|
by William Fisher
In the aftermath of the Annapolis peace conference, foreign policy analysts and human rights advocates are finding considerable irony in Israel’s Arab neighbors pressing for freedom for Palestinians while their own citizens continue carry a heavy burden of unrelenting political repression.
Most of those representing Middle East and North African nations at the conference appear to endorse the idea of a “two-state solution” to the decades-old conflict: a separate and contiguous Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel.
But Arab delegates to Annapolis — including Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen – have had little to say about the nature of the state that may emerge from negotiations set to begin soon between Israel and the Palestinians.
Critics of Israel’s neighbors point out that, with a few
exceptions, the governments of these countries are unelected,
authoritarian, often corrupt, and willing to use any means to stifle
dissent. In most of these countries, a free press has been silenced,
journalists and bloggers jailed, peaceful demonstrations disrupted by
police and participants beaten and arrested, political parties
effectively banned, elections rigged or non-existent, and citizens
detained by security authorities without charges or lawyers and often
tortured or simply “disappeared.”
Many of these observers see
the absence of press freedom as emblematic of a broader freedom deficit
in most of the Arab countries represented at Annapolis. In most Middle
East and North African states, both the media and its messages are
state-controlled. Many are state-owned. All have extensive and
expensive programs designed to block satellite television and a wide
range of Internet websites.
Critics point to Egypt and Saudi
Arabia as among the worst offenders. Both countries are seen as close
allies of the U.S. The Saudi Kingdom is the source of much of the oil
consumed by Americans. And Egypt is second only to Israel in the amount
of U.S. aid it receives each year – its reward for making peace with
Israel in 1979.
In Egypt – which has lived under draconian
“emergency laws” for more than 25 years – President Hosni Mubarak
promised in 2006 a long-delayed press law reform designed to give
journalists more freedom by decriminalizing media offences. But,
according to Reporters Without Borders (FWB), a journalism advocacy
organization, the new law “turned out to be just a show.” It says, “The
media were quickly disillusioned by the many restrictions on their
activities contained in the amendments to it. At least seven
journalists were arrested during the year and dozens threatened or
physically attacked.”
The group says Egyptian journalists “can
now be jailed for up to five years for ‘publishing false news’,
defaming the president or foreign heads of state or ‘undermining
national institutions’ such as parliament and the armed forces.” TV and
print journalists attempting to cover public events are routinely
harassed, arrested, threatened or beaten.
The Mubarak regime
also continues its crackdown on Internet freedom. Hundreds of websites
have been blocked, and at least seven cyber-dissidents jailed. The
courts ruled that authorities could block, suspend or shut down
websites considered a threat to “national security.” A number of
bloggers have been jailed. One was detained for posting criticism of
Islam and is still in prison. Another was jailed for four years after
he used his weblog to criticize the country's top Islamic institution,
al-Azhar university, and President Mubarak, whom he called a dictator.
Saudi
Arabia also remains high on the list of countries that have
aggressively cracked down on press freedom. The Saudi regime maintains
very tight control of all news and self-censorship is pervasive.
According to RWB, “Enterprising journalists pay dearly for the
slightest criticism of the authorities or the policies of ‘brother
Arab’ countries. The tame local media content means most Saudis get
their news and information from foreign TV stations and the Internet.”
The
Al-Jazeera TV channel is banned and was not allowed to cover the annual
pilgrimage to Mecca for the fifth consecutive year. Like Egypt, Saudi
Arabia also blocks more than a thousand Internet websites.
Two
journalists were dismissed for going beyond the limits set by the
dominant ultra-conservative religious authorities. A writer for a
government daily, Arab News, was dismissed for writing about the
atrocities perpetrated by Indonesia,a Muslim country, during its
1975-99 occupation of East Timor. The editor of another government
daily, Al Watan, was forced to resign as the paper’s editor after
reporting that US troops were using the country’s military bases. The
privately-owned daily Shams was closed for a month and its editor
dismissed for reprinting some of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed
first carried by a Danish paper in 2005.
Blogs are also becoming
a growing problem for Saudi censors, who maintain a “blacklist” said to
contain hundreds of personal websites. In 2005, authorities tried to
completely bar access to the country’s main blog-tool, blogger.com, but
gave up after only a few days because of the ubiquity of the
blogosphere. Today, government censors blogs they object to.
In
the Reporters Without Borders annual survey of press freedom, Egypt
ranked 146th and Saudi Arabia 147th, out of a total of 169 countries
worldwide. Israel, including the occupied territories, ranked 44th.
Human
rights groups have also been highly critical of Middle Eastern and
North African governments for imposing press restrictions, as well as
for other numerous and widespread human rights abuses.
Looking
forward to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations emerging from the
Annapolis conference, Mary Shaw of Amnesty International USA is urging
both sides to respect the basic human rights of the other. She told us,
“The parties should agree to the deployment of international human
rights monitors in Israel and the Occupied Territories, with a mandate
to monitor and report publicly on compliance and on violations by
either party of their commitments under international human rights and
humanitarian law.”
But given the consistently flawed human
rights records of Israel’s neighbors, critics wonder how eager any of
the Annapolis delegates will be to endorse this proposal.
This
is the question raised by the Egyptian-born journalist and lecturer
Mona Eltahawi, Distinguished Visiting Professor at the American
University in Cairo,who has lived in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
She
told us, “When I was a Jerusalem-based Reuters correspondent in 1998,
many Palestinians would tell me they wanted a future Palestinian state
to be like Israel. They meant an open and democratic country. I thought
it was ironic that their ‘role model’ state was the one occupying them.”
Ms.
Eltahawy, who is a contributor to the Washington Post’s “On Faith”
series, charged that the late Yasser Arafat and other Palestinian
officials “modeled a nascent Palestinian state on Egypt, Jordan and
other repressive Arab neighbors. Arafat introduced military trials and
Palestinians were horrified to discover that the Palestinian Authority,
and not just Israel, also detained and tortured Palestinians with often
little reason. I would hear from Palestinians that it was worse for
them when their fellow Palestinians were the ones doing the torture.”
She
added, “After years of struggle and sacrifice for Palestine,
Palestinians deserve a free and democratic state. I hope they insist it
be nothing like the Arab states that have fought several wars with
Israel ostensibly in the name of such a Palestinian state.”

Recommend this article... |