New Business As Usual?

This week’s coverage of Obama on Al Manar continued to cast a hopeful image of Obama and emphasize potential source of friction between the US and Israel.

Al Manar’s coverage of Obama’s actions vis-à-vis Latin America seemed to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and said that Obama attempting to build a new cooperative relationship with Latin American states. Another article mentioned changes to the American stance on Cuba and quoted Obama’s comments on these changes: "I think it's a signal of our good faith that we wanted to move beyond the Cold War mentality that's existed over the last 50 years. And hopefully we'll see some signs that Cuba wants to reciprocate.” The article provided viewers with extensive quotes from Obama explaining his stance on Cuba: “I don't expect Cuba to beg. No one is asking for anyone to beg. What we're looking for is some signal that there are going to be changes in how Cuba operates."


Al Manar also covered sources of disagreement and future tensions between the U.S. and Israel. One article mentioned that the Obama administration is reconsidering its planned boycott of the Durban II Anti-Racism Summit held at the UN. The article pointed out that the Racism Summit is deeply opposed by Israel and that this US action is likely to upset Israel. Al Manar also reported on US envoy George Mitchell’s trip to Israel, saying that Mitchell “pressed the two-state solution” in his meetings with Israeli officials. The article also included Mitchell’s remarks during his time in Morocco, which were described in the following manner “Washington considered the 'creation' of a Palestinian state as the only way forward.” After mentioning Mitchell’s statement the article mentioned that Mitchell’s remarks “could set Israel on a collision course” with the US.

The elusive CIA report predicts Israels demise.

According to a PressTV report, the CIA conducted a study that "cast doubt over Israel's survival beyond the next 20 years."

The CIA report predicts "an inexorable movement away from a two-state to a one-state solution, as the most viable model based on democratic principles of full equality that sheds the looming specter of colonial Apartheid while allowing for the return of the 1947/1948 and 1967 refugees. The latter being the precondition for sustainable peace in the region."

After having searched for this report online, I have found nothing except for blogs citing this Press TV article and others attacking it's supposed author, international lawyer Franklin Lamb who is one of the few who has seen the actual report.

The study, which has been made available only to a certain number of individuals, further forecasts the return of all Palestinian refugees to the occupied territories, and the exodus of two million Israeli - who would move to the US in the next fifteen years.

According to Lamb, the CIA report "alludes to the unexpectedly quick fall of the apartheid government in South Africa and recalls the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, suggesting the end to the dream of an 'Israeli land' would happen 'way sooner' than later."

The study further predicts the return of over one and a half million Israelis to Russia and other parts of Europe, and denotes a decline in Israeli births whereas a rise in the Palestinian population.

And apparently, "some members of the US Senate Intelligence Committee have been informed of the report." Interesting that PressTV is the only media that picked up this story. No word of it on NYT or any other media source. What is Jewish Chronicle's Oliver Kamm (a former PressTV guest) have to say about this?

Press TV has excelled itself by running a story that no reputable news outlet had reported: a supposed CIA study predicting the collapse of Israel within 20 years. The only authority cited for this study was “international lawyer Franklin Lamb”. Lamb is a political activist described by Hizbollah’s TV station in Lebanon as “persistent in his support for the just cause of the Lebanese people’s resistance”.

Al Manar: Warming Up To Obama

While Al Manar's collection of op-ed stories writen by Western sources still include sharp critiques of American policy, Al Manar’s coverage of Obama’s recent actions indicate that Al Manar's approves of the changing direction of American foreign policy. The current links to op-eds on Al Manar’s news homepage include a story from Amnesty International criticizing American arms shipments to Israel as well as a sharp critique of America’s hypocrisy on nuclear capabilities, contrasting America’s stances on the nuclear capabilities of North Korea and Israel.However, Al Manar’s own coverage of the Obama administration indicates a thaw in Al Manar’s stance on the US. Al Manar’s coverage of Obama was favorable and at the same time, indicated that the Obama administration relations with Israel are deteriorating while its relations Middle Eastern nations improve.

On Television, Al Manar’s coverage of Obama’s visit to Iraq reported on Obama’s commitment to withdraw US forces as well as Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s gratitude at Obama’s readiness to help Iraq. Online, Al Manar's coverage of Obama's visit to Turkey also had a positive tone, mentioning Obama's statements about improving relations with Muslim nations such as "we will listen carefully, bridge misunderstanding... We will be respectful, even when we do not agree." The article also mentioned Obama's strong support of Turkey's bid to join the EU as well as Obama's dedication to a two-state solution.

In addition to covering Obama's travels to Middle Eastern nations and suggesting improved relations with Muslim nations, Al Manar tried to emphasize the differences between Obama and the new Israeli government. Al Manar reported that the Obama administration is ready for a possible confrontation with Israeli leadership. While mentioning Obama’s commitment to the security of Israel, the article also reported that Obama has made it clear that his administration is dedicated to a two-state solution, despite statements made by Israeli officials. The article hinted that relations between the US and Israel are deteriorating by using words that evoke conflict: the title of the article is “Obama Team Readying for Clash with Netanyahu, Lieberman,” and the article also says that the “US hits back at Lieberman: the goal is two states.” Additionally, the article mentions that that neither Obama nor Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have made plans to visit one another.

Another article on Al Manar’s website reported on US Vice President Biden’s warning to Israel not to attack Iran, which featured Biden’s statement that Israel would be “ill-advised” to attack Iran and also mentioned the Obama administration’s willingness to launch a new dialogue with Iran. The stance of the Obama administration was contrasted with that of the Israeli government, as the article mentions that Biden’s warning to Israel was in response to Netanyahu referring to the Iranian government as "sophisticated and devious" in their ability to hide their nuclear program from the world. I believe that Al Manar's coverage emphasizes conflict and declining US-Israeli relations because this is important prerequisite to improved perceptions of Obama for Al Manar's audience.

Mossad linked to 9/11 attacks

According to a recent Press TV article, there is new "proof" that Israel's Mossad was linked to the September 11th attacks on the US. In citing American Free Press, Press TV reports that the cousin of alleged 9/11 hijacker Ziad al-Jarrah was in fact working as a longtime Mossad agent, which according to Press TV "is proof that Israel had a hand in the terror attacks on US soil."

"Al-Jarrah reportedly admitted that he had been conducting covert espionage activities against Palestinian groups and the Lebanese Hezbollah since 1983."

"Israeli connections to 9/11, according to the New York Times, can be traced back to the five 'dancing Israelis' who were witnessed jumping and high-fiving with shouts of 'joy and mockery' as Flight 11 and Flight 175 slammed into the World Trade Center in New York."

I couldn't find such an article that talked about these "joyous Jews" but did find an NYT article from Sept. 13th that said the following;

The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards.

I did, however, find a Harretz article to corroborated this claim. The Press TV article went on to say;

All the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned by the CIA and the Mossad in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... in Iraq [and] Afghanistan," the Italian ex-premier was quoted by Corriere della Sera as saying.

"Jewish personnel working at the center were reportedly advised to skip work on September 11, 2001." (Press TV)

His argument was further strengthened by leaked reports that employees of Israeli telecom firm Odigo -- which provides instant messaging services -- received a warning two hours before the attacks on the World Trade Towers and forewarned Jews to stay away from work that day.

Accepting the fact that the CIA and Israel was behind the Sept. 11th attacks on the U.S. may seem like a far fetched idea to many westerners, but apparently this is not an uncommon belief in the Arab world. A recent study conducted by World Public Opinion.org demonstrates the prominence of this idea. In this study, respondents in Arab countries were asked “Who do you think was behind the 9/11 attacks?” and responded in open-ended fashion, without options being provided. The second most frequent answer was that the US government was behind the attacks: Turkey (36%), followed by the Palestinian territories (27%), Jordan (17%), Egypt (13%), Indonesia (11%) and Azerbaijan (5%). And the third most common answer was Israel, cited by Jordanians (31%), Palestinians (19%), Egyptians (17%), and small numbers of Azerbaijanis (6%), Pakistanis (4%), Indonesians (3%), and Turks (3%).

Among seven nations, only in Azerbaijan did the majority of respondents name al Qaeda or "Islamic extremists or militants" and many respondents did not give an answer to this question.

London's PressTV?

In watching the PressTV programming, I notice more and more of the shows are not only based in London but focus on British issues. One program called "Comment" is hosted by British MP George Galloway and allows viewers to email and call into the show and pretty much talk about whatever they want. Viewers comment from Spain, the UK, Nigeria, Cyprus and other corners of the world. One caller brought up the torture of Guantanamo Bay prisoner, Binyam Mohamed. Galloway criticized Britain for its role in the situation. The show had its fair share of Israel criticism as is common on PressTV, but one viewer email from Nigeria stated that its author was glad to see Netanyahu elected but stated that Palestinians should have a state and that Israel needs to stop the indiscriminant killing of Palestinians "because it's better than that." Galloway replied that Israeli’s have overwhelmingly chosen war by electing Netanyahu. Which is not exactly true because Livni actually won the popular vote. Anyway, the program that followed dedicated its entire 50 minutes to Britain's laws regarding the custody of children in divorce. The show took to the streets of London interviewing Brits about how they felt about these laws. Clearly this means PressTV is catering to a largely British audience. I find myself wondering how this program topic furthers Iran's mission with PressTV. On that note, let's look at this clip from PressTV's "Comment" in which Galloway defends an email accusation that Iran is a dictatorship. Maybe this is Iran's mission with PressTV...

Al Manar Gets Emotional

Yesterday, my daily visit to almanar.com.lb was different. The most prominent story of the day was entitled, “ Jesus (pbuh) Abused by Spiteful Israelis; Hezbollah Condemns.”

This was a far cry from last week’s coverage of Israeli elections, which were characterized by some semblance of dispassionate neutrality. The article details a comedy program on Israeli TV, which made fun of Jesus and the Virgin Mary. The author, Hussein Assi infuses his opinion of Israel thorough the story and argues that this television program shows that Israel degrades and disrespects other prominent religions. For instance, the article begins with “It’s the same Israeli ‘spite’ that has proved itself since the ‘creation’ of the so-called Zionist entity that reveals itself once again.”

This article is the most blatant expression of opinion from an Al Manar journalist on the website that I have seen. As mentioned previously, Almanar.com.lb had seemingly established a pattern of limiting its own staff to less partial news reporting and providing passionate opinionated pieces by posting articles from writers and activists not affiliated with Al Manar. These proxy voices have worldviews match Al Manar’s assumed biases but Al Manar was able to separate itself with a disclaimer:

“Al-Manar.com.lb is not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.”


The decision to post such an opinionated piece and jarring headline as news seriously erodes Al Manar’s attempt to be a credible news source. Today, a new story about the Vatican’s response to the Israeli television show illustrates the resumption of the traditional division of labor, as the news piece refrains from passing judgment and allows quotes from the Vatican about the blasphemous nature of the television show to suffice. It will be interesting to see what other issues spark this lapse in journalistic composure.

Welcome to IRINN

All during the second week of February 2009, the television broadcast by IRINN (Islamic Republic of Iran News Network) was focused on the 3oth Anniversary of the Iranian Revolution. The programs included footage of the Revolution (such as Khomeini arriving in Iran) and interviews with Iranians about the Revolution and what they experienced. One particular interviewee was a lady who recalled her 3 1/2 year imprisonment before the Revolution, during the time of the Shah. What became clear was that the angle of this interview, and all the others, was in clear support for the Revolution. Although an interesting note is that this particular lady said she was not fully aware that the Revolution was actually taking place and did not know the full scale of the events.  

Another topic during last weeks broadcast was on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the launch of the first Iranian satellite. First, Ahmadinejad was shown giving a talk given to diplomats in Tehran. Ahmadinejad said that "the time for force is over", referring to Israel and the conflict in Gaza. Right after that, the program diverted to the launch of the first Iranian satellite, Omid ("hope"). An Iranian state web address all about the satellite was then given and can be found here: www.omid-sat.ir/. This launch has been argued by some as a way for Ahmadinejad to sway voters in his favor in the upcoming presidential elections that will be held on June 12, 2009. There is probably a substantial amount of validity to this argument, given that Ahmadinejad has not lived up to the reason he was elected - his promise to improve the economy. Adding further pressure to Ahmadinejad's re-election bid is the fact that Khatami, a reformist and former Iranian President, has announced he will be running for President as well. 

Iran's PressTV plays up the threat of Israel

Last week, PressTV.com visitors saw a line up of headlines discussing Israel's supposedly eminent attack on Iran. One headline even stated that Israeli warlord vows face-off with Iran: meaning Israeli PM candidate, Benjamin Netanyahu who stated that "[Iran] will not be armed with a nuclear weapon… It includes everything that is necessary to make this statement come true." PressTV states that Netanyahu "is currently facing war crime charges in Gaza," citing Israel's use of white phosphorous and also Netanyahu's promise to spread Israeli settlements. The story is sure to mention Iran's party line that it is not trying to obtain nuke's:

"Israel, the sole nuclear power in the Middle East, accuses Tehran of seeking nuclear weaponry while the UN nuclear watchdog, in its Sept. 15 report on Iran, declared that it could not find any 'components of a nuclear weapon' or 'related nuclear physics studies' in the country. Western powers accuse Iran, a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of attempting to develop nuclear weaponry. Iran, however, says its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes and that it has the right to the technology already in the hands of many other nations including Israel - which is not a signatory NPT and yet houses the Middle East's sole nuclear arsenal."

Another related article that week quotes Aaron David Miller, the US State Department's top analyst in the 1980s, in saying that "Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu will be able to convince President Barack Obama that a military attack is the only solution to the Iranian nuclear issue."

"The Israelis will be pushing [Washington] to ensure that Iran never gets to that point and failing that, they will consider a military strike. It need not be conclusive or threatening, but it will be very serious and ... scare the daylights out of the president that unless the international community mobilizes to address the situation, the Israelis will," says Miller.

And yet another article entitled New Obama challenge: Rise of Israeli hawks threatens that a Netanyahu victory could hinder Obama's Middle East plans;

"Analysts fear that a possible power shift in the Israeli government in favor of hawks would foil US plans for the Middle East peace."

All these articles attempt to persuade American readers that a Netanyahu victory would be detrimental to Obama's mid-east peace plan. In fact, PressTV posted an article on Saturday that a Gallup poll released on Friday shows that 56% of Americans are of the opinion that the United States should engage in direct diplomacy with Iran. It seems that PressTV is trying to play to the opinions of this 56% and persude them that Israel is not acting in their best interest. A definite agenda can be seen in the headlines of the week.

Ahmadinejad: 'Obama unlikely to succeed with his changes'

From Iran's PressTV:

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says it is unlikely that US President Barack Obama will be allowed to bring change to the US." In a telephone conversation with his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad said 'change' has been the motto of the new US President but it is unlikely that Zionist leaders and the main players in the world power structure would allow Obama to bring any change to the United States.

Does this mean PressTV does not think Obama is a main player in the world power structure?

Israel acting to restrict Al-Jazeera. UPDATED: "Israel's frosty relationship with AJ is headed for a deep freeze"

Update (2/4): Dion Nissenbaum is reporting that Israel is considering declaring AJ a "hostile enemy." If effective, the result would be the removal of all AJ reporters from Israel. Question: would this also mean that AJ reporters would be out of Gaza, or would they be able to remain? If AJ's reporters remain in Gaza, won't this encourage one-sided coverage, given the difficulty that contacting Israeli officials will be? Seems like this move could only hurt Israel's image in the media.

The BBC is reporting that:

Israeli officials say they are taking measures to restrict the work of the Arabic television network, al-Jazeera, inside Israel. It follows a decision last month by al-Jazeera's owners, the state of Qatar, to cut trade ties with Israel. The work visas of some al-Jazeera employees based in Israel will not be renewed, according to reports. Al-Jazeera's journalists will have limited access to Israeli news conferences and briefings.

Yet another example of the line between politics and journalism being blurred. It is unclear of the restrictions will be applied only to the Arabic side of AJ, or the English branch as well.