From Counterpunch, an interesting article on Israeli doublespeak. The pedant in me feels the need to point out that Orwell never used the term “doublespeak” in 1984. But it’s still a useful concept. Of course, neither Orwell nor the Israeli government ought to be blamed for inventing deliberately obscure political language. They simply provide, the former through cautionary fiction and essays, the latter through straight-faced political discourse, some of the most famous examples.
Take particular note of the deviously ingenious “moderate physical pressure,” because if it hasn’t yet been popularized in North America, it will be soon enough. It’s the neatest solution to the last gasps of moral conscience in the West: If 24 and ticking time bomb scenarios haven’t worn down public and legal resistance to human rights violations, one can simply redefine acts of torture as something other than torture.
Lea Tsemel, a defense lawyer and founder of the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) remarked, “Israel is the only Western country that openly uses torture. This is not some brute in the secret services beating up a prisoner. It’s done in the open. There is quiet legitimation by a high-ranking commission and government ministers” (New York Times, May 8, 1997).
…
A judgment issued this past June allows Shin Bet to use methods regarded by PCATI as torture when in a “ticking bomb” situation. With likely wide interpretation of this circumstance, it appears a green light has just been issued to reinstate the practice.
Redefinition and euphemism are endemic to any political discussion where straightforward language would reveal a serious error in thinking. The war against Afghanistan, for example, is never called a war (at least not here, where the idea of a “War on Terror” makes most right-thinking people cringe). It’s a “mission.” We don’t attack houses, schools, markets, and mosques; “they” use “human shields.”
I’m not sure if the rise in such language, particularly in journalism, is real or imagined; it certainly seems more widespread than it used to be (Stalinist Russia excepted, because I love the term “posthumous rehabilitation”). Once you start noticing these catchphrases, you can’t stop, and then you start to wonder whether their popularity is caused by collusion or simply sloppy thinking. Either way, they should be pointed out and held up for scrutiny as often as possible. When someone uses them, that person’s trying to slip something by the public that they wouldn’t otherwise stand for.
Are you sure doublespeak wasn’t in Orwell? I was pretty sure they had something akin to that in the book…they had doublethink, I know. So what did they call it when they were making language more “efficient”.
I don’t have a copy of 1984 to hand, but I believe Orwell coined “Newspeak” for the official language of Oceania, and “doublethink” as a Newspeak verb (The political slogans of the Party—”Freedom is slavery,” etc.—are examples of doublethink, and it’s made clear that once everything has been translated into Newspeak, you won’t even be able to express this level of abstract thought, since there won’t be any nouns for “freedom.”)
I think “doubletalk” and “doublespeak” were both coined after the publication of 1984; however, my Shorter Oxford here doesn’t give the etymology, so I’m not certain, so you shouldn’t quote me on that.
Sigh. Counterpunch is never a reliable source for information about Israel. Note that the PCATI quotation is from 1997. In 1999 the Israel Supreme Court held that the techniques that went by the euphemism “moderate physical pressure” were in fact torture and were illegal.
The Counterpunch article goes on to say that a June 2007 Israel Supreme Court decision holds that torture is permissible in “ticking time bomb” situations. This is false. There was no such June 2007 ruling. What there was, was a report issued June 7 by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, which alleges that in practice the Israeli security services are disobeying the 1999 ruling. The PCATI report details nine cases of maltreatment rising to the level of torture as defined in the 1999 ruling.
Counterpunch’s reference to a “green light” to reinstate torture legally is false. Whether the nine cases will result in legal action remains to be seen. What is clear is that the 1999 anti-torture ruling remains in place and no High Court ruling has altered it.
Bloix, I’m aware of Counterpunch’s spotty record, but it does mention the 1999 ruling and doesn’t say that it’s been officially altered.
My point was about language, though. When the term “torture” proved to be politically unpopular, they replaced it with a euphemism. (Much like “fence” has become a euphemism for “big honking concrete wall with armed guards.”) Torture happens, in Israel and elsewhere, with a measure of official sanction. Those who support these abuses tend to seek fuzzier definitions and terminology that allows them to slip in more acts that right-thinking people would find abhorrent if they were called by their common names.
Sabotabby, as the clip you excerpted from the Counterpunch article says:
“It took a ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1999 to ban the practice. Unfortunately they have now reversed themselves. A judgment issued this past June allows Shin Bet to use methods regarded by PCATI as torture when in a “ticking bomb” situation.”
These statements are false. The court has not reversed itself. There was no judgment issued in June on the question of turture. The Court did not authorize the Shin Bet to use torture when in a ticking time bomb situation.
I’ve read the PCATI press release and report and I can see how a person with no background knowledge, reading on those materials quickly, and making no effort to look for the non-existent “judgment issued this past June,” might have come to the conclusion that Counterpunch reaches. That doesn’t change the fact that they are wrong. As they often are.
PS- the history of the term “moderate physical pressure” may be relevant. In 1987, the Israeli government adopted a formal policy barring torture but permitting “moderate physical pressure” in interrogation. In 1999, the Supreme Court found that in practice no line could be or had been drawn between physical coercion short of torture and torture, and held that all physical coercion in interrogation was illegal and subject to criminal prosecution.
The odds that the term “moderate physical pressure,” which eight years ago was held to mean torture by the Israel Supreme Court, will be adopted in the US, is to my way of thinking approximately zero.
Bloix, you are missing the point. I’m not sure if it’s intentional or not, so I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt.
“Moderate physical pressure” was, according to B’Tselem, commonly “violent shaking, tying up prisoners in painful positions, subjecting them to extreme heat or cold, beating and kicking”; acts that any of us, if forced to undergo rather than to read about, would define as “torture.” The term allowed torture to continue while allowing the government the glowing satisfaction of “banning torture.”
I’ve read the PCATI press release too, and the way it’s phrased makes it sound like the “ticking time bomb” scenario authorizes torture. The 1999 ruling itself is more nuanced:
Which does allow for quite a bit of wiggle room for human rights violations. While I can’t find a reference to the June 2007 ruling, this potential inaccuracy in the Counterpunch article doesn’t negate the fact that yes, torture is practiced in Israel, and yes, language has been and still is used to obfuscate.
As for the likelihood of this particular term being used in the U.S., given its unsavoury history, you’re probably right. They’ll probably call torture something like “aggressive interrogation methods” or, even better, “free interrogation.”
Sabotabby- We agree that the term “moderate physical pressure” was a euphemism for torture and that the Supreme Court so held in 1999. The 1999 opinion roundly denounces the use of “ticking time bomb” as an a priori justification for torture. What is says is this: if a security officer is faced with a genuine ticking time bomb situation, and he genuinely believes that he must abuse the prisoner to save lives, and he does, then, like anyone else who commits assault, he should be arrested and put on trial. At that trial, he will have the right to mount a defense of “necessity” – just as anyone else charged with assault could do (“I punched that man because he was about to kidnap my child”). This is a far cry from saying that the ticking time bomb scenario can be used as an a priori justification for torture.
What the PCATI is saying now is that the GSS (also known as the “Shin Bet”) is disobeying the law and committing torture in secret. If true, it is committing atrocious criminal acts which should be punished. The PCATI report came out a month ago; we will see what develops. This is not the same as saying that the Israeli courts have retreated from their position that torture is a crime.