Wadah Khanfar, Al-Jazeerah and the triumph of televised propaganda
Al-Jazeera - the Qatari news channel that in the space of 15 years established itself in the Arab world as an innovative news outlet - suddenly embarked in a vast intoxication campaign to overthrow the regimes of Libya and Syria through any means. As demonstrated by Thierry Meyssan, this was not a conjunctural shift but one that was planned long in advance by individuals who shrewdly concealed their personal interests to the public. Revelations follow ...
Read original in English (cache) (SANA Arabic, SANA English)
by Thierry Meyssan
Voltaire Network | 26 September 2011
The Qatari-based Al-Jazeera channel announced the resignation of its director general, Wadah Khanfar, and his replacement by a member of the royal family, Shaikh Hamad Ben Jassem Al-Thani on September 20, 2011.
Shaikh Hamad is a Qatargas executive, and spent a year at the head office of Total in Paris. He is the former chairman of the Al-Jazeera Board of Directors.
This development is protrayed by the Atlanticist media in three different ways: either as a forced resignation and a takeover of the channel by the State, as a revenge on the part of the Palestinian Authority following the release of the Palestinian Papers and, finally, as the result of the Wikileaks leak exposing some of the connections between Mr. Khanfar and the United States.
While each of these interpretations may contain some truth, they nevertheless obscure the overriding factor: the role of Qatar in the war against Libya. At this point, a flash backwards is called for.
Al-Jazeera's origins: a desire for dialogue
Al-Jazeera was conceived by two French-Israeli personalities, the David and Jean Frydman brothers, after the assassination of their friend Yitzhak Rabin. According to David Frydman [1], the goal was to create a medium where Israelis and Arabs could discuss freely, exchange arguments and get to know each other, considering this was prevented by the war situation thereby frustrating any peace prospect.
For the creation of the channel, the Frydman brothers benefited from a combination of circumstances: the Orbit Saudi company had reached an agreement with the BBC to set up a news broadcast in Arabic. But the political demands posed by the absolutist Saudi monarchy quickly proved incompatible with the professional independence of British journalists. The agreement was terminated and the majority of Arabic BBC journalists found themselves out on the street. They were then recruited to launch Al-Jazeera.
The Frydman brothers were eager to have their television perceived as an Arabic channel. They managed to enlist the new emir of Qatar, Hamid bin Khalifa al-Thani, who with the help of London and Washington had just overthrown his father, accused of pro-Iranian sentiments. Shaikh Hamad bin-Khalifa soon realized the potential advantages of being at the center of the Arab-Israeli discussions, which had already lasted for more than half a century and were likely to drag on even longer. At the same time, he authorized the Israeli Ministry of Commerce to open an office in Doha, unable to open an embassy. Above all, he saw the interest for Qatar to compete with the wealthy pan-Arab Saudi media and to own a media that could criticize everyone except himself.
The initial financing package included both a down payment from the Frydman brothers and a loan from the Emir of $ 150 million over 5 years. A boycott by the advertisers, organized by Saudi Arabia, and the ensuing scantiness of advertising revenues finally led to the modification of the initial plan. Ultimately, the Emir became the donor of the channel and hence its sponsor.
Exemplary journalists
For years, Al-Jazeera's audience was captivated by its internal pluralism. The channel took pride in giving free rein to opposing viewpoints. The idea was not to tell the truth, but to have it spring from the debate. Its flagship program - the talk show hosted by the iconoclastic Faisal al-Qassem entitled "The contrary view" - took delight in shaking up prejudices. Everyone could find reason to eulogize certain programs and to deplore others. Regardless, this effervescence prevailed over the monolithism of its competitors and changed the Arab audiovisual landscape.
The heroic role of its reporters in Afghanistan and in the 2003 Gulf War, as well as their exemplary work in contrast to the propaganda of the pro-US satellite channels, catapulted Al-Jazeera from a controversial channel to a acclaimed media outlet. Its journalists paid a high price for their courage: George W. Bush stopped short from bombing the Doha studios, but had Tareq Ayyoub assassinated [2], arrested Tayseer Alouni [3], and imprisoned Sami al-Hajj at Guantanamo Bay [4].
The 2005 reorganization
However, all good things come to an end. In 2004-05, after the death of David Frydman, the Emir decided to overhaul Al-Jazeera completely and create new channels, including Al-Jazeera English, at a time when the global market was changing and all major States were equipping themselves with news satellite channels. The moment had come to leave the excitement and impudence of the early period behind in order to capitalize on an audience now reaching 50 million viewers, and to position itself as a player in the globalized world.
Shaikh Hamad bin-Khalifa called on an international firm that had already provided him with personal training in communication skills. JTrack had especially targeted Arab and Southeast Asian leaders to train them in the language of Davos: how to project an image that the West wants to see. From Morocco to Singapore, JTrack has trained most of the political leaders backed by the United States and Israel, often mere heredity puppets, turning them into respectable media personalities. The important thing is not whether they have something to say, but their aptness to impart the globalized rhetoric.
However, having been assigned to high government positions in North Africa, the CEO of JTrack had to withdraw before completing the transformation of the Al-Jazeera Group. He handed over the rest of the operations to a former Voice of America journalist who had been working for the Qatari channel for several years and who belonged to the same Muslim congregation as him: Wadah Khanfar.
Both professionally competent and politically safe, Mr. Khanfar strove to give Al-Jazeera an ideological tinge. While giving a voice to Muhammad Hassanein Heikal, Nasser's former spokesman, he appointed Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi - whom Nasser had stripped of his Egyptian nationality - the channel's "spiritual counselor".
The 2011 shift
With the revolutions in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, Wadah Khanfar dramatically changed Al-Jazeera's editorial policy. The Group played a central role in lending credence to the "Arab spring" myth, according to which the people - eager to live in a Western-style society - had risen to overthrow their dictatorial regimes and switch to parliamentary democracies. No distinction was made between the events in Tunisia and Egypt, and those in Libya and Syria. As for the popular movements in Yemen and Bahrain, they did not draw enough viewers!
In reality, the Anglo-Saxons tried to take advantage of the popular revolts to replay the same "Arab spring" scenario that they had staged in the 1920s to take possession of the former Ottoman provinces and install puppet parliamentary democracies under Western tutelage. Al-Jazeera's coverage of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolts was designed to dampen the flames of revolution and to legitimize the governments aligned with the United States and Israel. In Egypt the uprising was harnessed in the interest of a single element of the opposition: the Muslim Brotherhood, embodied by the channel's star preacher ... Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
Outraged by the new editorial policy and the increasingly frequent recourse to lies [5], a certain number of journalists, including Ghassan Ben Jedo, walked out slamming the door behind them.
Who's pulling the information strings?
Nevertheless, it wasn't until the Libyan episode that the masks started to fall. In fact, the boss of JTrack and mentor of Wadah Kanfhar is none other than Mahmoud Jibril (the "J" in "JTrack" stands for "Jibril"). This friendly, brilliant yet shallow, manager had been recommended to Muammar Gaddafi by his new American friends to pilot the economic opening of Libya after the normalization of its diplomatic ties. Under Saif el-Islam Gaddafi's control, he was appointed both Minister of Planning and Director of the Development Authority, thus becoming de facto the number two man in the government, having authority over other ministers. At breakneck speed, he forged ahead with the deregulation of Libya's socialist economy and the privatization of its public enterprises.
Mahmoud Jibril with his friend and business partner, Bernard Henri-Lévy, in conquered Tripoli.
Through his JTrack training activities, Mahmoud Jibril established personal relationships with almost all the Arab and Southeast Asian leaders. He had offices in Bahrain and Singapore. In addition, Mr. Jibril created trading companies, including one dealing with Malaysian and Australian timber in partnership with his French friend, Bernard-Henri Levy.
Mahmoud Jibril started his university studies in Cairo, where he met and married the daughter of one of Nasser's ministers. He later continued his studies in the United States, where he assimilated the libertarian views that he tried to inject into al-Gaddafi's anarchist ideology. But, more importantly, in Libya Mr. Jibril joined the Muslim Brotherhood. It was in this capacity that he placed his coreligionists, Brothers Wadah Kanfhar and Yusuf al-Qaradawi, in Al-Jazeera ..
During the first half of 2011, the Qatari channel became the preferred instrument for pro-Western propaganda: it went to great lengths to obscure the anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist aspect of the Arab revolutions and, in each country, it picked the actors it intended to support and those it decided to deprecate. Not surprisingly, it supported the king of Bahrain, a student of Mahmoud Jibril, who had his people gunned down, while Al-Jazeera's spiritual counsellor, Shaikh al-Qaradawi, was calling for a Jihad over the air against al-Gaddafi and el-Assad, falsely accusing them of murdering their own people.
With Mr Jibril as prime minister of the rebel government of Libya, the height of duplicity was reached when a replica of the Green Square and Bab-el-Azizia was built in the studios of Al-Jazeera in Doha, where footage of false images was shot portraying pro-US "insurgents" entering Tripoli. Need I mention the insults I received when I denounced this manipulation in the columns of Voltairenet.org? Yet Al-Jazeera and Sky News broadcasted these false images on the second day of the Battle of Tripoli, sowing confusion among the Libyan people. It was actually only three days later that the "rebels" - almost exclusively from Misrata - entered Tripoli, devastated by NATO's bombs.
The same goes for the announcement by Al-Jazeera of Saif el-Islam Gadhafi's arrest and the confirmation of his capture by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Luis Moreno-Ocampo. I was the first, through Russia Today, to warn against the manipulation. And again, I was ridiculed by some newspapers, until Saif el-Islam turned up in person to wake up the journalists holed up at the Rixos Hotel and led them to the real Bal el-Azizia square.
Questioned about such lies by channel France24 in Arabic, the president of the National Transitional Council (CNT), Mustafa Abdul Jalil, chalked it up to a war stratagem and said he was delighted to have thus accelerated the fall of the Jamahiriya.
What future for Al-Jazeera?
The conversion of Al-Jazeera into a propaganda tool for the recolonisation of Libya was not achieved without the knowledge of the emir of Qatar, but indeed under his leadership. The Gulf Cooperation Council was the first to call for an armed intervention in Libya and Qatar was the first Arab country to join the Contact Group. He funneled weapons to the Libyan "rebels" before sending in his own ground troops, especially during the Battle of Tripoli. In exchange, he obtained the privilege of controlling all the oil trade on behalf of the National Transitional Council.
It is too early to say whether the resignation of Wadah Khanfar marks the end of his mission in Qatar, or if it heralds the channel's desire to recover the credibility that took 15 years to build and only 6 months to lose.
Thierry Meyssan
---------------
[1] See interviews with the author
[2] "The war on al-Jazeera", by Dima Tareq Tahboub, The Guardian, 4 October 2003.
[3] "The Arab press in the firing line", Voltaire Network, 15 September 2003.
[4] See our dossier on Sami al-Hajj
[5] For example: "Al-Jazeera staged huge rally in Moscow against Bashar al-Assad", Voltaire Network, 4 May 2011.
Russia Decisively Condemns Terrorist Acts Perpetrated by Armed Terrorist Groups in Syria
http://www.sana.sy/eng/337/2011/10/03/373229.htm
http://www.sana.sy/ara/3/2011/10/03/373213.htm
Oct 03, 2011
MOSCOW, (SANA)- The Russian Foreign Ministry on Monday decisively condemned the terrorist acts being perpetrated by the armed terrorist groups in Syria which on Sunday claimed the life of the student Saria Hassoun, son of the Grand Mufti of Syria, along with Muhammad al-Omar, a professor at Aleppo University.
Syria on verge of civil war
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/10/03/58077044.html
http://japanese.ruvr.ru/2011/10/03/58093805.html
Pershkina Anastasiya
Oct 3, 2011 12:44 Moscow Time
Radical Islamists from Lebanon are becoming more active in Syria. They are taking part in opposition rallies seeking to end peaceful protests and stir up violence. Experts say that the country has never been so close to a civil war and foreign intervention.
There are three possible scenarios for the present-day situation in Syria - strengthening of Assad's rule, a civil war and international intervention. As for the former, the Syrian president is actually able to implement it with his tough and instant suppression of all the protests, although he is also said to be ready for reform and amendments to the Syrian Constitution's Article 8 outlining the role of the ruling Baath Party. He feels protected as long as the army supports him. Strange as it may seem, the assistance of radical Islamists from neighboring Lebanon to the opposition may play directly into Bashar al-Assad's hands, according to Senior Fellow at the Center of International Security Vladimir Sotnikov.
"Assad's regime is using every opportunity to somehow justify its actions in the eyes of global public. Assad says that foreign radicals involved in protests against his regime want to destabilize the situation in Syria and he is only seeking to stop it, alongside the entire nation. This is a perfect pretext for the use of force," says Vladimir Sotnikov.
On the other hand, it is quite possible that Assad will eventually fail to contain the opposition which is now backed by the Muslim Brotherhood from Lebanon. This will provoke a civil war in Syria, warns prominent Russian Oriental expert Georgy Mirsky.
"In 1982, when the Muslim Brotherhood initiated a riot in Hama, the father of the incumbent president Hafez al-Assad unleashed the artillery and destroyed half of the city, killing 20,000 people. The Muslim Brotherhood was silenced but it did not forget anything. Now, the time has come for them to raise their heads again. Without a real border between Syria and Lebanon, the inflow of radicals cannot come as a surprise for anyone. I have no doubts that armed gangs of radical Islamists will become a terrible headache for Assad," Georgy Mirsky believes.
However, a civil war may be followed by foreign intervention. Western countries, with their ongoing involvement in the Afghan, Iraqi and Libyan campaigns, have so far been abstaining from any active interference in Syria's domestic affairs. Moreover, unlike Muammar Gaddafi, for instance, Bashar al-Assad still enjoys support from the League of Arab States. As long as his neighbors, primarily Iran, are ready to intervene on his behalf, NATO will not dare to invade Syria. But if Assad fails to hold his ground, Syria will suffer a real war involving the West as well. A war may turn out badly for him, Georgy Mirsky goes on to explain.
"Western governments are concerned about one more issue - who will take the helm if Bashar al-Assad quits? The Muslim Brotherhood? This will only make things worse. There is an idiom saying "better the devil you know than the devil you don't". The Assad dynasty has been ruling the country for 40 years already, with nothing extraordinary happening on the border with Israel at least. No one knows what the situation will be with Islamists in power," concludes Georgy Mirsky.
In the meantime, the United Nations is actively working on a resolution condemning the Syrian government's tough measures, with Russia advocating a document that would prevent a further escalation of conflict. During latest debates, Germany, France, Great Britain and Portugal dropped the word "sanctions" from a draft resolution and suggested using "targeted measures" instead. Perhaps, the West is really seeking to avoid another escalation in the Arab world. Radical Islamists, however, seem to be holding a different view and intend to unleash a war against Assad in any case.
For US, attacking Syria would be 'perfectly normal practice'
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/03-10-2011/119206-usa_syria-0/
Sergei Balmasov
03.10.2011
For US, attacking Syria would be 'perfectly normal practice'. The United States openly supported the attack on Syria. The State Department spokesman Mark Toner blessed terrorist attacks against the Syrian military, calling them a "perfectly normal practice." The reaction of the Syrian foreign minister was immediate: these statements are the evidence that the U.S. supports the "armed terrorists" attacking the army units.
According to the Syrian ministry, such support clearly demonstrates that the U.S. is engaged in this development and is pushing the armed groups to violence against the Syrian military.
The official Damascus sees the statement of Mark Toner as an irresponsible call for terrorist attacks and the establishment of anarchy, which serves the foreign interests and is offensive for the Syrian people.
The sharp deterioration of the US-Syrian relations coincided with yet another incident involving a U.S. ambassador to Syria. On September 29, according to the Western media, an aggressive crowd of supporters of Bashar Assad allegedly attacked the head of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Syria.
If it had not been for a reporter from the Information Agency Xinhua who happened to be nearby, the incident would have looked like an attack. However, the Chinese journalist who was on the scene provided a completely different description of the incident. According to him, the "attack" on U.S. ambassador Robert Ford was preceded by his car hitting a Syrian who sustained injuries of moderate severity. Only after that the crowd began to throw things at the diplomat's car.
"We threw eggs, tomatoes and potatoes at him because we despise him. America should care about its own problems and leave us alone," said in an interview to Xinhua a participant of the "attack."
It is unknown what would happen to the American ambassador if the Syrian police had not interfered. According to Chinese journalists, the diplomat was aided by as many as 10 police cars that dispersed the angry crowd not without difficulty.
Another important detail: according to the Chinese and Syrian journalists, Robert Ford was on his way to meet with the leader of the outlawed Syrian party. They meant the Syrian "Muslim Brotherhood" that tarnished their reputation back in the late 1970s by the mass killings of the Alawite, including officials, soldiers and their families.
The peak of their activity was a rebellion in Hama in February of 1982 and the assassination of then-President Hafez al-Assad of Syria, who took revenge. The surviving fundamentalists took refuge in the West, waiting for their finest hour.
Apparently, now, 30 years after the destruction of Hama, it was made clear to them that their time has come. They received the warmest treatment from the UK where one of their headquarters was located.
The defeated "brothers" have retreated deep underground. All mosques in Syria were placed under strict control of special services, and sturdy barriers were built in the way of the Islamists. However, Assad Jr. has gradually eased the control. According to the Syrians, more or less stable control was preserved over the largest mosques, while the smaller ones became the centers of the radical opposition that started to prepare for the revenge for 1982. Obviously, it was a mistake of Assad junior. Incremental and timid attempts to liberalize the economy should not have been accompanied by the weakening of the pressure on those who wanted to fill Syria with blood.
The origin of "Muslim brothers" is not that straightforward. They appeared as a reaction to the Western influence in an attempt to protect the real values from its corrupting impact. This is the attitude that dominates among many Arabists. Someone adds to it "a greater risk of the atheistic Soviet Union. "
Yet, many Arabs believe that the "Muslim Brotherhood" is the brainchild of the Western, including British, intelligence agencies, aimed at the destruction of the Arab unity.
In any event, today there is a surprising similarity in the views of the "Brothers" and the main proponent of the global democracy, the United States. It was not the first time when an American ambassador was trying to meet with the "Brothers". For example, during the recent unrest he visited their old stronghold of Hama in the company of his French colleague, where they urged the locals to topple Assad.
The pictures taken at the scene present a touching image of an obvious unity between the most democratic diplomatic envoys in the world and the crowds of bearded men without mustache. This combination is one of the hallmarks of radical Islamists. Incidentally, their slogan in Syria is "Alawites - to the grave, Christians - to Beirut!"
Inspired by an open support of the influential Western powers, Hama Islamists gave armed resistance to the Syrian forces, in which, according to various sources, between 140 and 300 were killed. However, the order of the main stronghold of the Syrian instability was restored.
This is obviously not a part of the U.S. plan, and it does not abandon its attempts to destabilize the situation. The recent incidents, the scandalous statement of Toner and Robert Ford's attempt to meet with the leaders of Islamic radicals should be viewed as an open declaration of war against Syria.
In response, Damascus should be courageous and at the very least remove the U.S. ambassador from the country for sedition. The head of the U.S. diplomatic mission has more than enough means to do so. Robert Ford met with the leaders of the terrorists. The least he could do for them is to give them a bag of money that may be allocated for paying for the killings of the Syrian military virtually blessed by the U.S. Department of State. The elimination of this channel would support terrorists, primarily in the interests of the regime itself.
Of course, the expulsion of the American ambassador will have consequences. Unfortunately, the Syrian leadership still believes that it is possible to avoid the development of the situation according to a negative scenario. Apparently, the official Damascus fears that worsening of the diplomatic relations can be used to commit further provocations against Syria. However, it has long been clear that the fight has already been paid for, and that the West is simply waiting for the completion of the operation against al-Gaddafi to take more serious steps against Assad.
U.S. denounces attack on American ambassador to Syria
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-09/30/c_131168431.htm
English.news.cn 2011-09-30 05:12:22
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 (Xinhua) -- The United States on Thursday denounced the attack on its ambassador to Syria as part of "an ongoing campaign to intimidate and threaten diplomats."
"These kinds of assaults against diplomatic personnel, including our ambassador, are unwarranted and unjustifiable," White House spokesman Jay Carney said at a press briefing.
"This is clearly a part of an ongoing campaign to intimidate and threaten diplomats attempting to bear witness to the brutality of the Assad regime," he added.
Mark Toner, a U.S. State Department spokesman, also condemned the attack, saying that "intimidation by pro-government mobs is just not civilized behavior."
Reports said that pro-government demonstrators pelted U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford's car with eggs and tomatoes during his visit to the office of Hasan abdul Azim, a prominent Syrian opposition figure, on Thursday. Witnesses alleged that the ambassador's car hit a demonstrator, injuring him in his forehead. The U.S. ambassador later left the scene on the intervention of a dozen Syrian security vehicles.
The U.S., along with its European allies, has slapped sanctions on high-ranking Syrian government officials and entities and urged Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down after Syria has been plunged into six months of unrest.
U.S. Say Fall of Syrian Regime a 'Matter of Time'
http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/16500-u-s-say-fall-of-syrian-regime-a-matter-of-time
2011.10.03
It is "a matter of time" before the Syrian regime headed by President Bashar al-Assad is ousted from power by a popular uprising, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Monday.
Speaking in Tel Aviv after meeting his Israeli counterpart, Panetta said Washington and other foreign capitals had "made clear Assad should step down."
Mikdad, WFP Regional Director Discuss Cooperation
http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2011/10/03/373217.htm
Oct 03, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment