THE ARREST OF NARIMAN TAMIMI, OCCUPATION, AND CONTROL

JUST ON THEIR WAY TO WORK...
WHAT IF IT WERE YOU?

Most of the left and many of my friends love to accuse Israel of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and being a pack of nazis.  I don't buy that, okay?

Don't get me wrong, the zionist state is racist, it is oppressive, it is an occupation force, it is brutal, it is bad news.  If you are a Palestinian, the old "Zionist entity" has displaced you, jailed you, killed you, and uses all that it has to make your life miserable.  I get that...and you have a perfect right to refer to those who do such things to you any way you want.  I get it.

Still, the Israel government, the Israeli State is simply not marching people into the ovens.  They are simply not doing that...period.  

There is no need identify the Israelis with the nazis.  It isn't necessary.  What the State has done is plenty bad enough and deserves universal condemnation...and I condemn it...

Me, back in the 80s I started pushing the two state line and got in trouble for it.  Then the two state position became sort of accepted.  

Today I do not believe in two states.  I believe in a one state solution, a federation state solution, democratic, secular, and a state of all its peoples.

Well, I believe in that if there has to be a state.  I guess ultimately I believe in a no state solution.

Meanwhile, back in the non theoretical and non rhetorical world,  Amnesty International has condemned Israeli authorities   for "bullying and judicial harassment" of Palestinian rights activist Nariman Tamimi, her family, and those who live in her village.  

Tamimi was arrested by the Israelis as she and others walked non violently toward a nearby spring in protest against the loss of their land.  Tamimi was charged with being in a closed military zone.  Rana Hamadah  was also charged with obstructing a soldier in the execution of his duty.  A foreign national arrested along with the two Palestinian women was released later the same night and barred from entering the village for 15 days.

I should point out that  her brother Rushdi Tamimi was shot in the back with live ammunition by Israeli soldiers during a demonstration last year. He died two days later in hospital. Video evidence shows that Israeli soldiers delayed his family’s attempts to take him to hospital.


On its website, Amnesty International reports:

“This is an unrelenting campaign of harassment, the latest in a litany of human rights violations against Nariman Tamimi, her family, and her fellow villagers.  These arbitrary restrictions should be lifted immediately and the charges should be dropped,” said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Director at Amnesty International.

Following their release on bail on Monday, the court has now put them under partial house arrest. They are not allowed to leave their family homes between 9am to 5pm on Fridays when the weekly protest takes place.

“They have been denied the basic human right to peacefully protest over land illegally seized by Israeli settlers, and the Israeli judiciary has used spurious legal tools to punish them for exercising their basic human right to peaceful protest,” said Philip Luther.

The Israeli human rights organization organization B'Tselem writes:

 The legal proceedings since a-Tamimi and Hamada were arrested are unprecedented, given the minor nature of the offense: the indictment does not claim that the two women acted violently. Furthermore, two military judges who watched video footage of the women’s arrest stated that they had found no evidence of violent or menacing behavior on their part. During the court sessions, Military Prosecutor Maj. Gilad Peretz even acknowledged that one reason for requesting continued remand was to keep the women from participating in demonstrations – unacceptable grounds that cannot possibly warrant detention. The fact that Judea and Samaria Attorney Lieut. Col. Maurice Hirsch himself represented the prosecution at one of the court sessions further demonstrates the military prosecution’s determination to keeping the two women behind bars.

Hamadah told +972 that during her arrest she asked the IDF soldier why she was being handcuffed, to which he replied: “Because I feel like it.” Hamadah said the pair were left handcuffed and blindfolded for nine hours, and were driven around in a vehicle with two male soldiers for seven more hours before being booked in Sharon Prison.

“Seeing the prisoners’ struggle from the inside gives an incredible urgency to their cause,” she said, adding that, “what we don’t see, and easily forget, is that the prisoners really must struggle for every passing minute.”

The following post is from +972.  The post makes the point that what all this is about, what the occupation itself is all about is CONTROL.

The logic of the occupation

As revealed by the arrest of the wife of a well-known Palestinian activist.

IDF arrests Nariman Tamimi at Nabi Saleh weekly protest June 28, 2013 (Activestills)

Nariman Tamimi was due to stand trial today at Ofer Military Prison for a rare charge: violating a closed military zone order. Nariman was arrested in her own village during an unarmed protest, in which not even one stone was thrown. When she was brought before a military judge, it was proved – through video evidence – that she never even resisted her arrest as the army previously claimed. Yet the military prosecution insisted on proceeding with the case.

You can read Mairav Zonszein’s report of the affair here. Despite the light and even absurd charges against Nariman – violating a closed military zone order in one’s own land – the regional military prosecutor himself, Lt.-Col. Maurice Hirsch, represented the prosecution at one of the court sessions, highlighting the gravity the IDF attached to this matter.

What’s the special interest for the army in this case? The definition of a closed military zone in the West Bank is pretty arbitrary and people violate the orders every day. But Nariman is the wife of a well-known Palestinian activist, and one possible explanation has to do with the unifying logic of the IDF’s actions vis-à-vis the Palestinian population in the occupied territory.

The occupation is about control. People often miss that. There are many barbaric and violent moments in the West Bank and even more so in Gaza, but as a whole, Israel is not attempting to exterminate the entire Palestinian population, nor does it currently seek to drive them all out of the territory it controls. Such actions would not be tolerated by the international community, and many Israelis would object them too.

Instead, all of the agencies who deal with the Palestinian population, primarily the army and the internal security services, are looking for the most effective ways to control the population and prevent all forms of resistance.

The methods they use are extremely diverse and they change from place to place and from one period of time to another. Checkpoints or crowd control measures are the most obvious ways. A network of informers and collaborators is another. Handing some privileges to a local and national leadership is another such method. Israeli representatives often take pride in the asylum Israel has granted to some Palestinian gays, but sexual orientation is also used for control, and internal security operatives have been known to blackmail Palestinian gays, threatening that they will expose their identity if they don’t provide information. And so on.

One of the most important aspects of control, which is hardly ever discussed, is the complicated system of permits Israel uses. You need an army permit to travel outside the West Bank, to cross the border to Jordan, to export and import certain goods, to build roads and plant trees, to dig water wells in certain areas, to work in a settlement, to work in Israel, to study abroad, to visit relatives in Gaza, and so on (check out this visual presentation of permit system). Recently, I went with another Israeli friend to cover the weekly protest in a Palestinian village. Not many of the villagers participated in it. In the village square, my friend met a local carpenter he knew. The carpenter is very careful not to be spotted protesting. He has a work permit in a settlement – the very same one that sits on the village’s land, and which is the cause of the weekly demonstration.

The system of control later becomes that ultimate justification for whatever violent action Israel takes against the Palestinians because Israel always gets to operate as the force of peace and order, while the Palestinians become the instigators of chaos and violence. This way, the debate on the occupation is always construed in a way that serves the Israeli interest.

Whatever violent action Israel undertakes against the Palestinian population is justified with something “they did” – a protest, a terror plot, a road block and so on. In the 70s and 80s, when general strikes where a common feature in the Palestinian opposition to the occupation, the army imprisoned local leaders for years under administrative detention, expelled activists and forced merchants to open their shops. When schools and universities mobilized, the army shut them down. Later the IDF moved to act with the same degree of resilience and determination against the mass demonstrations, stone throwing, suicide bombings, rocket launching, and whatever other acts the Palestinian used in their attempt to defeat the occupation. The bottom line is that every opposition to the occupation is forbidden, in the name of peace and stability.

The same logic, by the way, is used against the Palestinians’ diplomatic moves – what Israel now calls “diplomatic terrorism” – and civil society boycott campaign. Effective resistance is always forbidden. Politicians and activists are always viewed as “a threat to peace“ or “instigators,” and they are always blamed with “harming the interests of their own people” due to the catastrophes they bring upon them, in the form of IDF retaliation, of course. The international community, it should be noted, is extremely welcoming to such arguments, since order is always viewed as preferable to chaos, especially in the Middle East, and especially these days.

In Nariman Tamimi’s village, Nabi Saleh, a couple of Palestinians already died during the protests. The army blames the protesters for their own deaths.

Tamimi’s own arrest was the fifth time she has been taken into custody. A mother of four and and a known activist herself, she was held blindfolded and handcuffed for nine hours – standard procedure – before spending nearly four days in prison. When she was finally brought before a (military) judge, Military Prosecutor Maj. Gilad Peretz acknowledged that one reason for requesting her continued remand was to keep her from participating in the weekly demonstrations at her village.

Nariman was lucky. The court decided to put her under house arrest on Fridays instead, thus releasing her from prison but still preventing her from participating in the protests.

Related:
When non-violence is criminal: Palestinian women stand trial for West Bank protest
No end in sight: Occupation marks 45th anniversary

STERILIZATIONS AND EUGENICS: WE'RE TALKING CALIFORNIA PRISONS TODAY

WE FOUGHT THIS BATTLE BEFORE
TIME TO FIGHT IT AGAIN

Lots of people are covering the sterilization abuse of female prisoners in California today, and so am I.   I usually leave the heavily covered stories to others, but this is too much.

It seems that doctors sterilized nearly 150 inmates between 2006 and 2010 in California prisons.  Going back into the 1990s we may be talking about more than 250 tubal ligations.

There is a history of this sort of crap in this country and every time you think it is just that, history, it turns out it isn't over.  

The Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) says:

Federal and state laws ban inmate sterilizations if federal funds are used, reflecting concerns that prisoners might feel pressured to comply. California used state funds instead, but since 1994 the procedure has required approval from top medical officials in Sacramento on a case-by-case basis.

Yet no tubal ligation requests have come before the health care committee responsible for approving such restricted surgeries, said Dr. Ricki Barnett, who tracks medical services and costs for the California Prison Health Care Receivership Corp.

The receiver has overseen medical care in all 33 of the state’s prisons since 2006, when U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson ruled that the system’s health care violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The receiver’s office was aware that sterilizations were happening, records show…

One doctor let the cat out of the bag as to what was on the mind of prison medical authorities.  As reported at Canada Now:

The 69-year-old Bay Area physician denied pressuring anyone and expressed surprise that local contract doctors had charged for the surgeries. He described the $147,460 total as minimal.

“Over a 10-year period, that isn’t a huge amount of money,” Heinrich said, “compared to what you save in welfare paying for these unwanted children – as they procreated more.”

Numerous nurses testified that they overheard conversation between doctors and patients where the women would be asked to sign forms allowing the sterilization proceeders.  Numerous inmates added that they felt pressured to sign the documents.  

Again from Canada Now,

Crystal Nguyen, a former Valley State Prison inmate who worked in the prison’s infirmary during 2007, said she often overheard medical staff asking inmates who had served multiple prison terms to agree to be sterilized.

“I was like, ‘Oh my God, that’s not right,’ ” said Nguyen, 28. “Do they think they’re animals, and they don’t want them to breed anymore?”

The news raise memories of California's dark history of eugenics where  where some 20,000 people were sterilized against their will from 1904 until 1964.  California, like several other states, targeted "undesirable people" such as the mentally ill, criminals, women deemed to "promiscuous" or simply...the wrong race.



The CIR found that doctors targeted pregnant inmates who already had multiple children and were seen as being likely to wind up back in prison after their release.




The Mail On Line reports this shocking story:

Kimberly Jeffrey, 43, says she was strapped to a hospital table and under the influence of medication - preparing to have a C-section in 2010, when the doctor all but demanded she agree to sterilization surgery. 

'He said, "So we’re going to be doing this tubal ligation, right?"

'I’m like, "Tubal ligation? What are you talking about? I don’t want any procedure. I just want to have my baby." I went into a straight panic.'

Prison records from Valley State show that Jeffrey, who was imprisoned for a probation violation, had rejected requests she undergo sterilization surgery twice before.

'Being treated like I was less than human produced in me a despair,' she said.

Women were not give medical reasons for why they should undergo such a procedure.  They were just encouraged/pressured/told to do so. 

Let me tell you something.  When you are in prison under almost the complete control of the State, there is no difference between being "encouraged/pressured/told."

The following story is from Medical Daily.

Nearly 150 Female Inmates Sterilized In California Prison 

System, Raising Questions Of Eugenics And Consent

Nearly 150 women in California prisons were sterilized without state approval following pregnancies between 2006 and 2010, new research finds.

BY CHRIS WELLER | JUL 08, 2013 11:09 AM EDT

• EMAIL
• PRINT
• 0
  

• TEXT SIZE
• TEXT SIZE
• TEXT SIZE

 

Over a five-year period between 2006 and 2010, doctors under contract with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sterilized nearly 150 female inmates without the required state approval.

• 

Enlarge

(Photo : Noah Berger, The Center for Investigative Reporting) Crystal Nguyen, with her six-year-old son, Neiko, in Pittsburg, Calif., is a former Valley State Prison for Women inmate. Nearly 150 women in California prisons were sterilized without state approval following pregnancies between 2006 and 2010, new research finds.

Share This Story

• 0
  inShare

The series of tubal ligations over the five-year period compound some 250 surgeries dating back to the late 1990s, the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) has found. While doctors involved with the surgeries claim each patient was offered the choice to undergo the procedure, some inmates claim they were only asked while on the operating table and sedated, a behavior the CIR states has been illegal since the late 1970s.

One of the primary concerns falls on the issue of intent, according to Dr. Ricki Barnett, who tracks medical services and costs for the California Prison Health Care Receivership Corp. and has led the Health Care Review Committee since joining the prison receiver's office in 2008.

"When we heard about the tubal ligations, it made us all feel slightly queasy," Barnett said. "It wasn't so much that people were conspiratorial or coercive or sloppy. It concerns me that people never took a step back to project what they would feel if they were in the inmate's shoes and what the inmate's future might hold should they do this."

Dr. James Heinrich, an OB-GYN at California's Valley State Prison, has received considerable flak in the matter, as he believed the surgeries were products of emergency situations. The 69-year-old Bay Area physician denied pressuring anyone and expressed surprise that local contract doctors had charged for the surgeries, he told the CIR. The state paid doctors $147,460 to perform the surgeries over the 10 years. Heinrich described the $147,460 total as minimal. 

"Over a 10-year period, that isn't a huge amount of money," Heinrich said, "compared to what you save in welfare paying for these unwanted children - as they procreated more."

DOCTORS VS. INMATES

Still, many women claim Heinrich coerced them into having the tubal ligation carried out.

Christine Cordero, 34, says the doctor pressured her into having the surgery following the 2006 birth of her son.

"As soon as he found out that I had five kids, he suggested that I look into getting it done. The closer I got to my due date, the more he talked about it," said Cordero, who spent two years in prison for auto theft. "He made me feel like a bad mother if I didn't do it."

Cordero eventually agreed to the surgery, but admits that "today, I wish I would have never had it done."

Kimberly Jeffrey reports a similar story from 2010, when a doctor asked her while she was about to have a C-section whether she wanted a tubal ligation after the birth.

"He said, 'So we're going to be doing this tubal ligation, right?' " Jeffrey said. "I'm like, 'Tubal ligation? What are you talking about? I don't want any procedure. I just want to have my baby.' I went into a straight panic."

Jeffrey's records show she rejected a tubal ligation offer during a December 2009 prenatal checkup at Heinrich's office, and then a month later she refused a tubal ligation request made after she arrived at Madera Community Hospital.

University of Pennsylvania law professor and expert on sterilization, Dorothy Roberts says courts have deemed these sorts of requests illegal because they come at a time when a woman is experiencing discomfort and pain, and so she cannot make a reasonable decision.

"If this was happening in a federal prison, it would be illegal," Roberts said. "There are specific situations where you cannot say it's informed consent, and one of them is during childbirth or labor. No woman should give consent on the operating table."

Meanwhile, Heinrich maintains that his medical care was necessary and appreciated, and that those who criticized the sterilizations were unjustly dissatisfied later on.

"They all wanted it done," he said of the sterilizations. "If they come a year or two later saying, 'Somebody forced me to have this done,' that's a lie. That's somebody looking for the state to give them a handout.

"My guess is that the only reason you do that is not because you feel wronged, but that you want to stay on the state's dole somehow," he added.

Tubal ligations currently require state funds in order to be performed. Federal funds cannot be used toward the surgery. Since 1994, all tubal ligation requests have needed approval from top medical officials in Sacramento on a case-by-case basis. However, Barnett said no requests have come before the health care committee responsible for approving the procedure.

THE TIMELINE

The first glimmers of foul play came in 2008, when the receiver's office for all 33 of California's prisons sent back a letter to the prison activist group Justice Now, which asked whether pregnant inmates were offered sterilization. The receiver's office said they did.

It wasn't until 2010 that Justice Now filed a public records request and complained to the office of state Sen. Carol Liu, D-Glendale, who, at the time, was the chairwoman of the Select Committee on Women and Children in the Criminal Justice System.

According to CIR, prompted by a phone call from Liu's staff, Barnett said the receiver's top medical officer asked her to research the matter. After analyzing medical and cost records, Barnett met in 2010 with officials at both women's prisons and contract health professionals affiliated with nearby hospitals.

Barnett told them to stop sterilization surgeries immediately.

According to her, the 16-year-old restriction on the procedure struck the doctors as news. None of them thought they needed permission in order to follow through with the tubal ligations.

"Everybody was operating on the fact that this was a perfectly reasonable thing to do," she said.

These assumptions characterize a long, unsightly history of unauthorized sterilization in California and around the country. Between 1909 and 1964, about 20,000 women and men in California were stripped of the ability to reproduce, making the state the nation's most prolific sterilizer. Historians say Nazi Germany sought the advice of the state's eugenics leaders in the 1930s.

As Heinrich noted above, the issue of sterilization often comes as one of health risks and future cost. Heinrich states that women who have had C-sections in the past face greater health risks later in life, and that minimizing the state's welfare cost can be accomplished through consensual sterilization.

"One of the goals ... and this is critical to understanding the history of eugenics in California - was to save money: how to limit welfare and relief," said Alexandra Minna Stern, a professor at the University of Michigan and leading expert on California sterilization, according to a transcript of her presentation at a 2003 Senate hearing on the state's spotty history. "And sterilization is very much tied up in this."

Barnett, for her part, does not hope to investigate prior cases of sterilization. Her greatest aim now is to prevent future surgeries from taking place, and to repair a system she believes has components that are seriously broken.

"Did Dr. Heinrich say improper things? I can't say. Is our process sufficiently draconian enough to weed out bad actors? We have a lot of civil service processes. Is it 100 percent effective? Is it the best process we can come up with?" she asked. "No, of course not.