Only a few days after Turkey excluded Israel from a joint NATO war exercise, a new crisis is brewing between the two Middle East allies.

The problem is a television drama series that Israel condemns as state-sanctioned “incitement.”

“Separation,” a 13-part TV series that aired on Turkey’s state-run television channel for the first time on Wednesday, has several controversial scenes. In one, a Palestinian father holds his new-born above his head in front of Israeli soldiers at a check point. A few seconds later, one of the soldiers shoots the baby dead. In another scene, Israeli soldiers kick and beat elderly Palestinians on the streets and one soldier shoots a teenage Palestinian girl on her chest.

Here is an excerpt from the television drama “Separation:”

The drama outraged Israel. The Foreign Ministry summoned the deputy chief of mission at the Turkish embassy to complain and protest. “Such a drama series, which doesn’t even have the slightest link to reality and which presents Israeli soldiers as murderers of innocent children, isn’t worthy of being broadcast even by enemy states and certainly not in a state which has full diplomatic relations with Israel,” said Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

The coordinator of the Turkish drama replied by saying that none of the incidents in the show were “imaginary.” “It is possible to find photographs of what Israelis did to Palestinians on the Internet,” said Bulent Erdinc, the series coordinator.

The Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also shrugged off angry Israeli protests over the show saying the Turkish state “has no right to comment on the quality of broadcasts or the opinions expressed in them.” This statement should be met with some skepticism as Turkey’s record on freedom of speech issues is not known to be very high.

The controversial scenes in the drama are subjective. I’m sure some people will think they’re simple propaganda and some will think them a reflection of reality. In general, Turkish films, especially TV dramas and soap-operas, do tend towards exaggerated melodrama.

But a broader question here is whether filmmakers should care about the sensitivities of those they depict.  For example, should the producers and writers of the drama series “24″ have taken into consideration the fact that their depiction of Muslim terrorists may have possibly led to suspicion against ordinary Arab-Americans?

The TV drama is airing on Turkey’s state-owned channel, TRT. This channel, according to law, has to be “autonomous and impartial.” However, since the Islamist-based ruling AK party came to power in Turkey, TRT has been criticized for its religious/conservative programming, and also for appointing party sympathizers. I think it’s quite possible that the government officials knew what this television drama, which has been advertised in Turkey for a long time, was going to entail. And I imagine they could foresee the reaction it would draw from Israel.

In that case, considering the already strained relations between the two “allied” nations, the question becomes, is the Turkish government interested in enlarging the rift between the two countries? And if so, what would this say about the future of the Middle East?

- Gizem Yarbil

In this extended interview — recorded in May, prior to the crackdown following the disputed election — Iranian students discuss how they bypass filters to find music and films, both online and in shops on the streets. They also share their ambivalence about the prevalence of Western popular culture in Iran.

Violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo — including mass rapes — has received relatively scant international media coverage. Photo: Taylor Krauss

Tom Rhodes is the Africa Program Coordinator at the Committee to Protect Journalists.

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to visit the Democratic Republic of Congo’s volatile eastern city of Goma during her historic seven nation tour of Africa. Press briefings from the state department highlighted her intentions to address a chronic problem particularly acute in this region: violence against women. The home of the deadliest war since World War II; Congolese women have, to this day, been the main victims and targets of marauding militias and government soldiers.

“In just one province alone there was recorded 40 women being raped every day — 13 percent were under the age of 14 and 10-12 percent contracted HIV,” remarked photojournalist Marcus Beasdale in a Mediastorm interview last year. The award-winning journalist had spent a grueling eight years in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and saw firsthand the systematic use of rape as a tool of war.

Watch the Worldfocus signature story: Rape as a weapon of war in DR Congo.

But there are more local voices that live in this war-torn area that continue to cry out against this plight. Franchou Namegabe Nabintu, or ‘Chouchou’ as her friends call her, is a founding member of the South Kivu’s Association of Women Journalists (AFEM) and plans to meet Clinton tomorrow. Since 2003, Nabintu and her female colleagues have trained female journalists and produced programs concerning women’s issues. No stranger to American politics, Nabintu testified before the U.S. Senate in May to call for more international support to end the ongoing gender-based violence. Her efforts to mobilize women have not come easy. Nabintu told the New York-based media watchdog, the Committee to Protect Journalists, of the numerous threats she receives for her work and the exorbitant fees AFEM must pay local radio stations to get their programs broadcasted.

But despite the staggering crisis in the DRC and courageous advocacy efforts by journalists such as Nabintu, the DRC catastrophe has received relatively scant international media coverage. The Congolese crisis represents a dangerous, costly operation for most foreign media bureaus with a complex story not easily digested by western audiences. But there is also a more straightforward reason for the lack of western media coverage: censorship.

Since the beginning of this year, Radio France International (RFI) has been cut off the air by the government three times, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. One of two major foreign broadcasters in the region, Congolese citizens heard static since late July after authorities shuttered the station. At a press conference in the capital, Kinshasa, government spokesman Lambert Mende accused the station of “a systematic campaign of demoralization of the armed forced of the DRC,” AFP reported.

According to freelance journalist Charles Mushivizi, RFI has been unpopular with the government since 2006, after the station produced a series of stories critical of the army. The stories reported on rising criminality among the Congolese army ranks — including rapes, looting and the embezzlement of soldiers’ pay by superior officers. One journalist, Ghislaine Dupont, was expelled for her coverage but continues to report on the country, Mushivizi says.

In all three RFI bans this year, Congolese authorities never disputed the accuracy of the French broadcaster’s reports. According to Mushivizi, Mende warned that the authorities would not tolerate any information the government deems prejudicial to troop morale, “no matter the accuracy of the information.”

The only other major international station, Radio Okapi — a joint project of the Hirondelle Foundation and the United Nations — has had two reporters murdered in mysterious circumstances since June 2007. Botched investigations into the murders of Radio Okapi journalists Didace Namujimbo and Serge Maheshe have allowed their murderers total impunity.

Few locals in South Kivu listen to national broadcasts since they are generally controlled by political forces, Mushivizi said, while the press is hampered by fiscal and political pressures. With RFI banned and local media compromised — there are few voices left to report one of the world’s greatest tragedies.

As Hillary meets President Joseph Kabila to call for an end to the mass rapes that plague eastern Congo, she must also call for an end to media censorship. The free flow of independent information within and outside the country is pivotal to solving the rape crisis.

- Tom Rhodes

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

View Worldfocus’ complete coverage of the crisis in Congo and an interactive map exploring Clinton’s African tour.

Venezuela shut down 34 radio stations.

My guess is that you are one of the poor deprived people among us who has not had the opportunity to watch and understand the charming, engaging, benevolent, all-knowing president of Venezuela — Hugo Chavez — in action.

It also could be that you are doing this on purpose — that would make you not just deprived, but depraved. Perhaps you are an agent of Venezuela’s enemies.

Fortunately Chavez is protecting Venezuela against you and all such agents. Last week, to root out the vermin that spread lies and plot against the people, President Chavez shut down several dozen private radio stations. His parliament — whose members understand exactly what needs to be done in all cases — has promoted new libel laws that protect the Chavista revolution from foul lies that could be spread on the airwaves. “Any person who speaks out in any form in the news media” can be considered a “media criminal” for disseminating seditious opinions, we’ve learned from Teodoro Petkoff, a long-time Venezeulan political analyst. Petkoff’s column last week was titled with a large headline reading “Censorship Law.”

It all makes perfect sense.

Venezuela’s enemies fall into two categories — you are either well-meaning but deceived and brainwashed; or you are an enemy of the revolution, and you could be a spy sent by the Central Intelligence Agency.

I learned this by watching Chavez’s televised performance at a meeting of his Cabinet in February, during his successful campaign for a referendum that abolished presidential term limits. Chavez apparently has a little button he can press when he wants to preempt all television and radio broadcasting in Venezuela to speak directly to the people. In the particular meeting, he told jokes, gave orders and questioned Cabinet members seated around the table, who looked uncertain when to laugh, agree, disagree, or react in any way, fearing for their heads. He also denied any involvement, as the CIA-stooge opposition was charging, in an attack on a synagogue in Caracas some days earlier.

In any case, when you can have the president speaking directly to you, why do we need a filter from these troublesome, CIA-funded newspaper and broadcast reporters, who are certain to be on a vendetta to destroy the country? If the president is all-knowing, infallible and looking out for our interests, who needs critics, dissent, or anything that will get in the way of the true path that the president has now set out for us?

Such a filter is Teodoro Petkoff, the journalist and politician, who has been a prominent critic of Chavez. Petkoff, by the way, is an ex-guerrilla, a student leader, and ran against Chavez briefly for the presidency in 2006. Beware — how can he be reliable? He disagrees with the president.

Nevertheless — understanding that the president of Venezuela doesn’t want you to hear about this, read about it, or even think about it — here’s what Petkoff has to say about the new censorship law promulgated by Chavez:

The proposed law has to be sent to all the governments of America, to all the news media of the world, so that they might see for themselves the dictatorial and totalitarian monstrosity that has been placed before our nation. It is not necessary in any way to even comment about it. It is so obvious, so naked in its repressive intent, that it explains itself. For us, Venezuelans, this “law” is a call to battle stations. One can hope that everyone is listening.

- Peter Eisner

It’s a game of cat and mouse between China and its Internet users.

In another chapter of the story about how well Beijing is managing to manage Internet use in China, regulations issued yesterday require computers sold there to come with a program that blocks access to porn sites (no version is available for Linux or Macs so far). Though it’s targeted at porn — and, as a mother, I can imagine wanting this software myself one day — the concern is that “Green Dam” will be used for other sites also and may serve as a Trojan Horse for the authorities. At the moment, I have it on good authority that computers don’t have to come installed with this program. It can be shipped on a CD and the user can easily toss the CD into the circular file.

If Green Dam ends up being used for political sites, I have confidence that any one intrepid netizen will still be able to figure out how to circumvent it and the myriad other blocks the authorities put between him and information about Tibet, Taiwan and other “sensitive” issues, if he really wants to. The thing is, most are not so determined, and a highly complex and layered system of censorship ensures that no casual user will ever bump into such information by accident. Still, in this ongoing game of cat and mouse, I will always bet on the mice.

- Nina Hachigian

Officials called the footage “lies,” adding that the government is not afraid of the Internet.

Watch the video in question below (warning: violence):

Worldfocus associate producer Hsin-Yin Lee translated comments from popular Chinese Web portal, “Sohu,” in which anonymous Chinese Internet users react to the YouTube block:

Commenter 1: I hope that YouTube could be back to normal very soon. It’s an important access for me to know different cultures. It helps me a lot on my job by downloading educational materials.

Commenter 2: Let’s get those trashy Western Web sites out of China! We have more than 10 popular video sharing Web sites and it will keep growing!

Commenter 3: Is the government really not afraid of the Internet? If not, why doesn’t it allow different voices to speak online? Monitoring is necessary, but over-monitoring will impair the freedom of speech.

Global Voices Advocacy suggests methods to get around the blockade.

Stan Schroeder of “Mashable” questions the effectiveness of such bans:

Normally, the video would probably be noticed by a handful of people interested in the matter; this way, everyone has seen it (or heard of it). one has to wonder how effective these bans are, since tools like Twitter make it incredibly easy for people to spread the news about incidents like this one. Proving that a video is fake would probably be a much better tactic than banning a site viewed by millions of people every day, and then claiming you’re not afraid of the Internet; it just doesn’t hold water.

A blogger at “Marketing Shift” writes that beyond free speech issues, the continued bans may end up hurting prospects for China’s smartphone market:

China’s receiving widespread criticism for its oppresion of free speech, but we should also consider the implications for tech corporations and developers.

Imagine yourself as the CEO of a Tech company who wants to tap into China’s expanding 3G market , but why bother wasting your [research and development] on a nation that may block user access to you for any reason, at any time? In my opinion, China’s erratic behavior could overshadow the potential market of 700 million new mobile users.

Read  more about Internet censorship around the globe: Blog censorship silences free speech around the world.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user keso under a Creative Commons license.

One of the estimated 160,000 Egyptian bloggers shares his perspective in our Web exclusive video: Egyptian bloggers cite censorship, arrest and torture.

Special correspondent Hoda Osman and producer Sally Garner report on the state of journalism in Egypt from Cairo.