Doc's Talk: Al Jazeera: Non-Arabs Should Not Be Fooled

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Al Jazeera: Non-Arabs Should Not Be Fooled

Najat Fawzy AlSaied

The Emir of Qatar, an absolute ruler, and Al Jazeera, have not covered the "Arab Spring" to advance democracy, but to support the Muslim Brotherhood, which is aligned with the Qatari regime. Al Jazeera has as its chief goal Muslim Brotherhood domination.

Many Arab liberals and reformers were shocked by the sale of former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore's Current TV to Al Jazeera, a pan-Arab broadcasting system charged with sympathy for terrorists. In 2009, even the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, which can hardly be suspected of anti-Arab attitudes, accused Al Jazeera of negative, biased, and unbalanced reporting, and closed down the Al Jazeera bureau in Ramallah.
Gore and the Democratic party have consistently called for democracy in the Middle East, and welcomed the "Arab Spring," yet Gore has now bolstered a channel sympathetic to Islamic extremism – not to democracy. Al Jazeera's saturation coverage of the "Arab Spring" demonstrations and the war in Syria should not deceive the non-Arab public. Early in the "Arab Spring," in Egypt and other countries, Al Jazeera promoted the Muslim fundamentalists. Regarding Syria, Al Jazeera publicizes the demands for power by jihadists.

The emir of Qatar -- an absolute ruler protected by a U.S. military base there -- and Al Jazeera have not covered the "Arab Spring" to advance democracy, but to support the Muslim Brotherhood, which is aligned with the Qatari regime. Al Jazeera television, with a staff mainly drawn from Muslim Brotherhood personnel, was founded by a Qatari royal decree, in an effort to legitimize the current emir's coup against his father in 1995. According to BBC News, Qatar assisted Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood government of President Muhamed Morsi, at the beginning of January 2013, with a loan of two billion U.S. dollars and a donation of nearly half a billion dollars, following an earlier financial deposit of 2.5 billion dollars and a grant of 500 million dollars from Qatar to Egypt.
Notwithstanding his professed love for democratization, Gore ignored any opportunity for the transformation of Al Jazeera from a network subject to censorship by the Qatari Ministry of Information into an independent media institution.
How could Qatar promote democracy when its authorities sentenced a Qatari poet, Mohammed Al Ajami, to life imprisonment in 2012, allegedly for praising the "Arab Spring" and suggesting that he would like to see the same thing in his country? Al Ajami was found guilty of insulting the ruler and promoting an insurrection.
But the worst is that Gore's deal lends credibility to Al Jazeera. The channel has been praised by leaders internationally for its coverage of the "Arab Spring." Hillary Clinton commended Al Jazeera for purveying "real news" and President Barack Obama described Al Jazeera's founder, Qatar's Emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, as "a big booster, big promoter of democracy all throughout the Middle East. Reform, reform, reform – you're seeing it on Al Jazeera." Yet Obama was compelled to admit, "Now, he himself is not reforming significantly. There is no big move towards democracy in Qatar."
Qatar has tried to avoid being seen as a country with a contradictory media policy, which monitors and controls most forms of expression, including the internet, arresting activists and bloggers, while at the same time seeking status as a regional haven of free expression through Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera is popular in the Arab world because of its willingness to criticize Arab governments, but it has been accused of avoiding sensitive issues involving Qatar.
Robert Ménard, a champion of global press freedom, served as Head of the Doha Centre for Media Freedom in Qatar, beginning in 2008. He and many of his staff, however, resigned 14 months later. "How can we have any credibility," he said, "if we keep quiet about problems in our host country?"
He later explained that the Centre was constrained by orders from Qatari officials, who did not want an independent Centre. He also protested that a committee to discuss a new law on the Qatari media never held any meetings.
Yusuf al Qaradawi, an Islamic theologian associated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, hosts a show on Al Jazeera's Arabic network, called "Al Sharia wal Hayat" ("Sharia and Life"). Qaradawi uses this TV platform to justify terrorism, preach hatred against other religions, and marginalize women. He has encouraged extremists to kill all Americans in Iraq, both military and civilian, because they are "invaders." He has issued fatwas that prohibit all Muslim countries from cooperating with America in the war in Afghanistan, and called Osama Bin Laden a "martyr" whom Al Qaradawi considered "innocent until proven guilty" in the terrorist attacks against America on September 11, 2001.
In 2009, Qaradawi declared that the Holocaust was "divine punishment" of the Jews. His program argues that a woman's role should be limited to the family and marriage, and he consistently depicts any liberated option for women as a Western, corrupt influence.
The Al Jazeera Arabic network's biased treatment against women was exposed in the resignation of five of its top female news hosts in 2010. The presenters had initiated an internal complaint against the sexist behaviour of deputy editor Ayman Jaballah, identified in Arab websites as an Islamist. Jaballah allegedly harassed the women for their choice of garments and supposed lack of "decency."
An original group of eight dissident Al Jazeera female employees was named by the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat as Julnar Moussa, Jumana Nammour, Lona Ashibl, Lina Zahreddine, Nawfar Afli, Iman Bannoura, Laila Ashaikhali and Khadija Ben Guenna, an Algerian who in 2003 caused debate when she insisted on wearing a headscarf during her broadcasts. Five of them stood by their decision to quit Al Jazeera: Moussa, Nammour, and Zahreddine, who were identified by The Daily Telegraph in London as Lebanese; Ashibi, a Syrian, and Afli, a Tunisian. The Telegraph pointed out that all five had come from Arab countries where "religiously modest" dress was not required of women.
Al Jazeera's officials announced in their decision on the matter that "the on-screen style and general appearance of broadcasters and announcers are the legal right of the network to determine and develop."
Muntaha Al Ramahi, a Jordanian, was a presenter on Al Jazeera for six years and then moved to the Saudi-owned channel Al Arabiya, launched in 2003, and Al Jazeera's main competitor. Al Ramahi said she felt the work environment at Al Arabiya was less discriminatory and also provided her with more self-confidence than she was able to gain at Al Jazeera. Al Ramahi was a minor presenter on Al Jazeera; she hosted a show, "Lil Nissa Faqat" ["For Women Only"], taken off the air in 2005. Currently, she is a well-known anchor on Al Arabiya, presenting one of the channel's flagship programs, "Panorama."
Rima Salha, a Lebanese, also a minor presenter on Al Jazeera, is now a major personality on Al Arabiya, with a show combatting terrorism called "Sena'at Al Mawt" ["Industry of Death"].
There are several notable differences between Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. Al Jazeera supports Islamism and Arab nationalism, while Al Arabiya is considered more liberal, despite the paradox that, being Saudi-controlled, Al Arabiya has less freedom to cover controversial political issues. Some have accused Al Arabiya of following American policy (and even Israeli policy) in the region, while others call Al Jazeera "Osama Bin Laden TV." Al Jazeera has also been criticized because the editorial line of its English network is much more moderate than its Arabic counterpart.
Programming by its rival, Al Arabiya, is made up of non-political news and features, such as reviews and updates in business trends. It also offers "soft" news: a morning show called "Sabah Al Arabiya" ["The Morning of Al Arabiya"], covering health, entertainment and sports. But Al Arabiya produces shows on society and development while Al Jazeera's programs are mainly political.
"Al Itajah Al Moa'akes" ["The Opposite Direction"], one of the best-known programs on Al Jazeera, is centered on political topics such as Arab nationalism, Islamism, and imperialism, but does not take up development or social change.
Although channels such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya claim to be private, they are not independent because of the financial support for them from the Qatari and Saudi governments. Countless academics and journalists have discussed the need for independent Arab media, free from state control. The Egyptian electronic journalist, Amin Bassiouni, has affirmed that the abolition of state Ministries of Information and their replacement with independent media would expand freedom of expression. Safwat Alam, an Egyptian professor of communications, said that if the official Ministry of Information is abolished, new policies should be developed without state supervision.
Unfortunately all of these ideas for freedom of expression and an independent media clash with the new Egyptian constitution. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has complained that the post-Mubarak Egyptian constitution imposes several new restrictions on press freedoms, including the establishment of a new governmental regulatory agency and a new provision for the government to close any media institution. The constitution also fails to prevent imprisonment of journalists, a practice associated with the Mubarak dictatorship.
Given evidence from journalists and academics on the lack of freedom and independence in the Arab media, an American politician such as Al Gore evidently supports maintaining these conditions, on the basis of his appalling deal with Al Jazeera, best known for its promotion and accommodation of extremism.
The Arab world needs support for media that will help it promote democracy. As a matter of conscience, American politicians and officials should at least avoid giving credibility and legitimacy to a satellite channel such as Al Jazeera, which has as its chief goal Muslim Brotherhood domination.

Najat AlSaied is a PhD researcher in media and development at University of Westminster in London. She can be reached at: najwasaied@hotmail.com

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk