What is the proper forum in which suspected terrorists are to be tried? For the purpose of examining this question, this chapter focuses on the processes that the State of Israel has adopted and contrasts those with the American military commissions. I will argue that despite the great differences between Israel and the Unites States, primarily regarding the structure of the judiciary and the circumstances surrounding the need of each to face this question, a snapshot of today's standpoint reveals that processes in both the United States and Israel produced roughly the same end consequences. The first part of this chapter discusses the establishment of military courts in the West Bank soon after its occupation by Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967 and the developments and processes that have accompanied the military courts since then. This chapter addresses the central legislation governing the trials and detentions of suspected terrorists and the judicial review led by the Israeli Supreme Court regarding these issues. The second part reviews the resemblance and differences between the United States and Israel, emphasizing the different circumstances that brought about the establishment of military commissions and military courts in the first place, and arguing that these circumstances are inevitably the main cause for the divergence.
|Title of host publication||Guantanamo and Beyond|
|Subtitle of host publication||Exceptional Courts and Military Commissions in Comparative Perspective|
|Publisher||Cambridge University Press|
|Number of pages||16|
|State||Published - 1 Jan 2013|
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© Cambridge University Press 2013.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Social Sciences (all)