Created by the viciousness of British imperialism, and you are still slaves of the Raj/Upwards of 20 billion dollars a year, we know you’re getting paid from the Hajj/And every penny is used to fund oppression/40,000 prisoners in your dungeons and mothers are wondering where the sons are, where? In Al-Hayer being shunned and shredded/Plus you are buying up tons of weapons/For decades, you have put the guns to Yemen/Put your tanks in Bahrain to continue the most glum regression/And shoot tear gas and dum-dums into young protesters/Joblessness and poverty reign/’Cause hatred of the Shi3a is the only thing that clicks in your Wa77abi brains/With bloody cries, we remember May 1, 1925, this is the spirit of Baqi/This loud joint is the proud voice for the fearless in Qatif/
Overthrow, overthrow, overthrow the Saudis!
Overthrow, overthrow, overthrow the Saudis!
Overthrow, overthrow, overthrow the Saudis!
Tyrants of corruption, it’s time for your destruction!
Deconstructing Mecca and Medina into Westernized cities/Any dissent about it is rectified quickly/Lady Khadjia’s home was maimed and changed to a toilet/How can we forget every US base, now the anger is boiling/Doing business with the Mossad in front of our eyes, you’re gangsters and poison/Look at what you cranks are destroying/Every last drop of the Prophet’s heritage and the Prophet’s legacy/Sectarian fanatics, from Iraq to Syria you prop up terrorists while you profit heavily/You don’t represent the Ummah so please just stop the rhetoric you are not a friend of we/You may have got Americans who have got hegemony/But we got ALLAH, and even when He’s plotting a demise yo, the plot’s benevolent ‘cause His plots are heavenly/I know all about your princes, though they are illiterate, a bit dumb/They are still degenerate, they are into pornography, little kids and strip clubs/Salman, Bandar and Faisal, the entire lot of ‘em are iniquitous and rich scum/ That bow at the feet of the Zionists, which you still shamefully deny/You view the downtrodden as those, who were made to be deprived/But they are gonna be your end, you best understand that this aggravated vagrancy will rise/Starting with the women, salute to all the sisters with the bravery to drive/
REPEAT HOOK (2x)
Of the Two Holy Mosques, you are not the custodians/Your religious police, they are proper draconian/Your interpretation of Islam is increasing murder rates, it is 7aram, full of rot and erroneous/Gave Hajj security to G4S, you’re puke on a diseased floor, yes you let the friends of the Israelis have the watch, it’s felonious/Tzipi Livni openly brags about your interests and the language that you sing is theirs/Michael Oren too, it is quite deplorable that the message from your king is clear/The peaceful civilian nuclear program of Iran is a threat to the region/But not Zionist nukes, I would say you’re mentally disconnected or dreaming if I didn’t know you wretches were demons/The House of Saud needs to die, or at the least we wanna see this house arrested/Gamal Abdel Nasser warned us more than forty years ago about its methods/Said you would send an Arab force to Leb to uproot the Party of ALLAH/But noted that you needed imperial air power to help, ‘cause the strength of your army is a con/Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has more dignity, in his baby toe than you will ever possess/He gives us hope and belief in liberation while you embezzle our breath/A century of treachery with Zionism and it’s so ugly when we relay/Dare bark about supporting the Palestinian cause while you give money to the PA/Had no problem with the British giving away the Holy Land to the poor Jews/A dirty plot, that’s what you called them in a letter to Percy Cox, all you are surely nothing but pure tools/Cowards left Palestine buried/But Iraqi intelligence revealed the how and why, ready?/Royals are foiled, they’re about to get their shallow lies levied/Kingdom is descended from the Kabbalistic followers of ghoulish Jewish fake messiah Shabbetai Zevi/
REPEAT HOOK (2x)
Most of the gunmen who carried out a brazen attack against the Yemeni Ministry of Defense that killed 56 people were Saudi nationals, said Yemeni investigators on Saturday morning.
The Yemeni investigator’s preliminary report about the attack supports previous claims of responsibility by Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which was established through the merging of Saudi and Jemeni ”jihadist” networks, and which according to experts is operating in liaison with the Saudi Interior Ministry and Saudi Arabia’s Intelligence Service.
On Friday, the AQAP claimed responsibility for the attack, justifying it by stressing the claim that the Defense Ministry’s complex hosted US personnel which are responsible for the drone strikes against Al-Qaeda militants in Yemen.
Considering that the AQAP operates in liaison with Saudi intelligence however, it is noteworthy that the Yemeni government, including its Defense Minister, recently and repeatedly have demanded that the USA stops its drone attacks, stressing that the attacks kill unarmed civilians, create more militants than they kill, and are counterproductive with regards to the security operations carried out by the military and police of Yemen.
The investigators report that the attack on the Defense Ministry in Yemen’s capital Sanaa was initiated when a suicide bomber rammed a vehicle into the gate of the Ministry’s complex, penetrating the gate and exploding the explosives-laden vehicle a split second later. The gunmen, dressed in military fatigues, then used the ensuing panic and confusion to storm the Ministry.
The brazen daylight attack in the middle of the sprawling capital has cost 56 lives. After Yemeni military forces regained control over the ministry, they said, that they had recovered the bodies of twelve of the attackers who were slain during the attack.
It was a hospital within the Ministry compound that took the brunt of the attack. Among the 56 dead are medics from Germany, India, the Philippines, and Vietnam, as well as civilian and military patients, said a spokesperson for Yemen’s Supreme Security Committee.
The Yemeni analyst and expert in Al-Qaeda affairs, Saed al-Jamhi, said that the attack reflects “the level of the network’s penetration into security and military services” showing that the militants have “access to high level information”. Also al-Jamhi’s assessment supports other expert assessments, according to which the AQAP is operating in liaison with Saudi intelligence services and thus has access to high-level intelligence.
Members of the Saudi royal family have voiced their displeasure with the Obama administration’s approach to the Middle East through private channels and recently in public as well. None of them puts it quite like HRH Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Alsaud.
One of some three-dozen living grandsons of the first Saudi King Abdulaziz, this prince is a prominent but atypical royal. His investment company made him the Arab world’s richest businessman. He strikes a modern image for a Saudi, employing female aides and jet-setting on a private Boeing 747. He’s at ease with Western media.
Passing through New York earlier this week, Mr. Alwaleed, who is 58, sits down with the Journal editorial board between a couple of television appearances. He wears a blue suit, shirt and tie. These days, his bouffant widow’s peak has more salt than pepper. The prince holds no important government post in Saudi Arabia, but it’s hard to shake the impression that here is the uncensored id of the reserved House of Saud.
“America is shooting itself in the foot,” he says. “Saudi Arabia and me, myself, we love the United States. But what’s happening right now here, from Republicans and Democrats, is just not helping the image of the United States and is making this perception that America is going down a reality.”
Mr. Alwaleed struggles to understand how a wing of the GOP can shut down the government and threaten a debt default. His company has a significant economic bet on the U.S. through Twitter and New York’s Plaza Hotel, among many holdings. As for President Obama, his second term is “going downhill completely,” he says, adding on several occasions the disclaimer that “this is the impression I have in Saudi Arabia.” But it’s clear that the Saudis believe that the president’s political troubles shape his actions in their region.
Mr. Obama’s recent Hamlet act on Syria surprised and infuriated Riyadh. After the worst chemical-weapons atrocity of the war, the American leader heeded long-standing calls for military intervention, then hedged by asking for congressional approval, then nixed airstrikes in favor of a disarmament pact with Syria’s Bashar Assad. The civil war continued—with Assad and his Iranian allies lately taking the upper hand. Mr. Alwaleed says of Mr. Obama: “He blinked.”
Then came the autumn outreach to Iran’s new president, Hasan Rouhani, leading to this week’s negotiations in Geneva on Iran’s nuclear program. Another “impression” from the prince: President Obama’s falling popularity explains his “overeagerness” for an agreement made “very fast to at least put one issue in foreign policy aside” because “he’s wounded now across the board.” The Saudis view the Shiite theocracy in Tehran as the biggest threat to the Sunni Arab world.
Though the American public soured on Saudi Arabia after the 9/11 terror attacks were organized by a Saudi, Washington and Riyadh remained on good terms. But now relations are strained, perhaps the worst breach since the 1980s fight over the proposed sale of U.S. Awacs planes to the kingdom. A frequent Saudi complaint these days is that this White House doesn’t listen to them or reveal its true intentions.
“Frankly speaking,” Mr. Alwaleed says, during the first Obama term “his communication was almost nil,” aside from a brief visit with King Abdullah in Riyadh in 2009. Ronald Reagan and every president since cultivated personal ties, but “Obama is very cold because he is very, very immersed” in domestic policy.
Hillary Clinton, who logged 956,733 air miles in four years at the State Department, came to Saudi Arabia once. “She was not really tackling the Middle East,” the prince says. In less than a year at Foggy Bottom, John Kerry has called on the Saudis three times, and the royals appreciate his engagement.
The deal on offer in Geneva this week relaxes sanctions on Iran in exchange for promises to slow work on parts of the nuclear program. The Saudis and Israelis have both pre-emptively condemned any agreement that doesn’t dismantle Iran’s ability to enrich uranium and build a bomb. This one won’t. Mr. Alwaleed says the Saudis are trying to “put maximum pressure now on the United States not to succumb to the president of Iran’s soft talk.”
He endorses Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s line to describe Mr. Rouhani: “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” He notes this startling alliance of Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, custodian of Islam’s holiest sites, and the Jewish state. “For the first time, Saudi Arabian interests and Israel are almost parallel,” he says, his voice rising. “It’s incredible.”
The prince stops short of endorsing an Israeli military strike on Iran, but in the same breath says he thinks a military option to “neutralize” Iran’s nuclear potential is preferable to a bad diplomatic deal.
If Iran does go nuclear, Saudi Arabia may not be far behind. It has options. Riyadh underwrote Pakistan’s atomic-bomb program and keeps the country’s economy afloat with its largess. The “arrangement with Pakistan is too strong” to dismiss an almost overnight nuclearization of the Arab peninsula with their help, Mr. Alwaleed suggests. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who returned to power in June, lived in Saudi exile after a 1999 military coup. “Nawaz Sharif, specifically, is very much Saudi Arabia’s man in Pakistan,” Mr. Alwaleed says.
The Obama administration’s disengagement from the Middle East was implicit in the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq and the refusal to arm Syria’s rebels. Susan Rice, the national security adviser, was explicit last month in an interview with the New York Times that the White House had adopted a new policy to scale back America’s involvement: “We can’t just be consumed 24/7 by one region, important as it is.”
As the U.S. distanced itself from Egypt after July’s military coup, Russia has offered Cairo arms and support. The Chinese are in no position or mood to take the baton of regional enforcer from the U.S., which polices the Strait of Hormuz to keep it open for oil tankers and protects friendly Gulf states. But the Saudis are getting along better by the day with Beijing, says Mr. Alwaleed, adding that “China is very eager to fill any vacuum that the United States may create.” Bluff, threat or prediction? Check back in a few years.
Another feature of the Obama era is the regional freelancing by countries that previously deferred to Washington. Defying the U.S., the Saudis in 2011 sent soldiers over the causeway into Bahrain to protect the island’s Sunni king from street demonstrations by members of the Shiite majority pressing for greater political rights. The Saudi royals also blamed Washington for abandoning an old American friend in Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak, who was deposed in February 2011. For the record, Mr. Alwaleed thinks the Mubarak presidency was unsalvageable.
From the start of the Syrian conflict, Saudi and Qatari support flowed to the anti-Assad rebels. Mr. Obama held back before permitting small-arms deliveries in recent months. But Assad’s chemical attacks and an emergency lifeline of Iranian fighters, money and arms have turned the tide of the war. Mr. Alwaleed says Riyadh has upped its weapons supplies and training for the rebels but can’t do as much as a superpower.
As the West stood aside, extremist factions in the rebel coalition strengthened and turned on each other. Some are linked to al Qaeda, “really savages, like in Afghanistan,” says Mr. Alwaleed. Of course, Gulf money and weapons also went to them, as it goes to their brethren in Afghanistan and Pakistan today—but that’s left unsaid.
Mr. Alwaleed believes that Washington has now decided to keep Assad in place at least long enough to surrender his chemical weapons stockpile. “The U.S. policy is to have the devil you know,” he says. “Saudi policy is to have any devil in Syria other than the devil you know.”
Educated in the U.S., Mr. Alwaleed has said he started off in 1979 with a $30,000 loan from his father to create Kingdom Holding Co., a diversified-investment firm. The prince denies persistent rumors that the company is an investment front for other Saudi royals who guard their anonymity.
Mr. Alwaleed came to business prominence in the U.S. with a $590 million cash infusion into Citicorp in 1991. Later that decade, he took a 5% stake in News Corp that is now 7%. He’s the third-largest shareholder in the company that publishes The Wall Street Journal.
When Forbes this spring put him 26th on its annual list of the world’s richest, with a fortune estimated at $20 billion, Mr. Alwaleed said the magazine shortchanged him, and he threatened to sue. He visibly relishes the perks of princely billionairehood.
Some false steps have hurt his reputation. Days after 9/11, Mr. Alwaleed donated $10 million to New York City accompanied by a statement that the U.S. government “should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause.” Mayor Rudy Guliani returned the check.
The House of Saud’s concern about the U.S. these days isn’t merely about foreign policy. The American energy revolution is also a potential threat. Driven by technological advances in shale exploration, the U.S. will pass Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world’s top oil producer by 2015, the International Energy Agency said this month. Mr. Alwaleed hasn’t looked at possible investments in shale—at least “not yet.”
As for the Saudis’ own bottom line: With America’s reliance on imported oil declining, he warned his government a few months ago about the kingdom’s unhealthy dependence on oil-export revenues. But Mr. Alwaleed also says the world will always demand Saudi Arabia’s cheaply drilled crude.
The political upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt that began almost three years ago sent a tremble through the House of Saud. King Abdullah, who turns 90 next year, moved to head off discontent by pouring more than $130 billion into jobs and housing for young Saudis. The strategy eased any pressure to open up the absolutist monarchy. Mr. Alwaleed takes pains to mention his support for reform and the gradual modernization of Saudi Arabia, including the right of women to drive.
Concerns about the health of King Abdullah and an uncertain succession hang heavy over Saudi Arabia’s future. Mr. Alwaleed’s father sits on an Allegiance Council created early in King Abdullah’s reign to formalize the selection of monarchs. This new system, he repeats more than once, is “untested.” Mr. Alwaleed’s mixed Lebanese heritage through his mother, among other reasons, virtually rules him out from consideration.
America’s current arm’s-length approach to the region presents an opening as well as a danger for the Saudis. After July’s coup in Egypt, Riyadh gave the new military-backed government $5 billion to tide the country’s economy over for a few months. The rise of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and demands for popular democracy were unwelcome in Riyadh. Mr. Alwaleed notes that Saudi diplomacy also carries a fat checkbook in Jordan, Palestine and Yemen, which are in his words “under our hegemony.”
“If you look at a map of the Arab world now, Saudi Arabia is very much the leader,” says the prince. “America cannot afford to have the leader of the Arab world not be on the same wave length as the United States.”
Mr. Kaminski is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.
But though we know that the CIA was at the center of the coup d’état against John F. Kennedy, the details have not all been resolved. Specifically, we do not know everything about the precise chain of command, whose idea it was in the first place, and which powerful figures proposed or signed off on the assassination. And we do not know everything about the relative power levels of the various players: who sought whose okay, who was giving orders and who was taking them, who was paying whom, and so on.
My recent radio guest Dr. Laurent Guyénot believes that Michael Collins Piper’s thesis – that Israel and its global Zionist crime syndicate were major players if not THE main player in the JFK assassination – must be taken seriously.
Israel had a powerful motive. According to a recent Jerusalem Post article:
“History shows that some issues are so critical that even the president of the United States cannot force Israel’s hand…The sharpest example took place almost 50 years ago, when John F. Kennedy demanded that David Ben-Gurion end Israel’s nuclear deterrent program, deemed necessary to ensure Jewish survival in a very hostile world.”
Ben Gurion haughtily refused to answer JFK’s letter demanding that Israel abandon its nuclear aspirations. Instead, he resigned. Six months later, JFK was publicly executed. A few years after that, Ben Gurion got his nuclear weapons… and his longed-for war of aggression to steal Jerusalem.
Those who see the Zionists as prime movers in the JFK assassination argue that none of the other anti-JFK factions had such an overpoweringly existential motive, nor a track record of such wildly reckless deception and violence. Without Zionist involvement, the US military, CIA, and organized crime might have pushed back against JFK using gentler means.
Were the Zionists really in a position to set the JFK assassination wheels in motion? Skeptics argue that Israel is just a tiny entity of eight million people, so it is preposterous to imagine that it is dominating the US empire or steering history. Yet the facts are otherwise: The tiny Zionist entity of eight million people, together with its millions of fanatical loyalists all over the world, clearly dominates US foreign policy, and has done so since the murder of JFK. It seems that the JFK coup d’état was a turning point: The Eisenhower and Kennedy presidencies ran independent foreign policies focused on US interests not Israeli interests. But since the slaughter of the Kennedies, the US has been an abject slave of Israel.
How could the Israelis have engineered a coup d’état in America? Michael Collins Piper’s Final Judgment suggests that the power of money – and the treason of CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton – are the keys to understanding the real chain of command behind the JFK assassination.
James Jesus Angleton was the CIA’s liaison to the Mossad – and a de facto Mossad mole. As Guyénot reminds us:
“Angleton’s closest professional friends overseas […] came from the Mossad and […] he was held in immense esteem by his Israeli colleagues and by the state of Israel, which was to award him profound honors after his death.”
As CIA counterintelligence chief, Angleton would have “authorized” the killing of JFK by convincing other CIA and military figures that JFK was a knowing or unknowing agent of the communists. He quite likely did this at the instigation of his Israeli friends. Once JFK had been deemed a traitor and an enemy agent by CIA counterintelligence, Agency underlings could be mobilized against their Commander-in-Chief.
After the assassination, Angleton led a diversionary operation falsely blaming the Russians. Chief Justice Earl Warren was convinced to cover up the conspiracy against JFK after he was told that the Russians were behind the killing, and if the truth came out, the result would be thermonuclear war.
Besides owning America’s counterintelligence chief, the Zionists had another trump card in their designs on JFK’s life: The power of money, especially the dirty money that fuels the covert operations of the CIA and its organized crime partners. Michael Collins Piper explains that when we “follow the money” behind the JFK assassination, we find Zionists holding the purse strings.
New Orleans DA Jim Garrison discovered that the covert operators behind the JFK coup were financed by a black-ops bank called Permindex, a subsidiary of a Swiss bank owned by legendary Mossad financier Tibor Rosenbaum. Permindex itself was chaired by Louis M. Bloomfield, the Israel lobby chieftain and kingpin of the Bronfman family of Canada. The Bronfmans have long been associated with Meyer Lansky’s crime syndicate, and are one of the biggest “money powers” behind Israel.
So the Zionists were at the top of the money pyramid that “owned” the CIA black operators. They also owned the organized crime elements that participated in the assassination.
It turns out that Rosenbaum’s Swiss bank was not only financing CIA black ops, including the JFK murder, but was also mob chieftain Meyer Lansky’s prime “money laundry.” (Lansky was the head of all organized crime in America, because he controlled the purse strings.)
It is telling that high-level Israeli CIA mole James Jesus Angleton has managed to stay largely off the radar screen of most JFK assassination investigators, while mid-level guys like Howard Hunt and William Harvey, and low-level guys like Frank Sturgis and David Sanchez Morales, have been widely pilloried for their roles in the JFK killing. Likewise, lower level crime bosses Johnny Roselli and Sam Giancana got whacked before they could testify to the House Select Committee on Assassinations – while their boss, the Zionist crime-bankster Meyer Lansky, lived to a ripe old age.
And let’s not forget that Clay Shaw, a board member at Permindex, got publicly fingered and died relatively young, while his Zionist bosses Bloomfield and Rosenbaum successfully remained in the shadows.
And speaking of “follow the money”: Many JFK assassination researchers assume that President Kennedy’s decision to end the Federal Reserve’s private monopoly on American currency was one of the motives for the assassination. Let us note, for the record, that Zionists play a disproportionate role in the banking cartel that owns the Federal Reserve.
Though we have hard proof that the CIA played a central role in JFK’s assassination, the circumstantial evidence pointing above and beyond the CIA is compelling. Michael Collins Piper’s book “Final Judgment” makes a strong case that Israel was a leading force behind the assassination of JFK.
This is what is known as a “Honeytrap”
Though looking at her face I wouldn’t say there was anything “honey” like about this one.
She has a sort of non-symmetrical and hardened “too much prenatal testosterone in mommy’s womb” face that just screams cold calculating prostitute/lawyer/political/psychopath material
These guys are ruined.
“..Lebanese newspaper Al Diyyar broke the story earlier this week that the Knesset Beauty had publicly stated that she and the chief Rabbi of Israel had decided that “It was ok for her to sleep and have sex with strangers, as long as it benefits Israel”.
According to Al Diyyar, Livni said :“The room where I had sex with Palestinian figures as Saeb Erekat and Yasser Abed Rabbo was equipped with cameras…”
By Michael Sullivan DeFine
University of Maine School of Law
Footnotes appear at the end of the text
The purpose of this article is to trace the historical influence of governmentally funded sterilization from the beginning of the eugenics movement in the 19th century to see how this effects Native American women today. This topic will investigate the social prejudices and rationalizations for sterilization of the “less-talented” members of society advocated by the most influential social and biological scientists in American history.
These “science”-based eugenic influences break through the lines of science into the world of politics, promulgating anti-humanistic views of poor women of color in the form of legislation fraught with bigotry and baseless generalizations. This political view flows through the judicial system, as courts apply eugenic philosophies in determining who should be sterilized and for what reasons.
Turning specifically to the sterilization of Native American women, this article concludes with a discussion of the federal relationship with American Indian tribes, personal accounts from Native American women who were sterilized and their attitudes toward family planning, state and federal policies regarding informed consent and sterilization, an examination of the contractual relationship between the Indian Health Service and private practices, the United States General Accounting Office investigation of Indian Health Service sterilization procedures, and the meaning behind the statistics of population growth.
II. History of Eugenics
A. Pre-Eugenic Thinking
In the early 19th century, before Darwinism entered the lexicon of science, racist as well as sexist attitudes led scientists to become preoccupied with ranking human beings according to purportedly neutral scientific criteria. (1) Some believed in monogenism, a notion that all humans descended from the common ancestor Eve, but that the races degenerated in various degrees from an original state of perfection. (2) This theory, therefore, assumed that the white race had degenerated the least, and people of color were developmentally further away from the original divine plan.
Anthropometry (skull measuring) was also a serious scientific endeavor. The physician Samuel George Morton gathered more than 1,000 skulls to prove that intelligence is related to brain size and that there are innate racial differences in mental capacities. (3) Morton’s studies on the sizing of human skulls were used throughout the 19th century as scientific proof of a racial hierarchy in intelligence. (4) After the Civil War, scientists were still engaged in anthropometry. In 1870, Dr. Sanford B. Hunt claimed that the average African American brain weighs five ounces less than the average white individual’s brain, and the average mulatto’s brain is smaller than the brain of an average African American. (5) From this, Hunt concluded intermarriage between the races would produce inferior offspring. (6) His studies played a role in justifying the need for segregated school systems. (7)
As Darwinism began to entrench itself into popular scientific thought, it brought with it distinct racist and sexist overtones. The writings of E.D. Cope popularized what was known as recapitulation, the notion that modern human beings pass through a succession of evolutionary stages, repeating the progression of the species. (8) Cope identified four groups that displayed characteristics evidencing lower evolutionary status: the non-white races, all women, southern European whites (Jewish people and Italians included), and the lower classes within the superior races (Cope was particularly contemptuous of “the lower classes of the Irish”). (9) The adults of inferior groups were considered throwbacks who remained in an arrested evolutionary stage, more like the children of superior white males. (10) Women’s essential nature was characterized as similar to what men exhibit at a younger age. America’s premier psychologist, G. Stanley Hall, interpreted the higher suicide rate in women as a sign of their stunted evolutionary development. (11)
B. The Early Eugenics Movement
The pre-eugenics evolutionary theories noted above germinated the seeds of the eugenics movement. The term eugenics, which means literally “wellborn”, originated in 1883 with Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. (12) Galton advocated the scientific regulation of human breeding to ensure the more talented (primarily those of the upper-class and the industrious members of the middle-class) have a better chance of predominating in the propagation of the species. (13) By the 1920′s, when eugenics became a required course in many universities, (14) a typical textbook published by Bobbs-Merrill stated:
For our own protection we must face the question of what types of races should be ruled out… many students of heredity feel that there is great hazard in the mongrelizing of distinctly unrelated races… However, it is certain that under existing social conditions in our own country only the most worthless and vicious of the white race will tend in any considerable way to mate with the negro and the result cannot but mean deterioration on the whole for either race. (15)
This academic agenda of fear found its way into the political ranks when Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1924, which limited immigration to two percent of those of the same national origin that lived in the United States in 1890. (16) This Act was passed by Congress in large measure because of information supplied by the intelligentsia of the eugenics movement, namely Carl Brigham. He interpreted army data on immigrant intelligence and concluded that as the proportion of those with “superior” Nordic blood decreased, and “inferior” Alpine and Mediterranean blood increased, the intelligence of the immigrants declined. (17) Other “scientific” studies characterized the inferior races as “human parasites”(18) and “filthy, un-American and often dangerous in their habits”. (19)
The eugenics movement promoted the elimination of so-called inferior immigrants from entering the United States and spreading their inferiority “upon the stock of the nation”. (20) The primary goal of the movement, however, was to promote the sterilization of the “unfit”. With success in influencing Congress established, Harry Laughlin, a eugenics movement supporter, drafted a model eugenics sterilization law that was adopted in various versions by many states in this country. (21) The laws were typically aimed at epileptics, the mentally impaired, alcoholics, drug addicts, and criminals. (22) Approximately 50,000 sterilizations were performed in the United States by the end of World War II. (23) This number pales in comparison, however, with the number of women sterilized in more recent years. (24)
C. Eugenics in the Modern Age
Since the 1970′s, sterilization has become the most common form of birth control for women over the age of twenty-five in the United States. (25) Between 1970 and 1980, sterilization rates tripled, and in 1987, twenty-four percent of the entire population of women of childbearing age were sterilized. Part of this increase in surgical procedure is due to the liberalization of indications for sterilization recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (26) More significantly, as in the past, societal prejudices and a class-based racist ideology determine the selection process, although on the surface women voluntarily consent to the procedure. (27) Sterilization might not be the choice of many women if they were better informed and able to receive higher quality medical care.
As of 1982, fifteen percent of white women had been sterilized, compared with twenty-four percent of African-American women, thirty-five percent of Puerto Rican women, and forty-two percent of Native American women. (28) In the early 1970′s, an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 low-income individuals were annually subjected to sterilization under federally funded programs. (29)
Turning now to the resultant effects on Native American women, a class traditionally oppressed by economic, social, and financial hardship, one can see just how influential the philosophies of the eugenics movement have been in recent years.
III. Native American Sterilization, 1972-1976
A. The Federal Relationship with American Indian Tribes
The federal trust relationship with American Indian tribes is based on numerous treaty rights and agreements that include availability of medical services and physicians for Indians. However, there are very few statements that mention medical services specifically; instead there is an implicit understanding of the trust responsibility that includes the health of the American Indians. (30) As stated in the American Indian Policy Review Commission’s report on Indian health, ” the federal responsibility to provide health services to Indians has its roots in the unique moral, historical, and treaty obligations of the federal government, no court has ever ruled on the precise nature of that legal basis nor defined the specific legal rights for Indians created by those obligations.” (31) The implied meaning of health care responsibilities is somewhat vague, but the treaties and agreements were supposedly intended to favor Indians.
In 1955, The Indian Health Service was transferred from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Public Health Service. (32) This move was made with the expectation that the Public Health Service could improve health care for Indians living on reservations. (33) Even after the transfer took place, however, the health needs for Indians were still not adequately met. (34) This was due to the ambiguous nature of the federal government’s responsibility to provide health care. (35) In turn, the Indian Health Service had no concrete goals or objectives and operated day to day with only a faint clue as how it should render services. (36)
Even today, an Indian client will be given services that may well vary each time that patient enters an Indian Health Service facility. “The specific services available to [the patient] will vary from day to day and year to year, depending on unpublished discretionary decisions made by Indian Health Service officials and commitments and conditions contained in often voluminous appropriation hearings.” (37) This quote suggests that the Indian Health Service system is ripe for mismanagement of policies, funding, and staff supervision. (38) It also comes as no surprise to find that the Indian Health Service has been the subject of a number of investigations. (39)
B. Personal Accounts from Sterilized Native American Women and Their Attitude Toward Family Planning
One of the people who initiated the government investigation into the Indian Health Service’s sterilization policy was Dr. Connie Uri, a Choctaw Indian Physician working at the Claremore, Oklahoma Indian Health Service facility. (40) Dr. Uri noticed in the hospital records that a large number of sterilization surgeries had been performed. This prompted her to conduct her own interviews with the women involved and she found that many had received the operation only a day or two after childbirth. (41) In the month of July, 1974 alone there were forty-eight sterilizations performed and several hundred had been conducted in the previous two years. (42) The hospital records showed that both tubal ligation and hysterectomies were used in sterilization. Dr. Uri commented that “in normal medical practice, hysterectomies are rare in women of child bearing age unless there is cancer or other medical problems”. (43)
Besides the questionable surgery techniques taking place, there was also the charge of harassment in obtaining consent forms. (44) In an incident of harassment at the Claremore facility, one woman was told by social workers and other hospital personnel that she was a bad mother, and they threatened to place her children in foster homes if she would not agree to the surgery. (45)
In one study conducted on the Navajo Reservation and sponsored by the Public Health Service, researchers reported:
From 1972 to 1978 we observe a 130 per cent increase in the number of induced abortions performed. During this time the ratio of abortions per 1,000 deliveries has increased from approximately 34 to 77 (an increase of 126 per cent). (46) While not exactly within the confines of sterilization, the numbers indicate that the family planning program on the Navajo Reservation was definitely acquiring federal funds to carry on such a massive project. (47)
The statistics concerning Navajo sterilization were also addressed by a Public Health Service sponsored study, which found that “between 1972 and 1978, the percentage of interval sterilization has more than doubled from 15.1 per cent in 1972 to 30.7 per cent in 1978.” (48)
Although the report itself was conducted in a clinical and methodical manner, the researchers did comment slightly about the relationship between patient and physician, stating that “[o]lder women who become pregnant may be much less concerned about reducing their childbearing and may do so primarily when they are influenced by health care providers.” (49) In light of previously mentioned tactics promoting the sterilization of Native American women, one can only speculate regarding the nature of the “advice” or “influence” provided by these health care providers.
Once the word of sterilization spread throughout Indian Country, some tribal leaders carried on their own investigations. Marie Sanchez, a tribal judge of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, interviewed fifty women, twenty-six of whom reported that they were sterilized. (50) One doctor told several women that they each had enough children and it was time they stopped having children. (51) Others were even told that they could have children after the operation. (52)
The attitudes of some members of the health care profession regarding the appropriateness of the number of children these Native American women “should” bear underlines the differing value structure between “white” America and Native American culture. The idea of such population control measures leaves many Native Americans understandably concerned. They believe that the federal government has done enough throughout history to limit the number of Indians living on this continent, and the idea of limiting the number of Indian children is based on what whites feel is an appropriate amount. (53)
Other researchers have found these general feelings to be true, regarding the limitation of Indian family members. One group of researchers gathered data on urban and rural Omaha Indians in Nebraska to determine if either group had different opinions on family planning. The team found that “the family economic situation, the ability to care for the children now and later, family happiness, and the feeling that the couple had enough children were valid considerations in a decision to delay or prevent further pregnancies.” (54) The team also noted that the “freedom for the mother to work, and the belief that a small population was good for the country, were generally not sufficient cause [for birth control].” (55)
C. State and Federal Policies Regarding Informed Consent and Sterilization
Dr. Louis Hellman, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs in the Public Health Service, presented statistics confirming that 150,000 low income people were sterilized in the United States by means of federal grant money. (56) These funds allowed the states to be reimbursed for up to 90 percent of the cost of sterilizing indigent women. A report from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare stated:
Voluntary sterilization is legal in all states. Although most states have no statute regulating voluntary sterilization, over half authorize the procedure either explicitly by statute, attorney general’s opinion, judicial decision, or policies of [the] Health and Welfare department or implicitly through consent requirements . . . . (57)
Since the states themselves are not following any set policies, it would be reasonable to assume that the Indian Health Service does not either. Thus, there is a valid suspicion regarding the effective management of resources and people at the Indian Health Service.
D. An Examination of the Contractual Relationship Between the Indian Health Service and Private Practices
Researchers on the Navajo Reservation observed that the trend toward increased female sterilizations had to do with the health care providers, who were found to be responsible for the huge increase (almost 300% since 1970) (58) of patients “agreeing” to surgery. The team further stated that the pattern of childbearing on the Navajo Reservation was very similar to those in developing countries. (59) The following statement further illustrates the paternalistic and authoritative attitude that many physicians have toward women: “persons in the lower educational classes rely more on such operations [hysterectomies]; they have been least likely to control their fertility in other ways, and doctors may finally suggest this method.” (60)
Contract Care entails formal agreements with private vendors and is used when the Indian Health Service cannot equip its staff or facilities for emergency or specialty care or if there is an overload of patients. (61) Contract physicians associated with the Indian Health Service are reimbursed for each sterilization. (62) The reimbursements that the physicians receive come from federal funds, but are not federally accountable: “thirty percent of the sterilizations were performed at ‘contract’ facilities. [Indian Health Service] officials in the Albuquerque and Aberdeen areas said they do not monitor the consent procedures in contract care, nor are doctors required to follow federal regulations.” (63)
Normally, agencies which receive funding from the federal government must follow federal guidelines. The Indian Health Service, however, shows a lack of concern and accountability with the patients they treat and the money they handle. (64)
E. The United States General Accounting Office Investigation of the Indian Health Service Sterilization Procedures and the Meaning Behind Statistics of Population Growth
Complaints of these unethical sterilization practices continued, but little was done until the matter was brought to the attention of Senator James Abourezk (D-SD). Finally, affirmative steps were taken – specifically the commissioning of the General Accounting Office – to investigate the affair and to determine if the complaints of Indian women were true – that they were undergoing sterilization as a means of birth control, without consent. (65) The problem with the investigation was that it was initially limited to only four area Indian Health Service hospitals (later twelve); therfore, the total number of Indian women sterilized remains unknown. (66) The General Accounting Office came up with a figure of 3,400 women who had been sterilized; but others speculate that at least that many had been sterilized each year from 1972 through 1976. (67)
The General Accounting Office confined its investigation to Indian Health Service records and failed to probe case histories, to observe patient-doctor relationships, or to interview women who had been sterilized. (68) This deplorable lack of thorough investigation only served as an attempt to placate the concerns of Indian people.
The General Accounting Office investigators concluded that Indian Health Service consent procedures lacked the basic elements of informed consent, particularly in informing a patient orally of the advantages and disadvantages of sterilization. (69) Furthermore, the consent form had only a summary of the oral presentation, and the form lacked the information usually located at the top of the page notifying the patient that no federal benefits would be taken away if she did not accept sterilization. (70) The General Accounting Office notified the Indian Health Service that it should implement better consent procedures. Some Indian Health Service Area Directors were pressured by local Indians and by Indian physicians and staff to suspend certain nurses and to move the hospital administrators to another post. Other than that, however, there was little else done by government officials. (71)
Outraged by the level of governmental inaction, Indian people accused the Indian Health Service of making genocide a part of its policy. For the Indian Health Service, this was a serious accusation, as the purpose of this agency was to somehow alleviate the terrible health conditions in Indian communities. The Indian Health Service defended itself by relying on the inaccurate sterilization figures provided by the General Accounting Office. (72) In reality, however, the accusation of genocide was not far off base. As Thomas Littlewood stated in his book on the politics of population control, “non-white Americans are not unaware of how the American Indian came to be called the vanishing American . . . [t]his country’s starkest example of genocide in practice.” (73)
From a statistical point of view, the reality of the devastation of Native American women victimized by sterilization can be observed through the comments of Senator Abourezk himself: “given the small American Indian population, the 3,400 Indian sterilization figure [out of 55,000 Indian women of childbearing age] would be compared to sterilizing 452,000 non-Indian women.” (74)
Science has provided a means of categorizing and victimizing those in society deemed unworthy of continued existence. Its influence in academic and political circles has created a pervasive social bigotry that rewards extermination over reform. The failure to embrace the racial and cultural diversity of this country has left a wake of destruction and oppression in minority populations. It is time for the pundits of social change to rearrange their thinking and give back to the people the power to choose what is right for themelves.
1 Beverly Horsburgh, Schr degreesodinger’s Cat, Eugenics, and the Compulsory Sterilization of Welfare Mothers: Deconstructing an Old/New Rhetoric and Constructing the Reproductive Right to Natality for Low-Income Women of Color, 17 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 536 (1996).
2 Id. at 538
3 Id. at 539
5 Herbert Hovenkamp, Social Science and Segregation before Brown, 1985 Duke L.J. 624,625
7 Id. at 630-632 (citing Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908) (upholding a Kentucky statute prohibiting integrated schools)).
8 Beverly Horsburgh, Schr degreesodinger’s Cat, Eugenics, and the Compulsory Sterilization of Welfare Mothers: Deconstructing an Old/New Rhetoric and Constructing the Reproductive Right to Natality for Low-Income Women of Color, 17 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 536 (1996) (citing Stephen J. Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (1981) at 114-115.
9 Id. at 115.
11 Id. at 118
12 Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, Exploding the Gene Myth: How Genetic Information is Produced and Manipulated by Scientists, Physicians, Employers, Insurance Companies, Educators, and Law Enforcers (1993), at 14.
13 Beverly Horsburgh, Schr degreesodinger’s Cat, Eugenics, and the Compulsory Sterilization of Welfare Mothers: Deconstructing an Old/New Rhetoric and Constructing the Reproductive Right to Natality for Low-Income Women of Color, 17 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 536 (1996) (citing Francis Galton, Hereditary Talent and Character, in Adam Miller, Professors of Hate, in The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions (Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman eds., 1995) at 393, 396, 406-442.
14 Linda Gordon, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Societal History of Birth Control in America (rev. ed. 1990), at 276.
15 Id. at 277-278 (quoting Michael F. Guyer, Being Well-Born (1916), at 296-298).
16 The Immigration Act of 1924, ch.190, §11(a), 43 Stat. 153, 159, amended by The Immigration and Nationality Act, ch. 477, §201, 66 Stat. 175 (1952), amended by Pub. L. No. 89-236, §1, 79 Stat. 911 (1965).
17 Leon J. Kamin, The Pioneers of IQ Testing, in The Bell Curve Debate (1995), at 494.
18 Howard M. Sachar, A History of Jews in America (1992), at 321.
21 Adam Miller, Professors of Hate, in The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions (Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman eds., 1995) at 172.
22 Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, Exploding the Gene Myth: How Genetic Information is Produced and Manipulated by Scientists, Physicians, Employers, Insurance Companies, Educators, and Law Enforcers (1993), at 21.
23 Robert N. Proctor, Genomics and Eugenics: How Fair is the Comparison?, in Gene Mapping: Using Law and Ethics as Guides, at 61.
24 Beverly Horsburgh, Schr degreesodinger’s Cat, Eugenics, and the Compulsory Sterilization of Welfare Mothers: Deconstructing an Old/New Rhetoric and Constructing the Reproductive Right to Natality for Low-Income Women of Color, 17 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 554 (1996).
25 Linda Gordon, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Societal History of Birth Control in America (rev. ed. 1990), at 437.
27 Id. at 432-433.
28 Charles Rutherford, Reproductive Freedoms and African American Women, 4 YALE J.L. & FEMINISM 255, 273-74 (1992).
29 Relf v. Weinberger, 372 F. Supp. 1196, 1199 (D.D.C. 1974).
30 Charles R. England, A Look at the Indian Health Service Policy of Sterilization, 1972-1976, at 1 (available on-line at http://www.dickshovel.com/IHSSterPol.html).
31 American Indian Journal of the Institute for the Development of Indian Law, Feb., 1977, at 22-23.
32 England, at 1.
37 American Indian Journal of the Institute for the Development of Indian Law, Feb., 1977, at 23.
38 England, at 1.
40 Id., at 2
42 Akwesasne Notes, Sterilization of Young Native Women Alleged at Indian Hospital (July, 1974), at 22.
44 England, at 2.
45 Akwesasne Notes, Sterilization of Young Native Women Alleged at Indian Hospital (July, 1974), at 22.
46 Helen Temkin-Greener, Surgical Fertility Regulation Among Women on the Navajo Indian Reservation, American Journal of Public Health, (April, 1981), at 405.
48 Id., at 406.
50 England, at 2.
51 Brint Dillingham, American Indian Women and I.H.S. Sterilization Practices, American Indian Journal (January, 1977), at 28.
53 England, at 2.
54 Margot Liberty, Rural and Urban Omaha Indian Fertility, Human Biology (February, 1976), at 63-64.
55 Id., at 64.
56 Gayle Mark Jarvis, The Theft of Life, Akwesasne Notes (1977), at 22.
57 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health Trends and Services [report] (GPO, 1978), at 89.
58 Gayle Mark Jarvis, The Theft of Life, Akwesasne Notes (1977), at 31.
59 Temkin-Greener, at 406.
60 Leslie A. Westoff and Charles F. Westoff, From Now to Zero, Little, Brown & Co. (1971), at 56.
61 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Family Planning, Contraception, Voluntary Sterilization and Abortion, (GPO, 1978), at 2.
62 Mark Miller, Native American Peoples on the Trail of Tears Once More, America (December 1978), at 424.
63 Killing Our Future: Sterilization and Experiments, Akwesasne Notes (Autumn, 1977), at 4.
64 England, at 4.
65 Dillingham, at 27.
66 Id., at 27-28.
67 England, at 4.
68 Jarvis, Akwesasne Notes (Autumn, 1977), at 30.
69 England, at 5.
70 Bill Wagner, Lo the Poor and Sterilized Indian, America (January 29, 1977), at 75.
71 Akwesasne Notes, Sterilization of Young Native Women Alleged at Indian Hospital (July, 1974), at 22.
72 Janet Karstan Larson, And Then There Were None: Is Federal Policy Endangering the American Indian Species?, Christian Century (January 26, 1977), at 63.
73 Thomas B. Littlewood, The Politics of Population Control, The University of Notre Dame Press (1977), at 82.
74 Wagner, at 75.
This is KAFIR MORALITY for you….
Edition Four, July 1992 – ARCHIVE
U.S. Defends Burying Iraqi Troops Alive
Pentagon Cites “Gap” in International Law
Reprinted from the San Francisco Chronicle
The Pentagon said that a “gap” in the laws governing warfare made it legally permissible during the gulf war for U.S. tanks to bury thousands of Iraqi troops in their trenches and for U.S. warplanes to bomb the enemy retreating along the so-called Highway of Death.
An elaborate legal justification was contained in an appendix to the report on the war sent to Congress by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. The section also accused Iraq of “widespread and premeditated” war crimes and environmental terrorism.
But it absolved U.S. forces on war crime issues raised “by some in the post-conflict environment.”
Newsday disclosed in September that many Iraqi troops were buried alive when the First Mechanized Infantry Division attacked an 8,000-man division defending Saddam Hussein’s front line.
U.S. commanders told Newsday that thousands had been buried during the two-day assault Feb. 24-25, 1991. During the February 27 Iraqi retreat from Kuwait, tens of thousands of vehicles were destroyed by U.S. jets. But most estimates said 1,000 or fewer Iraqis were killed.
According to the new report, the incidents raised questions about the Geneva Convention’s prohibition of “denial of quarter” — refusing to accept an enemy’s offer to surrender. It said:
“There is a gap in the law of war in defining precisely when surrender takes effect or how it may be accomplished. An attempt at surrender in the midst of a hard-fought battle is neither easily communicated nor received. The issue is one of reasonableness.”
At the time the Iraqi front was breached, commanders were still concerned about the threat of chemical, gas and missile attack. “Because of these uncertainties and the need to minimize loss of U.S. lives, military necessity required that the assault … be conducted with maximum speed and violence,” the report said.
“Many Iraqis surrenderd during this phase of the attack and were taken prisoner. The division then assaulted the trenches containing other Iraqi soldiers. Once astride the trench lines, the division turned the plow blades of its tanks and combat earth movers along the Iraqi defense line.
“In the process many more Iraqi soldiers surrendered; others died in the course of the attack and the destruction or bulldozing of their defensive positions.”
Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said the report ignored the Bush administration’s failure to disclose the location of the burial site. “That is a clear violation of Articles 15 and 16 of the First Geneva Convention,” he said.
Pentagon spokesman Pete Williams has said Cheney’s interpretation of the conventions does not require the United States to provide such details.
Roth said the killing of Iraqi troops fleeing Kuwait was another violation of the conventions — specifically the ban on attacking defenseless soldiers: “Those Iraqis were wholly at the mercy of our warplanes.”
But the Pentagon report argued that the fleeing soldiers could have reorganized and resumed offensive operations. “The law of war permits the attack of enemy combatants at any time, whether advancing, retreating, or standing still,” the report said.
another omission from Haaretz English edition: The Interior Ministry and the Ministry of Religious Affairs do everything to prevent recognition of Jews who convert or marry a Muslim. Population Registry dismisses documents from the Shara’aite court and requires converts to Islam to show a conversion document from the Ministry of Religious Affairs. Those who turn to the MRA have to suffer harassment and humiliation, after which they are given nothing. The Association for Civil Rights is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court
Joseph Algazy, Haaretz
12 Dec. 2002
|For the last 7 months G, a Jewish woman from the south of Israel who married a Muslim man and converted to Islam, has been trying in vain to make the Ministry of Religious Affairs give her a document confirming her conversion. G converted to Islam because the Jewish religious establishment in Israel does not allow an inter-religious marriage. A conversion document is a condition posed by the Interior Ministry in order to register either conversion or marriage.
These two government ministries, controlled by Shas party ministers, refuse to acknowledge the validity of certificates and rulings regarding a conversion from Judaism to Islam issued by the Muslim courts. Thus, the Interior Ministry conditions the acknowledgement of a marriage between a Jewish citizen who converted to Islam and married a Muslim, as well as their request for a family unification with their spouse, if the latter is not a citizen, on the receipt of a conversion certificate from the Ministry of Religious Affairs, or from the Rabbinate. Both refuse to produce it.
G’s case is not unique, there are many like her. Applicants for a conversion certificate are made to suffer prolonged delays and masses of red tape; they are heavily pressured to renege their conversion. When such pressures fail, the two ministries just ignore the letter of the law – says the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) that has started preparing an appeal to the state’s supreme court in the name of four citizens who were refused in this way.
Last May, G and her partner visited their local bureau of the Population Registry to register their marriage and report her conversion. G presented the clerk with a ruling from the Shara’aite court, confirming her conversion to Islam. The clerk dismissed this ruling, and demanded that G acquire a conversion certificate from a rabbinical court, or from the Ministry of Religious Affairs. When the couple visited the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Jerusalem, the senior official they met with asked to speak to the woman separately. In this conversation, ACRI documents show, the official tried to convince G to change her mind, and renege her conversion. The official lectured G about the virtues of Judaism compared to Islam.
G did not change her mind. She filed a conversion request and attached the required documents. The couple were told that the request will be examined by a special comity, whose members include a social worker and a psychiatrist, and whose job is to make sure that G was not forced to convert, or converted under the influence of a foreign element. The couple were also told that examination of G’s request may take between 6-18 months, and that the comity alone can decide if she’ll be granted a certificate of conversion – the condition imposed by the Interior Ministry for registering her conversion and marriage. In August, ACRI lawyer Bana Shagri-Badarna enquired with the Ministry of Religious Affairs and with the senior official about the delay in issuing the conversion certificate, but this did not advance G’s case.
The couple needed the Interior Ministry registration to qualify for a home mortgage loan. They traveled to Bulgaria and remarried there in a civil ceremony. In October they applied again, this time directly to the Director of the Population Registry, Herzl Gadz’. They are still waiting for a response.
A Special Committy
S, a Jewish man, converted to Islam in a Shara’aite court in April. A week later, when he filed a request with the Population Registry to change his name and report his conversion, the clerk treated him rudely. S turned to that clerk’s superior, and was told that his conversion would only be registered after he acquires a certificate from the Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem. S went to the Rabbinical Court in his locality and was sent to the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Jerusalem. There he met the same senior official that met G and her husband. He too was told that a special comity will examine his request, and that a social worker and a psychiatrist are among its members.
S responded by announcing that he converted to Islam of his own free will, and that directing him to the comity offends his dignity. But he was told that without the special comity’s approval his conversion would not be acknowledged. Left without an alternative route, S applied to the comity.
Five different dates were set for a meeting with the comity and cancelled at the last moment. In August, after another talk to the senior official at the Ministry of Religious Affairs did not help, ACRI’S representative contacted the Head of the Communities department at the Ministry of Religious Affairs, attorney Yosi Hershler, asking him to issue a conversion certificate for S without S’ reporting to the special comity. The senior clerk, in response, telephoned S and asked him to present her with a document of exemption from military service. Further calls and letters to Hershler were not replied to.
Shagri-Badarna also wrote to the Population Registry’s bureau in S’ locality and complained that S’ religious freedom was harmed. She asked the Population Registry to accept S’ conversion document issued in accordance with Israeli law by the Shara’aite court. The bureau again referred S to the Ministry of Religious Affairs. Seven months have passed since S first asked for his conversion to be registered, but his situation remains the same.
A, a 24 year old woman Jewish citizen of Israel converted to Islam last June, in the Shara’aite court in Jerusalem. She told Haaretz that she decided to convert to Islam not because she lived with a Muslim man, but because she has found her truth in Islam. “As an independent human it’s my right to convert to Islam, and I owe no one an explanation,” she said. In March, when she telephoned the Population Registry bureau in Jerusalem to ask what the registration procedure was, she was sent to the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Jerusalem. She had no idea of the humiliation and harassment she’d that awaited her, after which her “legitimate request – in a free country – to live as a Muslim,” would be rejected.
On her first visit to the Ministry of Religious Affairs A submitted her request to the same senior official mentioned above. After waiting some time for a reply, A revisited the Ministry of Religious Affairs and was told she must report to a special comity. A visited the Ministry of Religious Affairs six times, to meet different individuals – people who presented themselves as a rabbi, a lawyer, a social worker, and a psychiatrist – each, in turn, interrogated her and tried talking her into reneging her conversion. On failing to convince her, one of the women told her “You are a traitor, betraying the Jewish people,” and “You hate your own mother.” She was further berated for lying in refusing to expose what they had discovered themselves, having investigated her life: that she’s seeing a Muslim Arab.
In October, when an ACRI lawyer enquired with the Population Registry about A’s case, she was told once more that A’s request for conversion will not be handled before A presents a conversion certificate from the Ministry of Religious Affairs or from the Rabbinate – the same bodies that refuse to acknowledge a conversion certificate from the Shara’aite court. A request to have this in writing did not yield a response.
The case of K seems simpler, but for several years she has not been able to resolve it. K, a Jewish woman citizen of Israel, married an Egyptian citizen in September 1997. The two wanted to arrange the husband’s Israeli citizenship at the Population Registry bureau in their locality, but the clerk at the bureau refused to accept their application. In October 2001, following ACRI’s involvement, the application was resubmitted with the Egyptian marriage contract attached. K’s husband was given a 6 months permit to stay and work in Israel, a permit that was later extended by three months. In K’s ID, under “personal status,” the Interior Ministry did not write “married,” but “under examination.” K was also required to present a ruling from an Israeli Shara’aite court about her marriage, and a conversion certificate from the Ministry of Religious Affairs – these were the conditions without which the couple’s request to register their marriage would not be handled.
Last February K and her partner presented the Population Registry with a ruling from the Shara’aite court that confirms their marriage. K refused to present a conversion certificate from the Ministry of Religious Affairs, because she considers this requirement illegal and irrelevant for the registry of her marriage.
In mid June, when K and her partner asked the Population Registry bureau to extend the husband’s work and stay permit, they were again required to present additional documents. Their request was only approved after two months. When the extension was granted, Interior Ministry clerks made it clear to the couple that in March, when the permit expires, it will not be extended again, nor will applications for a registration of the marriage and a permanent residency status be handled, unless they come up with a conversion certificate from the Ministry of Religious Affairs.
A Tougher Policy
These people, and others in a similar situation, are afraid to be exposed. They are anxious of social pressure, and they are fully aware of the Jewish religious organizations active in Israel, such as “Yad La’Ahim” (A Hand to The Brothers), who openly try to “salvage from assimilation.” Some of these organizations apply various pressures to achieve their objective.
Two weeks ago, ACRI contacted the head of Supreme Court Petitions department at the Attorney General’s office, Attorney Osnat Mandel, and presented to her the cases of G, S, A, and K. ACRI claims that the Interior Ministry and the Ministry of Religious Affairs “inflict severe harm on the freedom of religion and conscience, on the dignity and on the equality of citizens who chose to convert from Judaism to Islam.” ACRI requested the Attorney General’s office to order the two ministries to register conversions of religion and marriages based on rulings from Shara’aite courts, which are a public certificate just like a rabbinical court’s certificate of conversion to Judaism. Otherwise, a heavy suspicion of discrimination on religious grounds and / or nationality will rise. The Attorney General’s office is supposed to respond by the beginning of January.
The spokesperson for the Interior Ministry has told Haaretz that the Attorney General’s office will reply to ACRI’s request. The spokesperson for the Ministry of Religious Affairs also replied briefly: “The Ministry works in accordance with the Religious Community Order (conversion) and the procedure for this issue.” The Ministry of Religious Affairs refused our invitation to lay out its policies about the conversion of Jews.
A neighborhood rabbi, who asked to remain anonymous, told Haaretz that he understands how the heads of the ministries must feel, and what makes them heap difficulties in the way of Jews who “ask to convert their religion and lose their soul. Those clerks perform a very great mitzvah,” the Rabbi said. A veteran Shara’aite litigator has told Haaretz that until a few years ago he did not encounter great difficulties in registering conversions and marriages that were ruled on by the Shara’aite court. In his experience, he said, until about three years ago, a Jew that converted to Islam was given a hearing at the Ministry of Religious Affairs, or at a rabbinical court, to ascertain the decision was made out of their own free will, and in an attempt to dissuade them. In some cases they were required to present a document from the military. The Shara’aite litigator considers the toughening of policy to be influenced by the general atmosphere of intolerance currently prevalent in Israel.
|David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster
Published: Monday January 5, 2009
|Doctor estimates 2,000 – 2,500 civilian casualties|
Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor working in Gaza, told Sky News on Monday that that he believes Israel is deliberately attacking the Palestinian population, not just targeting Hamas as Israeli authorities have said numerous times.
“Just a little bit more than an hour ago, the Israelis bombed the central food market in Gaza City and we had a mass influx of about 50 injured and between 10 and 15 killed,” said Gilbert, on the phone with Sky News.
“At the same time they bombed an apartment house with children playing on the roof and we had a lot of children also. This is really like from Dante’s Inferno. It’s like hell here now and it’s been bombing all night. Up till now, close to 500 people have been killed and the number of casualties is getting to 2, 2 and a half thousand, which 50 percent are children and women.”
“Are your hospital’s reaching capacity?” asked the Sky News correspondent. “Can you deal with these people?”
“We have been doing surgery around the clock,” Gilbert replied. “I just talked to to one of my colleagues in the ICU who has not been sleeping for three days and they hospital is completely overcrowded and we are running six, seven OR’s and there are injuries that you just don’t want to see in this world. Children coming in with open abdomens and legs cut off.
“We just had a child who left. We had to amputate both legs and the arms and the only crime they have done is been civilians — Palestinians living in Gaza. The relief now is not more doctors and more drugs the relief now is to stop the bombing immediately. This can not go on. It is a disaster.”
“You’ve talked about the civilians, the women and children, the men who aren’t involved in this but are you also getting casualties that are Hamas fighters?” asked the reporter.
“To be honest, we came on New Year’s Eve in the morning,” answered Gilbert. “I’ve seen one military person among the tens — I mean, hundreds — we have seen and treated. So, anybody who tries to claim this as sort of a clean war against another army are lying.
“This is an all out war against the civilian Palestinian population in Gaza and we can prove that with the numbers and you have to remember that the average age of the Gaza inhabitant is 17-years. It’s a very young population and 80 percent are living below the poverty limit of the U.N.
“So, this is a poor and very young people and they are able to escape absolutely nowhere because they can not flee like other populations can in wartime. Because they are fenced in and they are in a cage. So, they are bombing one and a half million people in a cage. And young people and poor people and, you know, you can not separate between the civilians and the fighters in such a situation.”
This video is from CBS News, broadcast Jan. 5, 2008.