Boxing Rings:
Al-Jazeera's Talk Shows
An excerpt from
the book "Al-Jazeera: How the Free Arab News Network Scooped the World and
Changed the Middle East," by Mohammed El-Nawawy and Adel Iskandar.
Cambridge, MA: Westview Press, 2002. Thanks to Westview
Press and the authors for permission to publish this excerpt.
"Has the American media
slogan become: 'No voice is louder than the voice of war?'"
"Have the Western mass media become mouthpieces for Western governments?"
"Why have the Western news media lost their abilities to listen to any opposing
opinions?"
"Why was the Al-Jazeera bureau in Afghanistan bombed?"
"Are the Western media really free?"
But on the other hand...
"Isn't the media war an essential part of the military war, which makes it any
country's right to use any means to win the war?"
"Isn't it the Western media's right to fashion their coverage to adapt to the
exceptional circumstances that the United States is going through?"
"Isn't the American public opinion supportive of its government's policies?"
"Isn't it unfair to accuse the American media of becoming a mouthpiece for the
government or a public relations machinery?"
"Aren't the Western mass media still the best example of free speech?"
-Questions posed to guests
of the talk show Al Ittijah Al Mo'akis (The Opposite Direction) on November 20,
2001, following the bombing of Al-Jazeera's bureau in Afghanistan on November
13.
|
During each weekly episode
of the program, Al-Jazeera's top talk-show host, Faisal Al-Kasim, spends the first
two minutes of the flagship show, Al Ittijah Al Mo'akis (The Opposite Direction),
posing questions that reflect opposite positions on a chosen topic. This talk
show is just one of many through which Al-Jazeera opens the floor to unbridled
and often noisy debates on some of the most sensitive issues in Arab society.
Other Arab TV networks would never screen such discussions, which result in floods
of telephone calls to the studios and reams of protests throughout the Arab press.
Crossfire in the Middle
East
The Opposite Directionthe most controversial show on Al-Jazeerais
modeled on the format of CNN's Crossfire, but this show is more fierce and uproarious
than any of its Western counterparts. In a live, two-hour weekly broadcast, two
guests from diametrically opposed sides on a variety of issues come face-to-face
in debate and take calls and respond to faxes from viewers. Emotions run high
between the program's guests, especially after Al-Kasim sets the stage for hot
debate and ignites discussion with provocative questions like those listed just
above.
Al-Kasim's guests during
this episode were Christopher Ross, former U.S. ambassador to Syria and the current
U.S. State Department counterterrorism coordinator, and Ibrahim Alloush, a mass-communications
scholar and editor-in-chief of an Arab think-tank's website, entitled The Free
Arab Voice on the Internet.
From the early moments,
it was clear that the discussion would be contentious to say the least. Al-Kasim's
first question, directed to Ross, was: "Why was Al-Jazeera's bureau in Afghanistan
bombed?" Before Ross had a chance to answer, Alloush interrupted abruptly, saying:
"I think the question we should start with is: Was the bombing of Al-Jazeera's
bureau in Afghanistan a prelude for bombing Al-Jazeera's bureau in Qatar?" Alloush's
question alluded to the dominant Arab thought that the United States has been
against Al-Jazeera since the September 11 attacks. Although even Al-Jazeera officials
noted that U.S. forces were aware of the bureau's location, few were prepared
to make such unsubstantiated accusations. This is evidence that Alloush's interpretation
is part of the conspiracy theories propagated by fringe thinkers and that his
website is but one among the media that fosters such a theory in the Arab world.
Throughout the discussion,
Ross, who was being interviewed from Al-Jazeera's studio in Washington, D.C.,
met Alloush's aggressive tone with a smile on his face and poise in his answers.
Ross elegantly rebutted Alloush's arguments with rapid-fire and eloquent responses.
Ross's answers were not in English; they were in fluent Arabic. A November 6,
2001, article in Time described Ross's fluency in Arabic as a "secret weapon to
the propaganda war" and "a tremendous asset in making the case to middle-class
Muslims countering [Osama] bin Laden's adept exploitation of anti-American grievances
in the Muslim world." The article mentioned that "it may take a spokesman with
[Ross's] deep appreciation of the nuances of Arab politics-and language-to help
reverse the tide of Arab sentiment against the U.S. five weeks into the Afghan
bombing campaign."
Ross, who has played a
leading role in formulating Middle East policy in various U.S. administrations
over some thirty years of diplomatic service, responded calmly to Alloush's allegations.
Ross argued that "the United States is not targeting Al-Jazeera's bureaus in Kabul
[the Afghani capital], Qatar, or America And my participation in this program
tonight is evidence that there is a kind of media cooperation between the [United
States] and Al-Jazeera. As for [Al-Jazeera's] Kabul bureau, the U.S. troops in
Afghanistan are after the military sites only, not the civil or the media sites,
and despite our efforts in that regard, there is bound to be some faults in using
the weapons. Up to this point, we don't know how the Al-Jazeera bureau was bombed,
but we know that it wasn't among our targets."
During this early segment
in the program, Al-Kasim, in an attempt to question Alloush's perceptions of U.S.
policies, challenged him: "Why these allegations against America and against the
American troops in Afghanistan?"
Alloush, using a similar
tone, told Al-Kasim that there are several media sources that prove that Al-Jazeera
was targeted. Alloush asked Ross to refer to the October 14, 2001, issue of the
New York Daily News, which he claimed contained an article that encouraged U.S.
troops to close down the Al-Jazeera bureau as a response to the network's coverage
of the damages to civilian sites in Afghanistan. Alloush also encouraged Ross
to check out the November 18, 2001, issue of the New York Times, which he said
included an article written by noted Johns Hopkins
University Middle Eastern scholar Fouad Ajami that described Al-Jazeera as "anti-American."
According to Alloush, "Al-Jazeera is targeted by the American media, which are
monopolized by four or five conglomerates, such as Sony, Time Warner, Viacom,
and Walt Disney. Al-Jazeera has broken such media monopoly through its competition
in the news market, and the bombing of the Al-Jazeera bureau had a competitive
market-driven dimension."
Al-Kasim, who appeared
to be unconvinced by Alloush's arguments, responded, "Doctor Alloush, you cited
an American newspaper that incites feelings against Al-Jazeera, but can that serve
as a sufficient evidence to show that the U.S. administration bombed Al-Jazeera
intentionally? Do you have other evidence? Is it just talk? Are you just guessing?"
Alloush seemed at a loss
to provide a direct answer. Instead, he claimed that the New York Daily News is
the sixth largest newspaper in the United States and is part of an American media
conglomerate. He added that CNN lost its preeminence as the dominant world news
medium because of the role Al-Jazeera played in Kabul. "It was necessary to stop
Al-Jazeera's role for the benefit of the American news media," Alloush argued.
At this point, Ross interjected
(in his flawless Arabic, laced with a Lebanese accent), "First, the New York Daily
News does not by any means represent the opinion of the United States administration.
We have hundreds of newspapers, and we have press freedom guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution. I don't deny that the American news media are market-driven institutions
that follow the money, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, our media
policies are set by the news editors based on their readings of the public's concerns,
and we don't have a government institution that supervises the media as is the
case in many other countries."
Ross continued his argument
in an attempt to explain the U.S. stand on Al-Jazeera. "You at Al-Jazeera know
that since Al-Jazeera's inception, the U.S. administration has been a great admirer
of the channel. It is true, however, that during a specific time, some American
officials expressed their concerns that Al-Jazeera was broadcasting announcements
made by Al-Qaeda organization officials on a regular basis. The U.S. government
considered that to be a message inciting violence." Ross responded that Al-Jazeera's
small total revenue from advertising doesn't merit much worry from huge international
media conglomerates.
In the course of the debate,
Alloush made the comment that big media conglomerates with major U.S. holdings
are controlled by "some Jews who have Zionist trends." Alloush added that the
three largest American newspapers-the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall
Street Journal-and the three national U.S. networks-ABC, CBS, and NBC-are owned
by Jews. "Is that a coincidence?" Alloush pressed.
Although U.S. administrations
have demonstrated time and again undivided support for the state of Israel based
on strategic interests, Alloush's remark remains part of a pervasive, though tragically
misinformed, conspiracy theory in the Arab world. This misguided theory purports
that there is a Jewish and Zionist plot planned by the United States and Israel
to weaken Arab states. In fact, the Al-Jazeera channel itself has been accused
by many Arabs of being a Zionist forum because of its interviews with several
Israeli leaders, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak among them. Other Arabs
have gone so far to accuse Al-Jazeera of being financed by the CIA.
Ross responded to Alloush,
saying that the American news organizations he cited are publicly traded companies,
whose shares are available on the world's stock markets, and that anyone can buy
them, including Arab investors.
At that point, Al-Kasim
read a fax sent from Paris by an Arab viewer saying that he did not believe there
was any correlation between the bombing of the Al-Jazeera bureau in Kabul and
the network's role in covering the war. "If this were the case, we would have
seen the rubbles of that bureau a long time ago," the viewer faxed.
The episode continued
with Al-Kasim asking Alloush for concrete evidence for his allegations and Ross
emphasizing his point that U.S. news media provide a forum for all voices and
that there was no hidden intention behind the bombing of the Al-Jazeera bureau.
At one point toward the end of the show, Al-Kasim reminded Alloush of Thomas Jefferson's
saying: "If I were to choose between a government without a press or a press without
a government, I would have chosen the latter."
This episode of the talk
show was a hit with audiences all over the Arab world. It hosted a renowned U.S.
diplomat and gave him the opportunity, in the local language, to respond to an
Arab scholar who has deep-seated anti-American positions, strengthened at the
time by the U.S. strikes on Afghanistan. And though having Ross address Arab concerns
in Arabic was a breakthrough, Al-Jazeera's pan-Arab audiences need exposure to
more views from U.S. officials who, like Ross, understand the Arabic language
and can address viewers effectively and persuasively. Translations are never as
powerful as hearing person-to-person discourse in the native tongue.
Al-Kasim, the outspoken
and often domineering Syrian host of The Opposite Direction, is himself of Arab
and Islamic origin. His controversial program has made him a media superstar,
a household name in the Arab world. He is a skilled moderator who knows how to
elicit responses from guests, instigating them with provocative questions. He
runs the show professionally and objectively and makes sure that all possible
opinions are presented-often exhaustively. This is no doubt tedious, especially
in the Arab world, where people are not accustomed to routine public disagreement
and discourse. But Al-Kasim's poise and experience always lead to coherent and
persuasive responses from guests. Al-Kasim may have attained early expertise from
his study of English Literature at Hull University in England, followed by his
ten-year experience as an anchor at BBC's Arabic radio network.
Al-Kasim, writing in a
recent article ("Crossfire: The Arab Version, "Harvard International Journal of
Press/Politics, summer 1999), explained that "Al-Jazeera's editorial policy is
so lax that I am hardly ever given orders regarding program content. My program
is the most controversial show on the network, but no one interferes. I choose
the subjects, and I choose the guests. No one has ever influenced my decisions.
The network has an even wider scope of freedom than the BBC Arabic radio. I tackle
issues that I never even dreamed of covering during my service at the BBC."
Al-Kasim said he started
The Opposite Direction because he felt it was time that the opposing point of
view, virtually silent in the Arab world for more than a half-century, be heard.
"I am quite convinced that what hinders progress in the Arab world is the absence
of a free press," said Al-Kasim in the same article. "The dirt in our society
has been swept under the carpet for too long. But I am certain that this won't
be the case for much longer. Arabs are beginning to engage in lively debate over
their political and social predicament. And Al-Jazeera offers a ray of hope."
Al-Kasim always makes
sure that his guests get equal time on his program, and unlike many other Arab
anchormen who sometimes appear unable to stop guests from deviating from the topic
or monopolizing the discussion, he manages and controls the discussion like the
seasoned veteran that he is. Before he steps in, though, he often allows discussions
to get especially volatile.
But sometimes-even Al-Kasim
loses control of the show. For example, one of his shows discussed polygamy, a
topic that arouses strong reaction throughout the Middle East because it is accepted
under Islamic law yet roundly criticized by the public. The show, which aired
in early 1999, hosted two prominent Arab women who debated the practice of polygamy
among Muslim men. One of the guests, Egyptian writer Safinaz Kazem, a Marxist-turned-Islamist,
stormed off the set in the middle of the show; then her counterpart, former Jordanian
member of parliament Tojan Faisal, rejected polygamy as an antiquated practice.
From Kazem's point of view, Faisal's view contradicted the Quran, and for that
reason it could have cost Faisal her life. This show was the talk of the Arab
world for months, and it infuriated the Islamic religious establishment. It was
also the first time on Arab TV that anyone had ever walked off the set in the
middle of an on-air broadcast.
Blasphemy on the Airwaves
The Opposite Direction is not a program where guests simply indulge in rhetoric
for its own sake. It is a forum for serious, brave discussion on off-limits issues,
issues that have otherwise been unavailable to Arab viewers. Contrary to accusations
of being a network that promotes radical Islamic views, in many instances the
discussions on The Opposite Direction amount to outright blasphemy, even to moderate
Muslims. One episode aired in 1997 hosted the Egyptian scholar Nasser Hamid Abu
Zeid, who was convicted of apostasy (renunciation of a religious faith-a capital
offense in Islam) and ordered to divorce his Muslim wife for having questioned
the timelessness and divinity of the Quran's teachings. Abu Zeid, who had to flee
Egypt to the Netherlands, is regarded by many as the Arab world's equivalent of
Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses. For the first time, ordinary Arabs
had the chance to see Abu Zeid-so vilified and so controversial that no other
Arab TV producer would touch him-and then draw their own conclusions. Al-Kasim
was fiercely attacked for that show.
In another episode that
aired in late 1998, The Opposite Direction featured Jordan's then-deputy prime
minister, who debated one of Jordan's prominent Islamist opposition leaders, himself
imprisoned many times for rhetoric that bordered on incitement to violence. The
opposition leader angrily attacked the Jordanian government throughout the show,
and the minister responded in kind. After the Al-Jazeera broadcast, the opposition
leader challenged the Jordanian government to rebroadcast the debate so all Jordanians
could see it. The government did, but rather than build support for the opposition
leader, the result was pure entertainment. To the audiences who tuned in to watch
the show using satellite dishes, and later with roof antennas, and later still
on videotapes that passed from hand to hand, Arabic audiences watched, and rewatched,
as if viewing a Hollywood blockbuster.
Despite the many rounds
of public criticism, Arab and Islamic leaders sometimes give exclusive interviews
to Al-Kasim on The Opposite Direction. Muammar Qaddafi, Libya's leader, was interviewed
by Al-Kasim on October 24, 2001, the first live interview of an Arab leader since
the September 11 attacks. Qaddafi, once declared by the United States to be its
sworn enemy, told Al-Kasim during the ninety-minute interview that the United
States had a right to retaliate for the September 11 attacks, but he also would
not brand Osama bin Laden as a terrorist until an international conference agreed
on a definition of "terrorism." "We must sit down at any level without emotions...and
after we define terrorism we agree on fighting terrorism. It is not logical that
a country that is a member of the United Nations would shy from fighting terrorism,"
Qaddafi said, who called the September 11 attacks "horrifying, destructive" and
added that they had caused enormous loss of life and economic damage that would
affect all countries. Qaddafi reiterated that Washington had the right to seek
revenge for the attacks without asking for anyone's permission, but he pointedly
evaded answering direct questions on U.S. military strikes on Afghanistan.
Many Arab viewers were
surprised to hear these remarks from Qaddafi, the erstwhile U.S. antagonist, who
has often assailed the United States for its policies in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The Opposite Direction
is not the only controversial talk show featured on Al-Jazeera. Another blockbuster
is Akthar Men Ra'y (More Than One Opinion). This popular weekly show, which airs
on Fridays, offers a platform for opinions and views on political, economic, social,
scientific, and cultural issues. The program's host, Samy Haddad-as provocative
as Al-Kasim-invites personalities and experts on Arab and international issues
to conduct no-holds-barred discussions.
A recent episode of that
program, which aired in November 2001, discussed the status of political Islam
in Great Britain. The guests were Sir Terence Clerk, the former British ambassador
to the Middle East, and Omar Bakry, the head of Al-Mohajeroon (The Immigrants),
an activist Islamic group based in Britain. The episode focused on a British law
that punishes British Muslims who left for Afghanistan to fight against U.S. and
British troops.
Haddad, a finely dressed
man in suit and tie, with silvery white hair and thin-framed glasses, claimed
that among the British Muslim community there are many who believe that this British
law discriminates against them because they are nonwhites. He said, "When the
Irish fought in Ulster [Northern Ireland], they were British citizens, and they
killed individuals from the British police. But Britain did not accuse them of
treason? Why the double standards? Is it because those are Muslims and the others
were Christians?" The host's question was blatantly incorrect, because Northern
Irish have been killed, imprisoned, and tried for treason by the British government.
Yet his underlying objective was to provoke the British guest to defend his case
against the logic of his discussant in the show, albeit by twisting the truth.
Clerk, surprised by Haddad's
strong but misguided question, said, "The circumstances are different. Those youths,
who have chosen to go and participate in what they described as a religious war
in Afghanistan, have cut their relationship with the country in which they were
born and raised. Those people might be charged with murder if they kill British
soldiers." Clerk's answers throughout the program were in English, and the Arabic
subtitles were not an exact translation.
Bakry, a plump man with
a long beard and a large white turban on his head, responded angrily to Clerk,
nearly shouting, "We consider your democracy to be the civil face of dictatorship,
and now you have revealed the true meaning of democracy from your point of view.
Your democracy is telling us: Either stand with us and help us to bomb and destroy
Afghanistan, or stand with the terrorists."
Bakry elaborated on his
point, and he spent fifteen minutes trying to explain to Haddad, the host, the
obstacles facing Muslims in Britain. However, at one point Haddad interrupted,
"You have asked that Muslims be trained on carrying weapons, and your group has
failed in finding any Arab or Islamic country to serve as its base. Britain was
the only country that hosted you and your group. Now you are accusing Britain
of fighting political Islam, while you are free to say whatever you want." Haddad
is nothing if not an equal opportunity provocateur.
Bakry backed off: "We
are suffering from discrimination in Britain." Toward the end of the program,
Haddad pointed his pen toward Clerk and said, "You know that there is a feeling
of frustration and social marginality among the Muslims in Britain. There is some
sort of discrimination against them, and this affects their loyalty to your country."
Clerk surprised Haddad and Bakry by saying, "There is some truth to what you [Haddad]
have described. But other minorities in Great Britain have the same claims. We
expect a draft for a new law that will put an end to this kind of discrimination."
Haddad, Al-Kasim, and
the hosts of other Al-Jazeera talk shows have one professional characteristic
in common: They are not biased to one side or the other. They try to provoke their
guests, energize the discussions, and instigate debates-often to the breaking
point-without taking one side or the other. In doing so, their main objective
is to present all points of view for viewers and let them decide. Most other talk
shows on Arab TV offer little more than top-down dictation.
Fundamentalism Versus
Secularism
Despite these practices, some media scholars and professionals continue to accuse
the Al-Jazeera network of promoting the views of Islamic fundamentalists and helping
the movement win converts. Those critics also accuse the hosts of being radicals
and Islamic fanatics, of being "anti-imperialists" who tailor programs to suit
an Arab audience whose political bitterness they share and nourish. An extended
and concentrated look at Al-Jazeera and its talk-show hosts indicate otherwise.
To critics, it can be argued that spreading the ideas of Islamic fundamentalists
is not Al-Jazeera's intent. In fact, it is very likely that Al-Jazeera's management
is conscious of Islamic fundamentalism, and it has dedicated programs to the topic.
Yet Al-Jazeera is open to non-secular thinking as well, for many among its audience
are conservative Islamists. Most of its journalists, however, are secular.
Several examples illustrate
this argument. In one episode of The Opposite Direction, Yusuf Al-Karadawi, a
prominent Islamic religious figure in Qatar, was put in the position of defending
his faith to Sadeeq Jalal Al-Azm, a prominent Arab secularist thinker and professor
of philosophy at the University of Damascus. Al-Karadawi's defense was met by
Al-Azm's scorn and derision; the latter ridiculed religious thought, mocked the
prophets, claimed that Islam is a "backward" religion, and praised Kemal Ataturk
(the founder of modern Turkey) for banishing Islam from his country. In the ensuing
debate, host Al-Kasim never took sides; he kept his poise and never showed any
emotions that would reflect his bias toward one guest or the other. Never before
has such a well-known secularist like Al-Azm had the chance to go toe-to-toe with
a religious cleric on television. After this episode aired, cassette tapes of
the broadcast sold for up to $40 on the black market in several Arab cities.
Commenting on this episode
in the Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics article, Al-Kasim said,
"Some would argue that it is high time that we 'de-iconize' many of the thoughts
and sacred myths that have dominated the Arab world for decades. My show is providing
a forum for people to present this argument, as well as for the opposite side
to defend against it. And for the first time in many years, Arab citizens have
the opportunity to judge for themselves. Nonetheless, religious preachers all
over the Arab world have condemned my program, calling me a raving secularist."
It can be argued convincingly
that Al-Jazeera's talk-show hosts try to follow suit with the channel's motto:
"The opinion and the other opinion." It might be that this motto discouraged several
guests from even appearing on the network's talk shows, especially when see[ing]
long-held ideologies and sincere beliefs questioned and challenged by aggressive
opponents and relentless interrogator-hosts. It might also be that the network
motto led some governments to prohibit citizens from appearing on Al-Jazeera talk
shows. Al-Jazeera's
managing director, Mohammed Jasim Al-Ali, said during a 2000 interview with the
editor of the online journal Transnational Broadcasting Studies ("A Dialogue
with the Managing Director of Al-Jazeera," fall 2000) that on some occasions guests
would change their minds at the very last minute and not appear on the air. "It
happened that one of the guests was arrested by his country's authorities for
doing nothing, only so he would not be able to show up for Al-Jazeera's program,"
explained Al-Ali. "Others were denied travel by their countries' authorities,
or had their telephone lines disconnected. "He also stated that in some countries
Al-Jazeera's studio telephone lines were disconnected in while on the air." We
do face such difficulties, but we stick to our stance and try to be balanced and
fair as much as possible," he asserts.
In many cases, the formula
of controversy and provocation has infuriated guests. Needless to say, making
an appearance on one of these shows is not for the timid. Flailing arms, belligerent
shouting, and frequent interruptions make for an adrenaline rush-in the studio
and in living rooms. This is one of the reasons why many have accused these talk
shows of being pure sensationalism.
Al-Kasim said in the May
17, 1999, issue of the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Watan that he still remembered an
especially humorous incident during an episode on democracy. According to Al-Kasim,
the guest, who was hiding from Islamic fundamentalists, wanted to disguise himself
using an artificial mustache. "Ten minutes into the program, the guest got too
angry, and he started shouting to the point where he removed the mustache from
his face and threw it on the ground. At this point, I couldn't hold myself from
laughing," said Al-Kasim.
Al-Jazeera's motto seems
to have encouraged its anchors and producers to select guests who represent the
two extremes of an issue. This occurs often with the producers of The Opposite
Direction, who routinely pick a guest from the far left and another from the far
right; a knee-jerk liberal to debate an ultra-conservative; or perhaps a U.S.
flag-waver and an anti-American radical. Is there room for a middle ground? It's
surely a positive that a program like The Opposite Direction presents dissenting
views, but do the guests have to be absolute polar opposites?
Why not have a secularist,
a cleric, and a moderate-all of whom would strongly state their cases but without
the naked vehemence? The staff and hosts of Al-Jazeera believe that for a program
like The Opposite Direction it is essential to invite two extremes to generate
heated debates, to grow more provocative, to elicit ever-more extreme reactions
from featured guests. Make no doubt, the real winners are Arab viewers, whose
understanding of the issues is enhanced by exposure to two extremely conflicting
points of view.
Yet Al-Jazeera doesn't
confine its on-air fireworks to shows that host polar opposites. The weekly Wednesday
show Bila Hodoud (Without Frontiers) often invites a guest to discuss one issue
in current affairs-politicians, party leaders, intellectuals, experts, Islamic
scholars. On the October 31, 2001, episode the topic was Malaysia's stand on the
current war in Afghanistan. The guest was Abdel Hadi Owang, the prime minister
of Tringano Sultanate in Malaysia, an Islamic country. The host of Without Frontiers,
Ahmed Mansour, may appear calm and pleasant on-screen, but the provocative, accusatory
questions he often asks can make guests literally jump from their chairs.
During this episode, Owang
was unruffled to start. He described the feelings and emotions of Malaysian people
and offered that his country is opposed to the war in Afghanistan because, as
he said, it killed innocent civilians. Mansour, in response, provoked Owang with
the question, "Do you think the U.S. listens to no one? Do you think the U.S.
takes the law into its own hands and acts like a rogue, outlaw state?"
At this point Owang opened
up and started shouting, saying that the U.S. decision to launch a war in Afghanistan
was illegal because the U.S. administration did not present any evidence or witnesses
proving Afghanistan's involvement in terrorism. "There are hidden religious objectives
behind the U.S. military campaign. There needs to be a discussion of the impact
of Zionism on the Western public opinion. Israel should be included in the terrorists'
circle because of its policies in the Palestinian territories," Owang insisted.
Mansour seemed surprised by the outburst and suggested, "How could the U.S. have
hidden religious objectives when it is a secular, nonreligious country?" Owang,
as if he didn't expect Mansour's question, hesitated: "We have heard George W.
Bush state that this war is a 'crusade' against the Islamic world."
Mansour explained that
the term "crusade," as it was used by Bush, did not mean that it was a war against
the Islamic world. He also added that Bush apologized for using that term that
the president explained how he hadn't meant to imply this was a war against Muslims
but against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban regime that harbored the Al-Qaeda
terrorist network. Mansour also highlighted the fact that Bush's decision to undertake
military action in Afghanistan was supported by an overwhelming majority of the
American public.
At the end of the episode,
Mansour added that one of the "unintentional" though positive aspects of the current
crisis in Afghanistan is the growing interest of the Western countries in Islam,
as the West tries to learn about Islam's true tenets and teachings. "There is
a very high demand for translated books on Islam in the Western countries," said
Mansour. Owang agreed with his host.
There is no question that
misunderstandings and misperceptions pervade the Arab world when it comes to the
United States and the war on terrorism. Even some of those hostile to bin Laden
have grown wary of the U.S. bombing campaigns; this may widen the gap between
the United States and its Arab allies. For its part, Al-Jazeera offers a free
worldwide forum to address Arab and the Muslim worries and, when it suits, tries
to change some of these misperceptions. This is what Mansour did to Owang when
he explained that the United States does not have a religious purpose in the war
in Afghanistan. This is also what Al-Jazeera attempted when it hosts U.S. and
other Western guests on its talk shows. We know of no Arab TV network other than
Al-Jazeera that has accomplished this. TBS
|