Hi. Here are 4 current ME-related items, almost shorter than their titles. The NY Times headlines the White House knew the levees failed the very night Katrina hit. I repeat yesterday's assertion that this Walk to New Orleans is the key to tying in all the issues. I welcome related news and views. -Ed
Commentaries are a premium sent to Sustainer Donors of Z/ZNet and that to learn more folks can consult ZNet at http://www.zmag.org Today's commentary: http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-02/08schechter.cfm ================================== ZNet Commentary Media Incitement Inflames The Middle East February 08, 2006 By Danny Schechter Mediachannel.org DOHA, QATAR February 5: World be warned: the modern centurions in the Pentagon have finally surfaced their plans for "long war," a "defense" posture designed to put the United States on a permanent global war without end footing. The announcement was greeted in the Arab World-where I have just spent a week-- with a "ho-hum" response as if to say 'so what's new?" Memories in this part of the world are long and go back to the brutality of the crusades and more recent Western colonization. A protest by Muslims in Britain against those cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Mohammad renamed the BBC, The "British Broadcasting Crusaders." Some factions in Palestinian refugee camps called on Osama bin Laden for revenge even as more sober leaders, including those from Hamas, counseled restraint. Many Arabs believe they are in a long war with the west already, culturally denigrated in our press, under physical bombardment in Iraq, and new threats in Iran. Many feel treated as by the west as children who must be lectured or spanked constantly. They are applauded for going to the polls but then have foreign assistance yanked for voting wrongly. A Danish media exercise in free speech last September that many in the West dismiss as no big thing, has been followed by pro-forma calls on Arabs who protest to become more thick-skinned and "get over it." After all, it is argued, it's only an illustration by one man There has been in some quarters a sanctimonious insistence that uncensored freedom of the press is absolute without much awareness that the cultures in an uproar are not societies with traditions of tolerance. (Would the reaction have been any different if the cartons were crudely racist or anti-semitic?) A fierce debate is now raging as Danish Embassies are attacked by people using the issue to score points who make as few distinctions about people in the West as the cartoonist did about the Prophet Mohammad. Many Arabs are challenging their own culture too. Sheik Hamza Yusuf gave a lecture in Doha saying one man made a stupid cartoon, to blame a whole nation is disproportionate and unislamic. According to a blogger who was there, he also remarked, "We Muslims should ask ourselves what have we done to encourage people to draw a cartoon of the Prophet like that, and more in a similar vein." In an editorial, England's Guardian made some sensible distinctions: "The Guardian believes uncompromisingly in freedom of expression but not in any duty to gratuitously offend. It would be senselessly provocative to reproduce a set of images of no intrinsic value which pander to the worst prejudices about Muslims." (As media platform, Mediachannel reprinted the cartoons to inform a deeper discussion, a decision I am not comfortable with.) The cartoons themselves touched a nerve that was already raw and are symbolic of a great gap in perceptions that is getting wider. Perhaps that's why the Al Jazeera Media forum I attended here in Qatar began with a debate about what role the media should play. Should we in the media try to bridge the divides that lead to hate and conflict or should we just report them? Should media outlets intentionally or unintentionally incite confrontations? Can media irresponsibility be defended in the name of press freedom? Is there another way? Behind the veils of the women and beyond the anger of the men in the Arab world is a worldview reflected in their media but missing in ours. As a result, their frame on the news is as different as their feelings about what's behind all the mistrust. Bear in mind also that Arab societies are far more politicized then our own. Writing this week in Beirut's Daily Star, the respected columnist Rami C. Khouri cited a University of Maryland study of attitudes in the Arab world showing that hatred towards US policies is growing even in countries nominally allied with the US. "One of the significant findings," he writes. 'Is that Arab citizens by a margin of 75% did not believe that democracy was the real objective of American efforts to promote reform and change in the Arab world.. Very large majorities of Arabs believed that the main motives of American policies in the Middle East 'were oil, protecting Israel, dominating the region, and weakening the Muslim World." For many, the litmus test of Washington's professions is how it deals with Hamas which swept a Parliamentary election in Palestine. Already the US is, in effect, collectively punishing a whole people who voted for a party that ran on a "change and reform" program. One Al Jazeera reporter quipped to me, "I thought Bush supported faith-based politics." In an essay titled "Yes to a Just Peace" in Dubai's Khaleej Times, Khaled Mishaal, head of the political bureau of Hamas, lashes out at governments which "failed the test of democracy" by their refusal to accept the will of Palestinian voters by cutting off aid. He says Hamas is willing to seek peace "based on justice." He insists they do not hate Jews as Jews but rather oppose Israeli policies and practices. "Our conflict with you is not religious," he says, "but political." This approach has many adherents in the region even among those that do not support terrorism of any kind by any party to the conflict." Here we go again, as tensions mount once again, with Palestine once again at the center of it. Pouring oil on the fire are provocative and offensive cartoons uniting Muslims who are divided on many political issues but feel a duty to defend their religion from disrespect. Isn't it time for more real balance and diversity of perspective in our media? Instead of responding to insults with more insults, we should demand more in-depth nuanced coverage and less stereotyping. I was struck by many Arab voices at the Al Jazeera Forum who noted that there is less media freedom and room for the expression of all views in the US in most of our media outlets than they have in their societies. They see our media as keeping Americans uninformed almost by design. Democracy Now's Amy Goodman's denunciation of the embedded war reporting were applauded as were remarks by South Africa's Allister Sparks that the American media has hit a new low when it comes to timely coverage of the world. As fresh revelations emerge about President Bush's deliberate deceptions in collusion with Tony Blair in warring on Iraq, key information never reported at the time, the reality of our "failed press" is becoming more and more evident. Many "news" outlets should be renamed "the olds" "News Dissector" Danny Schechter edits Mediachannel.org. His latest books are "When News Lies" and "The Death of the Media." See newsdissector.org/store.htm. Comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/cia.leak/index.html Libby: My 'superiors' authorized leaks Prosecutor says Libby shared classified intelligence with media WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told a grand jury he was "authorized by his superiors" to disclose classified information from an intelligence report to reporters, according to the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case. In a letter to Libby's lawyers, obtained by CNN, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said it is his understanding that Libby testified he was "authorized to disclose information about the National Intelligence Estimate to the press by his superiors." The letter does not name who the superiors are. But the National Journal, which first reported on the Fitzgerald letter, named Vice President Dick Cheney and other White House officials as authorizing Libby to disclose the classified material. A legal source involved in the case tells CNN that Libby did not testify to and has never suggested that anyone in the administration -- including Cheney -- authorized disclosing the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Libby was indicted in October on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to investigators looking into the July 2003 exposure of Plame, whose husband had emerged as a critic of the pre-war intelligence backing the invasion of Iraq. Libby has pleaded not guilty, and a judge has set a trial date for January 2007. His lawyer, William Jeffress, told The Associated Press, "There is no truth at all" to suggestions that Libby would try to shift blame to his superiors as a defense against the charges. According to Fitzgerald's letter, Libby met with Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times, on July 8, 2003, to "transmit information concerning the NIE." A former top U.S. intelligence official said it's unusual for National Intelligence Estimates to be declassified by the president or vice president without consulting the CIA director. The former official adds that some key judgments of that intelligence report were declassified on July 18, 2003 -- 10 days after Libby's meeting with Miller. Plame is the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was sent by the CIA to the African nation of Niger to check out an intelligence report that nuclear material was being sold to Iraq. Plame's identity was disclosed shortly after her husband said he found no evidence to support the intelligence report and accused the Bush administration of skewing intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. When asked to comment at Thursday's White House briefing, Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, "Our policy is we're not going to discuss this while it's an ongoing legal proceeding, and that remains our policy." On September 30, 2003, President Bush said, "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of." Fitzgerald's investigation is ongoing. CNN's John King and Brian Todd contributed to this report. *** $2.5b aid for Israel in Bush 2007 budget $150 million in aid for the Palestinian Authority will be subject to review, and the US will continue funding ongoing projects. By Ran Dagoni, "Globes" --- -- 02/08/06 Washington -- In its 2007 budget proposal submitted to Congress, the Bush administration is asking for $2.46 billion in aid for Israel: $2.34 billion in military aid, and $120 million in civilian aid. The amount of aid is calculated under a formula devised by former Minister of Finance Yaakov Neeman and then-Israel's Economic Minister to Washington Ohad Marani. The Clinton administration and Congress approved the formula. Under the formula, US military aid is increased by $60 million a year, up to a ceiling of $2.4 billion, and civilian aid is cut by $120 million a year, until it is finally eliminated. 2007 will be the last year in which Israel will receive US civilian aid. The US fiscal year begins on October 1, and Israel receives the full amount of annual aid a few weeks later, assuming there are no legislative delays, which occur almost every year. Israel is the only recipient of US aid that receives it in a single tranche. The 2007 US budget request includes $150 million in aid for the Palestinians, the same amount as in the 2006 budget. US spokespersons quickly emphasized that aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) would be subject to review, depending on developments in the PA. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said US financing of ongoing PA projects would continue, but each project would be examined on its own merits. The budget proposal states that aid for the Palestinians is intended to promote democracy, the rule of law, and economic recovery. The 2007 US budget proposal also includes $1.3 billion in military aid and $455 million in civilian aid for Egypt. US civilian aid to Egypt is cut by $40 million a year. Jordan will receive $245 million in civilian aid and $206 million in military aid, the same as in previous years. Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes.co.il - on February 8, 2006 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11838.htm *** http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/07/nsynod07.xml Daily Telegraph 07/02/2006 Church of England votes to disinvest in firms that aid Israeli 'occupiers' By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent The Church of England was on a collision course with Jewish leaders last night after it voted to disinvest in companies profiting from the illegal occupation of Palestinian land. The General Synod overwhelmingly backed calls for the Church Commissioners to remove funds from such firms, particularly its £2.2 million investment in Caterpillar, which manufactures tractors used to demolish Palestinian homes. The vote, which was supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is hugely symbolic, even if the Commissioners refuse to comply. The move will anger the Chief Rabbi and senior clerics such as the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, who has argued that Israel needs the support of the Church. But speakers in the debate argued passionately that the Church must be seen to be investing its money for the common good, and not merely for the best financial return. Keith Malcouronne, from Guildford, said he had received a letter of support for disinvestment from the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, the Rt Rev Riah Hanna Abu El-Assal. The Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Rev John Gladwin, said Christians in Palestine were in despair, and he held the Israeli government to blame. "Caterpillar may be a company being used for dreadful purposes across the world, but the problem is not Caterpillar. The problem is the situation in the Middle East and the government of Israel," he said. The Rev Simon Butler, from Southwark, south London, warned Caterpillar that "in our understanding of sin, acts have consequences". But the Bishop of St Albans, the Rt Rev Christopher Herbert, who is chairman of the Council of Christians and Jews, suggested that the debate was unbalanced. He said there was a "belief and hope" in the Jewish community that Christians would understand their perspective in such debates, but the Synod had not reflected the complexity of the situation. The vote will rekindle the row that followed the decision last summer of the Anglican Consultative Council, representing the worldwide Church, to back a report urging it to disinvest in companies that "support the occupation". Lord Carey said at the time that approval of the report would be "disastrous" for peace efforts in the region. He said the Israelis already felt traumatised by attacks on them and this would be "another knife in the back". The Chief Rabbi's office and the Board of Deputies also made strong private representations to Dr Williams. A spokesman for the Chief Rabbi said last summer that a policy of disinvestment "would not only be misguided, particularly at the present time, but it would have worrying effects on the long-established ties between Jewish and Anglican communities worldwide". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
