投稿者 佐藤雅彦 日時 2001 年 11 月 16 日 06:48:53:
米軍のミサイルがカブールのアル・ジャズィーラ支局を破壊していた
――「永続する自由」を唱えながら中東の自由言論の砦を
爆砕した偽善者国家の手口は、ユーゴ中国大使館爆砕
事件のときとソックリなので、学習効果のなさを
嗤ってしまいます――
●中東の言論の砦として高い評価を得ているアル・ジャズィーラ放送局の
カブール支局が、先日、爆撃をうけておシャカになりました。
●当初、北部同盟のカブール侵攻の際に、流れ弾が当たって破壊されたと
思われていましたが、その後、アル・ジャズィーラの責任者が語ったところ
によれば、米国のミサイルが命中していたとのこと。
●この責任者氏、さすがに「米国の狙い撃ちだろ、ゴルァ！」とは言わなか
ったものの、「この建物が、タリバンやアルカイダとは無関係の、アル・ジャ
ズィーラ局の建物だと言うことは誰もが知っていたし、米国だって十分に
知っていたのに、ヘンですなあ」と言っているとか。さすがに小藪ちゃんが
大統領なんぞをしている歴史のないNIX(後進新興工業国家)アメリカと比べ、
態度が格段にオトナなのであります。
●これが本当に米国のミサイル攻撃のせいだとすると、「臭いものにはフタ」
でなく、「死人にくちなし鉄砲ドン！」という500年前の新大陸侵略時代と
なんら変わっていない野蛮性がまたまた露呈されたことになり、なんとも
笑止千万であります。この連中が拳を振り上げながら叫んでいる「自由」とは
近代啓蒙思想が追求してきた市民的自由とは明らかに異なる「横暴を行なう
特権」にすぎませんからね。
●湾岸戦争の時にペルシャに派遣された米兵のすくなからぬ数が、その後、
キリスト教からイスラム教に改宗したそうですが、戦争というのは文化や
文明の衝突なので、前線の兵士は確実に文化的な変容を経験します。これは
歴史の“法則”みたいなものでした。「自由のための戦い」と称しながら
自由を抑圧している米国は、今後確実に、イデオロギー的・文化的な内部分裂
をこうむることになるでしょう。長期的な視野で見ると、この「戦争」は、
米国が世界的覇権国家としての座から滑り落ちていく“終わりの始まり”に
なるでしょうね。
■■■■@■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1653000/1653887.stm
Tuesday, 13 November, 2001, 13:48 GMT Al-Jazeera Kabul offices hit in US raid
(写真：The channel says everybody knew where the office was, including the Americans)
The Kabul offices of the Arab satellite al-Jazeera channel have been destroyed by a US missile.
-----------------------------------------------------------
写真：This office has been known by everybody, the American airplanes know the location of the office, they know we are broadcasting from there （Al-Jazeera Managing Director Mohammed Jasim al-Ali ）
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Qatar-based satellite channel, which gained global fame for its exclusive access to Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban, announced that none of its staff had been wounded.
But al-Jazeera's managing director Mohammed Jasim al-Ali, told BBC News Online that the channel's 12 employees in Kabul were out of contact.
Mr Jasim would not speculate as to whether the offices were deliberately targeted, but said the location of the bureau was widely known by everyone, including the Americans.
He also expressed concern at reports that Northern Alliance fighters were singling out Arabs in the city since they took over early on Tuesday.
Critical situation
The station said in an earlier report the bureau had been hit by shells when the Afghan opposition forces entered the capital.
Al-Jazeera confirmed later that it was a US missile that destroyed the building and damaged the homes of some employees.
-----------------------------------------------------------
写真：The station has been viewed with suspicion in the West for its access to the Taleban
-----------------------------------------------------------
"The situation is very critical," Mr Jasim told the BBC from the channel's offices in Doha.
"This office has been known by everybody, the American airplanes know the location of the office, they know we are broadcasting from there," he said.
He said there had been no contact with Kabul correspondent Taysir Alluni because all their equipment had been destroyed.
The Northern Alliance has reportedly ordered most reporters in Kabul to gather at the Inter-Continental Hotel.
"Now that the Northern Alliance has taken over, it is too dangerous," Mr Jasim said, adding that he had heard that some Arabs had been killed.
Taleban withdrawal
Earlier, al-Jazeera correspondent Yusuf al-Shuli quoted Taleban officials in their southern stronghold of Kandahar as saying they had withdrawn from the cities to spare the civilians air bombardment and acts of vengeance by the Northern Alliance.
-----------------------------------------------------------
写真：Al-Jazeera said these three boys are Bin Laden's sons
-----------------------------------------------------------
"They told us that reoccupying these cities will not take long once the air cover that supports the Northern Alliance is over," he said.
He said there was a "mixture of anger, despair, and disappointment among most people" in Kandahar at the fall of Kabul, but the situation there was calm.
Al-Jazeera has a reputation for outspoken, independent reporting - in stark contrast to the Taleban's views of the media as a propaganda and religious tool.
But the channel has been viewed with suspicion by politicians in the West and envy by media organisations ever since the start of the US-led military action in Afghanistan.
Exclusive access
For a time it was the only media outlet with any access to Taleban-held territory and the Islamic militia itself.
It broadcast the only video pictures of Afghan demonstrators attacking and setting fire to the US embassy in Kabul on 26 September.
-----------------------------------------------------------
写真：The channel says its guiding principles are "diversity of viewpoints and real-time news coverage"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Most controversially, it was the first channel to air video tapes of Osama Bin Laden urging Muslims to rise up against the West in a holy war.
Last week it showed footage of three young boys reported to be Bin Laden's sons.
Western governments at one stage warned that the channel was being used by the al-Qaeda network to pass on coded messages to supporters around the world.
■■■■@■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Why the US warplanes destroyed Al-Jazeera satellite TV offices in Kabul
U.S. bombs struck al-Jazeera's empty offices in Kabul before dawn onNovember 13, 2001, heavily damaging the Qatar-based satellite televisionnetwork's offices before Northern Alliance forces entered the Afghancapital, network and Pentagon officials said.
Al-Jazeera said none of its 10 staff members was injured. But MohammedJassim al-Ali, al-Jazeera's managing editor, said in an interview with theAssociated Press that the strike could have been deliberate.
"They know where we are located and they know what we have in our office andwe also did not get any warning," al-Ali said.
Why?
"You need to talk to DOD about any bombing targets." White House PressSecretary Ari Fleischer said at a press gaggle in Crawford, Texas,interrupting a journalist asking him: "Why did the United States bomb the alJazeera bureau in Kabul yesterday? Why was it essential to take that spot?
And are you concerned that it's going to be difficult to make the case thatthis is not a broader attack against Islam now that the main voice-piece forthe ... "
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/1114-130.html
"The United States said it was targeting the al-Qaida terrorist network anddidn't know the television channel was located there. Equipment wasdestroyed, but no one was was in the two-story building when it was hitbefore dawn." But, Col. Brian Hoey, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command in Tampa,said to Vernon LoebWashington Post staff writer on November 13 that U.S. aircraft dropped two500-pound bombs at 3:40 p.m. EST Monday on the building in question, basedon "compelling" evidence that the facility was being used by the al Qaedaterrorist organization. At the time of the attack, Hoey said, "theindications we had was that this was not an al-Jazeera office." An attack on al-Jazeera's offices in Kabul could prove to be a publicrelations fiasco for the U.S. government, which has accused al-Jazeera ofbroadcasting Taliban propaganda since the war in Afghanistan began on Oct.7. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25014-2001Nov13?language=printer Al-Jazeera satellite chanel based in Doha, Qatar, was awarded The Ibn RushdPrize for FREEDOM OF THOUGHT For Journalism & Media 1999. =========================== A CHRONOLOGY / RELATED STORIES: December 2, 1999 October 4, 2001 October 8, 2001 November 6, 2001 November 10, 2001 November 11, 2001 November 14, 2001 =========================== Ibn Rushd Fund for Freedom of Thought The First Annual Presentation of the Ibn Rushd Prize is taking place inBerlin Ibn Rushd, better known as Averroes in the Western Hemisphere, lived from1126 to 1198 in Andalusia and Marakesh. The scholar of the Middle Ages,disputed and influential at the time, tried to mediate between philosophyand religion in many of his works. His interpretation of the writings ofAristotle and Plato, as well as his commentaries, contributed largely tointroducing Greek thought to Arabic culture. The Latin translations of hisworks transferred Greek thought to Europe. Thus he was the best mediatorbetween the Arab world and the West.His influence on European thought can easiest be estimated if one recallsthat in the 13th and 14th century, Averroism was as influential in Europeanthought as was Marxism in the 19th century. Not always did his works findappreciation with religious leaders: he was condemned for heresy by both theChristian and the Islamic orthodoxy and his works were frequently banishedand burnt in public. In the spirit of its namegiver the non-governmental organization Ibn RushdFund for Freedom of Thought dedicates itself to supporting the right to freespeech and democracy in the Arabic World. On the occasion of the 800thanniversary of Ibn Rushd's death, the Ibn Rushd Fund was founded in 1998.The Ibn Rushd Prize will be awarded for the First Time on the occasion ofthe first anniversary of the Fund's foundation on December 10th, 1999. Fromnow on, it will be awarded annually to persons who rendered outstandingservices to the right of free speech and democracy. In 1999, the prize willbe given to the TV station Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera means 'the island' in Arabic. The independent TV station was onlyfounded 2 1/2 years ago. However, Arabs throughout the Arabic world as wellas in the European Union and in the USA regularly refer to it as a source ofinformation. This is probably due to the fact that this TV station differssignificantly from other Media in the Arab World. Mass media in the Arabworld are subject to the respective head of state, who uses them aslegitimization and mouthpiece for his politics. A democratic discourse aboutcurrent topics or events is not allowed and the opposition has no platformfrom which to spread its convictions. Al Jazeera TV is broadcast via satellite from Qatar, the smallest Arabiccountry. The private TV station attends to current topics, whether they areof a political nature, such as the Gulf War or the Arab-Israeli conflict, orof a social nature, such as the emancipation of women or the defense ofhuman rights. The channel also reports on religious themes, such as Islamand democracy and political Islam. Great attention is paid to always shedlight on both sides of a problem. One example is a live discussion that tookplace between a feminist Jordanian member of parliament and anFundamentalist Egyptian woman, and on another occasion a politicianbelonging to Algeria's opposition appeared in disguise. The programs' namesare indicative - The Contradictory Direction, More than One Opinion, WithoutLimits and Religion and Life, to name just a few of the most popularprograms. Muhammad Jasem Al-Ali, Al Jazeera's chief editor, describes Al Jazeera'sprinciples as follows: "Other TV stations hold too many taboos. We do notknow any taboos, our audience have a right to the truth." And a right tovoice their opinion publicly: spectators are often invited to phone aprogram, and these phonecalls are transmitted live and uncensored. Obviously the TV station is a target for criticism from all directions -some are not pleased that progressive forces are given room to express theirconvictions, those again are utterly opposed to the fact that their worstenemies are given the same amount of time. The neighboring oil countriesseem to fear a cultural revolution, because "Al Jazeera is like a virus, acontagious virus exercising a positive influence on freedom of speech inother Arab countries", says the owner of al Jazeera TV, Sheik Hamad BenThamer Al-Thani confidently. He has good reason to believe this, as showsthe closure of Al Jazeera's office in Kuwait, after the Emir felt insultedby Al Jazeera TV. On another occasion, US diplomats tried to keep Al Jazeerafrom broadcasting an interview with Osama Bin Laden. Al Jazeera TV is literally an island of freedom of speech. To support theexistence of this medium so important to democracy and freedom of speech inArab countries, the Ibn Rushd Prize for Freedom of Thought will be awardedin Berlin on December 10th, 1999, to Al Jazeera's representatives, Vicedirector Mahmoud Abdul Aziz As-Sahlawi and Managing Director Muhammed JasemAl-Ali. The Ibn Rushd Fund for Freedom of Thought will from now on annually award atleast one prize. In the year 2000, the prize will be given to a person whohas rendered outstanding services to women's rights in the Arabic World. Thursday, 4 October, 2001, 11:07 GMT 12:07 UK The emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad Khalifa al-Thani, confirmed after a meetingwith US Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington that he had been askedto exert influence on the Qatari-based channel, which can be received almostworldwide. It was al-Jazeera which carried the faxed statement purportedly from Osamabin Laden, calling upon Muslims to fight the US, and broadcast unconfirmedreports that members of the US special forces had been captured inAfghanistan. It has also been re-transmitting an exclusive interview with Bin Ladenconducted three years ago, and featuring a number of anti-American analystson its talkshows. Al-Jazeera's apparent independence in a region where much of the media isstate-run has transformed it into the most popular station in the MiddleEast. Its confrontation of controversial issues and string of scoops, which haveincluded footage of the infamous Taleban destruction of ancient Buddhastatues, has earned it praise both within the Arab world and beyond. The US is not the first to feel aggrieved by al-Jazeera coverage, which hasin the past provoked anger from Algeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait andEgypt for giving airtime to political dissidents. Sheikh Hamad, the ruler of the oil-rich Gulf state, reminded of the need for"free and credible media" after his meeting with Mr Powell, who is trying tobuild up a global alliance against international terrorism which includesArab states. He said he viewed the request as "advice". The visit by the emir was of particular importance as he is also thechairman of the Organization of Islamic Conference, which includes 56countries. After his meeting with Mr Powell he pledged Qatar's full-co-operation. Butin an interview with al-Jazeera television he also stressed that the focusof the US campaign must be well considered. "What happened in the United States has indubitably harmed the reputation ofthe Arabs," he said. "But the American people must understand that terrorismis not confined to the Arabs." The US has been at pains to stress that its war is against terrorists andnot against Islam. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is currently on tour in the Middle Eastin a bid to shore up support among Muslims. Monday, 8 October, 2001, 13:05 GMT 14:05 UK Al-Jazeera goes it alone Critics say the TV is too loyal to its parent state, Qatar By BBC Monitoring's Suzanne Lidster and Mike RoseAl-Jazeera (The Peninsula), the popular Arab satellite TV channel, hasplayed a key role in the conflict between the US-led coalition andAfghanistan's ruling Taleban. It is the only foreign broadcaster permitted in Afghanistan. On Sunday, the station aired an exclusive filmed statement by Osama BinLaden in response to air strikes on Afghanistan. The interview was pre-recorded. And on Friday, it also showed "recent footage" of Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Since 19 September, when the Taleban evacuated the last foreign journalistfrom the capital Kabul, only two al-Jazeera correspondents and three Afghanreporters working for the Reuters, AFP and AP news agencies have beenallowed to stay. The station has a reputation for outspoken, independent reporting - in starkcontrast to the Taleban's views of the media as a propaganda and religioustool. Yet it clearly has its uses. For in a country where watching TV or surfing the internet is banned, theTaleban has used al-Jazeera as one way of communicating with the world. Taleban Foreign Ministry officials have spoken via satellite link to theal-Jazeera headquarters in the Gulf state of Qatar. Exclusives The station has scored numerous exclusives. It broadcast the only videopictures of Afghan demonstrators attacking and setting fire to the USembassy on 26 September. And it grabbed international headlines again a few days later with a reportthat three US special forces troops and two Afghan US citizens had beencaptured by Bin Laden's al-Qaeda group near the border with Iran. Despite a Taleban denial, al-Jazeera stood by its report, saying that amember of al-Qaeda had called its bureau in Pakistan to announce thecapture. Al-Jazeera prides itself on reporting on the Middle East from an Arabperspective while drawing on the professional experience of staff who haveworked in the Western media. It has consistently topped viewer ratings in the Middle East and claims 35mviewers. Since its launch in 1996, the channel has relied on funding from the Qatariemirate, advertising and viewer revenue and deals with other broadcasters.It recently signed a deal to broadcast on Sky Digital to the UK and Europe. The channel's popularity stems from its news coverage and lively talk showson sensitive political, social and even sexual issues. Al-Jazeera's journalistic scoops have turned the spotlight on the channel.There has been talk of privatisation, but if such a move proceeds, thestation could face pressure from commercial sponsors in the Gulf, from wherethere has often been criticism of its output. However, although state subsidies are expected to end next month, analystspredict that Qatar will continue bankrolling the channel as itscontroversial reporting could scare off advertisers or shareholders. Despite its independent stance, al-Jazeera has been labelled by some UKnewspapers as a "mouthpiece" of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and USofficials have expressed concern at what it sees as the anti-Western tone ofmuch of its reporting. =========================== November 11, 2001 BEIRUT -- The Arab street: the well-worn phrase evokes men clustered arounddusty coffeehouse tables, discussing the events of the day with well- earnedcynicism between puffs on a hookah ? yet suddenly able to turn into a mob,powerful enough to sweep away governments. The idea of the street--a shared, cohesive body of public opinion andvalues--perhaps resonated most strongly in the heyday of Egypt's GamalAbdel Nasser, the late 1950's and mid-60's. In those days, governments wereindeed toppled (but mostly by military coup) or threatened as Arabnationalism swept the Middle East. Since then, the street's sentiments havebeen by turns nationalist, socialist, Ba'athist, Palestinian and now,increasingly, Islamic as the Arab world searches, in vain, to escape itslong malaise. Today, nearly all the region's governments have been in power for decades,with their stability owed less to the consent of the governed than torepression. In this profoundly undemocratic world, Western standards formeasuring public opinion simply don't apply. To some, it has long seemed that "the street" is a kind of myth ― unable toturn its aspirations or discontent into action and fed by a press tightlycontrolled by the government itself. That press would, most often, offer afarrago of twisted conspiracies to excuse the failures of the regimes. But in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks on America, the idea of the streetmay be taking on a new importance. The street, once all but powerless, hasbecome a real force, exposed to more sources of information that repressivegovernments do not control, harder to rein in once inflamed, and moresusceptible to radical Islam. It is on just this Arab ― or, better, Islamic ―street that President Bushmust fight in his war against Osama bin Laden and his terrorists, abattleground for the public's mood that may ultimately be more importantthan the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan. And this is not only a warbetween Mr. Bush and Mr. bin Laden; leaders of countries from Egypt toPakistan must also weigh how to court and contain the street ? how much theycan repress expressions of hatred for America when their countries are,however conditionally, American allies in the war against terrorism. And in this battle, Mr. bin Laden has an edge in weaponry ―the vocabularywith which to define the conflict. For what he seeks to do is to cast thisas the cataclysmic clash of civilizations: Islam against the West, believeragainst infidel. As Mr. bin Laden has demonstrated in his videotapes ―citing Islamicscripture, his rifle leaning against a rock beside him, every inch theaustere holy warrior ? he is highly adept at using modern technology totransform the power of his medieval message. "There has been a major change which has led to the street becoming a majorfactor," said Fawaz Gerges, professor of Middle East studies at SarahLawrence College. "This is the emergence of satellite television and theprivatization of media, which has dramatically changed things. Arab rulersno longer have a monopoly on information, they no longer can shape opinion.Particularly with Al Jazeera, there's been an explosion of information thatdefined the nature of the debate. It has constrained almost every Arabgovernment." "The so-called Arab street," he added, "is a figment of the imagination thathas become a reality." It is not the first time communications technology has transformed thepublic mood. In the Iranian revolution of 1979, Ayatollah RuhollahKhomeini's speeches were telephoned from his exile in France, taped andreplayed in mosques throughout the country at Friday prayers. What followedwas a genuine popular revolution that startled an entire region. But therewere, at the time, reasons to think that Iran might be unique. There, ShiiteMuslim traditions――including a political role for the clergy as adversariesof the government and champions of nationalism, along with a specialreverence for martyrdom ――enabled the mullahs to defy the shah. Most other Islamic countries are Sunni, and throughout the Arab world, atleast, repressive elites have had more success at reining in the public moodin times of crisis. Still, the force of Islamic politics continues to risethroughout the region. These days, social service projects run byfundamentalists often provide a better social network than governments do. While the conventional wisdom held for years that the Arab powers couldmanipulate the public mood as Nasser did, a new pattern appeared to emergewhen the second Palestinian intifada broke out last year. This uprising wasdirected not only against Israel and the failure of the Oslo accords, but atthe Palestinian Authority itself for its false promises, incompetence andcorruption. Though Palestinians did not say so publicly, the uprising's rawpower has been an open challenge to the established leadership, onecapitalized on not only by Islamic ideologues but by grass-roots fighters. The leaders of Jordan and Egypt have been ambivalent in their response,encouraging support for the Palestinian cause but also reining inpro-Palestinian demonstrations when they grew too large. In this, they havefollowed the old patterns of both co-opting and controlling the street. ButMr. Arafat's power to control his own street is much less clear; how much hecan repress radicals among his own people, even in the face of American andIsraeli demands, before being overthrown remains an open question. Today, the challenge presented by Mr. bin Laden has summoned a similarnightmare for Pakistan: the prospect that an Islamic militancy ? one thatPakistan's leaders have nurtured as a basis for legitimacy for two decades,and that its intelligence agency has subsidized in Afghanistan and Kashmir ?could similarly spin out of control because the public mood has beeninflamed by elements beyond the regime's control. "The street," said Farid el-Khazen, a political science professor at theAmerican University of Beirut, "is increasingly Islamicized. The phenomenonis there. The street counts." Like Professor Gerges, Shibley Telhami, a professor of government at theUniversity of Maryland, attributes much of the change to mass globalcommunications. "In the past decade there has been a revolution in media,"he said. "The satellite television, the regional media are market-driven. Asa consequence, they are providing more what the public wants, reflectingpublic opinion." And that, he said, presents a particularly difficultchallenge for the Bush administration. "It would be very hard for an American official to go on Middle East radioor Al Jazeera to say anything that will not get the opposite response thatis intended," he said. "Any official will inevitably be looking over theirbacks to see what The New York Times, The Washington Post will quote them.It will inevitably be counterproductive. They can spend millions of dollars,using the Hollywood touch, but it is so far away from understanding what ison the ground." Take, for example, the use Mr. bin Laden is suddenly making of theIsrael-Palestinian struggle and America's support of Israel ? the singlerallying point that has a universal appeal throughout the Arab world. Analyzing a recruiting videotape, Professor Gerges remarked on hisconcentration on the Palestinian issue, on images of a terrified child shotin his father's arms and of women being beaten. Then there were the deathsof Iraqi children blamed on American sanctions. Such images set the stagefor the next set of images: of Afghan civilian casualties of Americanbombing. In sowing those seeds of hatred in a way that will move emotionsabout his own battle, Mr. bin Laden has shown himself exceptionally adept atappealing to the street itself. The next likely step? To turn that moodagainst the very regimes ? particularly Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt ?whose cooperation is pivotal to America's antiterrorism coalition and whomMr. Gerges and others see as Mr. bin Laden's real target. （Copyright 2001 The New York Times Companｙ） Participating in the debate were former US Ambassador Christopher Ross (afluent Arabic speaker); veteran French journalist and former ambassador,Eric Rouleau (ditto); and young Kuwaiti Islamist writer Mohammed al-Awadhi.As much as I was eager to hear what Rouleau had to say, because of hisentertaining and convincing style, I was more interested in hearing Awadhi’spoint of view. There was nothing personal in that; I wanted to gauge whatcan be called “the Kuwaiti mind-set.” This mind-set is more a state of mind than a political position; its rootscan be traced to early August 1990, when the Iraqi army invaded the smallGulf emirate. The “Kuwaiti mind-set” really took off, however, with what theKuwaitis like to call the “liberation” of their sheikhdom in 1991. I was particularly interested in what this well-known Kuwaiti Islamistactivist had to say about an Anglo-American war of aggression againstAfghanistan with its Islamist Taleban regime. Despite the fact that mostIslamists in the Arab/Muslim world do not identify with the Taleban, KuwaitiIslamists are different. They compare the Taleban favorably with the secularregime of Saddam Hussein. While supporting American attacks on Saddam’sIraq, Kuwaiti Islamists cannot bring themselves to back attacks against theIslamist regime in Kabul. Since Operation Enduring Freedom was launched, observers of Kuwaiti affairshave been keen to hear what the Kuwaitis (and especially Kuwaiti Islamists)had to say about the US-led campaign against Afghanistan. It was clear thatIslamists in Kuwait were torn between what they were expected to say byIslamists outside Kuwait and their fear of inflaming the feelings of theirfellow countrymen if they chose to condemn US and British actions inAfghanistan - as their counterparts in other Arab/Muslim countries weredoing. On Kreishan’s program, however, Awadhi surprised us all. On the one hand, hepleased Afghan sympathizers by condemning in no uncertain terms both theAnglo-American attacks against Afghanistan and the weak positions adopted byArab/Muslim governments. Awadhi launched a robust attack against thepolicies pursued by the US government in the Arab world since the end ofWorld War II. On the other hand, he surprised Ross, ensconced in a Washington studio, bydemonstrating that a Kuwaiti intellectual (albeit a “fundamentalist”) can beso fully disenchanted with the United States - unlike the vast majority ofhis countrymen, who feel enthralled by the US because of the debt they feelthey owe Washington for “liberating” their country from Iraqi occupation. Itwas as if by driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait, the US had somehow absolveditself (in Kuwaiti eyes) from all the sins they accused it of committingprior to 1991 (and especially since the late 1950s, when the strugglebetween Gamal Abdel-Nasser’s Arab nationalism and rising American influencein the Middle East was escalating). It made no matter whether the Kuwaitisin question were nationalists, leftists, or even Islamists. It is not easy to determine whether Awadhi represents a strong current inKuwait today. Kuwaiti enthrallment with the US has been the source of muchArab/Muslim anger toward them, especially because of their support forsanctions against Iraq and their position vis-a-vis the horrific humancatastrophe that has befallen the Iraqi people. If Awadhi’s words arecompared with what another Kuwaiti - newspaper editor Mohammed Abdel-Kader -said on the same channel some days earlier, it will be easy to see what abig difference there was between them. Abdel-Kader sounded apologetic,unconvincing, and unsure of himself. Even when he wanted to criticize someaspects of US diplomacy and media activity, he sounded weak. In fact, evenAmerican commentators wouldn’t have sounded as apologetic toward theirgovernment as that Kuwaiti editor was. But Kuwait is full of surprises: who would have believed that a son of anestablished Kuwaiti family would turn out to be a spokesman for Al-Qaeda,and speak out against the US military presence in the Gulf states barely 10years after the liberation of his country? That was precisely what SuleimanAbu-Ghaith turned out to be. Despite the isolated, and perhaps unique, nature of Abu-Ghaith’s case, thefact that a Kuwaiti could have made such a great leap from the “Kuwaitiphenomenon” to the fastness of Al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan cannot beignored. Abu-Ghaith could be seen as representing the first tentative stepstaken by Kuwaitis to rid themselves of their decade-long infatuation withthe US, and rejoin the ranks of the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims. Tenyears’ experience has shown the Kuwaitis that by shutting themselves offfrom their Arab and Muslim hinterland, they have only succeeded in isolatingthemselves. Over the last 10 years, the Kuwaitis have discovered that they have not onlyestranged themselves from the Iraqis and other “hostile” Arab states, butalso from their allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Many braveKuwaitis have come to the conclusion that it is simply not logical thateveryone else is wrong concerning the US and Iraq while only they - theKuwaitis - are right. Perhaps the ongoing American aggression against Afghanistan might create aground-swell of opinion in Kuwait that will, with the passage of time, helpliberate the Kuwaiti psyche from American control and unite the Kuwaitisonce again with their Arab, Muslim, and Gulf brethren. （Hafedh ash-Shaikh Saleh, a Bahraini analyst, wrote this commentary for TheDaily Star） Al-Jazeera presents Arabic view of war? NEW YORK (AP) -- Ibrahim Qunbar grimaced and shook his head. On the TVscreen were images of bedraggled Afghan refugees, trying in vain to cross aborder checkpoint into Pakistan. "This is very, very sad," Qunbar said, staring intently at the men andwomen, covered in a layer of Afghan dust. The picture switched to a wailing baby in a hospital, then to a bandagedboy, described by a correspondent as wounded by an American bomb. The images -- beamed halfway around the world into Qunbar's family room inBrooklyn -- were from Al-Jazeera, the now-famous 24-hour Arabic satellitenews station that reaches more than 35 million Arabs around the world,including 150,000 in the United States. The images have helped cementQunbar's opposition to the war. "Why are these people being destroyed?" said Qunbar, a Palestinian-American."They have nothing to do with it." American officials, fighting an uphillbattle to win over the Arab public, have only recently begun to grasp thereach of the network into the hearts and minds of Arabs. The network, lauded by some as the "Arabic CNN" and derided by others asArab propaganda, broadcasts from the tiny Persian Gulf nation of Qatar.Since its founding five years ago, the network has soared in popularity in aregion accustomed to state-controlled news. The core of reporters who started Al-Jazeera came from the Arabic BritishBroadcasting Corporation, when its London office closed. They broughtWestern standards of news coverage and slick packaging. Biased coverage? The network grabbed the world's attention when it delivered a pre-recordedmessage from Osama bin Laden, shortly after American bombs began falling onAfghanistan. Al-Jazeera has been one of the only foreign news organizationsproviding footage and commentary from Taliban-controlled Kabul and Kandahar. American officials have called the network biased. Al-Jazeera journalistsrespond that they have carried briefings by U.S. officials live for theirviewers. It is American networks, they said, that are guilty of leaving outfootage that might offend an audience that supports the U.S. war effort. In the last two weeks, as other Americans received blanket coverage onanthrax by U.S. networks, Al-Jazeera viewers have watched graphic footage ofcivilian casualties, with crying relatives, bodies laid out on stretchers,homes reduced to rubble. They have seen video, played again and again, of children in bandages,bruised or burned; Afghan civilians living with almost no food or water;hospitals with no electricity and dwindling medicine and supplies. They haveheard long, unedited statements by Taliban officials. While American networks downplayed Taliban civilian casualty claims andbroadcast Pentagon rebuttals, Al-Jazeera viewers got them as breaking newsflashes. In interviews, dedicated watchers were adamant that Al-Jazeera has giventhem a truer sense of the conflict. "CNN and Western networks ... are trying to keep the American peoplesheltered," said Naima Remmak, a Moroccan-American graduate student inManhattan who had to force herself to turn off Al-Jazeera last week for afew days to study for mid-terms. Al-Jazeera correspondents have presented the human face of Afghan sufferingin a way the American media have not, said Hala Durrah of Bowie, Maryland. "I'm affected emotionally and psychologically," said Durrah, a recentgraduate in international studies from George Washington University whosefather is Jordanian and mother Palestinian. The equivalent of 15 percent of the U.S. Arab population pays $22.99 to$29.99 a month to receive Al-Jazeera and other Arabic channels on satelliteTV. Qunbar subscribes to Al-Jazeera at home and at his office in Brooklyn, wherehe owns a food distribution company and the channel plays all day. Heestimated he watches two to three hours a day. At Al Noor, an Islamic schoolin Brooklyn attended by all four of Qunbar's children, the program is on inthe office as well. On a recent night, as Qunbar and his family gathered to watch, the eveningnews broadcast led with Taliban claims that they had shot down two Americanhelicopters. Video showed Taliban soldiers with aircraft parts. The networkshowed a clip of Pentagon officials denying the claim, but then returned toTaliban representatives. "That doesn't sound right," said Qunbar's 13-year-old son, Abdelrahman,uncertain about the downing. His father agreed. They have no doubts, though,on the veracity of other images, of wounded children and desperate refugees. American broadcasts that evening focused on the death of a Washington, D.C.,postal worker from inhaled anthrax, mentioning only briefly the events inAfghanistan. Stark images shown on Al-Jazeera were nowhere to be seen. "I heard CNN is full of lies," said Nadia Qunbar, 10. No, it's not, herfather told her, just incomplete. Critics of Al-Jazeera, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, havecalled its coverage propagandistic and inflammatory. Its broadcast of thebin Laden tape and other al-Quaida statements revived old questions aboutsympathies of some of its reporters to the Taliban and the terroristorganization. Rumsfeld has accused the network of manufacturing footage ofdead civilians. The Bush administration has gone so far as to ask the Qatari government toget Al-Jazeera to tone down anti-American voices on its shows and to limitits broadcasting of al-Qaida statements. Al-Jazeera journalists insist they are simply striving to cover the war fromboth sides. "Because we aim to be objective, we have to show those graphic images," saidIbrahim Helal, Al-Jazeera's chief news editor. "Do you think we inventedthem? We do not invent news." The network has exercised discretion, he said, showing less than a quarterof the shots of dead bodies that it receives. In its short history, Al-Jazeera has infuriated nearly every government inthe Middle East with its investigative reports and freewheeling talk shows.Early on, the network was accused of being pro-Israeli, when it invitedIsraeli officials, including Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres, on the air. In its coverage of Afghanistan, Al-Jazeera has aired interviews withSecretary of State Colin Powell and others and has carried news conferencesby American officials live, with simultaneous Arabic translation. Even so, it is undeniable that Al-Jazeera's correspondents present the newsfrom a distinctly Arab perspective, several media observers said. In itscoverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which continues to dominatebroadcasts daily even now, Palestinians killed are almost always referred toas martyrs; Israeli action is "Israeli aggression." Recently, correspondentshave taken to labeling it terrorism. Much of the interview with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice wasspent on questions about Israel. She assured viewers that the war inAfghanistan was not against Islam. But in excerpts promoting the interviewthat were played repeatedly, the network highlighted her demands thatPalestinians halt the violence in Israel and her defense of U.S. policy inIraq -- comments likely to inflame Arabs. Correspondents also often add their own commentary. A reporter told viewerslast week that Afghan civilians had nowhere to hide, because the "U.S.strikes no longer distinguish between one place and another." Even theirtattered tents could be targeted, he said. What American networks refer toas a war on terrorism, Al-Jazeera labels "so-called terrorism," or "the U.S.war on what they called terrorism." Helal explained the network believes the World Trade Center and Pentagonattacks were terrorist acts but recent measures taken by the United Statescannot be described as targeting terrorism. "We cannot consider them acts against terrorism," he said. Those measuresincluded arresting innocent people, threatening many countries and bombingcivilian places." Al-Jazeera's coverage merely reflects the broader public discussion in theArab world, said William Rugh, a former ambassador to the region and now thehead of AMIDEAST, a non-profit organization devoted to the Middle East. "They're not deliberately anti-American any more than the private and publicdebate is anti-American in the region," he said. Pofessor Marda Dunsky ofNorthwestern's Medill School of Journalism, a former correspondent in theMiddle East, said that even in the United States, where objectivity isemphasized, the audience colors the coverage. "We report things from theAmerican point of view." （Copyright 2001 The Associated Press.All rights reserved. This materialmay not be published, broadcast,rewritten, or redistributed.） U.S. Bombs Hit Kabul TV Station http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25014-2001Nov13?language=printer U.S. bombs struck al-Jazeera's empty offices in Kabul before dawn yesterday,heavily damaging the Qatar-based satellite television network's officesbefore Northern Alliance forces entered the Afghan capital, network andPentagon officials said. Al-Jazeera said none of its 10 staff members was injured. But MohammedJassim al-Ali, al-Jazeera's managing editor, said in an interview with theAssociated Press that the strike could have been deliberate. "They know where we are located and they know what we have in our office andwe also did not get any warning," al-Ali said. Col. Brian Hoey, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, saidlast night that U.S. aircraft dropped two 500-pound bombs at 3:40 p.m. ESTMonday on the building in question, based on "compelling" evidence that thefacility was being used by the al Qaeda terrorist organization. At the timeof the attack, Hoey said, "the indications we had was that this was not anal-Jazeera office." An attack on al-Jazeera's offices in Kabul could prove to be a publicrelations fiasco for the U.S. government, which has accused al-Jazeera ofbroadcasting Taliban propaganda since the war in Afghanistan began on Oct.7. The network, operating under an exclusive agreement with the Taliban, hasregularly broadcast video of alleged bomb damage and civilian casualties inAfghanistan as well as statements by Osama bin Laden, the reputed terroristleader identified by U.S. officials as the mastermind of the Sept. 11terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A videotape of bin Laden's most recent statement, in which he said that anyMuslim supporting the U.S. war had betrayed the faith, was delivered toal-Jazeera's Kabul office earlier this month. While denouncing the content of some of al-Jazeera's broadcasts, keyadministration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld andnational security adviser Condoleezza Rice, have given al-Jazeera interviewsin an effort to get the United States' message out to the Arabic-speakingworld. The U.S. military has acknowledged a series of mistaken bombings inAfghanistan, the most recent of which involved airstrikes on Oct. 25 thatdestroyed a warehouse compound in Kabul used by the International Committeeof the Red Cross to store and distribute food and supplies. Before that, the Pentagon acknowledged that mistaken attacks by U.S.warplanes killed four civilians at a U.N.-funded mine removal office inKabul on Oct. 9 and at least four civilians in houses close to the Kabulairport Oct. 13. （c 2001 The Washington Post Company） ■■■■@■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
According to St. Petersburg Times,
The Ibn Rushd Prize for FREEDOM OF THOUGHTFor Journalism & Media 1999Given to Al JAZEERA Satellite Channel, Doha-QATAR
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9912&L=arabic-info&P=R336
US urges curb on Arab TV channel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1578000/1578619.stm
Al-Jazeera goes it alone
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/monitoring/media_reports/newsid_1579000/1579929.stm
Al-Jazeera presents Arabic view of war?
http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/06/arabic.tv.ap/index.html
Gauging the ‘Kuwaiti mind-set’
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/10_11_01_d.htm
The New Power of Arab Public Opinion
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/11/weekinreview/11KIFN.html?pagewanted=print
U.S. Bombs Hit Kabul TV Station
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25014-2001Nov13?language=printer
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:39:22 -0500
Reply-To: Ibn Rushd Fund for Freedom of Thought
Sender: The ARABIC-INFO mailing list
From: Ibn Rushd Fund for Freedom of Thought
Subject: AlJazeera wins the 1999 IBN RUSHD PRIZEComments: To: Arabic-info@Dartmouth.EDU
The IBN RUSHD PRIZE for FREEDOM of THOUGHTFor Journalism & Media 1999
Given to Al JAZEERA Satellite Channel, Doha-QATAR
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9912&L=arabic-info&P=R336
Press Release
For further information,
contact
Tel. / Fax ++49 - 30 - 446 50 218,
or Tel. ++49 - 2962 - 5162 or
http://www.ibn-rushd.org.
==========================
US urges curb on Arab TV channel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1578000/1578619.stm
Washington has asked Qatar to rein in the influential and editoriallyindependent Arab al-Jazeera television station, which gives airtime toanti-American opinions.
Free media
Correspondents say that its coverage of the Palestinian uprising, alreadyknown to infuriate Israel, is not helpful to the US at a time when it isdesperately wants Arab countries to see peace in the Middle East.
===========================
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/monitoring/media_reports/newsid_1579000/1579929.stm
Funding
The New Power of Arab Public Opinion
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/11/weekinreview/11KIFN.html?pagewanted=print
By JOHN KIFNER
===========================
Gauging the ‘Kuwaiti mind-set’
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/10_11_01_d.htm
In a new program entitled The First War of the Century, presented on Qatar’sAl-Jazeera satellite channel by Tunisian-born Mohammed Kreishan, the mainsubject for debate was Osama bin Laden’s latest statement broadcast byAl-Jazeera on Nov. 3.
===========================
http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/06/arabic.tv.ap/index.html
November 6, 2001 Posted: 11:32 PM EST (0432 GMT)
Just another perspective
'We do not invent news'
Audience colors the coverage
===========================
By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 14, 2001; Page A13
投稿コメント全ログ
コメント即時配信
スレ建て依頼
削除コメント確認方法
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。
掲示板,ＭＬを含むこのサイトすべての
一切の引用、転載、リンクを許可いたします。確認メールは不要です。
引用元リンクを表示してください。