In this mailing:
- Khaled Abu Toameh: The Main Goal of the Palestinian Government
- Ann Snyder: U.S. Leads Effort to Criminalize Free Speech
The Main Goal of the Palestinian Government
by Khaled Abu
Toameh
May 16, 2012 at 5:00 am
May 16, 2012 at 5:00 am
|
Share:
 |
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
The
Palestinian government is in fact lying when it talks about a financial crisis;
its main goal is to get Western and Arab donors to channel more funds to
Ramallah. "Corruption in the Palestinian Authority is more widespread than
in the past." — Hasan Khreishah, Deputy Seaker, Palestinian Parliament.
At a time when many Western governments, the
World Bank and various international organizations are continuing to heap
praise on the Palestinian Authority for implementing reforms, the deputy
speaker of the Palestinian parliament, Hasan Khreishah, announced that
financial and administrative corruption was now more widespread than ever.
Khreishah, who is an independent
parliamentarian, made it clear that the Palestinian government of Salam Fayyad,
which has been hailed for combating corruption and implementing major reforms,
was continuing to squander public funds.
One of the charges the deputy parliament
speaker makes is related to the Palestinian government's claim that it is
facing severe financial crisis.
Khreishah says that the Palestinian government
is in fact lying when it talks about a financial crisis; its main goal is to
get Western and Arab donors to channel more funds to Ramallah: "Corruption
in the Palestinian Authority is more widespread than in the past," he
said. "We hear about the suffering and hunger of the poor and the
difficulties facing the unemployed, farmers, villagers and civil
servants," Khreishah said. "At the same time, we hear about the
luxurious life of senior and influential officials and the involvement of some
in money laundering."
What Khreishah is saying is that Western
donors, specifically the US and EU, are continuing to pour billions of dollars
on the Palestinian Authority without holding its leaders fully accountable.
He revealed, for example, that the chairman of
the Palestine Investment Fund, a company that was established by the PLO, was
receiving a salary of $35,000 a month, or $420,000 a year, while the average
salary of a civil servant in the Palestinian Authority ranges from $500 to
$1,000 a month.
Khreishah also disclosed that senior members of
the PLO and Fatah have not only awarded themselves huge salaries, but also-
luxurious vehicles, as well as various privileges.
A senior Palestinian official, he said, spends
an average of five days abroad together with aides, advisors and secretaries --
all at the expense of the Palestinians.
"Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, we
have had 228 ministers, in addition to advisers," Khreishah said in an
interview with the London-based Al- Quds Al-Arabi newspaper."All
receive high salaries and luxurious vehicles," he continued. "In
light of the financial expenses [of the PA leadership], the talk about a
financial crisis is repugnant and baseless," he charged. "This talk
has become a sort of political statement."
Khreishah also lashed out at the two
Palestinian governments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for violations of human
rights and freedom of expression. Journalists have become a target for anyone
who wants to violate human rights," Khreishah added. "Palestinians
are being held hostages by the two parties."
Despite his senior status in the Palestinian
Authority, including the fact that he is an elected parliament member, the
international media chose to ignore his statements. Instead, some journalists
rushed to seek denials from Palestinian government officials, who tried to
discredit the whistle-blower by claiming that he was a Hamas supporter -- a
charge that sounds ridiculous, especially to all those who have known Khreishah
for many years.
The Palestinian government -- with the help of
mainstream media in the West -- does not want such statements to appear in the
international media lest they affect financial aid to the Palestinians. The
next time the Palestinian government complains about a financial crisis, it
would be advisable for Western donors to translate Khreishah's statements into
English and read them before channeling additional funds to the Palestinian
government's coffers.. ….Unless the Western donors enjoy being deceived and
stripped of their money.
Related Topics: Khaled Abu
Toameh
U.S. Leads Effort to Criminalize Free Speech
by Ann Snyder
May 16, 2012 at 4:30 am
May 16, 2012 at 4:30 am
|
Share:
|
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
It is
puzzling that the West was so easily duped into believing that dropping the
"defamation of religion" language was any kind of victory. The OIC's
agenda can be implemented instead through "hate speech" laws that
already exist. Our Secretary of State applauded the OIC, and far from demanding
a "reservations clause" of any kind, the United States sponsored a
three-day, closed-door meeting in Washington D.C., on implementing the
resolution.
The Human Rights Council concluded its
nineteenth session on March 23, 2012 and adopted, without a vote, yet another
resolution aimed at restricting freedom of speech throughout the world. While
its title[1], as usual, suggests it is about combating
intolerance based on religion, its plain language shows that, once again,
speech is the real target.
One of its sponsors, the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation (formerly the Organization of the Islamic Conference or
"OIC" ), has, for over a decade, introduced speech-restrictive
resolutions at the United Nations. In the past, these resolutions contained
explicit language about "defamation
of religions." Last year, however, when the OIC introduced Resolution
16/18 without the term "defamation
of religions," the West's resistance to the OIC's efforts faltered
(discussed here).
The "defamation
of religions" concept had been easy for Western countries to rally
against, in part, because it seemed to attach rights to a concept (here,
religion) rather than to individuals. But, dropping that term was little more
than a cosmetic
change leaving speech-targeting language behind and the OIC's
speech-restrictive agenda intact.
Resolution 19/25, like 16/18, specifically
"condemns" certain types of speech and "urges States to take
effective measures as set forth in the present resolution, consistent with
their obligations under international human rights law, to address and
combat such incidents." (emphasis added) In short, it is an
explicit call to action for states to curtail certain types of speech.
The "advocacy" (read: speech) that
the resolution "condemns" and calls on states to limit is "any
advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence" using "print, audio-visual or electronic
media or any other means." This language almost directly parallels International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights Article 20(2), which reads: "Any advocacy
of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."
At the time Article 20 was being debated, there
was little doubt that it was about limiting speech; and indeed, concerns were
raised about the potential for abuse of the provision to limit an essential
right. Further, when the United States finally ratified the ICCPR in 1992, it
did so with an explicit
reservation to Article 20, reading: "That Article 20 does not
authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that
would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the
Constitution and laws of the United States."
The language of ICCPR Article 20 and
Resolutions 16/18 and 19/25 bears a striking resemblance to the "hate
speech" provisions that have proliferated throughout Europe and that
are already being used to silence speech (as the trials of Geert Wilders, Lars
Hedegaard, and others
demonstrate).
Further, conceptually, "defamation
of religions" and "hate
speech" were already linked in prior resolutions. It is puzzling,
therefore, that the West was so easily
duped into believing that dropping the "defamation
of religions" language was any kind of substantive victory. Although
the most recent resolutions stop short of Article 20's language, leaving out
"shall be prohibited by law," it hardly matters. The OIC's agenda can
simply be pushed instead through "hate
speech" laws that already exist. (By its own statements, the OIC has not
changed its goals, nor has it abandoned the concept.) The shift in wording has
simply lost us allies in resisiting it.
That a resolution without an explicit reference
to "defamation
of religions" but that retained "hate speech" language would
be more appealing to European allies is not surprising. Most European countries
have already adopted some form of "hate
speech" laws -- but to terrible effect -- on freedom of speech. With
regard to this issue, the United States had stood alone—"hate speech"
is currently not proscribed here, although we appear headed in that direction:
since the United States supported the resolution, how could we expect our
Western allies to resist?
Our Secretary of State applauded the
OIC and described efforts leading to Resolution 16/18 as beginning "to
overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of
expression." Far from demanding a "reservations clause" of any
kind, the United States, instead, sponsored a three-day, closed-door meeting in
Washington, DC last December on implementing 16/18 —a meeting in a
series called the "Istanbul
Process." Taking its lead from the US, the European Union then offered to host the next session, an
initiative the OIC hailed as a
"a qualitative shift in action against the phenomenon of
Islamophobia."
In short, a mere cosmetic change in a
resolution has resulted in a radical shift in the West's—and specifically
United States' and therefore Europe's —policy toward the OIC's efforts to
restrict free speech..
If we do no wake up quickly, recognize the
implications of that policy shift, and reverse course, this "mere"
cosmetic change may result in a radical shift in the protections for freedom of
speech in the United States.
Ann Snyder serves as a Senior Fellow of The
Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum.
[1] "Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping
and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence
against, persons based on religion or belief"
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment