Mohammed al-Qeq is a Palestinian journalist, husband,
son and father of two. He is about to die a slow, painful death, shackled to an
Israeli hospital bed.
Al-Qeq is entering his 94th day of
hunger strike in protest at being allegedly tortured and detained indefinitely,
without charge or trial, by the Israeli military. From what can be discerned
thus far, his only crime is that of being a Palestinian journalist.
Amnesty International has called on Israeli
authorities to release
al-Qeq unless he is charged with an internationally recognizable criminal
offence and tried in proceedings adhering to international standards.
Physicians
for Human Rights-Israel has expressed concern that al-Qeq
has been on hunger strike longer than any other Palestinian detainee or any of
the participants in 1981 protest strikes by IRA prisoners held by Britain in
Northern Ireland. Ten of the Irish hunger strikers died, the longest lasted 73
days.
Reporters Without Borders and the European Union missions in Jerusalem and Ramallah, have also raised concerns over Israel’s use of administrative detention (detaining indefinitely without charge or trial) and called for al-Qeq’s release.
Writhing in agony at deaths untimely door, Mohammed al
Qeq cries out, “Let me hear my son’s voice, please God”. But his dying wish has
been denied by Israeli authorities.
With human rights groups highlighting the inhumane
treatment of al-Qeq, it should have made international headlines, but it didn’t
and still doesn’t. Journalists normally look out for each other and show
solidarity when colleagues are targeted.
Less than two years ago, the BBCs head of news,
James Harding, staged a protest and a minutes silence with the hash tag, “Journalism
is not a crime”.
Harding leveraged his position, rightly, to
influence the fate of three Al Jezeera journalists arrested in Eqypt. In his
speech prior to the silence, Harding asserted that the treatment of the
journalists was unjust and designed to intimidate journalists and inhibit free
speech.
Why has Mohammed al-Qeq’s three month ordeal, for
the apparent crime of being a journalist, not warranted Harding’s deprecation? Perhaps
a clue lies in Harding’s comments as editor of The Times, which were
reported in the Jewish Chronicle in 2011, “I
am pro-Israel. I believe in the state of Israel…I would have a real problem
if I had been coming to a paper with a history of being anti-Israel. And, of
course, Rupert Murdoch is pro-Israel”.
Accusations of BBC bias favouring Israel are not
new. Tim Llewellyn, a former BBC Middle East correspondent said, “We have
become used to the fact that, in the BBC newsroom, an Israeli life is worth the
lives of an infinite number of Palestinian”.
In 2009, the BBC refused to broadcast an emergency
humanitarian appeal in aid of Palestinian children, claiming it would “breach
impartiality guidelines”, to the chagrin of many employees. Yet, when the
BBC’s then head of television, Danny Cohen, signed a letter criticising a
cultural boycott of Israel last year, it wasn’t deemed impartial.
The media’s abandonment of one of its own is brought
brutally into focus by the fact that, while the British government made
headlines banning BDS last week, Al Qeq’s
plight was airbrushed out of the picture.
150 universities and citizens around the world
launched the annual Israeli apartheid
week in London on Monday. Rabbi David Goldberg of the Liberal Jewish
Synagogue said, “When settlers walk on
one side of the road of the road and Palestinians have to walk on another and
when settlers are governed by Israeli law and Palestinians are governed by
military law, you are talking about apartheid”.
Whether it's Jews in the Holocaust, black Africans in Sudan or Palestinians in Gaza , when it comes to oppression and human
rights, we must not remain silent.
If
brand Israel wants to improve its’ international standing, it could start by showing
Mohammed Al-Qeq mercy before it’s too late. As for the media’s shameful
abandonment of a colleague, I am minded of the words of the legendary Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee, "The
more complicated are the issues and the more sophisticated are the
ways to disguise the truth, the more aggressive our search for truth must be,
and the more offensive we are sure to be to some. So be it”.