By Brian Whitaker
This commentary was published in The Guardian on 23/12/2010
Human rights 'hypocrisy': There was a predictable response this week from Binyamin Netanyahu when Human Rights Watch issued a report about Israeli discrimination against Palestinians in the West Bank.
Human rights 'hypocrisy': There was a predictable response this week from Binyamin Netanyahu when Human Rights Watch issued a report about Israeli discrimination against Palestinians in the West Bank.
"We must expose the hypocrisy of human rights organisations that turn a blind eye to the most repressive regimes in the world, regimes that stone women and hang gays, and instead target the only liberal democracy in the Middle East," the Israeli prime minister said.
This is a frequent complaint when human rights organisations dare to say something critical about Israel, but in the case of Human Rights Watch it's just not true.
Just four days before the West Bank report appeared, HRW had issued another – very detailed – report on the treatment of gay people in Iran, and a look at the Middle East section of HRW's website shows the wide range of countries and issues that it tackles.
As it turned out, the report on Israel didn't get a lot of media coverage, probably because it only confirmed what most people know already. The US state department, for example, noted: "Many of the issues covered in the HRW report are also covered in great detail in the state department's annual Human Rights Report."
But one important point from HRW's report has been largely ignored. This concerns the way illegal settlement activity is subsidised by American taxpayers through tax-exempt charities. The report urges Congress to investigate and "ensure that tax-exempt status is not granted to organisations that facilitate human rights violations or violations of international humanitarian law".
African hostages: It's now almost two weeks since Khataza Gondwe of Christian Solidarity Worldwide wrote an article here on Comment is free about the suffering of African migrants at the hands of traffickers in Egypt.
The migrants pay $2,000 or more each to be smuggled across the border into Israel but, once they arrive in Sinai, the traffickers suddenly demand more money – as much as $10,000 in some cases – and hold them hostage until their families pay up. It's a horrible racket.
Some have been threatened with death or having their kidneys removed and sold if the money is not forthcoming. Human Rights Watch says:
"In dozens of cases asylum seekers and migrants said that, to coerce relatives to make payments, traffickers would make them call their relatives by mobile phone and then shoot in the air or physically abuse them so the relatives would hear their screams."
"In dozens of cases asylum seekers and migrants said that, to coerce relatives to make payments, traffickers would make them call their relatives by mobile phone and then shoot in the air or physically abuse them so the relatives would hear their screams."
The UN high commissioner for refugees has made representations on the migrants' behalf. So has the pope, along with various NGOs.
Initially, the Egyptian government said it was working "around the clock" to find the hostages and release them. By last week, though, the foreign ministry was beginning to cast doubt on the hostage stories and yesterday, the ministry again said the reports were "baseless".
The Egyptian authorities say none of the organisations complaining about the racket has provided them with information. This is untrue, according to EveryOneGroup, an Italian-based human rights organisation, which says it has given them the approximate location of the hostages and even provided mobile phone numbers for some of the traffickers, plus the names of two of the hostages' guards.
The Egyptian state, despite its enormous security apparatus, doesn't seem very keen to track them down. Why? One reason, no doubt, is that the migrants are from poor African countries and mainly Christian – so their fate is of no great consequence.
Neither the migrants nor the traffickers are regarded as a threat to the regime, but there may also be other reasons for leaving them unmolested. Maintaining security along the border with Israel depends partly on co-operation from the local population – including smugglers. Keeping a lid on arms smuggling may mean letting the smugglers make money in other ways.
Bejewelled tree: The world's most expensively decorated Christmas tree has gone on show at the Emirates Palace hotel in Abu Dhabi, bedecked with $11m-worth of diamonds, pearls, emeralds and rubies, plus some more "mundane" items, such as gold and silver balls.
No Saudi celebrations: And a miserable New Year to you all. That's the seasonable message from Saudi Arabia's religious police, the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.
Bang on cue, they have warned that anyone caught celebrating New Year in public will be punished – along with any shops selling "items symbolising the occasion".
Now, I know they don't like Valentine's Day or Halloween (though, judging by a recent WikiLeaks document, they have trouble keeping the damper on that), but what exactly is wrong with New Year? Where in the Qur'an does it say you can't have a party at midnight on 31 December?
The objection, I suppose, is that the western (Gregorian) calendar competes with the Islamic calendar, in which New Year falls at a different time. But the fact that the western calendar was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII on 24 February 1582 (or 20 Muharram 990, if you prefer) doesn't give it any religious significance, and it's widely recognised, even by non-Christians, including many Muslims.
The first of January simply marks the start (not very accurately these days) of the new solar year. The Islamic calendar, meanwhile, is based on the lunar year. Both calendars probably owe something to ancient pagan practices of sun and moon worship – though I'm sure the religious police wouldn't want to admit that.
No comments:
Post a Comment