April, 06 2011, 10:47am EDT

West Bank/Gaza: Stop Harassing Journalists
Rise in Attacks, Detentions by Palestinian Security Services
RAMALLAH
Severe harassment by Palestinian Authority and Hamas security forces targeting Palestinian journalists in the West Bank and Gaza has had a pronounced chilling effect on freedom of expression, Human Rights Watch said today. In a new report, Human Rights Watch called on Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and Gaza to hold their security forces to account for systematic, severe abuses and urged foreign donors to the Palestinian Authority (PA) to condition aid to security forces on concrete accountability measures.
The 35-page report, "No News is Good News: Abuses Against Journalists by Palestinian Security Forces," documents cases in which security forces tortured, beat, and arbitrarily detained journalists, confiscated their equipment, and barred them from leaving the West Bank and Gaza.
"Palestinian security forces are becoming notorious for assaulting and intimidating journalists who are just trying to do their jobs," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Both the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza need to end these blatant attacks on free expression."
In the West Bank, reported incidents of official harassment of journalists by PA security services temporarily spiked during Israel's offensive in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009, but the overall trend has continued to worsen. According to one rights group, the Center for Development and Media Freedoms, the number of physical attacks, arrests, detentions, arbitrary confiscations of equipment, and other violations of journalists' rights by Palestinian security forces increased in both Gaza and the West Bank in 2010 by 45 percent over the previous year.
The report, based on interviews with Palestinian journalists, journalist syndicate representatives, and PA officials, focuses on seven cases of journalists who were abused by PA security forces, and documents two cases of abuse by Hamas internal security forces in Gaza, where the situation for journalists is also dire. Abuses by Hamas in Gaza as well as by Israeli military forces throughout the occupied Palestinian territories will be the focus of future reporting, Human Rights Watch said.
In recent days, Hamas internal security services have repeatedly violated the rights of journalists covering popular demonstrations in Gaza against the political split between Hamas and the Fatah-led PA, Human Rights Watch said. For example, journalists told Human Rights Watch that on March 19, 2011, around 15 Hamas plainclothes security forces raided the offices of the Reuters news agency bureau in Gaza, smashed computers, and beat journalists, after pointing a gun at one of them and threatening to throw another out of a window. In another case, a reporter for the Al Quds radio station told Human Rights Watch that on March 27 Hamas police threatened, insulted, and detained him for more than an hour immediately after he had broadcast a report criticizing Hamas health officials. Security forces accosted him in a morgue where he had reported on a man, supposedly killed by an Israeli military attack, who was discovered still to be alive.
Since Hamas's takeover of the Gaza Strip in June 2007, the majority of abuses against journalists in both the West Bank and Gaza have been related to tensions between the PA and Hamas, the report found. In the West Bank, the primary targets are journalists whom PA security services suspected of working for television, radio, websites, and newspapers seen as favoring Hamas or other Islamist groups such as Islamic Jihad, or are otherwise critical of the PA.
In one case documented in the report, a PA military court in the city of Jenin sentenced television journalist Tariq Abu Zeid, 34, to a year-and-a-half in prison despite two civilian court rulings ordering his release. Abu Zeid was the northern West Bank correspondent for the Al Aqsa television station, and had worked for the Gaza-based Al-Risala newspaper, both of which are considered to be pro-Hamas.
PA security services have also targeted independent journalists suspected of working on reports that might be critical of the PA. Security officials from the PA detained Muhannad Salahat, a freelance journalist and filmmaker, for 14 days in March and April 2010 without charging or notifying him of the reason for his arrest. Security officials interrogated him for days about whether he was preparing a documentary on the PA for Al Jazeera, the satellite television channel which had been critical of the PA and which the PA saw as pro-Hamas. PA security services detained Salahat for another 10 days in May 2010, and Jordanian intelligence officers later prevented him from traveling from the West Bank to Jordan, saying that he required special clearance from the PA before he could travel.
The majority of abuses documented by Human Rights Watch and reported by local rights groups involved the PA's Preventive Security agency and General Intelligence Services, and the detention of civilian journalists by the PA's military judiciary. In a positive recent development, the military judiciary has said it would stop exercising jurisdiction over civilians, although many civilians are still detained by the military.
Overall, the increasing number of alleged abuses against journalists takes place in the context of virtual impunity for serious human rights violations generally by PA security service officials, Human Rights Watch said. In total, Palestinian rights groups reported more than 200 allegations of torture by PA security agencies in 2010 - up from 164 complaints in 2009 - yet the courts have criminally prosecuted security officers for abusing detainees in only one case; a military court acquitted all five of the accused in July 2010.
Human Rights Watch cannot point to instructions from PA leaders to the security services directing them to commit these violations, but the utter failure of the PA leadership to address the prevailing culture of impunity for such abuses suggests that they reflect government policy.
The United States provided $350 million to the PA for security and program assistance in 2010, in addition to $150 million in direct budgetary support, while the European Union gave the PA more than EUR230 million ($315 million), including for security assistance. Human Rights Watch called on the US and the EU to condition support for all PA security agencies on the PA taking effective steps to investigate, prosecute, and punish security officers responsible for serious abuses.
In Gaza, Hamas internal security agents have summoned critical journalists for questioning, which the journalists interpreted as a form of intimidation, and government officials called some journalists to warn them that their coverage was "slanted" or "biased." In one case, Hamas security services harassed a Gaza-based journalist for the pro-Fatah Al-Hayat al-Jadida newspaper, repeatedly visiting her home and threatening her over the course of three months in 2010. In another case, the Hamas Ministry of Interior summoned a journalist who published an article on torture by Hamas authorities in secret detention facilities, threatened to take legal action against him if he did not publish an apology for the article, and warned him to correct his "biased" reporting.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
UN Human Rights Chief Says Trump Must Halt 'Extrajudicial Killing' in International Waters
"None of the individuals on the targeted boats appeared to pose an imminent threat to the lives of others or otherwise justified the use of lethal armed force against them under international law," said Volker Türk.
Oct 31, 2025
The United Nations' top human rights official said Friday that US President Donald Trump's deadly strikes on boats in international waters in recent weeks amount to "extrajudicial killing" that must stop immediately, remarks that came as the White House appeared poised to expand the unlawful military campaign to targets inside Venezuela.
Volker Türk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said of the administration's boat strikes that "these attacks—and their mounting human cost—are unacceptable."
"The US must halt such attacks and take all measures necessary to prevent the extrajudicial killing of people aboard these boats, whatever the criminal conduct alleged against them," said Türk, noting that the administration has not substantiated its claim that those killed by the strikes in waters off Central and South America were smuggling drugs.
The Trump administration has also kept secret a US Justice Department memo purportedly outlining an internal legal justification for the deadly strikes.
Türk noted that "countering the serious issue of illicit trafficking of drugs across international borders is—as has long been agreed among states—a law-enforcement matter, governed by the careful limits on lethal force set out in international human rights law."
"Under international human rights law, the intentional use of lethal force is only permissible as a last resort against individuals who pose an imminent threat to life," said the UN human rights chief. "Based on the very sparse information provided publicly by the US authorities, none of the individuals on the targeted boats appeared to pose an imminent threat to the lives of others or otherwise justified the use of lethal armed force against them under international law."
The Trump administration's strikes have killed more than 60 people thus far. At least one of the targeted vessels appeared to have turned around before the US military bombed it, killing 11 people.
Türk's statement came as the Miami Herald reported that the Trump administration "has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment."
Trump has said publicly that land strikes inside Venezuela would be the next phase of the military assault, which he has described as a "war" on drug cartels. The president has not yet received—or even sought—congressional authorization for any of the military actions taken in the Caribbean and Pacific.
In a statement last week, a group of UN experts denounced the Trump administration's strikes and belligerent posturing toward Venezuela as "an extremely dangerous escalation with grave implications for peace and security in the Caribbean region."
"The long history of external interventions in Latin America must not be repeated,” the experts said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Administration Has ‘Made the Decision to Attack Military Installations Inside Venezuela’: Report
"Trump’s military buildup in the Caribbean isn’t about 'drugs,' it’s about oil, power, and regime change," said on critic of potential strikes in Venezuela.
Oct 31, 2025
Two reports claim that the Trump administration is poised to launch strikes against military targets inside Venezuela.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday night that the administration is preparing to attack a variety of targets inside Venezuela, including "ports and airports controlled by the military that are allegedly used to traffic drugs, including naval facilities and airstrips."
Reports from the US government and the United Nations have not identified Venezuela as a significant source of drugs that enter the United States, and the country plays virtually no role in the trafficking of fentanyl, the primary cause of drug overdoses in the US.
While the WSJ report said that the administration had not yet decided to carry out the operations against Venezuela, the Miami Herald reported on Friday morning that the administration "has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment."
A source who spoke with the Miami Herald didn't explicitly say that Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro would be the target of these actions, but they nonetheless hinted that the goal was to weaken his grip on power.
"Maduro is about to find himself trapped and might soon discover that he cannot flee the country even if he decided to,” the source said. “What’s worse for him, there is now more than one general willing to capture and hand him over, fully aware that one thing is to talk about death, and another to see it coming."
While the Trump administration has accused Maduro of leading an international drug trafficking organization called the Cartel de los Soles, some experts have expressed extreme skepticism of this claim.
Phil Gunson, analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank, said in an interview with Agence Presse-France earlier this year that he doubts that so-called "Cartel de los Soles" even exists, and noted that "direct, incontrovertible evidence has never been presented" to show otherwise.
Earlier this year, the administration attempted to tie Maduro to another gang, Tren de Aragua, despite US intelligence agencies rejecting the notion that the street gang had government connections.
Launching strikes on Venezuelan soil would mark a major escalation in the administration's military campaign targeting purported drug traffickers, which so far has consisted of drone strikes against boats in international waters that many legal experts have described as a campaign of extrajudicial murder.
Dozens of political leaders throughout Latin America earlier this month condemned the administration's attacks on the purported drug boats, and they warned that they could just be the start of a regime change war reminiscent of the coups carried out by the US government in the last century that installed military dictatorships throughout the region.
"We have lived this nightmare before,” they emphasized in a joint letter. “US military interventions of the 20th century brought dictatorships, disappearances, and decades of trauma to our nations. We know the terrible cost of allowing foreign powers to wage war on our continent. We cannot—we will not—allow history to repeat itself.”
Medea Benjamin, cofounder of anti-war group CodePink, accused the Trump administration of using a fight against alleged drug trafficking as a false pretext to seize Venezuela's vast oil reserves.
"Trump’s military buildup in the Caribbean isn’t about 'drugs,' it’s about oil, power, and regime change," she wrote in a post on X. "Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, that’s why they’re escalating toward war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Failed to Scrap Filibuster Under Biden. Now Trump Wants 'Nuclear Option' to End Shutdown
"I hate to say I told you so but... I fucking told you so," wrote progressive journalist Mehdi Hasan, who repeatedly urged Senate Democrats to end the filibuster during Joe Biden's presidency.
Oct 31, 2025
US President Donald Trump late Thursday urged Senate Republicans to scrap the legislative filibuster to end the prolonged government shutdown without Democratic support—the kind of scenario progressives warned about when imploring Democrats to eliminate the 60-vote threshold during former President Joe Biden's term.
In an all-caps post to Truth Social, Trump wrote that "THE CHOICE IS CLEAR—INITIATE THE 'NUCLEAR OPTION,' GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER AND, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
Trump noted Democrats' failure to terminate the filibuster when they controlled Congress under Biden, pointing specifically to the central role that Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema—both of whom have since left office and the Democratic Party—played in obstructing filibuster reform.
"Just a short while ago, the Democrats, while in power, fought for three years to do this, but were unable to pull it off because of Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Never have the Democrats fought so hard to do something because they knew the tremendous strength that terminating the Filibuster would give them," Trump wrote. "Now I want to do it in order to take advantage of the Democrats."
With the filibuster intact, 60 votes are required to pass most legislation in the Senate. Republicans currently hold 53 Senate seats.
Progressives warned repeatedly during Biden's presidency that Republicans wouldn't hesitate to scrap the filibuster in the future should the 60-vote threshold become a severe hindrance to their agenda. Abolishing the legislative filibuster to end the shutdown would clear the way for other Republican policy proposals to get through the Senate with simple-majority support.
"I spent the entire Biden presidency warning idiotic establishment Senate Dems and Biden who opposed getting rid of the filibuster that Trump and the GOP would come back to power and do it themselves," journalist Mehdi Hasan wrote Thursday in response to the president's demands. "I hate to say I told you so but... I fucking told you so."
Adam Jentleson, former chief of staff for Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and a vocal advocate of ending the filibuster, noted that "it's pretty easy" to initiate the "nuclear option" on the filibuster "because despite everything, the Senate is a majority rule institution, per the Founders' design."
"The rule that overrides all other rules is that a majority of senators can vote at any time to change the rules—including getting rid of the filibuster, which the Founders abhorred anyway," Jentleson wrote late Thursday. "They could do it tomorrow! No preparation needed."
Trump's demand comes as millions of people across the US are set to lose federal nutrition assistance due to the shutdown and the administration's illegal refusal to tap emergency funds to pay out the benefits.
Millions of Americans are also facing the prospect of skyrocketing health insurance premiums as Trump and congressional Republicans decline to support extending Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said earlier this month that he would oppose scrapping the filibuster to end the shutdown, but he could change his position amid Trump's pressure campaign.
One progressive, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), has called for a filibuster carveout that would allow senators to keep the government open with a simple-majority vote.
"I've been consistent on this," Khanna said in an interview in early October. "I said this when Biden was president, and I'm now saying it when Trump's president."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


