David Sheen at Israel’s State Archives in Jerusalem (Credit: Rotem Malenky)
Israeli-Canadian journalist David Sheen, a former editor at Haaretz who regularly reports on racism against Africans within Israel, is the subject of a defamation lawsuit by former Israeli general Israel Ziv demanding $200,000. The case falls under what is known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation – or SLAPP.
“Ziv claims that I have defamed him by reporting on his activities and by referring to him in my tweets as an ‘arch-racist’, a ‘racist ringleader’, and a ‘war crimes whitewasher,’” Sheen said in an email to Index. “I contend that these are my opinions and that they are based on reported facts.”
In January 2017, Sheen wrote an article for the Electronic Intifada, an independent news website focusing on Palestine, entitled Netanyahu Openly Boasts of Israel’s War on Africans, in which he refers to Ziv as one of ten Israeli “ringleaders in Israel’s war on Africans”.
The mentions of Ziv in Sheen’s article refer to an investigation by Israel’s Channel 2 TV in 2016 that made public conversations between Ziv, now the owner of security consultancy company Global CST, and his associates during which they discussed a campaign with the objective to “whitewash the reputation” of the “cruel president” of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, “and to fortify his regime”. This followed a report by the United Nations that Kiir had allowed soldiers under his command to commit “a multitude of horrendous human rights violations,” including raping women and children en masse “in lieu of wages”. Ideas floated during Ziv’s meeting include that Kiir could blame these crimes on indigenous African tribal culture or that he could make a speech at the UN flanked by the victims.
Channel 2 TV and other news organisations that reported on this story are not facing legal action from Ziv, but Sheen, an independent journalist, is.
“While large news organisations employ teams of lawyers who can fend off SLAPP suits and legal harassment, independent journalists such as myself don’t, so we present a tempting target,” Sheen told Index. “But more than this: the mainstream media reports of Ziv’s efforts to aid the president of South Sudan were in the Hebrew language, which is only spoken by 0.1% of the world population.”
Sheen’s report was in English, the third most-spoken language in the world. “So even though my report was published by a small independent outlet, it has the potential of being read by many more people, and that is something that Ziv clearly wishes to prevent,” he said.
Sheen added that, in general terms, reporting on Israeli mistreatment of Africans is sometimes met with more resistance than reporting on Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians. “There is already a well-established ‘both sides’ narrative that can be utilised to try to explain away the latter. Israel’s defenders can say that Jews and Arabs have been battling for a hundred years, so Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians is just another round of tit for tat fighting.” he said. “They can’t use this narrative in regards to Israeli mistreatment of Africans because there is no recent – or ancient – history of conflict between Jews and African peoples. Unable to neuter criticism of the maltreatment of Africans, Israel’s defenders hope to silence reports about it.”
Sheen added that the libel lawsuit against him sends a clear warning to his fellow journalists that “in Israel, free speech is far from free, and powerful people can make critical speech extremely expensive for you, so don’t do it”.
“The case against David Sheen appears to be politically motivated,” said Melody Patry, head of advocacy at Index on Censorship. “No journalist should be prosecuted for exercising their freedom of speech.”
In recent years a number of lawsuits, many successful, have been made against journalists by officials in Israel, including a $464,000 2016 libel case against reporter Sharon Shpurer for a Facebook post disparaging an Israeli developer who is a convicted human trafficker. In July 2017, a journalist who claimed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was kicked out of his car by his wife was ordered to pay $32,500 in damages to the couple for libel.
“As it is, most Israeli media outlets serve as semi-stenographers of the Israeli army, repeating its press releases as though they were objective fact,” Sheen told Index. “The additional danger of crippling legal fees and fines will further disincentivise telling truth to power and leave Israeli society with increasingly impoverished fourth and fifth estates. Obviously, those who will suffer most as a result will be the country’s oppressed populations.”
In August 2017, the Israeli government announced proposals to ban Al Jazeera from operating in the country, echoing similar moves by Saudi Arabia and others who demanded that Qatar shutter the network and other media outlets as part of a list of demands to end a diplomatic crisis. The Israeli Government Press Office seemed intent on revoking the press credentials of Al Jazeera reporter Elias Karram but decided against this on 30 August. However, this was only after Karram provided a statement saying he does not support terrorism. The head of the GPO has said the body will “keep track of the network’s reports in Israel, in Arabic and in English, and will not hesitate to reach the necessary conclusions after consulting with legal and security officials”.
“Without question, freedom of the press is steadily decreasing in Israel,” Sheen told Index. “Sadly, many Israeli citizens seem to support it: in a 2015 article I wrote for Alternet, I noted that nearly half of Israelis believe that harsh public criticism of the government should be against the law.”
During a pre-trial session on 18 September, the dates for the case against Sheen will be set.
Supporters of Sheen have set up a petition to support the journalist.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1504615911945-5d3d3e69-6e05-2″ taxonomies=”180, 449″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship condemns the decision by the government of Israel to ban Al Jazeera from operating in the country.
“A free and open media landscape is necessary for the proper functioning of a democratic society. The silencing of Al Jazeera’s networks — whether English or Arabic — is a detriment to the public’s right to information,” Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship, said.
The revoking of the press cards belonging to the network’s reporters is a clear violation of press freedom and the right to freedom of expression.
Israel’s decision echoes the move by Saudi Arabia and its allies, who demanded that Qatar shutter the network and other media outlets as part of a list of demands to end a diplomatic crisis.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1502111795096-e5480c80-f680-8″ taxonomies=”449″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”89552″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_column_text]Following the Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards in April, journalism award-winner Maldives Independent has undergone a period of change and restructuring.
Former editor Zaheena Rasheed credits the award with increased press coverage outside of the Maldives. Most significantly, Rasheed told Index that the attention from the award convinced their sponsors to continue funding them.
After an Al Jazeera documentary containing interviews with Rasheed was released, the Maldives Independent’s office was attacked and raided by police in September 2016 and Rasheed had to flee for her safety. She has since taken a role at Al Jazeera in Doha, Qatar.
“The job has been very busy, but exciting, especially following a diplomatic crisis between Qatar and its neighbours,” Rasheed told Index.
In late April, Yameen Rasheed, a prominent blogger and journalist, who had contributed opinion pieces in the Maldives Independent, was murdered. His death is still on the minds of those at Maldives Independent, which extensively covered the investigation into his murder.
“Yameen was a critical and brave voice who spoke out against injustice despite the crackdown on free speech. His murder has had a chilling effect on free speech in the Maldives and prompted many others to practice self-censorship. I believe he was targeted by religious extremists because of his advocacy for a more tolerant and secular society”, Rasheed said. No information has been released on the identities of the suspects in Rasheed’s murder or what charges they might face.
Maldives Independent journalist Ahmed Rilwan disappeared in August 2014. Despite the international attention these incidents have received, Rasheed is not confident that they will affect the culture of impunity that exists around attacks on critics and freethinkers.
“The biggest concern, as evident by Yameen’s murder and Rilwan’s disappearance, is that there are groups who are willing to kill in the name of Islam. They enjoy impunity because they have the protection of state bodies. State officials support them for two reasons; they think supporting radical groups bolsters their legitimacy, or they also subscribe to these views” Rasheed said.
Rasheed identifies the Maldives Independent’s biggest challenge is securing consistent and sufficient funding, something which Maldives Independent is working on now. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1509444026808-19a50408-3e9b-3″ taxonomies=”9028, 4002, 9136″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
A debate at the Frontline Club last night on the future of Al Jazeera and media freedom in the Middle East, following recent calls for the closure of the television network by a group of seven Arab countries led by Saudi Arabia, did not go to plan.
According to Arab News, sources within the BBC said Gardner’s decision was because the event was deemed “a propaganda stunt by Qatar and Al Jazeera with no attempt at balance on the panel”. In an email to Arab News, the BBC source allegedly criticised the failure “to invite anyone from the UAE, Saudi, Bahrain or Egypt onto the panel in time”.
A group of 12-15 protesters outside the Frontline Club could be heard during the debate. They chanted, among other things: “Ban Al Jazeera.” They carried Egyptian flags and signs reading: “Al Jazeera Promotes Terrorism.”
This anger was matched inside as audience members aired various grievances, including complaints about the network’s editorial line, its ties to and funding from the state of Qatar, Al Jazeera Arabic’s alleged sectarianism and anti-Shia bias and the treatment of Al Jazeera staff. Some audience members openly supported the calls to ban Al Jazeera.
“Al Jazeera is media prostitution by Qatar,” an audience member shouted at the panel, echoing a protester outside who added that the network wanted to “destroy the Middle East”.
Journalist Ben Flanagan from Arab News, an English-language newspaper published in Saudi Arabia and owned by a member of the House of Saud, put it to the panel that Al Jazeera “has been used as a platform for terrorists and extremists” and asked panelists Giles Trendle, managing director of Al Jazeera English, and Wad Khanfar, the ex-director general of Al Jazeera Media Network: “Do you feel you have blood on your hands?”
During his opening statement, Trendle said: “We are funded by the state of Qatar but we maintain an editorial independence, so there isn’t a lot of direct communication with the channel.”
Khanfar said that while Qatar “is not a charitable organisation”, “the reputation of Al Jazeera and the popularity of Al Jazeera prevented the state of Qatar from using Al Jazeera and they created a healthy distance between us at that time as an editorial newsroom and the state.”
Concerns over the treatment of staff at Al Jazeera almost certainly weren’t eased when Khanfar told Flanagan that if he worked for Khanfar at Al Jazeera he would be fired if he had any objections to interviewing a controversial figure like Osama bin Laden.
“Staff are leaving, but within any organisation there is a certain churn rate,” Trendle later added. “People come and people go.”
At one point an audience member took to the aisle, interrupted Khanfar and shouted something about Al Jazeera’s failure to report on “American involvement” in the 2012 sarin gas attack in Damascus, a conspiracy theory originated by journalist Seymour Hersh and propagated on media outlets such as Alex Jones’ Infowars.
Al Jazeera isn’t the only news outlet Saudi-led coalition’s crosshairs. The London-based Middle East Eye is also on the list. Editor David Hearst, one of last night’s panellists, clarified that the news website is independently funded. “We’re not funded by Qatar,” he said. “If Qatar rolled over, it would have absolutely no effect on us.”
Hearst believes that the reason these Arab states – including Egypt, Bahrain and the UAE – are attacking certain media organisations is that “they are really dead scared of independent criticism or examination of what’s going on,” particularly when such criticism is in Arabic. “They don’t like their own people, Arabs, reading genuinely independent news, and that is what I think started this whole thing off.”
Hearst said that the reach of Al Jazeera, which has an audience 310 million households in more than 100 countries, makes the network, in particular, a threat.
Trendle gave assurances that despite the current pressure, Al Jazeera will not be shutting its doors and remains committed to “balanced, professional” journalism. “It’s kind of business as normal in an abnormal situation,” he said.
“As journalists, we all need to stand together in solidarity against this intimidation, against this bullying. We need to stand against being censored or silenced in any way at all,” Trendle added. “We all need to stand in unison as journalists because journalism is under attack, and in recent years it’s become much clearer that it is coming under attack in a very serious way from governments as well.”
Panellist Marc Owen Jones, a professor at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies at Exeter University, while agreeing with Trendle, added that there needs to be a broader conversation about public service broadcasting.
“How can we have commercial media if it’s funded by weapons manufacturers? If we’re covering health case, we can’t have it funded by Big Pharma? You have to ask questions. Is it problematic to have media channels funded by non-democratic states or authoritarian states in the region if you want to really progress to another level of journalism?”
A proper debate is still to be had as Monday’s shouting match didn’t quite achieve its aim.
Index on Censorship re-iterates its position given by Index magazine editor Rachael Jolley in June: “Al Jazeera and press freedom must not be used as a bargaining chip.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1500396083270-89581cd9-54bd-6″ taxonomies=”449″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
