By Thalif Deen | Inter-Press Service
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 3 (IPS) – A new United Nations report on the human rights situation in Palestinian territories blasts the Israeli government for its heavy-handed treatment of journalists reporting on the military occupation.
The 20-page report, which will go before the 63rd sessions of the General Assembly currently underway, singles out the mistreatment of award-winning Palestinian journalist Mohammed Omer who was stripped, interrogated, kicked and beaten up when he returned from Europe to his home town in the occupied territory of Gaza last June.
A stringer for Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency, Omer, 24, was awarded the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism for “displaying courage and ability in covering war zones”.
The U.N. report, by Richard Falk, the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, says that Omer was convinced the brutal assault on his person was carried out by personnel from Shin Bet, the Israeli security agency.
The security agents “were fully aware that he had received the Gellhorn Prize while abroad, and were attempting to confiscate the award money, but were frustrated because it has been deposited in a bank account and was unavailable.”
When he left Gaza for Europe to pick up his prize, he was assured of the benefit of a Dutch diplomatic escort on his return.
But the escort arrived late at the Allenby Bridge border, where he was interrogated and beaten up and lost consciousness.
According to Omer’s testimony, he was forced to strip by an Israeli officer wearing a police uniform. He was pinned down on the floor with a boot on the neck. He says he collapsed during interrogation, and when he came round his eyelids were being forcibly opened. He was then dragged along the floor by his feet by officials of Shin Bet.
Omer was taken by ambulance from the Allenby crossing to the Jericho hospital in Palestinian territory in the West Bank. From there he was transferred to Gaza after a few hours.
A note from the Israeli Government Press Office (GPO) denies Omer’s account of physical abuse in Israeli custody. “In contradiction to his claims, at no time was the complainant subjected to either physical or mental violence.”
But an ambulance report of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society says: “We note finger signs on the neck and chest.” A report from the European Gaza Hospital of the Palestinian National Authority’s Ministry of Health includes the following notation following examination of Omer: “Ecchymosis (discolouration caused by bleeding underneath, typically caused by bruising) at upper part of chest wall was found.”
Following the assault, international press freedom groups like the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders called for an immediate and public investigation of Omer’s treatment.
By private communication, Falk was assured by the Dutch Ambassador in Geneva that the incident is being taken “extremely seriously” and that an explanation is being sought from the government of Israel.
But at the time of the U.N. report, no response had been received to either request for an account and an explanation.
Falk says the unfortunate incident “cannot be discounted as an accident or an anomaly involving undisciplined Israeli security personnel.”
“The treatment of Mr. Omer seems to have been motivated by Israeli anger over international recognition of his journalism describing the occupation of Gaza, his willingness to repeat his descriptions abroad and his dedication and intention to continue in the professional role of bearing witness to the excesses of the occupation.”
Falk also points out that all Palestinians are subject to arbitrary harassment and abuse at borders and military checkpoints, “although the hostility towards journalists seems particularly severe.”
During his time in Europe, Omer had also spoken before European parliamentary audiences, describing the suffering in Gaza caused by the Israeli siege, closures and fuel and food shortages.
“It should be noted,” says Falk, “that Mr. Omer was not charged with any offence, nor was he carrying any prohibited materials.”
His treatment, as described, appears to constitute a flagrant violation of article 3(1)(a)(c) of the Fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits “outrages on personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment” of persons under military occupation.
Nadia Hijab, senior fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Palestine Studies, told IPS: “Richard Falk is absolutely right.”
She said other journalists have been killed or injured by Israeli security forces, even though they and their vehicles were clearly marked as “press”.
But there are several particularly chilling aspects to Israel’s assault against Mohammed Omer, she added.
“He had just been on a successful European speaking tour and received a prestigious award, and he was being met by European diplomats on his return home,” she noted.
Through its actions, said Hijab, Israel was sending a message that no Palestinian, journalist or otherwise, is safe and that even European diplomats are no match for Israel.
“That is a very chilling message to a defenceless people,” she added.
In his report, Falk also says that although the incident affected only one individual, it inevitably has “a chilling effect, and appears to be part of a broader pattern of Israeli punitive interference with independent journalistic reporting on the occupation.”
Falk says the United Nations has a “clear responsibility and definite obligation to protect independent journalism, especially in war zones and areas under occupation, as part of its commitment to human rights and international law.”
Asked if the United Nations is doing enough to protect reporters covering the occupied territories, Hijab told IPS: “The United Nations is not equipped to protect reporters covering the occupied territories, just as it is not equipped to protect civilians.”
“The only possible protection would be for the U.S. and/or Europe to make it very clear to Israel that they do not condone its violations of international law,” she added.





RIGHTS-PAKISTAN: Civil Society United Against ‘Honour’ Killings
October 6, 2008By Ashfaq Yusufzai | Inter-Press Service
PESHAWAR, Oct 6 – The current campaign against “honour” killings in Pakistan led by anti-death penalty NGOs has support from lawmakers and lawyers pressing for modifications of Islamic law to prevent perpetrators from evading justice.
The NGOs take a principled stand against the death penalty under any circumstances. Some lawmakers and lawyers who support them in the struggle against “honour” killings may not be active opponents of capital punishment, although it is inconceivable that they would back Pakistan’s death penalty for consensual sex outside marriage.
The groups have joined forces over the alleged killings of five women in Balochistan, a region known for its highly conservative and patriarchal traditions. On Jul. 13, five women were kidnapped by armed men objecting to three of them — Fauzia, 20, and two unnamed schoolchildren between 16 and 18 — wanting to marry men of their own choosing, according to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). In defiance of Umrani tribal elders in the village of Babakot, the young women, accompanied by a mother of one of the teenagers and an aunt of Fauzia, were abducted as they were preparing to leave to get married at a court in Usta Mohammad, a city 80 km away. The men forced them into a jeep with Balochistan government number plates. They were driven to a remote area where the three young women were allegedly beaten and shot. They were still breathing when the men “hurled them into a wide ditch and covered them with earth and stones”. The two married female relatives who tried to intervene were also pushed into the ditch and all five were buried alive, according to AHRC. On Sep. 24, the police, under intense pressure from NGOs and lawmakers in parliament, arrested seven people.
“We have seven suspects, including the brother of two of the girls,” Balochistan police chief, Asif Nawaz Warraich, told IPS. One of the arrested had allegedly confessed to the crime, although the police still had no other evidence. “The federal government is sending a top official to Quetta [the provincial capital] to investigate the murders,” he added. Senator Mohammad Adeel told IPS that the parliament human rights committee would be recommending legislation that would reform the Islamic Qisas and Diyat law. The committee was set up after heated exchanges in parliament over the alleged killings.
Qisas gives the victim’s heirs the right of retribution. But Diyat orders them to seek compensation rather than demand this. Both concepts are incorporated into Pakistani law.
Adeel said he was also proposing that those accused of “honour” killings be tried by judges sitting on the anti-terrorism courts rather than the ordinary courts of justice. “If that happens, the relatives of the deceased women will not be able to get away with the crime by invoking Diyat law.”
Adeel said he had told the parliamentary human rights committee that the police in Balochistan were facing difficulties investigating the case because of political interference. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and some lawyers would prefer the government to amend the 2005 law specifically outlawing “honour” killings, reining in the rights given to the accused under Qisas and Diyat. Since most of “honour” killings took place within families, agreements were being reached in accordance with Islamic law which undermined the ability of the state to prosecute those guilty. “We have been urging the government to reform the law,” Asma Jehangir, chair of the HRCP, told IPS. “But when our reform proposals were presented to parliament in 2005, they were defeated as ‘un-Islamic’.” The Peshawar-based women’s rights lawyer, Noor Alam Khan, also wanted the law against “honour” killings amended. She predicted that no one would be punished for the alleged killings in Balochistan because the families would invoke Islamic law. “All [those allegedly guilty] are relatives and they will be set free because of Qisas Law,” she told IPS. HRCP’s statistics on “honour” killings show that they have been increasing, in spite of the 2005 legislation. In 2007, there were 636 “honour” killings, of which 61 victims were under 18. In 2006, the number was 271. So far this year, HRCP has recorded 283. “Many more cases go unreported. Almost all go unpunished,” said AHRC. Anti-death penalty NGOs say the increase in “honour” killings is also a reflection of the growing brutalisation of Pakistani society. The death penalty, and its steady extension, has contributed to this. “Pakistan currently has 26 criminal offences that allow for the death penalty — as opposed to just two, for murder and treason, at the time of independence in 1947,” Human Rights Watch said, in an open letter to Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gillani in June, calling for a ban on state executions. Over 7,000 people, including 40 women, are awaiting execution, although most of these were promised a commutation of their death sentences in June. In 2007, 134 people were executed by the state in Pakistan.
Share this:
Tags:Asia Human Rights Commission, Balochistan, honour killing of women, HRCP, Pakistan, Pakistan laws, retribution or compensation
Posted in Commentary, Human rights, Pakistan, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »