In this mailing:
- Mudar Zahran: Al-Hiwar TV: Islamists' Loudspeaker in Europe
- Khaled Abu Toameh: How Jerusalem's Arabs Act Against Their Own Interests
Al-Hiwar TV: Islamists' Loudspeaker in Europe
by Mudar Zahran
October 14, 2013 at 5:00 am
October 14, 2013 at 5:00 am
|
Share:
 |
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
Al-Hiwar is
not "just" your friendly neighborhood Arab TV station. As its
founder, Azzam Al-Tamimi, states, "We must refrain from violating these
[Western] laws because this might… ban us from the air…At the end of the day;
you want to convey a message." Oh? And what message is that?
The British communications regulator and watchdog organization, Ofcom, recently
fined an Islamic TV £105,000 ($158,000) for airing a speech that condoned
murder as a punishment for blasphemy.In its explanation of the fine, Ofcom said the TV channel, DM Digital, had aired a speech by an Islamic scholar who made remarks "likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder."
DM Digital, however, is not the only Islamic TV station in the UK "likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder."
When mentioning Islamic stations in the UK, Al-Hiwar TV, based in London, is usually the first to come to mind. Established in 2006 by Azzam Al-Tamimi, author of the book Hamas from Within, Al-Hiwar has been described by the website Crehi Plethi as the Muslim Brotherhood's "main medium."
Although the Muslim Brotherhood denies any connection to Al-Hiwar, according to journalist Elizabeth Blade, the Muslim Brotherhood does in fact run it.
Al-Hiwar's founder and manager, Azzam Al-Tamimi, has been described by the journalist Patrick Poole, as a "well-known international Muslim Brotherhood operative and Hamas insider."
Al-Hiwar TV founder
Azzam Al-Tamimi (right) with Egpyt's deposed president, Muslim Brotherhood
leader Mohamed Morsi.
|
A former Al-Hiwar staff member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity , confirmed that MAB operates an office inside Al-Hiwar TV, with Muhammad Sawalaha, who has been described as a "Hamas operative", serving as MAB's liaison officer.
The Muslim Brotherhood, despite having officially renounced violence, has been known for inciting often-violent political and social instability; it also openly claims responsibility for the installation of Hamas, a terrorist organization committed by its charter to the destruction of Israel.
Ofcom, in 2009, found Al-Hiwar in breach of British broadcasting regulations after the Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood leader, Rachid al-Ghannouchi, used the channel to praise Hamas's military operations and "the use of bombs." In explaining its decision, Ofcom said Al-Hiwar's fault was to be guilty of "not challenging" Al-Ghnnouchi's statement. Al-Ghannouchi nonetheless remained a regular guest on Al-Hiwar TV, delivering his messages to millions of viewers.
In an interview with Hamas's Al-Aqsa TV in Gaza, Al-Tamimi confirmed that his focus was "conveying the message" while keeping within the regulations to remain on the air: "There are those who lie in wait for the Arabic TV Channels …they seek loopholes in order to stop you from broadcasting, therefore my advice to my brothers in Al-Aqsa TV and other Arab channels is that as long as we are broadcasting on satellites we do not own, these satellites are owned by the West, we must refrain from violating these laws because this might be a platform to ban us from the air ....At the end of the day you want to convey a message…" Oh? And what message is that?
Al-Hiwar TV has also led a campaign against the United Arab Emirates [UAE] for their crackdown on Islamic fundamentalists and Muslim Brotherhood operatives on their soil. Al-Hiwar has continued its targeting of the UAE, by running a live show entitled, "Is the UAE Responsible for What is Happening in Egypt?", in which Al-Hiwar's anchor claimed, "If the UAE is involved [in Egypt's events] I will declare this publically: the UAE has a hand in exploding the situation in Egypt."
Such messages succeed in making the UAE a target for the wrath of Islamists and Muslim fundamentalists, and could easily lead to disorder on UAE soil.
The larger problem here is one of freedom of speech, and how it can easily be subverted to spread messages of hate and even death threats. Yasser Arafat used to say, "I don't have to tell you what to do. You know what to do." A Muslim who decided to flee the Middle East has been receiving anonymous phone calls saying, "We know where your children go to school and what time the school lets out." The words themselves are innocent, but there is no question about what is meant. So at the end of the day, if "you want to convey a message," the question then becomes: "How do you skirt the rules to convey it?"
Al-Hiwar, not "just" your friendly neighborhood TV station, is privately funded. Two of its former staff, who spoke to this author on the condition of anonymity, claimed Al-Hiwar's annual budget exceeded £3 Million ($4.82 million). Nonetheless, Al-Hiwar does not seem to publicly disclose where the funding comes from. The question then arises, in public communications, as with a public utility: if something is broadcasted to the public, should not the public have a right to know who is backing it?
For the sake of peaceful Muslim countries such as the UAE, and in the interests of maintaining airwaves free of hate and intimidation, Ofcom might do well to look at Al-Hiwar -- and the UK might look at its foreign influences laws -- a bit harder.
Related Topics: United
Kingdom | Mudar Zahran
How Jerusalem's Arabs Act Against Their Own Interests
by Khaled Abu
Toameh
October 14, 2013 at 4:00 am
October 14, 2013 at 4:00 am
|
Share:
|
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
While it is
true that some Arabs boycott the municipal elections for ideological reasons,
many are afraid, if they go to the ballot box, of being targeted by extremists.
The overwhelming majority is still afraid of the radicals.
As Israelis prepare to cast their ballots in the municipal elections next
week, tens of thousands of eligible Arab voters in Jerusalem will once again
boycott the democratic process.In the past few days, the Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO], Hamas and several other Palestinian organizations have called on the Arab residents of Jerusalem to stay away from the ballot boxes.
These organizations maintain that Arab participation in the municipal election would be interpreted as recognition of Israel's decision to annex the eastern part of the city in the aftermath of the 1967 Israeli-Arab war.
As such, the vast majority of the Arab residents have since been boycotting the local election, mainly out of fear of being dubbed "traitors" by various Palestinian organizations.
But if anyone stands to lose from the boycott it is the Arabs themselves.
First, the boycott has done nothing to undermine Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. Some would even argue that Israeli dominion over the city has never been as strong as it is these days, especially in wake of the Arab residents' failure to take part in crucial decisions concerning their neighborhoods and villages.
Second, the boycott has severely harmed the interests of the Arab residents, who have been denied the chance to have representatives in the municipal council who would fight for better services and the improvement of their living conditions. The Arabs make up 25-30% of the city's eligible voters, which means that they could have 7-8 representatives in the 31-seat municipal council. The boycott has denied the Arabs the opportunity to be directly involved in the planning of their neighborhoods.
While it is true that some Arabs boycott the municipal elections for ideological reasons, there is no denying the fact that many are also afraid of being targeted by extremists if they present their candidacy or go to the ballot boxes.
A few Arabs who in the past dared to challenge the boycott have faced death threats. One of them was newspaper publisher Hanna Siniora, who back in 1987 announced his intention to run in the municipal election. Siniora's car was torched by members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a move that forced him to retract his candidacy.
Eleven years later, another Arab, Mussa Alayan, defied the boycott by running at the head of an independent list. He received fewer than 3,000 votes and did not make it to the city council. Alayan could have probably become the first Arab council member had he and his supporters not faced a brutal and violent campaign by Palestinian activists.
Yet while Arab residents are boycotting the election, most of them continue to deal with the same municipality which they are not supposed to recognize. They even continue to pay taxes and fees to the municipality.
The Jerusalem Municipality has more than 1,500 Arab employees, and its various departments continue to provide many services to the Arab neighborhoods and villages in the city. These activities are taking place despite the Arab boycott that has been in effect since 1967.
Arabs who complain about lack of municipal services often seek the help of representatives of left-wing parties in the municipal council, such as Meretz.
Today, many Arabs in Jerusalem are not afraid to declare openly that they prefer to live under Israeli rule, and not under that of the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. The problem remains, however, that the overwhelming majority is still afraid of the radicals.
What is needed is a strong Arab leadership that would not hesitate to stand up to the radicals and question their goals. Such a leadership would have to make it clear that there should be a complete separation between the political issues and the day-to-day affairs of Jerusalem's Arab population.
Until such leaders emerge, the Arabs in Jerusalem will, by boycotting the municipal elections, unfortunately continue to act against their own interests.
Related Topics: Israel
| Khaled Abu
Toameh
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment