Web monitors: Gaza hit by longest communications blackout yet

Israel has previously faced accusations of intentionally severing Gaza’s communications, allegations it has not officially addressed. (AFP/File)
Israel has previously faced accusations of intentionally severing Gaza’s communications, allegations it has not officially addressed. (AFP/File)
Short Url
Updated 20 January 2024
Follow

Web monitors: Gaza hit by longest communications blackout yet

Web monitors: Gaza hit by longest communications blackout yet
  • Gaza is enduring eight consecutive day of near-total blackout making communications outside the Strip increasingly difficult
  • Outage has impact on news services, aid delivery

LONDON: Gaza is currently experiencing its most extended Internet blackout since the start of the conflict, according to reports from Internet monitoring firms.

On Thursday, NetBlocks, an Internet monitoring firm, highlighted in a post on X that the Gaza Strip had reached the seventh consecutive day of an almost complete telecommunications blackout, passing the 144-hour mark.

This incident marks the “ninth and longest sustained telecoms outage since the onset of the present conflict with Israel.”

As of Friday, the blackout has persisted for eight days, starting on Jan. 12.

People in the besieged Palestinian enclave have been unable to reach loved ones, rescue teams, or news networks. 

 

"This is our eighth day without access to the Internet, mobile networks, or any form of telecommunications," Manal, whose name has been changed to maintain anonymity, told Arab News' correspondent in Gaza.

"We hear the shelling but cannot identify its location," she lamented. "We do not know how many people have been killed and injured - or if anyone survived a strike at all." 

"Ambulances and paramedics are not sure where to go, and affected civilians are unable to reach help."

Manal added: "This is a death sentence for anyone who gets injured. We cannot check in on our families, relatives and friends."

Amal, whose name has also been changed, said she could not reach her brother since she got displaced in Rafah, southern Gaza. 

She told Arab News: "Part of my family is still in Gaza City while others are outside, but I cannot reach any of them."

 

The blackout has also severely hampered the work of reporters. A journalist supplying multiple media organizations told Arab News he has been unable to "send the footage and photos I capture to the outlets I work with."

"Our voices are suppressed," he said. "We cannot inform the world about what is happening here (in Gaza). If we need an Internet connection, we have to use digital SIM cards, which do not work in all areas - this is especially an issue when we are in immediate danger." 

Earlier in the month, Palestinian telecom giant Paltel declared the loss of all telecom services in the Gaza Strip due to the continuing conflict.

Paltel, owner of Palestinian telecoms provider Jawwal, attributed the shutdown to Israel’s “heavy bombardment” damaging infrastructure in Khan Younis, a city in the southern part of the Gaza Strip, as reported by The New York Times.

Throughout the four-month-long war, Gaza’s Internet services have experienced consistent disruptions.

Israel has previously faced accusations of intentionally severing Gaza’s communications, allegations it has not officially addressed.

Humanitarian leaders expressed concern that communications blackouts impede aid deliveries, causing delays at the border, a crucial lifeline for many people within the Strip.

Access Now, a digital rights organization advocating against Internet shutdowns globally, stated in a press release that “documenting and sharing information about what is happening on the ground is increasingly challenging, if not outright impossible” due to the outages.

Media watchdog International Media Support said in a post on X on Friday that the blackout has made it “extremely difficult to keep the world informed about Israel’s attacks and the humanitarian disaster.”

Numerous journalists have reported that Internet shutdowns have compelled them to resort to traditional reporting methods, such as physically navigating bombed areas, engaging with survivors and witnesses to ascertain casualty numbers, and relying on radio communication.

In response to the challenging communication environment, some journalists and aid workers have resorted to using international or electronic SIM cards near the Israeli or Egyptian borders.

However, this workaround has made external communication increasingly difficult for those inside Gaza due to the risks associated with leaving the designated safe areas.


Pressure mounting on police to reverse ban on pro-Palestine march at BBC

Pressure mounting on police to reverse ban on pro-Palestine march at BBC
Updated 13 January 2025
Follow

Pressure mounting on police to reverse ban on pro-Palestine march at BBC

Pressure mounting on police to reverse ban on pro-Palestine march at BBC
  • London’s Met Police banned rally amid concern over “serious disruption” to nearby synagogue
  • Organizers pledge to hold Jan. 18 march following widespread backlash

LONDON: Calls are growing for London’s Metropolitan Police to reverse their decision to ban a planned pro-Palestine demonstration that was set to take place on Saturday outside the BBC headquarters.

The march’s organizers, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and its coalition partners, issued a joint statement on Monday urging the police to reconsider their decision.

They also highlighted their commitment to proceeding with the protest, albeit along a revised route, following widespread backlash.

“PSC are calling on all those who support an immediate ceasefire and an end to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, as well as everyone who believes in the democratic right to protest, to join us in London at 12 p.m. on Jan. 18,” the group said.

“We will assemble in Whitehall, which will allow us to form up in massive numbers in an orderly fashion, and we will march toward the BBC.”

In a statement sent to Arab News on Monday evening, Met spokesperson Chris Humphreys said that authorities were aware of the proposed new route and would meet with PSC representatives on Tuesday to discuss the matter further.

“The Palestine Solidarity Campaign has announced a new route for its march this Saturday. This route is a reversal of the original one that had been advertised,” said Humphreys.

“It is not one we have agreed and it would breach the conditions that have been imposed under the Public Order Act.

“We imposed those conditions because we were satisfied, after carefully considering the evidence, that a demonstration forming up in the vicinity of a synagogue on a Saturday, when congregants would be attending Shabbat services, would cause serious disruption. Our assessment is that a demonstration ending and dispersing from the same place would have the same impact.”

The decision to ban the march, announced last week, came amid concerns about potential “serious disruption” to a nearby synagogue.

The police invoked the Public Order Act to prevent the rally — initially agreed upon in November — from gathering at the BBC’s headquarters.

The Metropolitan Police said that their decision followed consultations with local community and business representatives, including members of the synagogue’s congregation located “very close” to the rally’s proposed starting point.

The PSC has rejected claims that the march poses a threat to Jewish communities.

In a previous statement, the group said: “There has not been a single documented case of a threat or incident at a synagogue in relation to the national Palestine marches that have taken place over the last 15 months of the Gaza genocide.”

Ben Jamal, the PSC’s director, said on Monday: “Hundreds of thousands of people wish to continue to protest at our government’s ongoing complicity with Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people.

“They also wish to protest at the complicity of the BBC, which has failed to report the facts of this genocide, as revealed in recent investigations. There are no legitimate grounds for the police to impede our proposal to march from Whitehall to the BBC, finishing with a rally outside its HQ. We call upon the Met Police to make clear they will drop any conditions which will deny the right to protest as planned.”

Over the weekend, hundreds of political, social and cultural figures voiced their support for the right to demonstrate in solidarity with Palestine.

A letter organized by a Jewish bloc that regularly takes part in Palestine marches was signed by more than 700 members of the Jewish community.

Among the signatories were Holocaust survivors and their descendants, who also penned a public letter supporting the rally.

The PSC said that they have written to the police requesting a meeting about the march.

The PSC have been contacted for comment.


BBC editor ‘considering’ legal action against Owen Jones over Israeli bias claims

BBC editor ‘considering’ legal action against Owen Jones over Israeli bias claims
Updated 13 January 2025
Follow

BBC editor ‘considering’ legal action against Owen Jones over Israeli bias claims

BBC editor ‘considering’ legal action against Owen Jones over Israeli bias claims
  • Jones published a report accusing Raffi Berg and the BBC of ‘watering down everything that’s too critical of Israel’
  • Investigation sparked wave of death threats against Berg via social media and email

LONDON: BBC Middle East online editor Raffi Berg is reportedly considering legal action against British journalist Owen Jones, following accusations in an investigative article that claimed Berg exhibited bias in favor of Israel.

The allegations have allegedly triggered a wave of online abuse and threats directed at the editor.

The 9,000-word article, titled “The BBC’s Civil War Over Gaza,” was published earlier in December by Drop Site, an investigative news platform.

In the report, Jones accused the BBC and its Middle East editor of favoring Israeli narratives in their coverage of the Gaza conflict and alleged that internal objections raised by staff were repeatedly dismissed.

According to The Times, the report has led to “a torrent of antisemitic abuse” against Berg, which BBC sources described as “the worst case of targeted abuse” they had seen at the organization.

Police are now investigating death threats made against Berg via social media and email.

Mark Lewis, a partner at the legal firm Patron Law, confirmed that he had been instructed to explore legal action on behalf of Berg.

In the article, Jones cited interviews with 13 current and former BBC staffers, who alleged that Berg “sets the tone for the BBC’s digital output on Israel and Palestine.”

One former journalist was quoted as saying: “This guy’s (Berg’s) entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel.”

Jones also claimed that internal complaints about the network’s Gaza coverage were “brushed aside” and that Berg had been given months to respond to the allegations but had not done so.

The BBC rejected the allegations, describing Berg’s role as “fundamentally mis-described.” It also denied claims that the organization had taken a lenient stance toward Israel during its coverage of the conflict in Gaza, where Israel’s war has now lasted 15 months.

The investigation has sparked significant public debate about the BBC’s impartiality in its reporting on the Gaza conflict.

While critics of the network, including Jones, have accused it of pro-Israel bias, others argue that the backlash against the BBC has fueled antisemitic rhetoric.

Jake Wallis Simons, writing in The Telegraph, criticized Jones and his supporters: “Brave Owen Jones has revealed that the corporation is actually the broadcasting equivalent of Theodor Herzl, Ze’ev Jabotinsky and Moshe Dayan rolled into one. Phew! How typical of those cunning Jews to make everyone believe the opposite.”

A petition calling for Berg’s suspension has garnered 8,000 signatures, while another demands the resignation of Deborah Turness, chief executive of BBC News.

The controversy has coincided with the police banning a planned pro-Palestinian march near the BBC headquarters in London earlier this month.

The protest, organized by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), cited Jones’s article in its criticism of the BBC.

In a statement, the PSC rejected any implication that its demonstrations posed a threat to Jewish communities: “The Palestine coalition rejects the implication that our marches are somehow hostile to or a threat to Jewish people.”


Police ban pro-Palestine march near BBC headquarters over ‘disruption’ concerns

Police ban pro-Palestine march near BBC headquarters over ‘disruption’ concerns
Updated 10 January 2025
Follow

Police ban pro-Palestine march near BBC headquarters over ‘disruption’ concerns

Police ban pro-Palestine march near BBC headquarters over ‘disruption’ concerns
  • Planned Jan. 18 march was set to pass near a synagogue
  • Organizers criticized decision, saying it ‘rejects the implication that our marches are somehow hostile to or a threat to Jewish people’

LONDON: UK police have banned a planned pro-Palestine march from taking place outside the BBC headquarters in London, citing concerns over potential “serious disruption” to a nearby synagogue.

The decision, announced on Friday, prevents the rally — originally scheduled for Saturday, Jan. 18 — from gathering in the area under the Public Order Act.

The Metropolitan Police said that it consulted with local community and business representatives, including members of the synagogue’s congregation located “very close” to the proposed starting point of the march, before making the decision.

The ban follows an earlier request by authorities for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, or PSC, the march’s organizers, to amend their planned route to avoid disrupting worshippers at the synagogue on Shabbat, the Jewish holy day.

The PSC strongly criticized the move, stating: “The Palestine coalition rejects the implication that our marches are somehow hostile to or a threat to Jewish people.

“The Met police have acknowledged there has not been a single incident of any threat to a synagogue attached to any of the marches.”

In an open letter issued on Friday, more than 150 cross-party MPs, trade union leaders, writers, cultural figures and civil society organizations condemned the police’s actions, accusing them of “misusing public order powers to shield the BBC from democratic scrutiny.”

“The route for the march was confirmed with the Police nearly two months ago and, as agreed with them, was publicly announced on 30 November. This route, beginning at the BBC, has only been used twice in the last 15 months of demonstrations and not since February 2024,” the PSC said in its statement.

“With just over a week to go, the Metropolitan Police is reneging on the agreement and has stated its intention to prevent the protest from going ahead as planned.”

The rally was expected to begin outside the BBC’s headquarters before marching to Whitehall.

Organizers said that the demonstration was intended to protest about the “pro-Israel bias” that they claim dominates the broadcaster’s coverage.


’Real-world harm’ if Meta ends fact-checks, global network warns

’Real-world harm’ if Meta ends fact-checks, global network warns
Updated 10 January 2025
Follow

’Real-world harm’ if Meta ends fact-checks, global network warns

’Real-world harm’ if Meta ends fact-checks, global network warns
  • Mark Zuckerberg said earlier this week Meta will loosen content moderation policies in the US, citing bias and excessive censorship
  • Announcement sparked international outcry, alarm amid fears of serious consequences

WASHINGTON: There will be “real-world harm” if Meta expands its decision to scrap fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram, a global network warned Thursday while disputing Mark Zuckerberg’s claim such moderation amounts to censorship.
Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s surprise announcement this week to slash content moderation policies in the United States has sparked alarm in countries such as Australia and Brazil.
The tech tycoon said fact-checkers were “too politically biased” and the program had led to “too much censorship.”
But the International Fact-Checking Network, which includes AFP among its dozens of member organizations globally, said the censorship claim was “false.”
“We want to set the record straight, both for today’s context and for the historical record,” said the network.
Facebook pays to use fact checks from around 80 organizations globally on the platform, as well as on WhatsApp and Instagram.
There could be devastating consequences if Meta broadens its policy shift beyond US borders, to programs covering more than 100 countries, the International Fact-Checking Network warned.
“Some of these countries are highly vulnerable to misinformation that spurs political instability, election interference, mob violence and even genocide,” the network said.
“If Meta decides to stop the program worldwide, it is almost certain to result in real-world harm in many places,” it added.

In Geneva Friday, the United Nations rights chief also insisted that regulating harmful content online “is not censorship.”
“Allowing hate speech and harmful content online has real world consequences. Regulating such content is not censorship,” Volker Turk said on X.
AFP currently works in 26 languages with Facebook’s fact-checking scheme.
In that program, content rated “false” is downgraded in news feeds so fewer people will see it and if someone tries to share that post, they are presented with an article explaining why it is misleading.
Supinya Klangnarong, co-founder of Thai fact-checking platform Cofact, said Meta’s decision could have concrete effects offline.
“Understandably this policy from Meta is aimed at US users, but we cannot be certain how it will affect other countries,” she told AFP.
“By allowing the proliferation of hate speech and racist dialogue could be a trigger toward violence.”
Cofact is not an accredited member of the International Fact-Checking Network or of Facebook’s fact-checking scheme.


Meta’s policy overhaul came less than two weeks before US President-elect Donald Trump takes office and it aligns with the Republican Party’s stance.
Trump has been a harsh critic of Meta and Zuckerberg for years, accusing the company of bias against him and threatening to retaliate against the tech billionaire once back in office.
Zuckerberg has been making efforts to reconcile with Trump since his election in November, meeting at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and donating one million dollars to his inauguration fund.
The Meta chief also named Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) head Dana White, a close ally of Trump, to the company board.
Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network, said Tuesday the decision came after “extreme political pressure.”
The move “will hurt social media users who are looking for accurate, reliable information to make decisions about their everyday lives and interactions with friends and family.”
Australia said Meta’s decision was “a very damaging development,” while Brazil warned it was “bad for democracy.”
Meta’s move into fact-checking came in the wake of Trump’s shock election in 2016, which critics said was enabled by rampant disinformation on Facebook and interference by foreign actors, including Russia, on the platform.


Quaker group halts New York Times ads over ‘Gaza genocide’ language dispute

Quaker group halts New York Times ads over ‘Gaza genocide’ language dispute
Updated 09 January 2025
Follow

Quaker group halts New York Times ads over ‘Gaza genocide’ language dispute

Quaker group halts New York Times ads over ‘Gaza genocide’ language dispute
  • American Friends Service Committee claims newspaper asked it to replace word ‘genocide’ with ‘war’
  • Proposed ad urged US Congress to ‘stop arming Israel’s genocide in Gaza’

LONDON: An American Quaker group has paused its advertisements with the New York Times after the newspaper refused to allow the use of the term “genocide” to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza.

“The refusal of the New York Times to run paid digital ads that call for an end to Israel’s genocide in Gaza is an outrageous attempt to sidestep the truth,” said Joyce Ajlouny, general secretary of the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization that advocates for peace.

“Palestinians and allies have been silenced and marginalized in the media for decades as these institutions choose silence over accountability. It is only by challenging this reality that we can hope to forge a path toward a more just and equitable world.”

The controversy arose after the AFSC submitted an ad with the text: “Tell Congress to stop arming Israel’s genocide in Gaza now! As a Quaker organization, we work for peace. Join us. Tell the president and Congress to stop the killing and starvation in Gaza.”

The New York Times’ advertising team reportedly requested that the AFSC replace the word “genocide” with “war.” When the AFSC refused, the newspaper’s ad acceptability team said that “differing views on the situation” required adherence to “factual accuracy and legal standards” to ensure compliance with its guidelines.

A spokesperson for the New York Times said in response to questions from The Guardian in the UK: “New York Times advertising works with parties submitting proposed ads to ensure they are in compliance with our acceptability guidelines.

“This instance was no different, and is entirely in line with the standards we apply to all ad submissions.”

However, the AFSC strongly criticized the decision, pointing out that many human rights organizations, legal scholars, and even the UN have described Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide or genocidal acts.

“The suggestion that the New York Times couldn’t run an ad against Israel’s genocide in Gaza because there are ‘differing views’ is absurd,” said Layne Mullett, director of media relations for the AFSC.

“The New York Times advertises a wide variety of products and advocacy messages on which there are differing views. Why is it not acceptable to publicize the meticulously documented atrocities committed by Israel and paid for by the United States?”

The AFSC also pointed to The Washington Post’s recent decision to run an Amnesty International ad that also used the term genocide, questioning why the New York Times applied different standards.

The Quaker group has been involved in humanitarian work in Gaza since 1948 and currently operates in Gaza, Ramallah, and Jerusalem. Since October 2023, the AFSC’s staff in Gaza have provided 1.5 million meals, hygiene kits, and other essential aid to displaced individuals. The organization is also lobbying for a permanent ceasefire, full humanitarian access, the release of captives, and an end to US military funding for Israel.

According to The Guardian, the New York Times has previously run advertisements using the term genocide.

In 2016, it published an ad from the Armenian Educational Foundation thanking Kim Kardashian for opposing denial of the Armenian genocide. In 2008, presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain co-signed a letter advertisement in the New York Times calling out the genocide in Sudan’s Darfur.

It also noted that while the New York Times reserves the right to reject ads it deems inaccurate or deceptive, its advertising guidelines state that “advertising space is open to all points of view” and submissions may be subject to fact-checking.