Human rights organizations reported Monday that authorities across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states have arrested more than 1,000 people and expanded restrictions on expression since the start of the US-Israeli conflict with Iran. The arrests are part of a broader effort by governments in the region to control information surrounding the conflict and suppress dissenting views.
According to reports, authorities in Kuwait, Bahrain and other Gulf states have gone beyond arrests by revoking the citizenship of certain individuals, allegedly in retaliation for speech-related activities. Rights advocates argue that these measures have contributed to an increasingly restrictive information environment across the GCC contribute to an increasingly restrictive information environment in which independent reporting is limited and state-affiliated media outlets dominate coverage of major political and security developments.
Following the war, authorities in Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Oman issued warnings against the dissemination of online content deemed misleading or false. Officials also announced the arrests of hundreds of people accused of filming and sharing videos, circulating footage of missile interceptions, or posting images documenting damage caused by projectiles.
Press freedom organizations have also documented a rise in actions targeting journalists and media outlets, including arrests, intimidation campaigns, and legal and financial pressure. Many incidents reportedly remain undisclosed due to fears of retaliation among journalists and media organizations.
Several arrests have reportedly been linked to allegations of supporting a hostile state or its military leadership, language that observers say has been used to target expressions of sympathy for Iran or mourning for Iran's late Supreme Leader and Commander-in-Chief, Ali Khamenei.
Commenting on the developments, Amnesty International Regional Director Heba Morayef stated that Gulf governments have relied on “vaguely worded and overly broad provisions of cybercrime, counter-terror and national security laws†to restrict the flow of information and suppress public discussion surrounding the conflict.
