fbpx

May 11, 2015

Freedom of expression under attack in Tunisia

This story originally appeared on The Media Line.

A new Tunisian security bill could make criticizing the Tunisian police or security forces a crime, and should be amended, says a group of human rights organizations. It also allows security forces to use deadly force to protect property, not only lives. The human rights groups including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International urge the Tunisian parliament to drop these problematic provisions from the bill.

The government sent the bill to parliament in April following the March attack by gunmen that killed 23 people at the Bardo museum and a series of attacks by gunmen on members of the security forces. At least 75 members of the Tunisian army and police have been killed since the uprising that ousted President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in 2011, and almost 200 wounded.

“The government has approved a draft bill that in the name of protecting the security forces inflicts severe setbacks on civil liberties in Tunisia,” Eric Goldstein, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch told The Media Line. “If the bill is passed it would stifle criticism and whistleblowing, and have a chilling effect on anyone who criticizes the security forces by putting them at risk of prosecution.”

Tunisia, which is where the Arab spring began more than four years ago, is in many ways a success, say analysts who study the region. Tunisia adopted a constitution in 2014, and later that year held both parliamentary and presidential elections – Tunisia’s first democratic elections since 1956. Mohamed Beji Caid Essebsi, a former foreign minister and interim Prime Minister in 2011 and founder of the secular Nidaa Tounes party, was elected.

Tunisia has moved slowly toward democracy, and this bill could threaten that movement.

“The public is more ready to accept this kind of legislation thinking it will protect them from additional attacks,” Maha Yahya, an expert on Tunisia at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, told The Media Line. “But it is critical for Tunisians to understand that clamping down on civil liberties is far more threatening to Tunisia’s transition to democracy than a terrorist attack. All they will do is push people to the shadows and fringes where they will look for other ways to express their discontent.

She compared the situation to Egypt, where a similar drive to democracy, and an election that brought Muslim Brotherhood head Mohamed Morsi to power in 2013, has devolved into an anti-democratic rule by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who has outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood and arrested hundreds of its supporters.

“It’s paramount for Tunisia’s political leaders not to sacrifice Tunisia’s fragile political transition on the altar of security.”

Tightening security policies is common after terrorist attacks, as the US did after 9/11. But the current bill before the Tunisian parliament would allow courts to impose long prison sentences on anyone who reveals “national security secrets.” It also allows no defense from prosecution for whistleblowers or journalists who claim to have acted in the public interest.

The bill would make the “denigration” of police or security forces a crime, and provides for up to 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine for those who publish a “national security secret”, which it defines broadly.

“The reaction to this draft bill in both human rights groups and civil society was unanimous in their disappointment,” Goldstein of Human Rights Watch said. “That’s why we want it revised.”

Freedom of expression under attack in Tunisia Read More »

Flotilla boat leaves from Sweden in bid to break Gaza blockade

A trawler left Sweden on its way to break Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip 5,000 nautical miles away.

The Marianne of Gothenburg departed on Sunday evening and is the first ship in the Freedom Flotilla III to leave for Gaza, according to the website of the Ship to Gaza Sweden campaign.

The boat, which was purchased jointly by the Ship to Gaza Sweden and Ship to Gaza Norway, is carrying solar panels and medical equipment, according to Ship to Gaza Sweden, along with five crew members and eight passengers.

The Ship to Gaza organization is calling for an immediate end to the naval blockade of Gaza; opening of the Gaza Port; and secure passage for Palestinians between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Sweden officially recognized the state of Palestine last October.

Among the passengers are Israeli-born Swedish citizen Dror Feiler, a musician and spokesman of Ship to Gaza; Dr. Henry Ascher, a professor of public health and pediatrician; Lennart Berggren, a filmmaker; Maria Svensson, pro tem spokeswoman of the Feministiskt initiative; and Mikael Karlsson, chairman of Ship to Gaza Sweden.

The boat is named after Marianne Skoog, a veteran member of the Swedish Palestine Solidarity movement, who died in May 2014.

The Freedom Flotilla’s first attempt to break the blockade ended in the deaths of nine Turkish activists after Israeli Navy commandos on May 31, 2010 boarded the Mavi Marmara, which claimed to be carrying humanitarian aid, after warning the ship not to sail into waters near the Gaza Strip in circumvention of Israel’s naval blockade of the coastal strip. A second attempt was turned back in October 2012.

The Marianne will stop at ports in Helsingborg, Malmo and Copenhagen, as well as others to be announced later, according to the Ship to Gaza Sweden website.

Flotilla boat leaves from Sweden in bid to break Gaza blockade Read More »

The Israel Factor: Israelis want Hillary

I don't exactly know why Israelis want Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the US, but they do. One of our Israel Factor panel of experts remarked that Clinton is “best only among existing options. I don’t necessarily think she is the best possible president for Israel”. Another one warned that we have to “wait and see” what she does if elected President. A third one reminded me that Clinton is not a Netanyahu enthusiast. If she is elected, there could be trouble.

Moreover, there is still plenty of time for Israelis to A. learn more about the less-known candidates, and B. see what Clinton says about matters of importance to them. For example: what she says about an agreement with Iran if and when such an agreement is reached. A former senior official told me last week that “Clinton is the only hope” Israel has as it searches for someone that can still make a difference with the agreement.

And yet, our new Israel Factor survey leaves no room for mistake: our experts would pick Clinton (her ranking is 7.66 out of 10 – the highest of all candidates).

Surely, our experts are not representative of the Israeli public. We've seen in the past – and we can see it again in this spring 2015 Israel Factor survey – that our panel does not always agree with the Israeli public. When we offered our panel the statement “Obama is the worst ever President for Israel”, only one panelist agreed with it, and all the others disagreed. If you are readers of Rosner's Domain, you know that the Israeli public does tend to attribute to Obama the “worst ever” tag. In a survey that we published a week or so ago, 63% of Jewish Israelis called Obama the “worst” for Israel in the last forty years (since Carter – and including Carter).

So the panel is the panel, and the public is the public. They are different. As the survey we published revealed, today only one in ten Jewish Israeli respondents (9%) would call the US administration “pro Israeli”. 60% of respondents call the Obama administration “pro Palestinian”. Our panel would disagree. The panel believes that there is “a crisis in US-Israel relations”, but the experts put a fair share of the blame for this crisis on PM Netanyahu's shoulders. All of our experts except for one agreed with the statement “Netanyahu has damaged US-Israel relations like no other PM before him”. In explaining their misgivings, for example, in our question about Iran, they say that “Netanyahu failed in working closely with the administration to bring a better deal. He alienated the administration” and “his actions are terrible for Israel, [he] makes Israel seem paranoid, ungrateful, and war-mongering”.

So the panel does not give Netanyahu high marks for his handling of the relations, but it’s also not quite satisfied with Obama. No – the panel doesn't think Obama is the “worst ever” President for Israel, but it is critical of the administration’s actions. When it comes to Iran, most of the panel agrees that “the US has not shown full determination to fully remove the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons”, as one panelist put it. The panel is also suspicious of Obama's response to the outcome of Israel's elections. “Obama is now undermining the very fabric of the Israeli-American partnership on the matter of values, distancing himself from Israeli Democratic practices”, one panelist wrote. Another one asserted that “[Obama's] swipes were not only at Bibi but at two foundations of the relationship – Israel’s democratic character… and its role as a strategic asset”.

All this does not translate itself into suspicion of Hillary Clinton. True – four of our panelists disagree with the statement “Hillary Clinton would be the best president for Israel in 2016”. Namely, they think that someone else is a better fit for such description. But when we look at the overall marks that our panelists gave Clinton, she is, on average, above all other candidates, with Vice President Biden as second (7.12), and the two top Republican candidates (in this survey) only third: Jeb Bush and Lyndsey Graham with a 7 (Martin O'Malley's score is also 7).

Top Factor Candidates

Average Ranking

Hillary Clinton

7.66

Joe Biden

7.12

Jeb Bush

7

Lindsey Graham

7

Martin O'Malley

7

Marco Rubio

6.78

 

Is this another testimony to the fact that our panel is to the left of the Israeli public? In this case, not exactly. A week ago, when I wrote about Menachem Lazar's survey, I promised to share more numbers from it in the near future – and this is a good opportunity to use one of them. In the survey (Jewish Israelis), we asked the public “which of the following candidates would you like to see as the next President of the United States” – and provided the respondents with just two options. Hillary Clinton – because the public knows her. And Jeb Bush – because the public has an idea of who he is. We thought that there is no point in letting Israelis choose from a list of names most of which they've never heard before (be it Scott Brown, or Jim Webb).

So what does Israel’s Jewish public want? In the case of the next US elections, it wants exactly what the experts want: Clinton. She got 42% of support in our poll, Bush is at 37% (21% had “no opinion”).

A reminder: in this survey we also asked Israelis to pick the “best for Israel” US President, and Bill Clinton came ahead of George W. Bush. So Israelis seem to be consistent: they prefer the Clinton family to the Bush family.

Some interesting data about this choice:

As you can expect, the same Israelis that picked Bill Clinton as “best ever” over Bush prefer Hillary Clinton to Jeb Bush: secular, centrist and leftist Israelis. Bush gets the religious vote (50% to 25%) and the rightwing vote (46% to 30%).

Young Israelis don't have clear preference: 41% for Clinton, 38% for Bush. This is interesting because a lot more of them picked George Bush over Bill Clinton as “best ever” President (39% for Bush, 28% for Clinton).  

In Israel, much like in the US, there is a significant gender gap between Clinton and Bush. Israeli women want Clinton (47% to 27%), while men pick Bush (46% to 38%).

The Israel Factor: Israelis want Hillary Read More »