17 Jan 2014 | Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Palestine
A leading Palestinian human rights activist has claimed that freedom of speech is far greater under the Hamas regime in Gaza than in the Fatah-controlled West Bank.
Khalil Abu Shamala, director of the al-Dameer Centre For Human Rights – which works in both Gaza and the West Bank – said that although there were still occasional arrests of Fatah members, “nowadays we don’t document many violations”.
He noted that this was partly down to Hamas’s weakness in the face of international pressures, particularly the breakdown of relations with the Egyptian regime.
In the past, Hamas has made large-scale arrests of journalists and called many others in for questioning, with opposition activists and bloggers facing harassment.
But although abuses still occurred in Gaza, Abu Shamala said that government forces in the Palestinian Authority–controlled West Bank took much harsher action against critics.
“Freedom of expression in Gaza is better than in the West Bank,” he told Index on Censorship. “We have many cases where the PA arrest and attack people because they criticize them on Facebook, and many Facebookers in the West Bank use alternative names, not their real names. But here, they speak without any harassment by Hamas.”
A rift between Hamas and Fatah, which culminated in the Islamist group seizing power in the Strip in 2007, has led to the creation of two near-separate entities in Gaza and the West Bank. Hamas refuses to recognise the Jewish state and is under an embargo by Israel and the international community.
“I don’t know why, but in the West Bank, Palestinian Authority security systems have cooperation and coordination with Israel – and they don’t want to give the opportunity for a third intifada, and they don’t want to allow Hamas or those who are against the Palestinian Authority [to speak out] because they know many of the Palestinians in the West Bank hate the Palestinian Authority,” Abu Shammala continued.
Hamas has previously issued proceedings against Abu Shamala for his outspoken criticism of the Islamist group.
“After they took over Gaza, they wanted from the beginning to impose their Islamic agenda on the society,” he said, adding that his organisations and others had tried to combat these efforts.
The Hamas deputy foreign minister, Ghazi Hamed, denies that his government took any action to silence their critics.
“We are not oppressing people and people can speak loudly, can criticise the government, can criticise Hamas,” said Hamed. “We never put anyone in jail who criticizes Hamas or write something against Hamas. We have different organisations, political parties, even writers, they have full freedom to write what they want.”
18 Nov 2013 | Palestine
A Palestinian news agency closed down in the Gaza Strip for allegedly fabricating reports regarding Hamas and their support for pro-Morsi Egyptian Islamist groups is to reopen after four months.
The decision to allow work once again at the offices of Ma’an News Agency, the largest independent TV, radio and online media group in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, was the result of a meeting between the Hamas leader President Haniyeh and those of Palestinian factions on Saturday. According to Khaled al-Batsh, leader of the Islamic Jihad Movement, the meeting was called by Haniyeh to deliberate issues in the Gaza Strip, including potential reconciliation among Palestinian political factions. The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement was not represented at the meeting.
A spokesman for Hamas, Ehab Ghissin, stated that Haniyeh “gave his instructions for the Ministry of Information to open the agency’s bureau” as long as Ma’an abides by professionalism and accuracy in its work.
The office of Ma’an was closed down in July after publishing reports suggesting Hamas was involved in supporting terror groups opposed to Egypt’s new regime. Citing Israeli sources the article stated the Hamas government gave refuge to fugitive leaders of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in a Gaze hotel. After the meeting President Haniyeh spoke of the importance of a positive relationship between Egypt and Palestine, emphasising that Hamas is a national movement that does not depend on external organisations.
The decision to reopen the news office in Gaza was welcomed by Ma’an General Director, Raed Othman. “Ma’an aims to provide its media services to all Palestinians everywhere,” he said, adding that the news organisation will attempt to increase its activity in the area in the coming weeks.
The Saudi Arabian news channel Al-Arabiya was also shut down for the same reason and at the same time as Ma’an. Despite discussion during Saturday’s meeting to reopen Al-Arabiya too, the organisation remains closed in the Gaza Strip. The news channel has openly stated it was in favour of the removal of President Morsi from power.
29 Jul 2013 | Middle East and North Africa
Gaza’s de-facto Hamas government closed the office of Al Arabiya, Palestinian network Ma’an news and the local production company Lens on Thursday.
Ma’an reported the incident as having received a closure order from the Attorney General delivered directly to their offices. Al Arabiya published a report from their Gaza correspondent, stating that employees had been prevented from entering their offices by the Hamas authorities, who told them that would be arrested if they entered at any point.
Lens was shut down after Hamas took objection to their providing of professional services to the i24 news, an Israeli network based on the Al Jazeera model that broadcasts in Arabic, English and French. Hamas recently instigated a ban on journalists working with Israeli media, so it would seem this is an effort to keep the ban and its associated scare tactics on-going, even though Lens may be providing the only view inside Gaza that Israel permits its citizens to see.
The targeting of Al Arabiya and Ma’an however is related to their coverage of the situation in Egypt, specifically after both published reports saying that “six Muslim Brotherhood officials had smuggled themselves into Gaza to plan an uprising against the military in Cairo, after their Egyptian president was deposed,” according to Ma’an. In a piece for the New York Times, Fares Akram writes that the “reports attributed the information to Israeli news media reports and unidentified sources, saying that six Brotherhood leaders were directing pro-Morsi activities in Egypt from a hotel room in Gaza City.”
The office of Ismail Jaber, the attorney general in question, stated that they ordered the closure of the bureaus after receiving complains that Al Arabiya and Ma’an had deliberately “spread rumours and fabricated news”, and in so doing had “become complicit with Egyptian media outlets in incitement against the Strip”, thereby threatening “the social peace and…the Palestinian people and their resistance.” Ma’an editor in chief Nasser Lahham has since state they intend to lodge complaints with the Palestinian Journalists Union and the International Federation of Journalists.
Ma’an may have gone out of their way to object to being labelled liars, but it is perhaps beside the point whether the report is true or not. News outlets, especially those with reputations similar to that of Al Arabiya, may have to contend with such accusations from time to time, but it is perhaps more valuable that they be free to respond rather than face closure. Furthermore, the claim by Hamas that the moral health of the Palestinian people is dependent on such censorship will likely jarr with the mostly Palestinian staff of both bureaus. Much like the response by some journalists to the ban on working with Israeli media, there is the possibility that journalists will continue to work for both outlets in secret, without bylines, a danger forced on them by the conditions of both extreme poverty and authoritarianism that have become normality in Gaza.
Furthermore, the choice to close the Al Arabiya offices reflects the shifting politics of the region, especially when compared to their rival Gulf-based news service Al Jazeera. The Saudi Arabian Al Arabiya has often been critical of the Muslim Brotherhood and their Hamas offshoot, a reflection of the foreign policy of the House of Saud which chose to fund Egypt’s ruling military council but not the Muslim Brotherhood. Writing for Al Monitor, Madawi Al-Rasheed explains that “Saudi Arabia had always had a troubled relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood version of Islamism, its organizational capacity and its increasingly accepted message that combined Islam with an eagerness to engage with the democratic process.” Qatari channel Al Jazeera, whose offices remained untouched during the recent shutdowns in Gaza is however facing a lighter version of these issues elsewhere. Qatar’s alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood and their bankrolling of the Hamas government with a recent pledge of 400 million USD has lead to accusations that Al Jazeera provided little more than a mouthpiece for Doha’s policies during recent events in Egypt, leading to the resignation of 22 members of staff in Egypt and occasional raids by Egyptian security forces.
Reacting to the closure of Ma’an’s Gaza bureau, English-language editor George Hale told Index on Censorship that “needless to say, this is a disturbing and outrageous development.” While such crackdowns may have more to do with regional links- both politically and financially- than moral judgements, the problem remains that Gaza is increasingly as in need of reporting as it is starved of free expression.
10 Apr 2013 | Middle East and North Africa, Newswire
On 25 December 2012, Gaza’s Hamas government announced a ban on Palestinian journalists working with Israeli media.
This decision affected just three journalists in Gaza, one of whom is 25-year-old Abeer Ayyoub. Abeer went from working as a fixer for visiting foreign journalists to writing stories herself, and in the process landing a job with Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz. Starting at the beginning of the last attack on Gaza in November 2012, she quickly made a name for herself by breaking stories that most journalists operating in the Strip had never realised existed.
I spoke to Abeer about what the ban means for her work, and for the state of press freedom in Gaza today
Ruth Michaelson: When we spoke the other day, you described working for Ha’aretz as “your dream”. Why did you want to work with Israeli media?
Abeer Ayyoub: Because I wanted to be the Palestinian voice in Israeli media, to send a message and cover these events from Palestinian eyes — I didn’t want Israeli journalists to be talking about something they’ve never seen [Israeli citizens are banned from entering Gaza]. So I wanted to be the one talking to Israelis, to communicate exactly what is going on here. Most Israelis are misled about what life is like here — they think that we’re all terrorists, which is not the case: Gaza has many civilians who have nothing to do with resistance. Sure, they have their own affiliations, but people have lives here, and they want to live in peace.
RM: Did you feel under threat while you were working for Ha’aretz?
AA: No, never. People showed understanding about my reasons for doing this; my family, my colleagues, even the Gaza authorities were supportive when I asked them before starting at Ha’aretz. They told me that they were in favour of having Palestinians writing for the Israeli media. The criticisms I heard or felt came from people who aren’t involved with the media, so I didn’t take them seriously.
RM: Why did you decide to talk to the Hamas government before going to work for Israeli media?
AA: I hate to do things in secret: I want to do everything under the light. I wasn’t asking for permission, I was just informing them of what was going on. They told me “go ahead, we never banned anyone from working with Israeli media, and it’s the same for you.” It was the head of media relations in Gaza who told me that, the same person who later told me I was banned.
RM: What reason did Hamas give for the ban?
AA: There were several different reasons given — that Israeli media is hostile to us, and that Israel doesn’t allow Palestinians to go inside and cover what’s going on, so we’re not going to allow them to do the same here. But the third and most depressing reason is that they expressed concern that journalists who work with Israeli media will ultimately become spies.
RM: Why do you think they changed their minds like this?
AA: It’s been very difficult to figure this out, as the reasons kept changing — especially as they banned their officials from talking with Israeli media in the same ruling. They certainly have their reasons, but it’s none of the reasons they’ve made public.
RM: So how were you informed about the ban?
AA: Just like everyone around me, I read it in the papers. No one called me or contacted me to let me know. So after I read about it, I went to the media office and asked them if they were serious about this. They told me that they were, and that I had no other choice but to submit to this decision. Initially I thought that I wouldn’t submit to this, but then I reasoned that I have no wish to create extra problems for myself.
RM: What were the risks involved if you hadn’t complied?
AA: The statement said that anyone working for Israeli media will be “punished”: I didn’t want punishment or to be arrested, as I have work that I still want to do here nonetheless. The thing is that a lot of normal people on the ground are against working with Israeli media, so I didn’t think that I would find a lot of support. I decided to stop for a while until things change, and I’m sure that they will change, because Hamas tend to take decisions like this and then repeal them at a later date.
RM: What do you think is the reason behind such a sweeping ruling that only affects three people?
AA: This is the thing — there have been allegations that there are people who work for Israeli media in secret, with no bylines. But again, this was a ruling also designed to affect Hamas officials, and I believe this was aimed primarily at them. Once again, the reason for this will be anything except the reasons they gave.
RM: The timing of the decision seems political, in that it came after the ceasefire with Israel. Do you think that this has anything to do with the ruling?
AA: This was one of Hamas’s claims, that Israel had targeted journalists during the war, and so if Israel doesn’t respect our journalists then we don’t want them to work with Israel. How these two things are related is something that I don’t personally understand.
RM: How comfortable do you feel working as a journalist in Gaza now, following this ban?
AA: I feel comfortable at the moment, my relationship with the government is good. I work a lot with other forms of international media, and things seem to be okay. Sometimes [the Hamas government] remind me, with provocations or questions about whether I’m still working with Ha’aretz, that they are still focused on this, even if they say it as a joke. But this to me is nothing too serious.
RM: Many elements of both Israeli and Palestinian life are hidden from view given the restrictions on freedom of movement, do you feel like the decision contributes to this?
AA: Exactly. Now there is a real problem — things are disjointed. I can’t express myself within Israeli media: this is permitting any potential media bias, or at the very least reports lacking in sufficient information.
RM: What will be missing from Israeli media discourse as a result of this decision?
AA: Basically I think the gap between civilians on both sides will be widened. We only know about their government, and they only know about ours. The things that I wanted to write about were what normal, everyday people are doing — people like me or my family and friends: we hate the on-going conflict. We believe in resistance, but things are not like the normal depiction of Palestinians in the media, which is likely to portray us as inherently violent.
RM: What would you say is the state of press freedom in Gaza?
AA: I would say it’s changing from time to time, sometimes we have enough space to write, but other times we are denied our simplest rights. It’s the case wherever; governments always try to control journalism when it comes to writing about them.
Ruth Michaelson is a freelance journalist. She tweets at @_Ms_R
