Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Mideast News Site Offers Diverse Voices—but Often Parrots Syrian Regime

Al-Monitor, a D.C.-based website, publishes Washington bigwigs, Israeli columnists, and, worryingly, Hezbollah-aligned writers

Print Email
(Photoillustration Tablet Magazine; original photo Shutterstock)

Yet the effect of the enterprise as a whole, some journalists suggest, may be different, especially when it comes to coverage of the Syrian civil war. Since the beginning of the uprising in March 2011, President Bashar Al-Assad’s regime has argued that the rebellion is driven not by Syrian citizens who were outraged by the regime’s brutality, but by foreign terrorists and Sunni extremists affiliated with al-Qaida. Of the latter, a group named Jabhat Al-Nusra—whose members are indeed present in rebel ranks—is often cited as proof of Assad’s argument.

A comprehensive inventory of the stories published up until June 19, 2013 in Al-Monitor’s “Lebanon Pulse” shows a distinct tendency to mirror the Assad regime’s version of events. For example, of the 32 stories written originally for “Lebanon Pulse” that mention “Jabhat Al-Nusra,” three could be classified as neutral articles—reporting, for example, from Lebanon on the Shia community’s concerns about Jabhat Al-Nusra’s “war of displacement” in Shia villages. One story challenges the notion that al-Qaida dominates the rebellion. The remaining 28 can fairly be classified as mirroring the narrative put forth by the Assad government—with pieces asserting that the opposition is dominated by dangerous Islamists affiliated with al-Qaida, that al-Qaida has spread to Lebanon, and even a story hinting at a connection between Jabhat Al-Nusra and the Boston Marathon bombers. Of these 28 stories, 24 were written by journalists who are affiliated with pro-Assad, pro-Hezbollah media.

In addition, Al-Monitor published another 28 Jabhat Al-Nusra related stories translated from the Lebanese press; all of these stories came from As-Safir—the pro-Hezbollah, pro-Assad newspaper in which Daniel invested in 2011. At the time of Daniel’s investment, the paper’s publisher Talal Salman told the Beirut Daily Star, “Daniel is an Arab patriot who believes in the Arab causes. He did not put any condition on the newspaper. In [sic] the contrary, Daniel is in our same line of political thinking.” Salman added that Daniel “loves his home country Syria and has close relations with several parties in that country. His relation with the Syrian government is also good.” Salman’s articles are regularly translated from As-Safir for Al-Monitor as are those of Sami Kleib, whose wife Luna Chebel is one of Assad’s media advisers.

Of the five writers who appear most regularly in the “Lebanon Pulse” section, three also work for Hezbollah- or Assad-affiliated publications. The three “Lebanon Pulse” writers formally affiliated with media outlets that are reportedly pro-Hezbollah are: Ali Hashem, Jean Aziz; and Nasser Chararah. Hashem is a former correspondent with Hezbollah’s television station Al-Manar, which in 2006 was officially listed as “specially designated global terrorist entity” by the U.S. government. He now works for Al Mayadeen, a new Beirut-based satellite station that France24—a broadcast and print media organization owned by the French government—has reported is believed to be a joint venture between the Iranians and Rami Makhlouf, Assad’s cousin.

On Sunday, Hashem published an article in the “Lebanon Pulse” section about seeing Hezbollah Secretary Hassan Nasrallah in the Syrian city of Qusayr, the site of a brutal battle in which the Assad regime and Hezbollah fighters defeated rebel forces. Soon after, Hashem posted a personal tribute to Nasrallah in Arabic on his Facebook page, later taken down, but captured here in a screenshot and published on Twitter. The message translates to: “I had the good fortune to see you, in between the rubble, in the heart of Qusayr, without a turban. I had the good fortune of a greeting smile from the leader whose smile alone petrifies enemies! That day in Qusayr I will never forget so long as I live.”

Aziz is also a columnist for Al-Akhbar, a Beirut daily that the American media typically describes as pro-Hezbollah, even if the paper has sometimes received generous treatment in the U.S. press. For instance, the New York Times profiled Al-Akhbar favorably in a December 2010 article—an assessment that prompted a sharply critical response from former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman (who is currently U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs). “Al Akhbar,” Feltman wrote in a letter published in the Times January 8, 2011, “will no more criticize Hezbollah’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, than Syria’s state-run Tishreen newspaper would question the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad.”

Feltman’s letter actually understated the symbiotic relationship between the newspaper and Hezbollah’s Islamic resistance. As Al-Akhbar’s editor-in-chief Ibrahim al-Amin wrote last year: “For us, the resistance is everything—our identity, honor and future. [Had Hezbollah Secretary-General] Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah whispered in our ear that the interests of the resistance required me to stop publishing Al-Akhbar, I would do so without hesitation.”

Another Al-Akhbar regular who contributes original articles to “Lebanon Pulse” is Nasser Chararah. Al-Monitor’s news editor Antoun Issa was previously a news and opinion editor for Al-Akhbar’s English-language version.

***

Al-Monitor’s critics argue that newspapers and television stations serve a different social and political function in the Middle East—a region of the world that lacks any deep-rooted tradition of a free press or the civil liberties on which the American media is based. In the Middle East, media is understood to be a tool to advance the political interests of states, and of wealthy individuals who depend on the support of states, even if there are also many instances of stellar journalism from the region. Al Jazeera English, for example, offered superior coverage of the 2011 uprising that brought down Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. But, observers note, Al Jazeera—both the English-language network and the Arabic-language mothership—was considerably less enthusiastic in its coverage of the 2011 uprising in Bahrain. The reason the coverage differed, they say, is that the station is owned by Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the emir of Qatar, a small Persian Gulf nation that counts Bahrain as one of its neighbors.

The Syrian civil war has also led to warring narratives in the Arab press. Both Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, whose majority ownership comes from the Saudi royal family, faithfully reflect the foreign policy of its owners, who support the rebels against Assad.

In response, “there’s an effort on the part of media closer to Hezbollah and the Syrian regime to shape news coverage and create a counterweight to the big satellite channels established a decade ago,” said Michael Young, opinion-page editor of the Beirut Daily Star. “The media in the Middle East has become quite partisan. Ten years ago there was this notion that Al Jazeera had opened the path for a more freewheeling media that would challenge Arab leaders. This hope has only been fulfilled when directed outward, toward the leaders of other Arab countries. What we’ve seen is that media have usually became platforms for views of the governments controlling them.” The question now being raised by some critics is what role Al-Monitor plays in the narrative of the Syrian war.

When I asked Akiva Eldar what he thought about appearing in the same publication as pro-Hezbollah journalists, he mentioned Israel Hayom, the new Israeli daily newspaper funded by the American billionaire Sheldon Adelson. “I feel more comfortable writing for a publication which is owned by an Arab-American who has a peaceful vision for the Middle East than for an American Jew who supports Bibi and doesn’t believe in peace. Sheldon Adelson’s paper has people from the right and left writing for it. He bought the paper to make sure Bibi Netanyahu is in power and in my view Bibi jeopardizes the future of Israel. Adelson says and publishes radical things but it’s a legitimate newspaper.” I asked Eldar how he felt about the accusations of Hezbollah and Assad sympathy. “You won’t find me, or any of us in ‘Israel Pulse,’ writing a single positive line about Hezbollah or Assad.”

Ben Caspit went further. “It’s the dream of every Israeli journalist to get to speak with anyone in the region,” he told me. “Israeli journalists are not boycotting Hezbollah, or anyone. We want to talk to anyone. If Hassan Nasrallah were to invite me to interview him in the Dahieh, this would be my greatest achievement.”

***

You can help support Tablet’s unique brand of Jewish journalism. Click here to donate today.

1 2View as single page
Print Email
Poupic says:

Great innovation! Haaretz journalist publishes in an Arab states majority newspaper writers! This is so surprising! So perfect! I have only one question. Do Arab states finance Haaretz? Haaretz readership doesn’t explain it’s survival against all odds.

JehudahBenIsrael says:

It stand to reason that Arabs finance Haaretz, of course. But it is clear that Haaretz wouldn’t be able to exist financially if it were not for the massive injection of money from a non-Jewish German “investor” who uses the brand name “Israeli newspaper” to promote the most anti-Israeli concepts possible. Now, the people who read and are influenced by such writings are not Israeli citizens the vast majority of whom shun the newspaper. It is non-Israelis who are eager to see Israel’s demise that are attracted to the Haaretz English edition.

P.S. The German non-Jewish “investor”, incidentally, is an off spring of a family that was doing financially and business-wise very well in Germany of the years 1933 to 1945…!!

JehudahBenIsrael says:

Of some interest, the editors of this publications, as are all of its writers, refuse to accept the 23-state-solution to the Arab Israeli conflict, i.e. recognizing the right of the 22 Arab states to exist as such, while at the same time accepting the right of the only Jewish state to be, to exist as the sovereign nation-state of the Jewish people on ANY parcel of land of the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland.

Sadly, even the “enlightened” can’t accept that the Jewish people, as all other peoples, is entitled to the universally accepted RIGHT of national self-determination and independence.

It is high time these editors and writers applied a degree of introspection before they proceed to be critical of us, Jews, and our liberal democratic and sovereign nation-state of Israel, whether we reside within or without our national home.

Poupic says:

How is such a scheme possible? The US for example, has laws that you have to be declared a foreign agent to do such a thing. They accuse Israel of influencing US elections without any proof possible. Yet the US media quoting Haaretz is their main source of so called Israeli information. Foreign funding of critical public, information, political anything should be forced by law to by public knowledge.

JehudahBenIsrael says:

Perhaps, but in Israel, sadly, the vast majority of anti-Israel so-called not-for-profit organizations (‘amutot, in Hebrew) are sustained by European money, either injected by the European Union or by specific countries in Europe. And, Haaretz, that wouldn’t see the light of day if it were not for major financial injection of funds from abroad, is sustained by a non-Jewish “investor” from Germany. The al-Monitor (the “al” stand for the article “the” in Arabic, incidentally…!!), one suspects, is subsidized in a similar fashion.

Poupic says:

This is exactly why Israel needs such a law with harsh penalties attached for not complying.

julis123 says:

Akiva Elder and Ben Caspit are published there? Not surprising. Neither one of them is any particular friend of Israel. Elder’s criticism of Yisrael Hayom is particularly pathetic. Haaretz continues its plummet in circulation while Yisrael Hayom is steadily increasing. Who gets the last laugh?

JehudahBenIsrael says:

Haaretz circulation would be even lower, much lower, if not for the economic supplement of the newspaper, The Marker. Hebrew readers, by and large, are simply fed up with having this anti-Israel publication among their midst. And, the poster is correct in that Israel ha-jom (Israel Hayom), is gaining readership throughout the country.

ajmacdonaldjr says:

Senior Officials, K Street: Terrorist Group Is Nice Now, Everybody!
Read more at http://wonkette.com/472633/senior-officials-k-street-terrorist-group-is-nice-now-everybody#XLLwmfOrmYRoytrM.99

Wadi_Ara says:

“Until Al-Monitor was founded, pro-Hezbollah journalists could only publish in resistance media outlets” What rubbish!!!! This is such a warped and inaccurate article. As an Israeli media relations consultant who tracks middle east news, how would you suggest I find out what others have to say? Listening to only one side of an issue doesn’t quite do it! What possible insight can I gain from only listening to those whose views are close to mine. Al-Monitor is a superb and much-needed website that offers an opportunity to hear ‘the other’. I fail to understand the danger or criticism of diverse opinions. Like many of my colleagues, I am grateful to Al-Monitor for providing a platform for those who have something to say – like Akiva Eldar and Ben Caspit. Read them and you just might learn something…If you don’t want to, continue to bury your heads in the sand and cast your votes from time to time on issues you’ll know little about.

JehudahBenIsrael says:

Neither Eldar nor Caspit represent the main stream Israeli thinking of course. The first, retired from Haaretz – the German non-Jewish sustained publication promoting the views of the European anti-Israel left – and, the second, let go from the main stream daily Ma’ariv newspaper, largely due to his views. To claim to know about Israel through these two writers is amusing.

Furthermore, one can read, in English, the Jerusalem Post, Israel Hayom, Yediot Ahronot and The Times of Israel; all available on the net in English and all provide both news and commentary from the liberal democratic and sovereign nation-state of the Jewish people.

P.S. It is only a matter of time before Amira Hass and Gideon Levi also join the al-Monitor…

charlesduran says:

So volume makes up for quality?

julis123 says:

Haaretz produces propaganda not quality

Séamus Martin says:

Lee Smith, you seem to be fighting the last war in your pervasive assumption that Hezbollah and the mutually supportive Syrian government are the devil incarnate, an evil to be resisted at all costs. From an Israeli perspective I can see how that might have seemed a valid opinion to hold in the past.

However, the bizarre new reality is that Israel, Hezbollah and President Bashar Al Assad of Syria are now de facto on the same side against an even greater mutual enemy – extremist Sunni jihadists – who would gladly slaughter and literally devour the hearts of Shias, Alawites and Jews alike.

The fact that Hezbollah and the Syrian government are fighting these hate-filled savages today and winning against them too means that Israel won’t have to tomorrow. And Hamas’s betrayal of Assad means that Damascus and Tehran will be far less likely to aid them in future, thus there will be hardly any need to worry about significant attacks from Gaza either. Certainly there will be no two-front war – attacks from Lebanon and Gaza simultaneously.

It is time for religious minorities in the Middle East – Shias, Alawites, Druze Christians, normal Sunni Muslims and Jews plus Zionists everywhere whatever their political or religious motivation – to wake up to the startling new realities we now face.

In particular, the State of Israel and those who support it would be well advised to go back to first principles, have a long hard think then use their influence to actually aid Hezbollah and the Syrian government, to call off the baying dogs of war in London, Paris and Washington D.C. and to let it be known that Hezbollah and Assad must triumph militarily. For, O Israel, if Damascus falls, you are next.

JehudahBenIsrael says:

“…from an Israeli perspective…”

Isn’t it from the perspective of the vast majority of the citizens of Syria, and the overwhelming majority of the Muslim-Arab world?

Indeed, the enemy of the above is the axis of Iran-Hizballah-Syria, eager to spread its Islamist Shi’a hegemony over the entire region and beyond.

This axis is a manifestation of evil in the region and throughout humanity. To attempt to whitewash its acts of brutally slaughtering more than 100,000 innocent children, women, men, the elderly and the disabled is pathetic, at best…

Vandy says:

only in the eyes of fools and bigots are thse fighting for freedom in syria called savages. assad has no army left. he relies on a shiite militia and iranian troops to help him fight his own people.

how sad is that?

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Mideast News Site Offers Diverse Voices—but Often Parrots Syrian Regime

Al-Monitor, a D.C.-based website, publishes Washington bigwigs, Israeli columnists, and, worryingly, Hezbollah-aligned writers

More on Tablet:

Kansas City Shooting Suspect Was Protected FBI Informant

By Stephanie Butnick — Exposed fellow white nationalists in 1987 for lesser prison term and new name