Peres in Qatar on al-Arabiya

The other day, Shimon Peres visited Qatar, toured al-Jazeera, and participated in the wonderful Doha Debates series by taking questions from a studio audience of 300 university students.  One might expect al-Arabiya, a self-declared liberal, pro-American station which proudly touts itself as the moderate alternative to al-Jazeera's populism, to celebrate this development: an opportunity for dialogue, breaking Arab political taboos, and so on.  If it had been in Dubai, that's probably how it would have been covered.  But since it happened in Qatar, not so much.  Today, al-Arabiya's web site is featuring the results of an online survey it conducted, under the headline "Al-Arabiya.net readers think that Doha broke the Gulf boycott of Israel."   These were the choices offered to participants to describe what Qatar did by hosting Peres:

• "declared official diplomatic relations  for the first time between the two countries" (28.5%)
• "penetrated the position rejecting normalization with Israel by the Gulf countries" (38.7%)
• "reactivated the peace process with Syria and the Palestinians" (17.9%)
• "revived the old [Israeli] project of a New Middle East" (14.9%)

Three of the four options are highly negatively coded, while "nothing out of the ordinary" or "gave Arabs a rare chance to engage in public dialogue with Israeli leader" were not even offered as options.  It appears that al-Arabiya.net readers were equally bemused by the framing of the question, since fewer than 8000 bothered to respond.  But this is a page one story for the website today.  Honestly, if Qatar announced a cure for cancer, the Saudi media would fill up with stories about the positive virtues of the disease.  That isn't to say that al-Jazeera is any better with regard to Saudi Arabia, just to throw up my hands at the ridiculousness of the Saudi-Qatari feud and what it does to the Arab media. Please, folks, just stop. 

Comments

[Gregory Gause]

Amen on the call for a truce to the silliest feud in the Arab world. Wish I could put my money on the side of reason here. However, because the stakes are so low for both sides (in the end, the Saudis are not going to overthrow the Amir -- they kind of tried that back in the 1990's, and it failed), I think that amour propre will win out over reason, and the feud will go on.

[moloch-agonistes]

The propaganda may be ridiculous-- what propaganda isn't, including much of our "evening news"? But I don't understand why this feud should be regarded as "the silliest in the Arab world." The Saudis did, after all, support the failed coup of a rival to Emir Hamad, their competitor for political and financial leadership in the Gulf. Sounds like a pretty good reason for a feud to me!

I mean, is the "feud" between Cuba and the U.S. "silly"? "As a private citizen," wrote AJP Taylor, "I think that all this striving after greatness and domination is idiotic; and I would like my country not to take part in it. As a historian, I recognise that Powers will be Powers."

Is there something different here that I don't understand?

[aardvark]

"I mean, is the "feud" between Cuba and the U.S. "silly"?"

Yes. An anachronistic boycott that nobody else honors, an opposition TV station that nobody watches, a policy based around a single hated individual... silly.

[Gregory Gause]

Great powers feuding, that I understand. Qatari worries about Saudi intentions, that I understand. Saudi obsessiveness about Qatar, that I do not understand on rational grounds. You have to explain it through psychological theories that explain non-rational behavior. The Qatari penchant for sticking it to the Saudis in public when they get the chance -- same thing. Fun for the spectators, but profoundly, to repeat the word, silly.

[moloch-agonistes]

U.S.-Cuba isn't "silly." Rich people got their land confiscated by Castro and left as relatively poor refugees for Florida, where they soon held the balance of power in state politics. Florida is important in national government, so the emigres' grudge against Castro and his revolution (a grudge with material roots) has won the day in the U.S. The emigres don't hold political power anywhere else, so the U.S. is alone in its position. On top of that you have the historical residue of an actual Great Power conflict. Taken on its own terms, it's all perfectly sensible. Absurd and even sad on a rational level, but since when was politics subject to least cost planning? Israel and Palestine anyone?

The Saudis wanted a little coup to put a more compliant regime in their backyard. Qatar's leadership naturally objected, and now they're fighting proxy battles through state-subsidized media. Sounds like a garden variety Cold War to me!

[moloch-agonistes]

(I do get the point, that's the feud is kind of personalized. Inevitable with emirates. I just think it's not qualitatively different from most politics in other places)

[Jim Zackey]

Those who seek objectivity and promote peace can help us rise above pitty competitions and turn to the bigger picture as to what can actually bring peace in practice.

I wonder if an event with far reaching implications for the role and impact of media on future Middle East peace
got enough media coverage?

Consider the attention and engagement accorded to Al Jazeera by a statesman tipped soon to lead Israel as its next president.

Shimon Peres’ visit to the headquarters of Aljazeera News Channel in Doha invites us to recognise the emerging realities of region’s media scene. On the launch of Aljazeera English Peres (15 Nov, ‘06) welcomed the new channel hoping that it may enable all to talk about peace better than its predecessors. On 29 January Peres reiterated the need to communicate with a sizeable audience by appearing in an interview programme recorded in Doha. This highest-level visit by an Israeli leader to a Middle East TV station sends out a clear message as to how seriously the newly established channel is taken in the pursuit of peace.

The fact that Peres made it a point to appear on the channel reflects the significance of reaching out to an audience genuinely interested for peace in the region. This leaves cynics on the wrong foot when it comes to the realities of the Middle East. It is an hour of reckoning for critics to come out from their age of denial, dismissal and disapproval of those they dismiss on prejudice and not principles.

Another factor that merits due consideration is what the viewers in Israel prefer to see. BBC World has been dropped by Israel’s satellite provider Yes TV in favor of the Al-Jazeera English. The Guardian, London dubbed it as “the first major distribution blow the corporation’s international news channel has suffered since al-Jazeera’s English-language service began broadcasting”.

Although BBC World will still be available in Israel via cable, it will lose around 50% of its audience in the country as a result of being dropped by Yes. Al-Jazeera English signed the carriage deal with Yes in November 2006, but the damaging consequences for BBC World have only just emerged, remarked media commentator Tara Conlan.
The true proof of responsible activism is in promoting and not preventing pluralistic viewpoints.

Alternative, accurate and accountable media is what the global audiences deserve and watch groups should put their energies to ensure the availability of such options.