Media Myths: Does the US control the Arab Media?

Media Myths: Does the US control the Arab Media?

Nehad Ismail

Following the publication on July 21st of an interview about "Arab Satellite Television" that I gave to Elaph (the most influential Arabic News Website), I received a number of phone calls advising me that Aljazeera Programme "Opposite Direction" (A sort of "Cross-Fire" heated debate) would be hosting two guests to discuss the "Arab Satellite Media" on Tuesday July 27th. Here I focus on the conspiracy theory that was the main theme of the 56 minute Aljazeera Flagship Programme.

One of the guests insisted that the Arab Satellite media is an American imperialist conspiracy that aims to dominate the Arabic mind and cancel out the Arabic identity.

Familiar Platitudes
The conspiracy theorist adamantly adhered to his rigid view that the Arab Satellite media is an imperial conspiracy. He explained this by insisting that the role of the Satellite media is to distort the national identity and to obliterate the Arab culture. The Satellite media he argued is a weapon used against the Arab people and the increasing number of Satellite channels is not an innocent phenomenon. It is a kind of new imperialism that threatens our culture and civilization through the use of media power to serve American and Zionists interests.

This skewed thinking is not new. Haven't we heard such malicious accusations about Al-Arabiya and Aljazeera Channels? Objective observers of the Pan-Arab media scene know very well that the media is sometimes used to achieve certain political ends or to promote a particular viewpoint. The media is also used to incite against a minority or a religious group. The Iraqi arena is the most flagrant example of this. It can therefore be argued that certain satellite channels have their own agenda but to put the blame exclusively on America or any other state is gross over-simplification and is unfair. This is not to say that the US Administration is not interested in what the Arabic media is saying or doing, but this interest is due to geo-political and economic reasons and not the classic sort of conspiracy people talk about.

Why the US is interested in Arab media

As a major strategic player in the Middle East, the US Administration takes interest in the Middle East Media scene but it does not control it. We all reject channels and programmes that incite hatred or violence. We all welcome programmes that promote peace and democratic values. If the USA promotes such values, this does not make it wrong or a conspiracy of some sort.

The launching of Al Hurra Satellite TV Station in 2004 by the US Administration underlined the importance of the media in influencing Arab public opinion. The US Congress considered Al-Hurra as an extension of US Foreign Policy in the Middle East. The main purpose of Al-Hurra was to explain the American position, advance the US views and to improve its image in the Middle East. Nothing wrong with that I would say. There was no conspiracy, no secret funding or hidden agenda. However, despite an annual spend of 100 million US Dollars, it is widely recognized that it has not achieved its objectives.
But the idle talk of a conspiracy is yet another excuse by the Arabs to hide their own failure.

The Accusations Against Aljazeera for Example

Didn't we hear back in 2005 that Aljazeera was a CIA tool, an agent of Israel and other similar baseless exaggerations? At one time, the accusations reached the pinnacles of absurdity when Aljazeera was labelled as agent for the Al-Qaeda, the Iraqi Resistance, the CIA, the Mossad, Hezbollah and Hamas all at the same time. To be an agent for one party and its allies may be plausible, but to be an agent for 10 parties some of whom are at war with each other is ridiculous and lacks logic. It also demolishes the conspiratorial myth altogether. Besides Qatar does not need external funding.

In this respect it is appropriate to refer to Hugh Miles' book "Al-Jazeera, How Arab TV News challenged the world" 2006. In my review of the book in 2007 I explained how the author debunked the lies and myths woven around Al-Jazeera. The logical conclusion was that Al-Jazeera was not a tool of the CIA and the Mossad. Israel still holds the view that the Station is a mouth-piece for Arab terrorism. Didn't Tony Blair talk President Bush out of bombing Al-Jazeera HQ in friendly Qatar in the spring of 2004? Wasn't Al-Jazeera office in Kabul bombed in 2001 and the Baghdad offices in 2003?

This leads us to ask has the CIA or the Mossad any connection with Russia Today, France 24, and the BBC Arabic Service which are broadcasting to the Arab world via satellite. The religious stations and jihadist channels are not financed by the USA; they are locally funded and managed. The USA is naturally against any hostile news media that it consider harmful to US interest. What's wrong with this? Aren't we all against anything that is hostile and harmful to our interests?

What About Other Channels?

We often hear the accusation that this channel or that has a hidden agenda. It is not new to state that every newspaper and every TV channel has its own view and policy whether we are talking about CNN, Wall Street Journal, The Sunday Times, The Washington Post, the BBC or Aljazeera. I am for any agenda that aims to educate the viewer, to promote tolerance and moderation. Any agenda that exposes human rights abuses is to be welcomed. Only dictatorial tyrannical regime would oppose such agenda.

Entertainment, music, films and dramas were often criticised for polluting the mind of youths. I would say if such programmes succeed in keeping the youth away from the radicals who brainwash them into hating the West and committing suicide-bombing, I am for such programmes and the more the better.

We ought to welcome programmes that promote democratic principles, love and co-existence, the rejection of violence, the condemnation of terrorism, the respect of human and animal rights and exposing abuse of such rights. This is what we need in the Arab world. It is not a conspiracy.

Nehad Ismail is a writer and broadcaster, who writes about issues related to the Middle East from his home in London.

Muslims Don't Need a New Mosque

Muslims Don't Need a New Mosque



diggBy Nehad Ismail



I am a Muslim; I don't want a mosque in New York
President Obama, please get real. You are fighting the wrong battle.

President Obama is a well-meaning, nice man. He believes in inter-faith dialogue and peaceful co-existence between different ethnic and religious groups. He believes in promoting tolerance and mutual acceptance of different religions. He has said nice things about Muslims. For all that we commend him and support him.

But he is fighting the wrong battle. He stands to lose the next presidential election on this issue alone. He is alienating middle America and yet he has also failed to appease the Muslim World. Arabs and Muslims throughout the Middle East don't want and don't need another mosque. Certainly they don't want it anywhere near the scene of the most outrageous terrorist act committed by Islamists and terrorists operating under the cover of Islam on September 11th, 2001 killing some three thousand innocent people.

What Arabs and Muslims worldwide want from Mr. Obama is to put more effort into bringing real peace between Israelis and Palestinians based on the two-state solution which was supported by various Presidents since the 1991 Oslo Accord and the Quartet (USA, EU, Russia and the UN) and based on the relevant United Nation Resolutions. This is the real issue that Muslims and Arabs care about, not another mosque in the heart of New York. Ending the longest occupation in modern history must be the top priority. Pandering to Muslim hardliners who exploit the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the siege of Gaza to further their odious agenda is counter-productive. Even Iran uses this issue to garner support in the Arab street for its nuclear program.

Global security demands urgent action on this long-festering problem. More mosques will not do. A peaceful Middle East will be good for America, Israel and the World.

Cosmetic gestures will not work.

Nehad Ismail is a writer and broadcaster, who writes about issues related to the Middle East from his home in London.

الاعلام الفضائي العربي وتهمة المؤامرة الاميركية

الاعلام الفضائي العربي وتهمة المؤامرة الاميركية: "الاعلام الفضائي العربي وتهمة المؤامرة الاميركية"

The Syrian Regime is Not About to Collapse

Published: July 31, 2010

The Syrian Regime is Not About to Collapse
By Nehad Ismail

The Syrian regime has not collapsed and is unlikely to in the foreseeable future.
Despite the urgent need for reforms, most Syrians have no stomach for regime change, Nehad Ismail explains why.
I wrote about this subject over four years ago, on 31st March 2006. Having revisited the subject and reviewed the latest developments, I am convinced nothing has changed.
There had been a plethora of headlines recently about the imminent collapse of the Syrian regime. The brutal fact, however, is that the Syrian opposition is too weak to topple the Assad regime. It is fragmented and divided. It has no coherent strategy to achieve common objectives. There is no co-ordination and no workable program unifying the fractious factions.
There exist in Syria more than 20 political parties, groupings and coalitions of all sorts each with a different program and agenda. The disunity is emphasized by the conflicting and contradictory statements emanating periodically from various factions. The opposition suffers from fundamental shortcomings. They don't consult with each other. They don't see eye to eye on many issues. They accuse each other of treachery and reliance on foreign money.
The Muslim Brotherhood has been accused of plotting to use the democratic process to seize power and turn the country into an Islamic caliphate state.
The common factor that unites them is opposition to the Assad regime. The problem is they don't know how to go about it. Many of them rely on fiery statements and slogans but nothing else. With the exception of one or two groupings which have a pragmatic workable program to rescue Syria and transform it into a democracy by peaceful means, the majority lack a coherent strategy and a workable program of action. The much vaunted Damascus Declaration was so full of contradictions that many parties refused to subscribe to it.
Two figures featured prominently in recent years as opposition figures. Mr. Ali Sadruddin Bayanouni, Syrian leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Syrian Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam and others have set up a "National Salvation Front" in Belgium. Mr. Bayanouni insists that his movement is moderate and has no plans to turn Syria into a state governed by Sharia law convinced though that it would be successful in case of elections. He also said in recent interviews "the Islamic tide is spreading and the secular movements have failed". Both figures lack credibility in the street and their impact is negligible.
The other groupings is the Washington based Reform Party of Syria, led by Farid Ghadry, who had been described by Syrians as "the Syrian version of Ahmed Chalabi" in reference to Mr. Chalabi an Iraqi opposition figure who played a significant part in persuading the US Administration to invade Iraq.
By far the biggest grouping and the most dynamic is the United National Alliance headed by former Assad regime strong man Rifaat Al-Assad, the former Vice President, and brother of former President Hafez Al-Assad. Rifaat left Syria in 1984, apparently because of differences with his brother Hafez Al-Assad. He now heads the United National Alliance (UNA), an umbrella organization that welcomes all opposition parties and groups that are interested in reforming Syria by non-violent means.
The UNA introduced a program for reform and salvation of Syria with a simple message and objective; that is, to transform Syria from a dictatorship into a democracy by peaceful means, through a program of gradual reforms and change. This program is gaining momentum and support in Syria and outside. Rifaat Al-Assad has launched "The National Reconciliation Initiative". The UNA is now the only credible opposition with the means to make real change and make the regime uncomfortable.
Rifaat Assad is generally known as the first Arab leader to face Islamic extremism. He succeeded in defeating the Muslim Brotherhood. Dr. Rifaat Al-Assad was the first leader in the Arab World to face the serious threat of Islamic inspired terrorism. He bravely stood up to them and rooted them out. The decisive action against terror, helped maintain the cohesion of Syrian Society, the territorial integrity of Syria and keep the country united.
Many Syrians were indeed relieved to be rid of the violent depredations of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Rifaat's record in acting against them may be what earned him respect in the Middle East and beyond.
Some change must occur in Syria. The regime is still refusing to heed the call for national dialogue. It continues interfering in Lebanon and meddling in Iraqi and Palestinian affairs. This behaviour has alienated neighbouring countries as well as the US and France. Internally, the repressive regime still acts as Saddam did in the years before the collapse of Baghdad exactly some seven years ago. Arbitrary arrests, abuse of human rights, torture, and corruption are rife in Syria. This regime will not be saved by its close alliances with Turkey and Iran.
The only alternative for Syria is a comprehensive national reconciliation initiative as demanded by Rifaat al-Assad, followed by a series of drastic reforms to allow the formation of political parties and free elections. Many of the provisions of the constitution are out of date and are not suitable for the 21st century. Emergency Law and martial courts need to be repealed.

New laws allowing the free formation of political parties and election are urgently needed.
The Islamic threat still exists and the Jihadists might make a move when they feel the time has come, especially if there is no reform. Unfortunately the regime is not listening and it is playing politics with the future of the Syrian people. No one in Syria would like to see a repeat of the disastrous Iraqi experience. However, the regime's behaviour is not serving the interests of the Syrian people who deserve freedom and democracy, but without the upheaval and the violence.
The latest interesting development is the emergence of Rifaat al-Assad's son Ribal Al-Assad as a reformer. Through his Organization for Democracy and Freedom in Syria (ODFS) www.odf-syria.orghe is demanding reform and respect of human rights in Syria and his message is gaining worldwide support.

Nehad Ismail is a writer and broadcaster, who writes about issues related to the Middle East from his home in London