Members of Human Rights Watch (HRW) recently spent two weeks in Jordan, touring five prisons and interviewing their prisoners.  While the organization commended Jordan for opening its prisons, it stated that Jordan needs to address the beatings and mistreatment that are widespread among its prisons. 

On August 22, the day following HRW’s visit of Swaqa Correction and Rehabilitation Center, the security staff beat nearly all 2,100 prisoners held there.  The guards also forcibly shaved the heads and beards of all the inmates.  Most of the inmates are Muslims whose religious beliefs require them to keep a beard.  Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, commented that shavings occurred to humiliate and degrade the prisoners and served no “legitimate penal purpose”.

Following reports of the new beatings, HRW returned to Swaqa on August 26.  They spoke with over 40 inmates who reported that they heard cries of inmates being beaten for over eight hours and showed HRW bruises on their backs, arms, and legs.  The inmates believe that all the prisoners were beaten that night and one, `Ala’ Abu `Utair, died as a result from the abuse.

In response to these new beatings, 350 prisoners at Swaqa cut themselves during HRW’s second visit to the facilities.  Members of HRW report seeing prisoners with cuts on their chests, arms and legs and seeing prisoners cut themselves when the delegation was exiting the prison.  Inmates report that self-mutilation is a common reaction and, like hunger strikes, is designed to draw attention to the abuse of the inmates.

On August 27, Jordan suspended Majid al-Rawashda, the director of Swaqa.  The beatings of August 22 occurred on his first day as the director.  HRW welcomed the suspension as a “swift and necessary action”.  While al-Rawashda was implicated in the earlier abuses, Maj Bashir al-Daaja, the spokesperson for Jordanian Public Security Department, did not say whether the dismissal was connected to the incident.

In addition to the beatings at Swaqa, HRW documented abuses at each prison its delegation visited.  Other abuses include inmates being hung by their arms and beaten over the course of an entire day, an inmate losing teeth as a result of being hit by a metal pipe, and at Aqaba prison, an inmate died as a result of beatings over the course of two days.  Also, at Qafqafa prison, the unsanitary conditions seriously affected the prisoners’ mental health. 

For more information please see:
Human Rights Watch:  “Jordan:  Rampant beating in prisons go unpunished”  30 August 2007. 

BBC:  “Jordanian prison head dismissed”  29 August 2007. 

France24:  “Jordan fires warden after prison disturbances”  29 August 2007.

Middle East Times:  “Jordan inmates hurt themselves during watchdog visit”  28 August 2007.

Al- Hayat, a popular London based pan-Arabic paper, was recently banned by the Saudi government.  It is unclear what caused the banning of the paper, especially because officials stated it was not any single article that caused the government’s regulation.  However, two possible reasons emerge for the government’s displeasure with the newspaper causing the banning of the newspaper.  The first possibility is related to the Al-Hayat’s insinuations that the recent deaths of camels in Saudi Arabia were actually caused by infectious diseases, rather than the government’s view that blamed the mysterious deaths on the camels’ poor diet.  Secondly, the Associated Press suspects that the paper may have been banned because the newspaper recently published an article connecting a Saudi man, Mohammad al-Thibaiti, to an Iraqi extremist group, the Islamic State of Iraq.  Although Saudi Arabia’s reasons for banning the newspaper are unclear the fact that they have silenced the newspaper probably because it criticized the government is alarming.  However, the ban of Al-Hayat may be a unique situation and may not indicate a shift from Saudi Arabia’s new found openness in reporting. 

    Al-Hayat has always had a strenuous relationship with the Saudi government.  In the past the newspaper was banned by the government multiple times, and the government always allowed the paper to circulate again.  Therefore, it is likely that soon this ban will also be removed.  The newspaper has close connections to the government causing the strain.  Al-Hayat is owned by the Assistant Defense for Military Affairs for Saudi Arabia, Prince Khaled bin Sultan.  Also, he is the eldest son of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud.  Since the owner, Prince Khaled bin Sultan, is so closely related to the Saudi government it is likely that his paper is more closely monitored then other news sources.  The Saudi government may have banned Al-Hayat because of Al-Hayat’s close alliance with the government, which allowed the newspaper to access and propagate information that the government deemed sensitive.  Thus, the banning of Al-Hayat is not a clear indicator of stricter rules of monitoring independent news sources from the Saudi government.

BBC News.  Saudis ‘ban’ pan-Arab newspaper.  29 August 2007.

Khaleej Times Online. Saudi bans Al Hayat newspaper for 2 days.  28 August 2007.

Arabian Business.  Leading Arab daily still banned in Saudi.  29 August 2007.

Associated Press.  Saudi Government Bans Leading Arab Paper.  28 August 2007.

On August 24, Fatah supporters staged the largest protest in Gaza since Hamas took over in June.  Thousands of Palestinians gathered in Unknown Soldier Square in Gaza City for noon time prayers.  They were protesting “incitement” against Fatah members in mosques controlled by Hamas. 

After prayers, the protesters marched to Al Sayara, a Hamas security complex formerly controlled by Fatah.  There, members of Hamas’s Executive Force fired their guns into the air to disperse the crowds and clashed with protesters.  Palestinian Authority television claims that seventeen demonstrators were injured.  However, Hamas denied that any injuries occurred.

During the protest, members of the Executive Force arrested four journalists covering the event.  While the journalists were quickly released, the Executive force broke a TV camera belonging to Al Arabiya’s cameraman and other reporters claimed to have been “roughed up”.  In addition to the four arrests, the Executive Force attempted to arrest two others but were prevented from doing so by the demonstrators.

Two days later, on August 26, a hundred journalists staged their own protest at the journalists’ union building in Gaza.  They carried banners which read, “Yes to freedom of the press!  No to journalists arrests!  Keep journalists out of politics!”  They were protesting not only the earlier arrests but also Hamas’s policies against journalists covering pro-Fatah events and the confiscation of equipment.

For more information please see:
London Times:  “Journalists protests Hamas pressure”  27 August 2007. 

Middle East Times:  “Gaza journalists sit-in for press freedom”  26 August 2007. 

New York Times:  “Protest broken up by armed Hamas force”  25 August 2007. 

Al Jazeera:  “Rivals battle at Gaza protest”  24 August 2007. 

BBC:  “Hamas opens fire at Fatah rally”  24 August 2007. 

Ma’an News Agency:  “Thousands of Fatah supporters demonstrate in Gaza”  24 August 2007.

    African asylum seekers were deported from Israel and returned to Egypt, where they had originally been granted asylum.  These 50 refugees also included some Darfur survivors.  The Africans had fled to Egypt in order to escape genocide and other atrocities that refugees had faced while in their home nations.  However, because of their maltreatment in Egypt the refugees later tried to flee to Israel.  A Sudanese leader in Egypt reported in the Washington Post that the deported Africans “have escaped from an Egyptian reality of suffering very similar to that of Sudan — racism in the Egyptian street, killing by the authorities” and have not received help from the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees.  The refugees also fear that the Egyptian government will try to transport the refugees back to Sudan.  However, Israeli officials asserted that part of the agreement with Egypt regarding the deportation of the refugees included an Egyptian promise not to send the Africans to their native countries.  Yet, this promise does not fully relieve the deported immigrants fear.  One of the fears is that if the refugees can be unilaterally moved without their consent or without following the internationally outlined protocol the refugees will always have to fear future movement.

    Many refugees fled north to Egypt from Sudan and other war torn nations.  The war in Sudan, which is centered on the western Darfur province, has caused hundreds of thousands of casualties.  Therefore, those who are afforded the opportunity to escape the genocide in Sudan usually take the opportunity.  Millions of people fled their homes in order to gain safety and protection.  The Israeli and Egyptian governments must afford these survivors these basic rights, and if they are deporting the refugees they must follow internationally recognized standards to ensure the protection of the refugees.

IRIN.  ISRAEL-AFRICA: Deportation of 50 Africans sparks concern.  22 August 2007.

NY Times.  Israel Returns Illegal African Migrants to Egypt.  19 August 2007.

Washington Post.  A Crisis of Conscience Over Refugees in Israel.  24 August 2007.

On May 20, the Lebanese army began their fight with the militants from Fatah al-Islam in Nahr al-Bared.  Since the conflict began, over 140 Lebanese soldiers have died, 100 militants, and about forty were civilians.  While 40,000 Palestinian refugees fled Nahr al-Bared and went to nearby camps, eighty civilians have remained.  Those who remained are mostly wives and children of the remaining militants. 

After three months of heavy bombing, all that remains of Nahr al-Bared are tunnels and niches beneath piles of rubble.  Since the militants refuse to surrender, the Lebanese army continues to bombard the camp.  Fatah al-Islam and the Lebanese Army recently reached a temporary cease-fire agreement to allow the families of the militants to evacuate the camp.  This agreement is not an official cease of fighting but rather provides the remaining civilians an opportunity to leave the camp.  Officers in the Lebanon Army view this agreement by the Fatah Islam as a signal that the end of the fighting is near.

Lebanese officials do not believe that Fatah al-Islam is capable of fighting back from their current position.  Rather, army officials speculate when Fatah al-Islam will be completely destroyed in Nahr al-Bared.  This agreement is seen by the Lebanese officials as the militants’ last opportunity to evacuate their family members before the end of the fighting. 

Also, Prosecutor General Saeed Mirza charged 107 members of Fatah al-Islam in custody with terrorism.  Mirza also charged an undisclosed number of individuals at large with terrorism.  In addition to Lebanese, there were also Palestinians, Saudis and Syrians.  If convicted of terrorism, the individuals could face the death penalty.

For more information please see:
The Daily Star:  “Mediators await word from Fatah al-Islam on evacuation”  24 August 2007. 

Al Jazeera:  “Fatah al-Islam seeks Lebanon truce”  22 August 2007. 

BBC:  “More Lebanese army raids on camp”  22 August 2007. 

Gulf Times:  “Lebanon army agrees to let families move out of camp”  22 August 2007. 

The Daily Star:  “Army steps up siege of Nahr al Bared, former general assures militants are ‘doomed’”  21 August 2007. 

International Herald Tribune:  “Lebanon’s military agrees to militants’ request to allow their families leave camp”  21 August 2007. 

International Herald Tribune:  “Lebanon charges over 100 people suspected of battling army with terrorism”  18 August 2007.