CNN published a major story in May that brought to light the deplorable conditions found in a military prison in southern Israel. The prison, called Sde Teiman, was being used to hold detainees from Gaza.
The story was horrific: Over 1,000 detainees were being held in cage-like conditions, without beds or essential needs. Testimonies told of surgeries performed without anesthesia, detainees held in painful positions for extended periods of time, handcuffs on arms and legs that were so tight that they “routinely” resulted in amputations. There was prolonged blindfolding, detainees were forced to wear diapers, and numerous instances of beatings and abuse. To date, at least 35 detainees have died either at the site or shortly after leaving it.
In democracies, when military forces overstep their bounds like this, civil society pushes back. That’s happened here too. NIFC project partner The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PACTI), Physicians for Human Rights Israel, HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual, and Gisha filed a petition to the High Court of Justice to immediately stop holding detainees in this centre. In response to the petition, and under the close supervision of the court, the government transferred most of the detainees to other, less crowded, more professionally staffed facilities.
But the story did not end there. On Monday, July 29th, Israeli Military Police officers raided the Sde Teiman detention centre, and detained nine reservists on suspicion of severely abusing Palestinian detainees.
Within a very short time, a mob of right-wing activists, including masked and armed soldiers — stormed the Sde Teiman base, as well as the army base and criminal courthouse where the soldiers under investigation were transported, all the while being egged on by right-wing members of Knesset.
Many commentators in Israel called the event “Israel’s January 6th.” The New York Times said that it gave “fresh momentum to a wider battle among Israelis about the future and character of their democracy, a dispute that was mostly put to one side at the start of the war to foster greater wartime unity.”