The first response to my call for articles is from Wassim - thanks Wassim, read his blog here.

In "A choice of words", Wassim looks at the way the sympathies of Western analysts show in the language they use. He picks the example of the Hamas-Fateh conflict in Palestine.

A choice of words

While commuting to work this morning, I was reading an article in the Economist on the situation in Gaza between Hamas and Fatah. As most articles written on the matter lately, they have been tinged with a sorrowful 'Whither to now Palestine' attitude. Apart from the fact I have reservations about whether I should feel sad as to what is happening (I don't) I have a few observations which might be useful to anybody else reading Western media. The Economist presents Hamas as 'failing to meet the conditions' set by the 'great outside powers'.

We hear this often, but why do we (myself included) uncritically accept the framework of the argument. 'Failing to meet the conditions' is when somebody eager for something is expected to jump through all sorts of loops to receive something from another: A student in school 'fails to meet the conditions' necessary for a pass; An immigrant 'fails to meet the conditions' for a visa; so on and so forth, you get the picture. Now, Hamas did not 'fail to meet the conditions' of anybody, it refused the demands of the 'International Community' (otherwise known as the West), there is a crucial difference.

I don't necessarily agree with Hamas' ideology or methods, but the reason I bring this up is because this framework of description of events is presented often in news and analysis and can misguide the layperson reading them in the Western world to think they come from countries which are somehow superior to those they are dealing with, a throwback to the days of Empire? That I don't know. We see the same framework with Iran, Syria and Hezbullah amongst others. These actors always seem to 'fail' to meet 'requirements', 'conditions', 'criteria' etc etc. The language instantly tells you who is setting the conditions and who these are 'set' upon. This logic is flawed and unacceptable. When somebody you don't like wants to make you do something and you refuse, you do not 'fail to comply'. You refuse and stand your ground, 'go ahead, make my day' basically. The same applies with what is happening in the Middle East at the moment.

These 'outside powers' the Economist is referring to have helped create Israel, arm it and continue to fund and support some of the most corrupt regimes in the region (Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia), yet these countries are labelled with terms which make them softer for the reader, 'secular', 'moderate' etc. In stark contrast, actors opposed to the 'international community' (remember, this stands for the West) are portrayed as 'hardline', 'Islamist' , 'authoritarian' etc etc, even though in terms of human rights abuses and governance, they are no better than the so called 'moderate' countries. However, the criteria for judgement is never about the benevolence and effectiveness of government or human rights, it is always the position of these countries with regards to the 'international community' and in particular Israel, which is the basis for judgements. Under the illusion of objectivity, you are presented with a framework which, if accepted, can only lead you to one viewpoint.

Finally, the token bogeyman. The article also included a fleeting implication that a Gaza under Hamas would allow al Qaeda another fertile ground, " If the Islamists of Hamas win this round, the spectre will loom of a failed statelet where al Qaeda," etc etc. No mention is made of the fact that the 'statelet' might fail precisely because the 'international community' will blockade and starve it while funding and arming the pro-Israel Abbas (remember he is a moderate, never mind about corrupt). I assume that Hamas in such a scenario would again 'fail' to meet the stringent 'requirements' of these countries and so it, as well as the people who elected it, have only themselves to blame. That is the picture we can expect to be presented with at some stage if not already.

Labels: Media, Palestine

By Hazim Bitar via Golaniya.

"Two hours north of Amman, Jordan, an Arab Hollywood is emerging, in Damascus, Syria. Along with it, a flurry of digital filmmaking activities is starting to give Syrian New Cinema shape.

Syria is the Arab country with the most developed cinema and audiovisual production infrastructure east of the Mediterranean. Syrian TV drama has dominated Arab TV screens over the last decade with no contender on the horizon."

Labels: Jordan, Media

Syria swamped by Iraqi refugees: Nearly 1,000 arrive a day, driven from homes by violence. By Hannah Allam

"Nobody used the word "crisis" when the first wave of Iraqis fled the war and settled here."

"The Syrian state offers public services to Iraqis, including free access to schools and emergency health care. No evidence was found to show that some groups received preferential service. Fortunately, for the time being, sectarianism has not spilled over the Iraqi-Syrian border. Except for the predominantly Shi'a district of Sayyida Zeinab, most Iraqis live in mixed neighborhoods.

The sudden population influx has created a drastic increase in demand for goods and services. As many basic needs are subsidized by the state, the refugee crisis has placed a large financial burden on the Syrian government. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in 2006 the state had to foot the bill for a 35% increase in subsidized bread ($34 million) and the influx of 30,000 Iraqi students ($18 million).

Many Syrians blame the Iraqi refugees for recent rises in unemployment, the cost of basic goods and, above all, rent prices. In some Damascus neighborhoods apartment rental prices have doubled or even tripled since the outbreak of the war. The perceived impact of the Iraqi refugees is such that many Syrians in everyday conversation will say that there are between three and six million Iraqis in Syria."

Labels: Media, Refugees

By Serene in Beirut.

"Watch it, Sunni Beirutis who believe - possibly even now, as you sit at home worried and deeply saddened about the bomb explosion in the very area that you never could visit once until the Saudi-installed so-called leader you love more in death than you did during his tragically ended life - that the Americans will stay on your side."

Labels: Lebanon, Media

A Palestinian TV network is about to launch the first Arab Sesame Street. It is an educational programme for children based on a series of puppets. It has spread across the world, and I think it is relatively culturally unspecific - although it did emerge in the US.

The programme spawned the Muppet Show, a hugely popular evening comedy show presented by the puppets, in the 1970s.

Now, Sesame Street is getting its first Arab Muppet.

Its first?

Labels: Media

The Daily Star is now faithfully republishing (via AFP) unsourced Israeli fantasies.

Syria appparently has an underground missile city with chemical weapons. I think there is a bunker hiding Saddam Hussein in there too, along with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Daily Star relies on Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot which quotes "foreign experts". That is the same newspaper which has been publishing weekly Israeli government-leaked predictions that Syria "will" launch a war on Israel this summer.

Labels: Israel, Lebanon, Media

Well done to the BBC for this sentence:

"About 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers, were killed in the conflict."

It avoids the usual fog of "the conflict which killed more than 1,000 people". It highlights the asymmetry of the conflict in two ways: many, many more Lebanese died than Israelis. And most Israelis who died were militants, and most Lebanese who died were innocents.

Labels: Israel, Lebanon, Media

While the rest of the world was waiting for the results of France's elections, Al Jazeera devoted thirty-minutes to Syria's vote.

An incisive debate between:

The Opposition: Ausama Monajed from the Movement for Justice and Development

The Loyalist: George Jabbour, former adviser to Hafez Al-Assad

The Sceptic: Dr Marwan Kabalan, political science professor at the University of Damascus

PART ONE:



PART TWO:



(Copyright Al Jazeera, Transmission date: 22 April 2007, 1730 GMT)

Labels: Elections, Media

Some of the delicious Al Jazeera English programmes now have their own dedicated page on YouTube.

It means you can watch some of AJE's fantastic feature programming just a day or two after transmission.

Right now, the Fabulous Picture Show (Amanda Palmer's alternative movie programme, made at London's beautiful Everyman Cinema Club, at the top of Hampstead hill) is up. So is travel guide '48' (where the same Amanda Palmer spends forty-eight hours in one city, visiting the parts few tourists get to see - her first one was in Damascus, it is well worth a watch ... Part 1 and Part 2).

FPS and 48 represent everything AJE stands for: wonderfully shot, diverse content. I hope they never give up features to make more room for rolling news.

Other shows worth checking out are the Listening Post, a sideways look at how the world's media deals with the stories of the week. Watching them watching us.

Then there's Rageh Omaar's independent documentary strand Witness.

And Everywoman meets women in religion, society, politics, education and the arts.

People and Power deals with the stuggle of the individual, and civil society against ingrained authority (yesterday, there was a report on the ENA, France's 'political school' where 7 out of the last 10 prime ministers have come from - the argument: politics won't change even if the parties change, because they all have an 'ENA' way of thinking).

Star appointments David Frost and Riz Khan also have their slots. They're joined by Inside Iran, 101 East (on the Asia Pacific).

Well worth a watch. And if it's news you're after, you can watch Al Jazeera live here.

No, there's no professional bias in this post whatsoever. I don't know what you're talking about! Honest.

Labels: Media

...and why Syria isn't part of it. The Allepine Elephant stomps all over ignorance once again.

Bush has never said Syria is part of the Axis of Evil, neither have any of his spokesmen. So who's making the mistake?

Essential reading for the terminologically challenged.

Labels: Media, US

Things are getting worse, much worse, in Egypt.

Bloggers arrested, prisoners tortured, forty-thousand political prisoners in jail, Mubarak's police-state constitutional changes. Now, it is even difficult to cover the most innocent of stories as a journalist.

"Dissenting voices are not easily tolerated within one of America's strongest allies in the Arab world."

Labels: Egypt, Media

Lebanese Forces hate-paper An Nahar has run another misleading headline.

"Assad Embraced by Saudi Monarch, Lahoud Welcomed by Deputy Provincial Emir" - true, but in that same article it also mentions that: "Lahoud, an ally of Assad, was welcomed by Prince Sattam Bin Abdul Aziz, deputy head of the Riyadh province, the same official who welcomed Prime Minister Fouad Saniora, Lahoud's main rival."

Labels: Lebanon, Media

John Bolton, America's former ambassador to the UN has admitted he did obstruct a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon and that he was "damned proud" of it.

During the war, he, and other Bush regime officials said they were waiting for the right time, because an immediate ceasefire wouldn't be "lasting".

Now the truth has come out - they wanted Israel to damage Lebanon as much as possible, before calling for an end to the war. They didn't care about Lebanon one bit, despite Fouad Siniora's tears.

Bolton says he only agreed to the ceasefire once it became clear that Israel wasn't achieving its military aims - and probably, once Israel gave its backing.

It comes just weeks after Israel revealed it had been preparing for a war against Lebanon for months, even though it claimed its atttacks were "in response" to the kidnapping of two soldiers.

Yesterday evening, John Bolton displayed more of his famous arrogant belligerance.

He sat on a live TV link from Washington to London and condemned the audience of a British television programme discussion on the Iraq war. He said it was "depressing" that people could sit with a "straight face" and question the success of the war in Iraq. In Bolton's world, no one would raise an eyebrow.

Labels: Israel, Lebanon, Media, UN, US

So first the banking sector was opened up, then we heard about radical economic reforms, now could the government do the unthinkable - make Syrian TV independent?

Private TV stations were allowed shortly after Bashar came to power, and the first major venture - Sham TV launched last year. But it was shut down in October. Many said, it was because the government was planning something.

And now, we see why. The government wants to create its own Al Jazeera - it worked for Saudi Arabia, which created Al Arabiyah, seen by many as relatively independent.

It makes sense. Syrians can watch satellite TV like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiyah - it is cheap and easy to put up a satellite dish. And with every new Al Jazeera viewer, Syrian TV loses a viewer.

Majed Halima, head of Syrian TV: "Now we are proposing an act that would empower the cooperation with more financial and administrative independence so that it could compete with other Arab and international media outlets."

Interestingly, one reason they are changing could be because of pressure from inside. Halima says he is worried about the loss of talented Syrian broadcasters, who go to Al Jazeera because they want more freedom. Indeed, many of Al Jazeera's presenters and reporters are Syrian.

Damascus has one of the most vibrant independent TV production industries in the Arab world. Around one hundred companies - completely independent of government - operate in Damascus, producing some of the best programmes in the Arab world, which are sold to broadcasters across the Arab world.

Labels: Media

A very interesting survey by Lebanese newspaper Al Akhbar shows that more people agree with the opposition than the government.

The survey asks, do you blame the US for the crisis in Lebanon - that's the opposition's view - 50% say yes.

It asks, do you blame Syria and Iran for the crisis in Lebanon - that's the government's view - 35% say yes.

(So we've obviously got 15% which don't support either group)


The survey also shows that differences between the sects are as strong as ever.

It also shows that the Druze are at one end of the spectrum, with the Shia at the other end. The Druze are overwhelmingly pro-US, anti-Syria and the Shia are overwhelmingly the other way. What is interesting is the size of these percentages. So while there is some disagreement within the Sunni and Christian camps, the Druze and Shia are standing by their leaders to almost unbelievable extents.

The US is to blame for the political deadlock in Lebanon:

95% of Shia say yes

37% of Sunnis say yes

37% of Christians say yes

and amazingly, just 5% of Druze say yes


We see a similar breakdown when we ask...are Syria and Iran to blame for the crisis:

just 2% of Shia say yes

33% of Christians say yes

59% of Sunnis say yes

and 79% of Druze say yes

Full details here.

Labels: Hariri Militia, Hizbollah, Lebanese Forces, Lebanon, Media

Interesting piece from former Christian Science Monitor writer Helena Cobban.

"[Danial Saoud, the President of the venerable Committee for the Defence of Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms in Syria - he was himself a political prisoner] told me that the number of (secular) political prisoners in the country is now less than 20."

Here's another quote: "For 18-24 months the Americans and Europeans have put a lot of pressure on the regime - but the regime then just pushes harder on us. ... Before the US invasion of Iraq, people here in Syria liked us, the human rights activists, and we had significant popular sympathy. But since what happened in Iraq, people here say 'Look at the results of that!' "

And the full piece:

The US and Syria, Human Rights and Democracy

As US 'democratization' efforts in the Middle East wane, human rights activists in Syria see their situation improving, says Helena Cobban.

I spent a few days in Damascus at the end of February, and was able to get a ground reality view of the effects of the Bush administration's (former) campaign for the forced 'democratization' of Middle Eastern societies on the work of Syrian citizens with long experience struggling for human rights and democracy in their country.

Bottom line: "Very bad indeed."

That was the verdict rendered on Bush's 'democratization' campaign by Danial Saoud, the President of the venerable Committee for the Defence of Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms in Syria (CDF).

Saoud was himself a political prisoner from 1987 through 1999, and has been President of the CDF since August 2006. He was adamant that what Syria's rights activists need most of all right now is a resolution of their country's state of war with Israel.

Speaking of Condoleezza Rice he said, "Her pressure on the regime had a very bad effect for us. Now, for 18-24 months the Americans and Europeans have put a lot of pressure on the regime - but the regime then just pushes harder on us."

Mazen Darwish, who is Saoud's colleague in the CDF's three-person Presidential Council, told me, "Before the US invasion of Iraq, people here in Syria liked us, the human rights activists, and we had significant popular sympathy. But since what happened in Iraq, people here say 'Look at the results of that!'"

Saoud stressed that for Syrians, the question of Israel's continued occupation of Syria's Golan region itself constitutes a significant denial of the rights of all the Syrian citizens affected - both those who remain in Golan, living under Israeli military occupation rule there, and those who had fled when Israel occupied Golan in 1967 and have had to live displaced from their homes and farms for the 40 years since then. "Golan is Syrian land, and we have all the rights to get it back," he said.

In addition, he and the other rights activists I talked with pointed to the fact that the continuing state of war between Syria and Israel has allowed the Syrian regime to keep in place the State of Emergency that was first imposed in the country in 1963. "All these regimes in this area say they are postponing the issue of democracy until after they have solved the issues of Golan and Palestine," he said,

"So let's get them solved! Everything should start from this. The people in both Syria and Israel need peace. We need to build a culture of peace in the whole area. ... The CDF is working hard to build this culture."

Both men pointed out the numerous contradictions and ambiguities in the policy the United States has pursued regarding democratization in Syria. Darwish noted that, "When the US had a good relationship with Syria, in 1991, Danial was in prison - and the US didn't say anything about that." These two men, and other rights activists I talked with also noted that more recently, even during the Bush administration's big push for 'democratization' in Syria in 2004-2005, they were still happy to benefit from Syria's torture chambers by sending some suspected Al-Qaeda people there to be tortured.

Over the past year, two processes have been underway in Syria that seem to confirm these activists' argument that US pressure on the Damascus regime has been detrimental to their cause. Firstly, the rapid deterioration in the US' power in the region has considerably diminished Washington's ability to pressure the Syria regime on any issues, and Damascus has become notably stronger and self-confident than it was a year ago.

Secondly, over the same period, the situation of human rights activists within the country seems to have improved some.

Saoud told me that the number of (secular) political prisoners in the country is now less than 20. Indeed, the day we talked, about 16 Kurdish and student activists who had been held for less than a month had just been released. He said "No-one knows how many Islamist activists are in detention... We don't hear about them until they come to court." He said, "They don't torture people like Anwar al-Bunni or Michel Kilo, or the others who were detained last year for having signed the Beirut-Damascus Declaration." He indicated, however, that it was very likely that many of the Islamist detainees had been tortured. (Human Rights Watch's recently released report for 2006 states that in Syria, "Thousands of political prisoners, many of them members of the banned Muslim Brotherhood and the Communist Party, remain in detention.)

Meanwhile, the main factor dominating political developments in Syria, as in the rest of the Middle East, is the continued and extremely painful collapse of conditions inside Iraq. Syrians have watched that collapse in horror. Their country has received and given a temporary refuge to more than a million Iraqis - a considerable burden on their nation, equivalent to the US taking in some 17 million refugees within just a couple of years. And since Iraq's collapse has occurred under a Washington-advertised rubric of "democratization," the whole tragedy in Iraq has tended to give the concept a very bad name, and has caused Arabs and Muslims throughout the Middle East to value political stability much, much more than hitherto.

Under those circumstances, it is very moving to still hear people living in Arab countries talking about the need for democracy. But when they do so, they are very eager to distance themselves from the coerciveness inherent in Washington's recent 'democratization' project. And they all - regime supporters and oppositionists, alike-stress the need for moves toward democratization to grow from the local people's needs and priorities, rather than the geo-strategies pursued by distant Washington.

Labels: Democracy, Israeli Occupied Syrian Golan Heights, Media, reformists/dissidents, US

"Partisanship is defensible - many of us make no claims to objectivity"

Labels: Lebanon, Media, reformists/dissidents

When an obituary turns into a critique that can't be replied to.

Well, that's what the Arab neo-cons like - giving their own opinion, and masking others' opinions.

Labels: Lebanon, Media, reformists/dissidents

'Liberal' Israeli newspaper Haaretz writes about the living conditions of Palestinian refugees, still cramped into refugee camps in Aleppo six decades after they were forced out of their homes.

By the time you get to the third paragraph, you are confronted with an advert encoraging Jews to emigrate ('aliyah' in Hebrew) to Israel, and create a new generation of refugees.

Delightful.

Labels: Israel, Media, Refugees

Editor of the Lebanese Al Akhbar newspaper Joseph Samaha died in London this morning after suffering a heart attack.

The anti-sectarian, leftist, secular journalist founded As Safir in the 1970s, and then Al Hayat.

Just yesterday, he wrote a column entitled "Tuning of moves and slogans" in Al Akhbar. It criticised the government and the opposition for failing to break the deadlock.

Labels: Lebanon, Media