Hey everyone, welcome back to My Weird Prompts. I am Corn, and I am here in our home in Jerusalem with my brother.
Herman Poppleberry, at your service. And today we are tackling a topic that hits very close to home for us, especially living where we do.
Yeah, our housemate Daniel sent us a really thoughtful prompt this week. He has been watching those interrogation videos released by the Shin Bet following the October seventh attacks. He was struck by the contrast between the horrific nature of the crimes being described and the almost casual, nonchalant way the captives were talking about them. And on the other side, the very efficient, professional conduct of the interrogators.
It is a jarring contrast. You expect a high-tension, cinematic interrogation with people screaming and desks being slammed, but the reality is often much quieter and, in a way, much more chilling. Daniel wanted us to look into the background of these interrogators and the specific techniques they use, especially within the bounds of the law.
It is a fascinating deep dive into psychology and law. I mean, we see the headlines, but we rarely think about the person sitting across the table from a terrorist, trying to extract life-saving information while maintaining their own composure.
Right. To understand this, we have to start with the organization itself. The Shin Bet, or the Israel Security Agency, is often called the Shabak in Hebrew. Their motto is Magen VeLo Yera'e, which translates to Defender who shall not be seen. They handle internal security, which includes counter-terrorism. The interrogation unit is a very specialized branch within that.
Right, and they are not just recruiting anyone off the street. Herman, what does the profile of a Shin Bet interrogator actually look like?
It is much more academic than people might think. They are looking for people with high emotional intelligence, linguistic fluency, and a deep understanding of cultural nuances. Most of these interrogators are fluent in Arabic, not just the language, but the specific dialects, the slang, the religious references, and the social structures of the region. Many are recruited from elite intelligence units like Unit eight thousand two hundred, but they undergo years of additional training in behavioral psychology.
That makes sense. If you cannot speak the language of the person across from you, you are already at a massive disadvantage. But it is more than just language, right? It is about empathy, or at least the projection of it.
That is the key thing. To be a top-tier interrogator, you have to be able to build a bridge to someone who may have done something unthinkable. You have to understand their motivations, their fears, and their family dynamics. Many interrogators have degrees in psychology, sociology, or political science. They are trained to read body language, micro-expressions, and speech patterns. They are essentially professional psychologists who happen to work in a high-stakes security environment.
But let us talk about that nonchalance Daniel mentioned. I saw those videos too. These guys are describing atrocities while leaning back in their chairs, sometimes even smiling. What is happening there psychologically?
There are a few things at play. First, there is the concept of moral disengagement. If someone has been radicalized or told for years that their victims are not fully human, they can discuss their actions without the typical weight of guilt that a person in a normal society would feel. But also, the interrogators are trained to create an environment where the captive feels it is safe, or even beneficial, to talk.
So, if the interrogator stays calm and professional, it might actually encourage the captive to be more open?
Yes. If the interrogator reacts with visible horror or anger, the captive might shut down or feel a sense of power. By staying neutral and efficient, the interrogator maintains control of the room. It becomes a business transaction. Information for comfort, or information for a sense of importance. The interrogator often adopts the role of a neutral observer or even a pseudo-confidant.
That is an interesting point. Some of these captives might actually want to brag about what they did because, in their world, it makes them a hero.
And that is often the case. The interrogator might play into that ego. They might say, tell me how you did it, you were the leader of this group, right? You were the one who made it happen. And the captive, wanting to validate their status, spills the details. This is part of the move away from physical force toward cognitive techniques like the Strategic Use of Evidence, or SUE.
Let us get into the legal side of that. Because historically, when people think of interrogation, they think of torture. But you mentioned that modern interrogation is more of a psychological battle. What is the legal framework for the Shin Bet here in Israel?
This is a huge area of legal history. For a long time, there was a lot of ambiguity. In nineteen eighty-seven, the Landau Commission report was published. It actually allowed for the use of moderate physical pressure in certain circumstances. But that changed significantly in nineteen ninety-nine.
That was a landmark ruling by the High Court of Justice, right?
Yes. In the case of the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel versus the Government of Israel, the court ruled that the Shin Bet did not have the authority to use physical means like shaking, the Shach position where someone is tied in a painful way, or sleep deprivation as a method of breaking someone. The court said that an interrogation must be free of torture and cruel or inhuman treatment.
But there is a caveat, isn't there? The necessity defense?
There is. This is the ticking time bomb scenario. The court acknowledged that in an immediate, life-threatening situation where information is needed to prevent an imminent attack, an interrogator might use certain measures and then claim the necessity defense under Section thirty-four point eleven of the Penal Law in court later. But it is not a pre-authorized license. It is an after-the-fact legal defense that is strictly scrutinized by the Ministry of Justice.
So, in the case of the October seventh interrogations, most of what we are seeing is happening well after the immediate threat of those specific individuals has passed. They are in custody, the attack has happened. So, the focus shifts to intelligence gathering for future operations and for the legal record.
Correct. And that is why the techniques are so heavily weighted toward the psychological. One of the most effective methods used globally now, which the Shin Bet is known to utilize, is called the Scharff technique.
Named after Hanns Scharff? The German interrogator from World War Two?
That is right! Scharff was famous for never using violence. He would take prisoners for walks, bring them tea, and talk to them like friends. He would pretend he already knew everything and was just filling in the blanks.
Right, the illusion of knowing. If I think you already know the answer, I am much more likely to confirm it or add a detail because I do not feel like I am giving anything away.
That is the principle. The modern version of this involves a few core pillars. First, a friendly, non-coercive approach. Second, the illusion of knowing. Third, confirmation and disconfirmation. Instead of asking what is your unit's name, the interrogator might say, so when you were in the northern unit, you did this and that, right? If the person corrects them and says, no, I was in the southern unit, they have just given up a piece of information without even realizing it was a question.
It is like a high-stakes version of a con artist's cold reading. You provide enough detail to seem informed, and the other person naturally wants to correct the record or fill in the gaps.
And it works so much better than pain. Research has shown over and over that people under physical duress will say anything to make the pain stop. They will lie, they will make up stories, they will give you false leads. But if you build rapport, if you use cognitive techniques, the information you get is much more likely to be accurate.
I think that is a vital point for our listeners. We often see movies where the hero beats the information out of the villain in five seconds. In reality, that information would probably be useless. The Shin Bet needs actionable intelligence. If a captive says a tunnel is at point A but it is actually at point B, soldiers could die. Accuracy is more important than the catharsis of punishment.
That is exactly how the professionals look at it. They view their job as an extraction of data, not an act of retribution. They have to keep their own emotions completely separate from the task. Imagine sitting across from someone who just described doing something horrific to a family, and your job is to calmly ask, and then what did you do? It requires an incredible amount of mental discipline.
I imagine they have a lot of support for that, right? The psychological toll on the interrogator must be massive.
It is. They have regular debriefings and psychological support. You cannot stare into that kind of darkness every day without it affecting you. But back to the techniques, there is also the concept of cognitive load.
Oh, I have heard of this in the context of lie detection. Tell me how it works in an interrogation room.
Well, lying is much harder for the brain than telling the truth. You have to remember what you said, make sure it is consistent, and suppress the truth. An interrogator will increase that cognitive load by asking the person to tell their story in reverse order, or by asking very specific, unexpected questions about minor details.
Like, what was the weather like that morning, or what color was the door?
Yes, precisely. If you are telling the truth, you can usually access those sensory memories. If you are lying, you have to invent them on the spot, and that takes mental energy. Eventually, the lie starts to crack. The interrogator just waits for those cracks and then gently probes them.
It is a war of attrition, but it is happening inside the captive's head.
That is a good way to put it. And there is also the social element. Many of these captives come from a culture where honor and family are paramount. An interrogator might talk about the captive's mother, or their children. Not necessarily as a threat, but as a way to ground them in a reality outside of the conflict. They might say, your mother would not want to see you like this, or, what kind of future are you leaving for your kids?
It is about finding a lever. Everyone has a lever. For some, it is religion, for others, it is family, for some, it is just their own ego and wanting to be remembered.
And the Shin Bet interrogators are masters at finding that lever quickly. They spend the first few hours or even days just building a profile. They observe how the person eats, how they sleep, what makes them nervous, what makes them relax. By the time the real questioning begins, the interrogator often knows the captive better than the captive knows themselves.
We should also mention the role of technology. Daniel mentioned hearing the typing in the background of those videos. They are recording everything, not just for the confession, but for data analysis.
Right. They are likely using software to cross-reference every name, every location, and every date mentioned with their existing database. If a captive mentions a person named Ahmad from a specific neighborhood, the system might flag five different Ahmads who fit that profile. The interrogator can then pivot and ask about one of them specifically, again creating that illusion of knowing.
It is a massive, multi-layered operation. It is not just two guys in a room. It is a room backed by an entire intelligence infrastructure.
And that is why it looks so efficient. It is a factory of information. But I want to go back to the nonchalance Daniel mentioned, because I think there is one more layer to it. In some of these cases, the captives are in a state of shock, even if it does not look like it. Their world has completely collapsed. They went from being part of a massive attack to being in a sterile cell.
So, talking might be a way of reclaiming some sense of self?
Yes. When you are in a cell, you are a number. When you are being interrogated, you are a person again. Someone is listening to you. Someone is interested in your story. For a certain type of personality, that is very seductive. They start talking because it feels better than the silence of the cell.
That is a dark bit of psychology, but it makes total sense. Now, let us talk about the ethics and the public release of these videos. Why do you think the Shin Bet released them? Daniel mentioned that it might not be representative of the whole process.
Well, it is definitely a strategic choice. Usually, the Shin Bet keeps everything behind a veil of secrecy. Releasing these videos serves a few purposes. First, it provides evidence to the world of what happened on October seventh, coming directly from the mouths of the perpetrators. It is hard to deny an atrocity when the person who committed it is describing it in detail.
It is a counter to misinformation.
It certainly is. Second, it shows the Israeli public that the security services are doing their job, that people are being caught and held accountable. And third, it serves as a psychological deterrent. It says to others, if you do this, we will find you, we will catch you, and you will end up in this room, talking to us.
But as Daniel pointed out, we are seeing the polished version. We are seeing the moments where they are talking. We are not seeing the hundreds of hours of silence, or the frustration, or the legal battles that happen behind the scenes.
Right. We have to be careful not to mistake the edited highlights for the entire reality. Interrogation is often boring. It is hours of repetitive questions, checking and re-checking details. It is tedious work.
I think it is also important to touch on the international law aspect. Israel is often under a microscope regarding its treatment of detainees. How does the Shin Bet's process hold up under international scrutiny?
It is a constant point of contention. Human rights organizations often criticize the lack of transparency and the use of administrative detention. However, the Shin Bet argues that their methods are within the bounds of Israeli law, which they claim is aligned with international standards for preventing immediate threats. The nineteen ninety-nine ruling was a major step in that direction, but the debate over where the line is between pressure and torture is one that continues in every democracy.
It is a thin line, and it seems like the goal of these modern techniques is to stay as far away from that line as possible while still being effective. Because if you cross it, you lose the information's credibility in court and you lose the moral high ground.
That is absolutely right. In the twenty-first century, information is the most valuable currency. And you get the best information through sophisticated psychology, not through a rubber hose. That is the fundamental shift in modern intelligence.
So, to answer Daniel's question, these interrogators are highly educated, culturally fluent, and psychologically trained professionals. They use rapport building, cognitive load management, and the illusion of knowing to extract information. And they do it within a legal framework that has moved steadily away from physical force toward psychological expertise.
It is a fascinating and, frankly, terrifying field of work. The level of self-control required is just staggering. You are basically a human lie detector and a therapist rolled into one, working for a national security agency.
I wonder if artificial intelligence is going to change this. I mean, we are in February two thousand twenty-six now. We are seeing artificial intelligence being used for everything. Do you think we will ever see an artificial intelligence interrogator?
It is an interesting thought. Artificial intelligence can already analyze micro-expressions and voice stress levels better than most humans. We are already seeing systems that can flag inconsistencies in real-time for the interrogator. But I think the rapport building part, the human-to-human connection, is something an artificial intelligence cannot replicate yet. You need that shared sense of humanity, even if it is a manipulated one, to get someone to open up.
Yeah, I think you are right. There is something about the soul of another person being present that changes the dynamic. You cannot really feel shame or pride in front of a computer in the same way you do in front of a man who is looking you in the eye.
You are absolutely right. It is the ultimate human game.
Well
