Gaza: The Hass and Hass nots of freedom of the Press

Freedom of the press in Gaza has been in the headlines quite a lot in the last month. First of all, Israel made a strange decision to refuse all access of members of the international media working in the region via Erez Checkpoint to the Gaza Strip. While it most definitely is a strange decision, especially from a democracy, one Israeli spokesman was quoted in the New York Times as saying that he is not "shedding any tears" that the international press aren't going in to Gaza.

The Foreign Press Association appealed the decision to Israel's supreme court, whom did not have the chance to debate the case. This came to an end when Israel today reversed the decision and let journalists in to Gaza. I am certain the the FPA are kicking themselves over the Israeli step to open the doors for them today. Indeed dragging Israel through a high profile media court case would give them enough to write about for months.

The second issue to do with freedom of the press is an incident concerning a highly respectable journalist, Amira Hass. Ms. Hass works for the Israeli broadsheet, left leaning newspaper, Haaretz. She has lived both in Gaza and Ramallah and that makes her a different type of Israeli journalist. She is unique. Amira Hass gets out in to the field. Three weeks ago she joined a ship to Gaza organized by the "Free Gaza Movement". Since then she has been writing about Gaza and its problems, mostly pertaining to Israel but also passing judgment on Hamas as a government. This week Hamas informed her that she can no longer stay in Gaza due to "security" problems. While she tried to challenge the expulsion order, the powers that be in Gaza would not show any flexibility, except for a 20 hours extention to pack her bags and say good bye to all her friends. In an interview today to an Israeli radio station Hass said that "they (Hamas) made it clear that they were uncomfortable with free press. They made it clear that foreign media that come for a day or two are not like a permanent presence of three months, they made it clear that it is an inconvenience for them".

So from what I can make out of her statement is:
a. Freedom of the press in Gaza means you are free to write about occupation, Israeli atrocities and the siege.
b. Forget about investigative journalism – say like a report on "where is Gilad Shalit", or "Hamas the first Islamic Brotherhood Government in the region – prospects for the future" , "Hamas's governing capabilities".

Don't get me wrong but by putting both of the stories together, Hass and the FPA, I kind of get the impression that the FPA won't be appealing the Hamas Government or legal system to let them cover the internal problems of Gaza. As Cicero said, "O tempora, O mores!"

Booth binging in Gaza

So a few things have happened in Gaza since I last posted. The "cease fire" between seems to be upholding, and both children of Sderot and Beit Hanun have gone back to school uneventfully. Who said good news is no news…?
Lauren Booth, former British Prime Minster, Tony Blair's sister in law seems to be the most prominent voice of the "Free Gaza" movement. This week she claimed that the Gaza Strip is the largest concentration camp in the world. She also pointed out that the situation resembles Darfur. I thought it would be good to try analyze this interpretation of this statement. First of all, lets break down the "concentration camp", the definition of such is roughly "A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions". The Gaza Strip, while the border with Israel is strictly controlled, since the early 90's, and one border with Egypt whom aren't really interested in a Gazan infestation is an autonomous area. The people whom live there, some 1.4 million Palestinians, generally call the place home I seriously doubt the Jews of the 1930's – 40's called "Auschwitz" home. In this quasi state, after a over a year of aggression against its best neighbor Gazans may be confined to the small strip of land, but it is indeed due to the hostilities is government chose to initiate. So while she continues to work for the "Palestinian cause" I wish her only to remember that “work makes (one) free”. As for Darfur, The War in Darfur is a military conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan. The current lines of conflict are seen to be ethnic and tribal, rather than religious. The war there has an estimated 400,000 people dead from violence and disease. The war between Israel and the Gaza Strip is a war of Ideologies, with a taint of religion. The Islamist government of Gaza claiming the infidels must be ousted and free Palestine of all Jews, unless they are willing to live under the Islamic rule (just like Christians under Gaza rule). The war in Darfur is a result The combination of decades of drought, desertification, and overpopulation are among the causes of the Darfur conflict, because nomads searching for water have to take their livestock further south, to land mainly occupied by Black African farming communities. This of course leaves people hungry on the brink of starvation.
On the other hand, in Gaza Lauren Booth is witnessing the plight of the so called Israeli siege. Looks like they have run out of caviar….

Another highlight of Ms. Booth visit to Gaza was a lovely ceremony with the head honcho of Gaza aka, Ismaiel Hania, she received a Palestinian passport (Palestinians would do anything to trade her EU passport). So I wonder if she will try and return to England with the prestigious Palestinian passport. All I can say to her is "bon voyage", or good bye and good riddance.

Internationals claims of breaking siege

So finally, after one year of planning, two wooden fishing boats made their final trip to the coast of Gaza. 44 self pronounced human rights activists made their best effort to bring to the global attention the suffering of the people of Gaza. They hoped that Israel would have tried to prevent and confront them while all the time, being followed by the international media.
Israel instead, for the first time that I can recall, made a choice to play along with the global interest. By approving the boats to reach their final destination they deprived the "activists" from their front page aspirations (who said death wish?). Why did Israel do this? Well, in my view there could be a number of reasons. First of all, Condolezza Rice is to visit later on this week, a State Dept. visit while US & European citizens are screaming "occupation" would be a bit of an embarrassment. Also, Israeli Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, is planned to visit Egypt and continue the dialogue between the two states. Since the "breaking of the siege" all of the Palestinian media has been discussing why these strange internationals are doing their best putting their lives at risk and all the time over the last year the arab world are literally sitting on their hands.
How do we get out of this place?
This is something yet to be concluded. Are they going to sail out? Are they going to try and get out via Rafah? Will they try and approach the Israeli authorities and request to leave via Israel. One thing is apparent, if by sea or by Erez crossing they will be checks by the Israeli security services.

Human Rights – only for the Palestinians
One thing I can't seem to understand. None of these human rights provocateurs (AKA activists) cry out against Hamas terrorist activities. Israeli civilians have constantly been targeted and no global group had cried out for their human rights.


This is definitely a developing story.