Arab Media Pursued from Earth to the Sky
Talking about American double standards in terms of dealing with Arab issues is nothing new. However, the current crisis posed by the House of Representatives with regard to Arab satellite channels, along with the threats of penalties, brings about a new chapter in this old story.
Or at the very least, it sheds light on a forgotten aspect. This is not the beginning of a court hearing about American injustice in dealing with Arabs and Muslims. It is rather a summary of two important testimonies from two of the most influential American experts on the Middle East confirming glaring American contradictions.
On his website, Dr. Mark Lynch, one of the most important specialists on the Middle East and Political Islam, writes sarcastically, saying that it is very sad that the Arab League is more biased towards freedom of the press than the U.S. Congress. Although he asks his readers not to worry by saying the Arab world will not rid itself of the appropriate means to oppress the media, he then focuses on condemning the decision of the House of Representatives to call for the punishment of Arab satellite channels and satellite service providers who broadcast what Washington considers to be inciting violence against the U.S.
Lynch states objective justifications for his refusal of the decision, most importantly that the definition offered very vaguely uses "inciting violence." According to Bill 2278, which was ratified by the House of Representatives by a majority of 395 votes to three, "incitement" indicates “the act of persuading, encouraging, instigating, advocating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a violent act against any person, agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the United States.”
The problem here, according to the American expert, is that any serious discussion about American politics on any Arab television can possibly contain a part of this definition of "incitement," especially because Arab positions are radically different from American positions in regard to essential issues. Another important point is the bill that Congress has yet to ratify, which calls for the administration to impose sanctions on the channels that deal with people on America’s terrorist watch list. This 443 page list includes the names of politicians and Arab and Muslim independent ideologues, not limited to those from Hamas and Hezbollah. Also, if these channels were to host any of these people, some of whom are popular media personalities, they would be branded as terrorist organizations. After that, there would only remain a limited handful of "clean” Arab channels (from the American point of view).
In summary, according to the American professor, the bill is irresponsible and strongly contradicts U.S. support of freedom of the press. This bill cannot be applied to the Middle East in its current form without causing significant damage and cannot be implemented by the Arab governments.
The inconsistency of the bill, as pointed out by Lynch, in relation to America’s commitment to freedom of the press, is the central focus and attention of another American expert, William Rugh, the previous U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and author of “Arab Mass Media.” His statement came long before the current satellite crisis, thus clarifying that America’s problem with Arab media is not a fleeting crisis triggered by Congress’ current position.
Rugh views Iraq as a case study embodying America’s problem of double standards regarding Arab media. After the invasion of Iraq, the Coalition (occupation) Forces decided to establish a free Iraqi media network relying heavily on an American company. This company, Science Applications International Corporation, specializes in supplying the Ministry of Defense and the Pentagon with technology and has no relation to the media or media affairs. SAIC formed the Iraqi Media Network to include television stations, radio channels and the newspaper “The Morning." The Coalition Forces imposed strong censorship on the network, disappointing the hopes of the Iraqis who expected something great from America (the emperor of media in the world).
The experiment failed quickly after even American employees resigned due to severe interference by the Coalition Forces. According to Rugh and studies conducted by the Coalition Forces, Iraqis prefer Al Jazeera and the Iranian channel al-Alam. One report described the Iraqi network as "American bravado." The Occupation Forces again tried, in January 2004, using another company, Harris Corporation of Florida, specializing in communication equipment, to manage the Iraqi network. Harris consulted with the Lebanese Broadcasting Company and formed an Iraqi television station called al-Iraqiya. After this, Rugh saw how the Occupation Forces quickly turned on the independent newspapers and television channels that were previously granted work after being accused of "inciting violence." The persecution extended to non-Iraqi channels like Al Jazeera and Al-Arabiya for the same reason. He also mentioned the burning attacks the Bush administration made against Al Jazeera. America’s problem with Arab media will not end with the current crisis of the satellite channels, as it did not begin with the occupation of Iraq. Rugh adds ironically that Washington stands behind freedom of expression while often acting as an authoritative government and that Iraq is testimony of this. It is important to quickly point out two basic facts. The first is the role played by the American Jewish organizations in pushing Congress and the administration against Arab media. These organizations usually see no real difference between attacking Israel and anti-Semitism and inciting violence against Americans all while deliberately ignoring the fact that criticism in Arab media is due to Israeli policies. However, these criticisms are not anti-Jewish in terms of being followers of a monotheistic religion. It is well known that two of the main sources, if not the only main sources, Congress relies on to gauge incitement in Arab media are the two Jewish organizations the Middle East Research Institute (MEMRI) and the Anti-Defamation League (defamations of the Jews or anti-Semitism). The incitement of Congress and the administration that these two organizations make against the Arab media is not hidden. They have no right to be giving recommendations and advice during this process. Another point to be mentioned is the American effort fueled by Israel and the Jews to control Arab satellite channels, which is a big part of the campaign running since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and includes following up on anything published in Arab media. This is not limited to news and political material, but also includes stories on what is considered to be the incitement of violence or promotion of extremist ideas. This campaign plays a part in the effort to include education and culture in the Arab and Muslim world in the framework of the ideological war on terror, eliminating sources according to America’s version of what is right or wrong.
Or at the very least, it sheds light on a forgotten aspect. This is not the beginning of a court hearing about American injustice in dealing with Arabs and Muslims. It is rather a summary of two important testimonies from two of the most influential American experts on the Middle East confirming glaring American contradictions.
On his website, Dr. Mark Lynch, one of the most important specialists on the Middle East and Political Islam, writes sarcastically, saying that it is very sad that the Arab League is more biased towards freedom of the press than the U.S. Congress. Although he asks his readers not to worry by saying the Arab world will not rid itself of the appropriate means to oppress the media, he then focuses on condemning the decision of the House of Representatives to call for the punishment of Arab satellite channels and satellite service providers who broadcast what Washington considers to be inciting violence against the U.S.
Lynch states objective justifications for his refusal of the decision, most importantly that the definition offered very vaguely uses "inciting violence." According to Bill 2278, which was ratified by the House of Representatives by a majority of 395 votes to three, "incitement" indicates “the act of persuading, encouraging, instigating, advocating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a violent act against any person, agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the United States.”
The problem here, according to the American expert, is that any serious discussion about American politics on any Arab television can possibly contain a part of this definition of "incitement," especially because Arab positions are radically different from American positions in regard to essential issues. Another important point is the bill that Congress has yet to ratify, which calls for the administration to impose sanctions on the channels that deal with people on America’s terrorist watch list. This 443 page list includes the names of politicians and Arab and Muslim independent ideologues, not limited to those from Hamas and Hezbollah. Also, if these channels were to host any of these people, some of whom are popular media personalities, they would be branded as terrorist organizations. After that, there would only remain a limited handful of "clean” Arab channels (from the American point of view).
In summary, according to the American professor, the bill is irresponsible and strongly contradicts U.S. support of freedom of the press. This bill cannot be applied to the Middle East in its current form without causing significant damage and cannot be implemented by the Arab governments.
The inconsistency of the bill, as pointed out by Lynch, in relation to America’s commitment to freedom of the press, is the central focus and attention of another American expert, William Rugh, the previous U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and author of “Arab Mass Media.” His statement came long before the current satellite crisis, thus clarifying that America’s problem with Arab media is not a fleeting crisis triggered by Congress’ current position.
Rugh views Iraq as a case study embodying America’s problem of double standards regarding Arab media. After the invasion of Iraq, the Coalition (occupation) Forces decided to establish a free Iraqi media network relying heavily on an American company. This company, Science Applications International Corporation, specializes in supplying the Ministry of Defense and the Pentagon with technology and has no relation to the media or media affairs. SAIC formed the Iraqi Media Network to include television stations, radio channels and the newspaper “The Morning." The Coalition Forces imposed strong censorship on the network, disappointing the hopes of the Iraqis who expected something great from America (the emperor of media in the world).
The experiment failed quickly after even American employees resigned due to severe interference by the Coalition Forces. According to Rugh and studies conducted by the Coalition Forces, Iraqis prefer Al Jazeera and the Iranian channel al-Alam. One report described the Iraqi network as "American bravado." The Occupation Forces again tried, in January 2004, using another company, Harris Corporation of Florida, specializing in communication equipment, to manage the Iraqi network. Harris consulted with the Lebanese Broadcasting Company and formed an Iraqi television station called al-Iraqiya. After this, Rugh saw how the Occupation Forces quickly turned on the independent newspapers and television channels that were previously granted work after being accused of "inciting violence." The persecution extended to non-Iraqi channels like Al Jazeera and Al-Arabiya for the same reason. He also mentioned the burning attacks the Bush administration made against Al Jazeera. America’s problem with Arab media will not end with the current crisis of the satellite channels, as it did not begin with the occupation of Iraq. Rugh adds ironically that Washington stands behind freedom of expression while often acting as an authoritative government and that Iraq is testimony of this. It is important to quickly point out two basic facts. The first is the role played by the American Jewish organizations in pushing Congress and the administration against Arab media. These organizations usually see no real difference between attacking Israel and anti-Semitism and inciting violence against Americans all while deliberately ignoring the fact that criticism in Arab media is due to Israeli policies. However, these criticisms are not anti-Jewish in terms of being followers of a monotheistic religion. It is well known that two of the main sources, if not the only main sources, Congress relies on to gauge incitement in Arab media are the two Jewish organizations the Middle East Research Institute (MEMRI) and the Anti-Defamation League (defamations of the Jews or anti-Semitism). The incitement of Congress and the administration that these two organizations make against the Arab media is not hidden. They have no right to be giving recommendations and advice during this process. Another point to be mentioned is the American effort fueled by Israel and the Jews to control Arab satellite channels, which is a big part of the campaign running since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and includes following up on anything published in Arab media. This is not limited to news and political material, but also includes stories on what is considered to be the incitement of violence or promotion of extremist ideas. This campaign plays a part in the effort to include education and culture in the Arab and Muslim world in the framework of the ideological war on terror, eliminating sources according to America’s version of what is right or wrong.
Next article![]( "Still No Majority for Obama")
