Two Palestinian women to be tried this week for non-violent demonstration

7 July 2013

B’Tselem: Suspicion Military legal system being used to suppress legitimate non-violent protest

Tomorrow, Tuesday, 9 July 2013, the military court at Ofer Israeli military base will hold its first session in the trial of Nariman a-Tamimi and Rana Hamadah, who were arrested on 28 June 2013 during the weekly demonstration in the West Bank village of a-Nabi Saleh. The demonstration was not violent and there was no stone-throwing. The two Palestinian women were held at Sharon Prison in Israel for almost four days, and were then indicted for entering a closed military zone. The military prosecution rarely issues indictments for this offense. Rana Hamadah was also charged with obstructing a soldier in the execution of his duty. A foreign national arrested along with the two was released that night and barred from entering the village of a-Nabi Saleh for 15 days.

Still from video documentation of the arrests. Sarit Michaeli, B'Tselem, 28 June 2013

After serving the indictment, the military prosecution requested the court to remand the two women for the duration of the proceedings. Justice Maj. Shahar Greenberg denied the request, and instead ordered that the two remain under house arrest for the duration of the proceedings. Implementation of the order was delayed upon request by defense counsel Adv. Nery Ramati. President of the Military Appeals Court Col. Netanel Benisho is shortly to announce his ruling on an appeal filed in this case.

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.

Jessica Montell, Executive Director of Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, said, “The military prosecution’s handling of the matter, and particularly its unprecedented request to remand non-violent demonstrators for the duration of the legal proceedings, raises the suspicion that the military might be exploiting these proceedings to keep Nariman a-Tamimi from carrying on her joint activity with her husband, Bassem, in a-Nabi Saleh’s struggle against the village being dispossessed of its land.”

Background

Nariman a-Tamimi is a prominent activist in the struggle that residents of a-Nabi Saleh village have waged over the last three years against the Israeli occupation and against being dispossessed of their land and water spring by settlers. Her husband, Bassem a-Tamimi, served 13 months in prison after being convicted by the Ofer military court of participating in illegal demonstrations and incitement to throw stones. In November 2012 he was sentenced to an additional four months of prison time, after being arrested at a demonstration near an Israeli supermarket chain in the West Bank. The European Union has declared a-Tamimi a human rights defender. Catherine Ashton, European Union High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs, voiced concern over a-Tamimi’s conviction, which was based on testimonies taken from two minors from the village, who were interrogated in violation of their rights. Nariman a-Tamimi’s brother, Rushdi, was killed by live ammunition fired by soldiers during clashes in the village in November 2012. A Military Police investigation into the circumstances of his killing is still under way. The couple has four children.

The demonstrations in a-Nabi Saleh began in December 2009 to protest the fact that settlers, apparently from the nearby settlement of Halamish, had taken over the al-Qus spring and other villager-owned lands. Israeli military and Border Police forces are stationed there to prevent the demonstrators from reaching the spring and an adjacent road, which is also used by the settlers, arguing that the demonstrators may throw stones at settlers. Often, security forces halt the demonstration before it has even left the village.

For the past three years, B’Tselem has been documenting the actions used to violently suppress the demonstrations in the village, even when demonstrators are not throwing stones. As part of this suppression, the military has been exploiting legal means such as issuing warrants declaring village lands a closed military zone on Fridays, for as long as half a year at a time, and prosecuting the organizers of the demonstrations. To date, indictments have been served only in cases of violence or incitement to violence. No such claim has been made in the case at hand.

Suggested items

No Accountability

Human Rights in the Occupied Territories

The report surveys the broad spectrum of issues regarding the Israeli authorities' human rights record in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the past year, the 44th year of the Israeli occupation. An interactive version of the report is available online and distributed through social media. The report documents a sharp increase in the number of uninvolved Palestinians killed by the Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip in 2011. There was also an increase in the number of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians, compared to 2010.

21 March 2012

Security forces disperse a demonstration in the village of a-Nabi Saleh, 21 May 2010. Photo: Oren Ziv, activestills.org

Demonstrations

Background on the demonstrations at a-Nabi Saleh

In December 2009, protestors began demonstrating in the village of a-Nabi Saleh against the settler takeover of the nearby al-Qus spring and of other Palestinian land. As a rule, the demonstrations were held once a week until 2016. From the outset, Israel treated these demonstrations as unlawful and dispersed them. In the first few weeks, the protestors held non-violent processions that set out from the village center towards the spring, and reached the main road that separates the village from the spring and the settlement. At that point, although the protestors did not use violence, Israeli security forces dispersed them with various measures, including extensive use of crowd control weapons. After several demonstrations, the military started to prevent the procession from leaving the village and violently dispersed the protestors. In most instances, after the procession were dispersed, confrontations developed between the security forces and Palestinian youths who threw stones at them. During the clashes, which sometimes lasted hours on end, the forces fired tear gas canisters among village homes – forcing the residents to stay inside for extended periods. They forces also employed various collective punishment measures against the residents, including spraying a foul-smelling liquid ("Skunk") at houses and yards, and blocking vehicles from entering the village. Over the years, many scores of village residents were arrested, including minors, and some were sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Over time, the confrontations diminished and the number of regular protestors dropped to several dozen, until the demonstrations stopped altogether in 2016. Though the weekly demonstrations ended, protests are still held in the village from time to time. In addition, security forces occasionally enter the village on various pretexts – at times only provoking residents, at other times arresting some of them, and sometimes searching homes. Over the years, more than 300 village residents have been arrested, about half of them minors. During the incursions into the village, the military's open-fire policy has remained the same as that implemented during the weekly demonstrations. The forces rely heavily on crowd control weapons and live fire – including 0.22-inch caliber bullets ("Two-Twos") fired by snipers at stone-throwers who do not pose a risk to the forces’ lives. To date, since the demonstrations began, hundreds of people have been injured, including many dozens by live fire, due to this policy. At least ten of the persons injured were rendered temporarily or permanently disabled. The military also continues to subject the village to collective punishment. For further information on the conduct of Israeli security forces during the weekly demonstrations in the village, see B'Tselem's 2011 report "Show of Force." Persons killed by Israeli security forces during demonstrations and military incursions into the village On 9 December 2011, Mustafa a-Tamimi, 28, was wounded by a tear gas canister fired by a soldier that hit him in the head while throwing stones during the weekly demonstration in the village. He died of his wounds the following day. On 17 Nov. 2012, Rushdi a-Tamimi, 30, was wounded by live fire during a demonstration in the village in which youths threw stones at soldiers. He died of his wounds two days later. On 12 May 2017, Sabaa' Obeid, 22, a resident of Salfit, was killed by a 0.22-caliber bullet ("Two-Two") fired during a demonstration in the village, after he had thrown stones at soldiers. 'Obeid was shot while he was moving away from the soldiers and posed no danger. On 6 June 2018, 'Iz a-Din Tamimi, 20, was hit in the back by live bullets fired from 45 meters away, as he fled after throwing stones at soldiers during an arrest operation in the village. He died of his wounds a short while later. On 23 July 2021, Muhammad Tamimi, 17, was hit in the back and buttocks by live bullets fired from 30 meters away, after throwing stones at the soldiers during a military incursion into the village. He died of his wounds later that day. On 25 October 2022, Qusai Tamimi, 19, was wounded in the chest by live bullets fired by soldiers from about 80 meters away, after he and other youths burned tires near the entrance to the village. He died of his wounds a short while later.

2 January 2013

Demonstrations

15 Jan. '12: Judge holds confession of Palestinian minor admissible, although it was obtained through breach of his rights

On 9 January 2012, Israeli Military Youth Court judge Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai held that the confession given to the police by I.D., a 14-year-old Palestinian boy from a-Nabi Saleh, interrogated on suspicion of stone throwing, was admissible. The judge admitted the confession even though the minor had been questioned in breach of his rights under Israel’s Youth Law, whose spirit, according to the Military Appeals Court, applies also in adjudication of Palestinian minors in the military courts.I.D. was arrested at home in the middle of the night. He was not allowed to rest, eat, or go to the bathroom and, from the morning, was interrogated for more than seven hours. He was interrogated, without his parents present, by three or four interrogators, only one of whom is a trained youth interrogator – although even he is not currently functioning in that capacity and has not undergone retraining following the changes in the Youth Law made in 2008. I.D.'s interrogation, taken from video footage of the interrogation by the police.Despite the fact that I.D.’s attorney contacted the interrogators before the interrogation began, I.D. was only allowed to consult with him five and a half hours of interrogation. One of the interrogators read I.D. his rights three times, each time omitting the right to remain silent and emphasizing that he must tell the whole truth.Under interrogation, I.D. admitted to throwing stones and incriminated two persons from his village in organizing demonstrations and inciting villagers to throw stones.I.D.’s attorney complained that his client’s confession had been obtained through use of improper means and should not be allowed into evidence. As a result, the court held a trial-within-a-trial, in which the judge ruled that the confession was admissible.In her decision, Judge Rivlin-Ahai accepted some of the defense’s claims regarding the nature of the interrogation but held, nevertheless, that ruling the confession inadmissible was not justified. Regarding the interrogation in the absence of I.D.'s parents, she held that, as I.D. had given information on many fellow villagers, she accepted the interrogator’s statement that “it is highly likely that, even if the parents had come, he would not have permitted them to be present during the interrogation.” As for the refusal to allow the minor to meet with his attorney, the judge ruled that, “from the moment that the interrogation began and it became clear that the defendant was providing valuable information on the involvement of many other persons, the decision to prevent the meeting with the attorney for several hours cannot be viewed as patently unreasonable.” On the decision not to wait for the attorney's arrival to begin the interrogation, although he had notified the interrogators that he was on his way, Judge Rivlin-Ahai said that the interrogators should have waited, but “it is hard to say that the decision not to wait, when the defendant had already been in detention since night-time and was waiting for the interrogation to begin… was so unreasonable and unjust that it critically harmed the fairness of the interrogation.” With respect to I.D.’s tiredness, the judge contended that video footage of the interrogation indicated that "it was not tiredness of the kind that would prevent a substantive interrogation.”.In her summary, the judge emphasized that, “each of the circumstances… could, in certain circumstances, each on its own and certainly cumulatively, lead to the conclusion that the fairness of the interrogation was harmed to the core… In the unique concrete circumstances existing here, I did not find this to be the case.”The only essential flaw that the judge found in the interrogation was that the interrogators did not properly clarify to I.D. that he had the right to remain silent, instead giving him the impression that he was obliged to tell them everything he knew. On this point, the judge stated in her decision:As noted, the flaw in the defendant's interrogation is serious. On the other hand, I have concluded that this flaw did not have a real effect on the manner in which the defendant gave his confession. Therefore, I believe that the infringement of the defendant’s rights in the specific case did not result in greater than necessary violation of his right to criminal due process, to the extent that would nullify his confession and, as a result, impede revelation of the true facts and advancement of the public interest in combating criminality.The testimonies of interrogators of the SHAI (Judea and Samaria) Police Department in the trial-within-a-trial indicated that the interrogation of I.D. is the norm in the Department's handling of Palestinian minors. Under cross-examination, the police officers said that Palestinian minors are regularly interrogated without their parents in the room, by interrogators who have not been trained as youth interrogators, and in a manner that breaches Israel’s Youth Law. However, since most files involving minors end in plea bargains, judges generally do not have the opportunity to give their opinion on the conduct of the interrogation and to alter the police’s unlawful practices.In I.D.’s case, the court had a rare opportunity to provide the minor with real protection and to establish a rule that would protect the rights of all Palestinian minors interrogated by the police. It is highly regrettable that the judge chose to admit the confession into evidence rather than send a clear message to the authorities that the public interest actually lies in the proper protection of the rights of minors.

15 January 2012