Monthly Archives: January 2011

by

The Difference Between Aljazeera’s And Al-Arabiya’s Coverages

I haven’t been watching Lebanese TV lately as I’ve been following up on what’s happening in Egypt. The events are taking place quickly, but not so quickly as to avoid the repetition for which news TV stations are famous. So I kept switching between Al-Arabiya and Aljazeera.

Much has been said about Al-Arabiya being pro-Mubarak and Aljazeera being pro-demonstrators. But while it’s true that the former focuses on the lawlessness and is friendlier to Mubarak’s ruling party, and that the latter is more supportive of the demonstrators with almost poetic coverage of their heroism, the reality is that you won’t be able to see the complete picture unless you watch both stations.

This reminds me a bit of the situation in Lebanon where one occasionally has to watch the other side’s TV station to get a fuller understanding of the situation.  But if you want to watch one station only to follow Egypt’s events, I recommend Aljazeera English which comes closest to being informative and balanced.

by

Why Israel Is Nervous

Ethan Bronner for the New York Times:

For the military [in Israel] , a serious change in Egypt means a strategic shift in planning. Giora Eiland, a former national security adviser and a senior fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, said even if Egypt did not cancel its peace treaty with Israel tomorrow or in five years, a government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood would mean “you can’t exclude the possibility of a war with Egypt.”

“During the last 30 years,” he said, “when we had any military confrontation, whether in the first or second Lebanon wars, the intifadas, in all those events we could be confident that Egypt would not try to intervene militarily.”

Dan Schueftan, director of the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa, said thanks to its treaty with Egypt, Israel had reduced its defense expenditure from 23 percent of its gross national product in the 1970s to 9 percent today

You can’t overestimate how much Israel is worried right now. The question is whether or not the Americans will bend over backwards to accommodate those Israeli fears.

by

It’s A Real Shame That Americans Can’t Watch Aljazeera English On Cable

Jeff Jarvis:

What the Gulf War was to CNN, the people’s revolutions of the Middle East are to Al Jazeera English. But in the U.S., in a sad vestige of the era of Freedom Fries, hardly anyone can watch the channel on

It is downright un-American to still refuse to carry it. Vital, world-changing news is occurring in the Middle East and no one–not the xenophobic or celebrity-obsessed or cut-to-the-bone American media–can bring the perspective, insight, and on-the-scene reporting Al Jazeera English can.

The counter argument: Americans don’t want to watch terrorist-supporting cheese-eating surrender monkey TV

by

“Egyptian Tea Partiers”

Leslie H. Gelb makes a tenuous analogy to urge American caution with the “unknown” Egyptian protestors:

Perhaps many [demonstrators] are not so democratic. Perhaps many are Egyptian Tea Partiers who want every Egyptian to have Islamic guns like the Founding Pharaohs. Or perhaps many are just furious and poor and unknowledgeable. My guess is no one really knows a great deal about the protesters.

After the above silliness, he focuses on his real target, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). He makes the case that America should be very weary of them:

Baloney and wishful thinking aside, the MB would be calamitous for U.S. security. What’s more, their current defenders don’t really argue that point, as much as they seem to dismiss it as not important or something we can live with. The MB supports Hamas and other terrorist groups, makes friendly noises to Iranian dictators and torturers, would be uncertain landlords of the critical Suez Canal, and opposes the Egyptian-Israeli agreement of 1979, widely regarded as the foundation of peace in the Mideast. Above all, the MB would endanger counterterrorism efforts in the region and worldwide. That is a very big deal.

Perhaps he should have named his article: “Why democracy is bad for America.”

by

Yours Truly Quoted In The Economist

It’s not everyday that you open one of the world’s most respected magazines and find out that they concluded an article with your own words:

Yet the Hizbullah-led opposition’s rise to power augurs ill for the longer term, and not only because of the increased danger of conflict with Israel. As a Lebanese blogger commented, “If there is one lesson our country learned from Hizbullah, it’s that violence works. All the money, soft power and so-called influence is rubbish when it comes to raw boots on the ground and heavy weaponry.”

Here’s the original post from where that quote was taken. Sweet.

by

Learn This Political Term: Praetorian State

Definition:

Praetorian states usually govern societies that are so deeply polarized, such as along sectional lines, that deeply unpopular politicians can remain in office, obstructing reforms. Revolutionary disgust with the civil order, and a general contempt for society, have become endemic. Praetorian states are typically not quite dictatorial; frequently they have multi-party politics. However, parliamentary politics has become an object of universal derision since nothing can be accomplished.

I’m sure there’s a Praetorian state I know. I just can’t get my finger on it..

by

So What Did Hezbollah’s Men In Black Have In Mind? [Video]

Watch this video, taken from the show Kalam el Nas, of Mr. Nasser Kandil -a Syrian ally- explaining:

For those who don’t speak Arabic, he pretty much admitted that Hezbollah was about to conduct a major security operation if it weren’t for the “brave positions of Walid Jumblat and Najib Miqati”. And he has the temerity to say that no threats were exercised. (Thanks Akram)