, poor nutrition, and threats during a two-month detention.[13] The security service maintained that it operated within the law and was subject to internal and external review.[13] In another case reported in 2019, Samer Arbid was hospitalized with serious injuries after interrogation; his wife and lawyers alleged severe beatings, and the Justice Ministry’s detainee-complaints unit began examining the case.[14] The security service did not officially confirm that exceptional measures had been used against him.[14]

Accounts after October 7, 2023, described physical and sexual violence against Palestinian detainees, intimidation, severe restrictions on food and water, exposure to extreme cold without sufficient clothing, and prolonged isolation.[2] These accounts drew on detention-facility visits, detainee testimony, and local press reporting.[2] Human-rights organizations highlighted 19 reports of severe abuse, including six Palestinians who died in Israeli custody after October 7, and raised concerns that abuse or medical neglect might have contributed to several deaths.[2]

Palestinian workers from Gaza who were returned there in early November 2023 described beatings, electric shocks, attacks with dogs, being urinated on, and detention for days without food or water.[2] They also reported confiscation of phones and cash.[2] Related accounts characterized their detention as taking place without charge, due process, or legal representation.[2]

A July 2024 account of a UN human-rights report included allegations of waterboarding, electric shocks, sleep deprivation, use of dogs, prolonged nakedness and blindfolding, and deprivation of food and water.[15] The underlying material relied primarily on interviews with released detainees and other victims and witnesses, supplemented by information from government offices, UN agencies, media, and social media.[15] The military stated that abuse was forbidden and investigated when warranted, and that deaths in its custody were investigated by military police; the prison service stated that it complied with the law and was unaware of the claims described.[15]

Sde Teiman became a particular focus of attention during 2024.[16][17] The state described it as a temporary initial reception, interrogation, and screening facility established for detainees from Gaza after October 7.[17] Increased arrests and limited prison capacity resulted in some detainees remaining there longer than planned.[17] Accounts from three Israeli employees and more than a dozen former Gaza detainees described blindfolding and restraints, some detainees wearing diapers, and injured patients reportedly tied to beds and fed through straws in a field hospital.[16] Approximately 70 detainees were described as being held in one section under extreme restraint.[16]

The military stated that restraints were determined by risk and health condition, that allegations of misconduct were investigated when warranted, and that it knew of no unlawful restraint.[16] In May 2024, the chief of staff, with the defense minister’s approval, appointed an advisory committee to examine conditions and treatment in military facilities including Sde Teiman, Anatot, and Ofer.[18] The military advocate general stated that 70 investigations had been opened since the beginning of the war, including investigations involving Sde Teiman conditions and deaths in military custody.[18]

Human-rights groups also petitioned the High Court to close Sde Teiman.[17] In submissions concerning the facility, the state said it was improving conditions and transferring detainees elsewhere.[17] It reported that the population had fallen from 700 to 166 by July 9, 2024, with additional transfers planned.[17]

A separate criminal case concerned an incident involving a Palestinian detainee in July 2024.[19] Five reservists, including two officers, were charged in an indictment alleging that they kicked, stepped on, dragged, and used a Taser against a handcuffed and blindfolded detainee.[19] The indictment described seven broken ribs, a punctured lung, a rectal tear, and internal bleeding requiring surgery and a colostomy.[19] The defendants denied the charges, and suspected sexual offenses considered at the outset of the investigation were not included in the indictment.[19]

In a distinct, adjudicated case, a reservist admitted grave abuse while guarding detainees at Sde Teiman between January and June 2024.[4] The military court found that he beat bound and blindfolded detainees with his fists and weapon and humiliated them by coercing statements and animal sounds, which he recorded on his phone.[4] On February 6, 2025, he received seven months’ imprisonment, less 80 days already served, and was demoted to private.[4]

Further detainee accounts continued into 2025.[20] Sami al-Saee described sexual assault and beatings at Megiddo Prison during 16 months of administrative detention without charge.[20] The prison service said it was unaware of those allegations and that such incidents had not, to its knowledge, occurred under its responsibility.[20] Another former detainee, identified by a pseudonym, alleged sexual abuse involving a prison dog and said he lacked medical documents proving the abuse; no prison-service response to that allegation was reported.[20]

The 1999 judgment made the statutory authority of interrogators a central legal issue: an emergency defense available to an individual afterward did not itself authorize an institution to establish coercive interrogation procedures beforehand.[1] Its reasoning connected the prohibition of torture and degrading treatment to the permissible conduct of security investigations.[1] The Court’s statement that democracy must sometimes fight with one hand tied behind its back expressed the constraints it placed on counterterrorism interrogation.[3]

Israel’s described complaint procedure begins with a preliminary examination by an Inspector, who may recommend criminal investigation, prosecution, disciplinary action, or other measures.[5] A senior State Attorney’s Office official reviews the findings, and the Deputy State Attorney decides whether to open a criminal investigation.[5] Israel also reported that Ministry of Justice supervisors began monitoring a closed-circuit feed from security-service interrogation rooms in 2018, with hundreds of monitoring hours during 2019–2020.[5] A former security-service chief separately said cameras had been installed from 2015 and that a Justice Ministry oversight official could view footage without prior notice.[14]

Complaint statistics have been a major element of accountability concerns.[12][13] A 2015 account described allegations that 850 torture complaints over several years had produced no investigation, while a state filing showed that complaints had increased fourfold since 2012.[13] Later figures indicated that more than 1,400 complaints concerning security-service torture had been submitted to the Ministry of Justice since 2001, with three criminal investigations and no indictments.[12] The average time to address complaints was reported as 44 months, including one preliminary examination pending for 97 months.[12] The Ministry of Justice separately stated that internal reviews had led to two investigations since 2018.[12]

During 2023, 12 complaints alleging torture by security-service personnel were filed with the Inspector of Interrogee Complaints, and 33 cases, including older complaints, remained pending at year’s end.[2] Accounts also described prisoners refraining from complaints because they feared reprisals.[2] A temporary law, repeatedly extended by the Knesset, exempted security-service and police interrogations of security-offense suspects from recording requirements applicable to certain serious criminal investigations.[21] Until October 7, 2023, the International Committee of the Red Cross visited prisons, detention facilities, and interrogation centers to monitor treatment and conditions; authorities did not permit its prison visits thereafter.[21]

Military prosecutions provide a separate route for addressing abuse by soldiers.[22] Military police investigators examine suspected offenses, and the Military Advocate General may bring soldiers before a court-martial.[22] In May 2023, a military court accepted a plea agreement involving two Golani Brigade soldiers convicted of abusing a Palestinian man and exceeding their authority in a manner endangering life or health.[2] One served 40 days in prison, the other received a suspended sentence, and both were convicted of obstruction of justice.[21] A separate case against a fourth soldier accused of aggravated assault, abuse, and threats remained pending at year’s end.[21]

Deaths in custody have also prompted investigations and demands for scrutiny.[2][15] Thaer Abu Assab, a Palestinian from the West Bank — known by its original, indigenous Jewish name of Judea and Samaria — died at Ketziot Prison on November 18, 2023, while serving a 25-year sentence following his 2005 arrest.[21] A fellow prisoner alleged that members of the prison service’s Keter unit beat him to death; 19 guards were reportedly detained for questioning on suspicion of assault and causing injury.[21] A media gag order remained in place until December 21, and a final opinion on the cause of death had not been received by year’s end.[2] An autopsy was reportedly conducted without notifying his family.[21]

Abed al-Rahman Mara’i, a West Bank resident held in administrative detention at Megiddo since February 2023, died on November 13.[2] Reported autopsy findings included bruising to the chest and other areas and broken ribs and breastbone.[2] A medical examiner reportedly said he had been under forceful restraint six days before his death; authorities’ investigations remained ongoing at year’s end.[2]

Figures published in 2024 covered different periods and custody systems.[15][23] A July account gave a UN figure of 53 Palestinian custody deaths, alongside 35 deaths under military investigation and 17 indicated by prison-service and prisoner-organization announcements, without reconciling those totals.[15] For calendar year 2024, the Palestinian Authority and nongovernmental organizations reported at least 43 Palestinian deaths in Israeli custody.[23] The same annual reporting recorded the government’s acknowledgment that police and the security service used violent interrogation methods termed exceptional measures, without Ministry of Justice disclosure of their frequency or specific form.[23]

The principal legal dispute concerns the relationship between the prohibition of torture and the possibility of a retrospective necessity defense.[1][10] The Supreme Court rejected advance authorization through necessity, while subsequent descriptions of government policy allowed possible exemption from prosecution for exceptional methods in cases later determined to involve imminent threats.[1][2] Former security-service chief Ami Ayalon described exceptional authorizations during his tenure as rare and subject to later review; legal scholar Eliav Lieblich argued that the retrospective defense had effectively become prior approval within the service.[14]

International assessments and Israeli responses have differed sharply.[24][25] During a UN periodic review, a committee rapporteur referred to reports appearing to describe systematic and widespread torture and ill-treatment, including against children; Israel rejected those claims and affirmed its commitment to its obligations.[24] Reporting on the committee’s November 2025 conclusions described its characterization of a de facto policy of organized and widespread torture, citing severe beatings, dog attacks, electric shocks, simulated drowning, sexual violence, denial of medical care, and restraints reportedly leading in some cases to amputations.[25] Israeli representatives denied torture and described detention conditions as adequate and monitored.[25]

The evidence also requires distinctions among allegations, indictments, and convictions.[4][19] The Sde Teiman reservist’s conviction establishes his abuse, not its prevalence throughout the facility, while the separate indictment against five reservists records charges denied by the defendants.[4][19] Similarly, custody-death totals do not establish that torture caused those deaths, and the reported causes in the Abu Assab and Mara’i cases remained unresolved at the close of 2023.[2][23] Concerns about possible command involvement in Sde Teiman abuse were raised as concerns rather than established findings.[22]