Pal. Authority "Freedoms"

Remember my comparison of how journalist groups attack Israel but the PA seems to escape real criticism?

Well, from the new US report:
2011 Human Rights Reports: Israel and the occupied territories - the occupied territories

Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:Share

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

Status of Freedom of Speech and Press

The PA Basic Law provides every person the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and expression, orally, in writing, or through any other form. The PA does not have laws specifically providing for freedom of press; however, PA institutions applied aspects of an unratified 1995 press law as de facto law. In practice, PA security forces in the West Bank and members of the Hamas security apparatus in the Gaza Strip continued to restrict freedom of speech and press. HRW reported that since 2007 most abuses against journalists in both the West Bank and Gaza were related to tensions between the PA and Hamas. The PA military judiciary detained civilian journalists, according to human rights organizations.
Israeli authorities placed limits on certain forms of expression in the occupied territories.

Freedom of Speech: Although there is no PA law prohibiting criticism of the government, there were reports that the government was not fully tolerant of criticism. HRW reported in February that the PA repeatedly responded to peaceful demonstrations with violent attacks (see section 2.b., Freedom of Assembly).
In the Gaza Strip, individuals publicly criticizing authorities risked reprisal by Hamas, including arrest, interrogation, seizure of property, and harassment. Civil society and youth activists, social media advocates, and individuals associated with political factions accused of criticizing Hamas in public fora such as the Internet faced punitive measures including raids on their facilities and residences, arbitrary detentions, and denial of permission to travel outside of Gaza. The ICHR reported numerous detentions of protesters in the Gaza Strip. For example, the ICHR reported at least 16 arrests of protesters in March alone and numerous instances in which Hamas quelled rallies and protests with violence.
In East Jerusalem, under Israeli authority, displays of Palestinian political symbols were punishable by fines or imprisonment, as were public expressions of anti-Israeli sentiment and support for terrorist groups. Israeli security officials regularly shut down meetings or conferences held in East Jerusalem affiliated with the PA or with PA officials in attendance. For example, the ISA warned organizers of a Palestinian agricultural trade show in East Jerusalem in September that they would face closure if they invited PA officials or displayed a Palestinian flag. In September Israeli police ordered shut a meeting in East Jerusalem on Israeli changes to Palestinian school curricula, and Israeli security officers questioned the organizers about their involvement in the meeting.


Freedom of Press: Across the occupied territories, independent media operated with some restrictions.
In the West Bank, the PA placed some restrictions on independent media as well as official media. The PA maintained a distribution ban in the West Bank on the twice-weekly pro-Hamas al-Risala and the Filistin daily newspapers, both Gaza-based publications. Hamas’s al-Aqsa TV reportedly enjoyed some degree of access to work in the West Bank without harassment.
In the Gaza Strip, Hamas restricted independent media, especially for non-Hamas-affiliated press and media outlets. Israel restricted the mainstream pro-PA dailies, independent al-Quds (based in Jerusalem), independent pro-Fatah al-Ayyam, and PA official daily al-Hayat al-Jadida (the latter two based in the West Bank), from importation into the Gaza Strip. Hamas authorities tolerated reporting and interviews featuring officials from the PA to be locally broadcast. Hamas allowed, with some restrictions, the operation of non-Hamas-affiliated broadcast media in the Gaza Strip. The PA-supported Palestine TV reportedly enjoyed access to operate in the Gaza Strip.
In East Jerusalem independent media were able to operate. As a general rule, Israeli media were able to cover the occupied territories, except for combat zones where the IDF temporarily restricted access, but closures, curfews, and checkpoints limited the ability of Palestinian and foreign journalists to do their jobs (see section 2.d.). Israel revoked the press credentials of the majority of Palestinian journalists during the Second Intifada in 2000, with the exception of a few Palestinian journalists who worked as stringers for prominent international media outlets. As a result most Palestinian journalists were unable to cover stories outside the Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank.

Violence and Harassment: PA security forces reportedly harassed, detained occasionally with violence, and fined journalists several times during the year due to their reporting. HRW reported in April that the PA Preventative Security and General Intelligence services intimidated, detained, and assaulted journalists with impunity, including through detentions of civilian journalists by the military judiciary.
According to the Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA), PA police officers prevented Ibtihal Mansour, a reporter for al-Sharq al-Awsat Studies Center, from covering a sit-in against PA political arrests in Nablus on June 13. Mansour stated that, although she adhered to orders, two female officers in civilian clothes beat her up and tried to confiscate her camera and cell phone. She was released after the intervention of members of the public and other journalists.
PA security services summoned and questioned several journalists in the West Bank. For example, on September 10, the Palestinian intelligence services in Bethlehem summoned al-Aqsa TV cameraman Osayd Amarneh, whom they questioned about filming a protest and later released.
In the Gaza Strip, journalists faced arrest, harassment, and other pressure from Hamas due to their reporting. There were reports that Hamas also summoned journalists for questioning in an attempt to intimidate them. Hamas also constrained journalists’ freedom of movement during the year, attempting to ban access to some official buildings, as well as several prodemocracy protests.
During coverage of popular intra-Palestinian reconciliation protests on March 19 in Gaza City, Hamas internal security forces forcibly entered the Gaza City offices of CNN, NHK (Japan’s public broadcasting service), and Reuters, assaulted several journalists, seized equipment, and demanded that the journalists stop filming the protests.
According to MADA, on August 17, Hamas security personnel prevented Wisam Zu’bur, a photographer for al-Hurriya Media Center, from taking pictures near al-Rimal neighborhood in Gaza City.
There were reports during the year of Israeli authorities detaining or assaulting journalists due to their reporting or coverage. In various incidents Israeli forces subsequently raided those journalists’ homes.
For example, on August 19, Israeli forces reportedly assaulted Al Jazeera cameraman Nabeel Mizawi and correspondent Shireen Abu Akleh while the two were covering Friday prayers at al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem’s Old City. In a live report on Al Jazeera, Abu Akleh claimed that IDF personnel beat Mizawi and ordered them to stop filming. According to the report, IDF personnel also cut a voice cable to mute the broadcast.
Local media reported that on November 22, Israeli authorities arrested Israa Salhab, a reporter for al-Quds satellite station, after she anchored a program on Palestinian prisoners. She was released on November 28 and never faced official charges.


Censorship or Content Restrictions: The PA prohibits calls for violence, displays of arms, and racist slogans in PA-funded and controlled official media. Media throughout the occupied territories practiced self-censorship. There were no confirmed reports of any legal actions or prosecutions against any person publishing items counter to these PA guidelines.
Civil society organizations reported that Hamas censored television programs and written content, such as newspapers and books. On January 23, according to HRW, Hamas police officers entered three bookstores in Gaza and confiscated copies of two novels--Haidar Haidar’s A Banquet for Seaweed and Alaa’ al-Aswany’s Chicago--and searched for copies of a third book, Forbidden Pleasure, telling the store owners that the books were seized because the Hamas ministry of interior “deemed them “against sharia” (Islamic law).
There were no reports that the Israeli government monitored the media in the occupied territories. Israeli authorities retain the right to review and approve in advance of printing all Jerusalem-based Arabic publications for material perceived as a security threat. In practice anecdotal evidence suggested the Israeli authorities did not actively review the Jerusalem-based al-Quds newspaper or other Jerusalem-based Arabic publications. Jerusalem-based publications reported that, based on previous experiences with Israeli censorship, over time they came to know what is acceptable and self-censored publications accordingly.


Libel Laws/National Security: There were instances in which slander and libel laws were used to suppress criticism. For example, on August 16, the PA attorney general banned the annual Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation’s Palestine TV Ramadan comedy program series, Watan ala Watar, in its third season, after PA security forces, representatives of the PA Ministry of Health, and the union of PA employees filed complaints claiming the program slandered members of their respective professions. On August 18, the PA attorney general issued final orders sanctioning the forcible suspension of the program.
There were no known reports that Hamas used security justifications or slander or libel laws to censure public critique.

Internet Freedom

There were no PA restrictions on access to the Internet; however, there were reports that the PA, Hamas, and Israel monitored e‑mail and Internet chat rooms. Individuals and groups could generally engage in the peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by e‑mail.
On August 11, the Palestinian Telecommunication Company (PTC) suspended the Web site of electronic newspaper Alshu’la for one week, according to MADA. Alshu’la filed a complaint against the PTC with the PA attorney general. Alshu’la was reportedly forced offline because of a dispute between the PA and former Fatah member Mohammed Dahlan, who financially sponsored the site.
On November 15, PA intelligence services arrested George Qanawati, station manager of Bethlehem 2000 Radio, after he published a comment on his Facebook page on September 8 about tensions within Fatah. He was released five days later without charges.
Hamas did not restrict Internet access; however, based on anecdotal reports from Palestinian civil society organizations and social media practitioners, Hamas authorities monitored Internet activities and postings of Gaza Strip residents. Individuals posting negative reports or commentary about Hamas, its policies, or affiliated organizations faced questioning, and authorities at times required them to remove or modify online postings. No information was available regarding punishment for not complying with such demands.
Israeli authorities did not restrict access to the Internet; however, they monitored some Internet activity.

And Beinart & comrades criticize Israeli democracy.

^

The Anti-Shai Nitzan Poster

The story of this poster, calling Assistant State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan an "enemy of the Torah" is here. Moshe Feiglin's background comment is here. Other Rabbis' support here.

And here is the poster, photographed by yours truly:-

And the response?

Here:-

Leading Israeli intellectuals and Israel Prize laureates demanded the immediate firing of a top rabbi accused of supporting a book justifying the killing of non Jews on Saturday, urging the state to investigate him for his alleged role in the assassination of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

They never give up. Despite Justice Elyakim Rubinstein's full clearance, and his defense of free speech, they persist in their conspiratorial theories.

^

My Comment Has Been Removed from the New York Times' The Lede

The story started here but I'll repeat:

At the New York Times' 'The Lede' blog of Robert Mackey, I left a comment
here.  I suggested that others can leave a comment as well.

Then, I added another, responding to another comment.

And then another.

Mackey was communicating.

But I think I was gaining the upper hand.

And then a friend alerted me to the unfortunate, for the NYT, fact that I had been censored, removed.
The link of that last comment leads nowhere.

This comment of mine was online for 2-3 hours.  But Brian of London informed me it's now gone, #25 is skipped over between #24 and #26 but we have a screenprint shot so you can still read what was published:

Since I had mentioned the Queen of Jordan, that she is "Palestinian" and therefore, perhaps Mackey could agree that at least 50% of Jordan is "Palestinian", I suggested that maybe King Abdullah complained or just Jordan's New York Consul-General.

But all I did was suggest that Mackey's sources, American, and my source, American, were contradictory.  Does a discussion on the makeup of Jordan's demographics bother someone?  The King?  Presaident Obama?  The NYT's editor?  Robert Mackey?

In any case, if you really think my #25 comment is outrageous, vile, mendacious, slandering, plagiarizing or soemething else that would cause it to be removed, let me know.  The policy on editing or, in my case, worse is this:

A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence and SHOUTING.

And, if you agree with me that either the NYT or Robert Mackey is playing with my right to free expression, well, let them know:

Contact Arthur S. Brisbane

E-mail: public@nytimes.com

Phone: (212) 556-7652

Address: Public Editor

The New York Times

620 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10018

Thank you.

And someone else, Brian of London, has been thwarted.

^

Something I Have Been Championing: Semantics

Found this here:

Let me suggest an outrageous comparison, one between Israeli settlements in the West Bank and illegal immigration in the United States. Though hugely different in many important ways, they are similar in at least three regards:

1) Both are often presented in legal terms – a violation of the law and what to do about it;

2) Both concern the question of whether people are allowed to stay in or are forced to leave their current homes;

3) Specific terminology is critical to framing the debate on both questions.

The current U.S. government position is that Jewish settlements beyond the green line are at least “illegitimate”, to quote President Obama, if not outright illegal as a violation of international law. Consequently, Israel should cease all further construction in West Bank and east Jerusalem settlements. Moreover, Israel should prepare itself to evacuate tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Israeli citizens from their West Bank homes as part of a peace agreement in order to facilitate the creation of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state.

On illegal immigration into the United States, the Obama administration calls for creating a “pathway to citizenship” (what I would call “non-amnesty amnesty”) which allows millions of “undocumented workers” and their families (previously known as “illegal aliens”) to remain in the U.S. indefinitely, while tightening up border security and mandating other safeguards to slow down unregulated migration, across the Mexican border in particular. The very idea of mass deportations of the more than ten million persons in the U.S. illegally is dismissed as inhumane, illiberal, and impractical.

How long have these illegal immigrants lived in the United States? Some for only a few months, but for the most part much longer. Given the fact that President Reagan, through the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, already extended amnesty to some 2.7 million people who entered the country illegally prior to 1982, those covered by a proposed new Obama amnesty are most likely to have been in the U.S. less than thirty years.

How long have Israeli settlers lived in the West Bank? Some for only a few months, but the vast majority for much longer, the greatest population increase occurring over the last 20 years. The earliest Jewish immigration beyond the green line began within months of the 1967 war and has increased to the point where now approximately 200,000 Jews live in east Jerusalem and 300,000 live in the West Bank.

In both cases the number of people in question, relative to the total population of the country, represents several percent. In both cases many families have lived in their current location for decades. Should they now be uprooted?

Read it all.


And fight back:

Can't Believe That Nati Could Be Intimidated

Was sent here by Jameel:-

R. Nati, a contributor to this blog, was summoned to the (Israeli) police station today. When he arrived, he was escorted to a room. The police were not waiting, instead the Israeli Internal Security (Shabak, or Shin Bet, the Israeli counter-intelligence and internal security service) was waiting for him.

He was interrogated as a right-wing activist (he's not), for possible involvement in planning anti-public activities (he's not involved in any way), and for publishing a Violent (?) Anti-Government (?) & Anti-Homosexual (???) Blog - Mystical Paths.

Well, he doesn't publish it. He does contribute religious and emunah oriented articles somewhat regularly. However, lets address the other points:

Violent - All I can say is ?????. Mystical Paths has never recommended or suggested any violent action against anyone, nor have any writers on Mystical Paths performed any such actions. Anyone who thinks otherwise has misread or excerpted items out of context.

Anti-Government - Mystical Paths does not espouse the overthrow of any Western government. Chaos and revolution is not the friend of the Jewish people. Rather, in cases where we disagree with current government policy, either of Israel or the United States, we recommend democratic actions be taken to replace the current _administration and elected officials_ with leaders that would head in a different direction. Democratic actions means, votes, protests, political organizing, and getting a message out.

Anti-Homosexual - ???? What in the world? The human drive in this area is probably the most prone area for the Yetzer Hara to attack a person. Those challenged with complete misdirection of their drives have perhaps one of the greatest challenges there is. Like people with challenges in any area, people with challenges in this area should be recommended to and given opportunities to improve. Mystical Paths does not agree with, and does recommend _peacefully_ protesting against, those who would flaunt their challenges, especially those who would do it specifically in religious and holy places, and this includes Jerusalem.

Disagreeing with the _administration and elected officials_ positions is not a crime in a Western democracy. Not even in Israel.

I'd like to say we will not be intimidated. But honestly, we just have been.

(Kippah tip: Muqata aka Jameel)

Welcome to the democratic state of Israel.

Sha. Shtil. Macht Nisht Kein Gereider.

There's a Yiddish folksong (you can hear the first verse here and the full lyrics are here pgs. 8-9 of the booklet) which goes Sha Shtil, Macht Nisht Kein Gerider
which translates as:

Shush, Quiet, Don't Make Any Noise


Why that song?

Read on:-

A Jew is not allowed to pray in any overt manner whatsoever on the Temple Mount, even if he is just moving his lips in prayer, Public Security Minister Avi Dichter recently wrote MKs Uri Ariel and Aryeh Eldad (National Union-NRP).

In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that it accepted the government's position that it was not opposed to individual Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, providing that it was not of a demonstrative nature that could lead to public disorder. High Court rulings in recent years have also been seen to support individual, as opposed to group prayer on the Mount.

...The two MKs explained that all they intended to do was to pray, without informing the media of their plans, or wearing a talit or tefilin, or bringing a Torah scroll with them.

"It is not possible to arrest a person for 'conversing with his maker,'" Dichter replied, using the same terminology of the MKs' letter. "However it is possible to carry out an arrest for expressions of outward and demonstrative signs [of prayer]."
This interpretation, Dichter continued, "is in line with the rationale that bans Jews from praying at the site, in light of serious concerns that this will serve as a provocation, resulting in disorder, with a near certain likelihood of subsequent bloodshed."

It was further explained to the two MKs that from the police's point of view, there is no substantive difference between the prayer of an individual and group prayer, since the threat to public safety is the same. Such act would be considered "altering the status quo at the site."

Dichter stressed that the state's decision to ban Jewish prayer from the Temple Mount does not distinguish between an individual praying and that of a group, and that this has been the basis of the status quo since 1967.

And see Steve Plaut's blog post.

What Have Two Pictures in Common?

Our "Peace Now" comrades have taken a calculated step.

Probably to attract attention more than trying to convince anyone of the logic of their case, they plastered the top poster all over town. It reads: "Opponents of Annapolis - The Oppositionist Coalition to A Peace Agreement".

The lefty-progressive camp has been frustrated by the ability of the right-wing camp to succeed in graphic portrayals of messages. Just recently, they claimed that a poster put up by the Kahane remnants with President Shimon Peres with a kaffiyeh was incitement [see below]. That's so ridiculous but the mainstream media repeated it and sure enough for two or three days, the dictatorship of mindthought was back in place.

Why is it ridiculous? Does Peace Now/ACRI/Meretz/Gush Shalom et. al., think that a kaffiyeh, that distinctive Arab peasant headress that the Mufti El-Husseini made all city-dwelling Arabs in the 1936-39 period wear so that the terrorists from the hill-country could blend in with the population (talking about collective punishment, by the way), automatically is racist, defammatory and inciteful? If so, they should start a campaign to bring back the tarboosh. But otherwise, I think they should shut up and allow others the blessed democratic privilege of freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

And if they think they are so 'clever' in their paralleling Lieberman and Ahmadinemajhad (or however one spells it), what would happen if someone would portray, say, Yossi Sarid and a...dog.

Why a dog? Well, both of them urinate on the side of the road like here:-

That would be silly and disrespectful and in bad taste, no? If so, why does Peace Now insist on publicizing the poster above?

And if they do insist on doing so, for peace's sake, stop crying about right-wing incitement.

=============

The Peres in a Keffiyeh Poster:-



Found at Israel Matzav