A Quick Word About PaliLeaks
As Claire discussed in earlier posts, al-Jazeera has pulled off its own version of Wikileaks by announcing that it has, and will gradually produce, over 1,600 documents that show senior members of the Palestinian Authority to have caved in to and even pre-empted Israeli demands during peace negotiations. Abbas et al are thus doubly to be humiliated: for having gone on bended knee to the Zionists and for still coming home with nothing.
The provenance of the documents is totally unknown, and there are plenty of details that should be setting off alarm bells among the documents' readers (say, why is this piece of paper dated 2011? Because al-Jazeera made fresh PDFs? And they did that because...?) Israel comes out looking bad, but no one seems to care about that much. The real story -- the story most of the world's journalists seem hell-bent on swallowing whole -- is the public disgrace of Mahmoud Abbas and his negotiators. The "PaliLeaks" story thus appears to be a deliberate attempt by al-Jazeera, which is owned by the Emir of Qatar, to influence Palestinian politics by compromising Abbas beyond the point of no return.
Hamas doesn't seem to have engineered this -- they're not that slick -- but this business obviously works to their advantage, and they're trying to use it to leverage Palestinian popular opinion against the Palestinian Authority. Haaretz, curious to see if Palestinians are indeed turning on Abbas and his crew, went to Ramallah to investigate, where they found the opposite of a popular uprising. Not only officials but the citizenry at large appear to be closing ranks around Abbas. Al-Jazeera's offices, not Abbas's, were set upon by angry Palestinians who have accused them (inevitably) of being not Arab, but Zionist.
The Reuters photo above is of Palestinians burning an Israeli flag with "al-Jazeera" painted on it. You can't make this stuff up. (Actually, it appears you can.)
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: A Quick Word About PaliLeaks
Even if Hamas lacks the required $50 in used computer equipment required to Dan Rather up some "diplomatic dispatches," there are resources available among Hamas' sibling organizations.
Glad to hear that Al-Jazeera has finally been recognized as crypto-Zionist stooges. I believe this is a standard rite of passage in that part of the world.
May '10
Re: A Quick Word About PaliLeaks
Judith, what's your take on Al-Jazeera? How much of it is propoganda and how much is actually informative? Are you concerned about its growing viewership not just in Europe but in the United States as well?
Claire or Okan or anyone else living in that general region of the world, if you're reading, I'd be interested in your take as well.
Re: A Quick Word About PaliLeaks
Aaron Miller: Judith, what's your take on Al-Jazeera? How much of it is propoganda and how much is actually informative? Are you concerned about its growing viewership not just in Europe but in the United States as well?
Claire or Okan or anyone else living in that general region of the world, if you're reading, I'd be interested in your take as well. · Jan 25 at 8:53am
This is an excellent question, especially since Okan and I had a debate about this just yesterday, or maybe the day before. I think their coverage of the region is so--overwhelmingly--better than any other news agency in the region that I'm a big fan, even if I'm well aware of their biases (and suspect this time that they may have been played, or are up to huge mischief). Okan--well, I'll let him speak for himself.
If I want to know what's happening in the Middle East, I'll go to Al Jazeera, not CNN, that's for sure.
Jul '10
Re: A Quick Word About PaliLeaks
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Aaron Miller: Claire or Okan or anyone else living in that general region of the world, if you're reading, I'd be interested in your take as well. · Jan 25 at 8:53am
Okan--well, I'll let him speak for himself.
If I want to know what's happening in the Middle East, I'll go to Al Jazeera, not CNN, that's for sure. · Jan 25 at 9:59am
I have always felt right from the time it was launched that it is subtle Arab-moderate Islamist propaganda presented very professionally-certainly more professional than CNN, which gives you superficial coverage based on its liberal agenda. It is usually good coverage based upon incorrect premises or slick but discreetly distorted coverage based upon correct premises. I find them more dangerous than Al Qaeda in the long run. To me, Al Jazeera is a femme fatale, and I am concerned about its growing viewership not just in Europe but in the United States. However, with their shallow and unintelligent coverage, American channels bear most of the responsibility for that. IMHO.
May '10
Re: A Quick Word About PaliLeaks
Thanks.
What about the apperances of radical Islamist clerics on Al Jazeera? Over the past several years, I've seen mention of the station hosting advocates of outright anti-Semitism and violent jihad, but the context was never clear. A guest spot isn't necessarily an endorsement of the particular guest. Also, as I recall, the station airs the propoganda videos of Bin Laden and other terrorists. Is that correct?
Are the many segments of Al Jazeera fairly uniform in bias, like Fox News or MSNBC? Or do some of its shows sharply diverge from its usual format?
In other words, is it a day's worth of news interrupted by a few hours of primetime propoganda?
Jul '10
Re: A Quick Word About PaliLeaks
Aaron Miller: Also, as I recall, the station airs the propoganda videos of Bin Laden and other terrorists. Is that correct?
Are the many segments of Al Jazeera fairly uniform in bias, like Fox News or MSNBC? Or do some of its shows sharply diverge from its usual format?
In other words, is it a day's worth of news interrupted by a few hours of primetime propoganda? · Jan 25 at 12:54pm
The station EXCLUSIVELY airs the propoganda videos of Bin Laden and other terrorists. That is correct.
Al Jazeera, in my opinion, is discreetly biased and does not show its colors as Fox News or MSNBC does. It is more like CNN, but the broadcast quality is closer to BBC. I have not seen any of its shows diverge from its usual bias, except they often have more-or-less neutral presentations, which I believe serve as "the hook."
I have to say the programming is closer to half and half rather than being "news interrupted by a few hours of primetime propaganda." If I am mistaken on this, someone please correct me.