the all searching eye

I wonder if anyone besides me is tired of reading headlines such as the following every other day:

Oil prices spike upon report that Saudi prince x skipped breakfast this morning…

Record prices for crude oil follow the news that a Pepsi machine was not refilled at a Riyadh refinery…

Gas prices reach $3.00 in the wake of a Bedouin allegedly sneezing within the vicinity of a Saudi pipeline…?

Saying that the U.S. depends on Saudi Arabia is like saying Michael Jackson is an interesting fellow. What’s disturbing about this is that we know Saudi oil money is providing the cash for many terrorist operations. In essence, Americans are chipping in to their own demise at the hands of some very bad people.

The eagle-eyed U.S. congress sees the obvious solutions in the new 12 billion dollar energy bill from which we will benefit “for the next five or ten years”. Basically, congress has helped line the pockets of already obscenely wealthy oil companies while simultaneously buying 10 years of time to say “just wait. Things will get better…”

In the meantime, we will continue to pay too much for gas, our economy will suffer, and worst of all, we will keep quivering in our depths every time a grain of sand in the Rub Al-Khalii is displaced.

Unfortunately, the answer is going to have to lie with the American people. We often refer to the generation that lived through the Depression and WWII as the finest in our history. The strength of our country was affirmed in their time because of a spirit of sacrifice. Sadly, now we turn to our government leaders for answer to these pressing problems of security and economy (which are inseparable). At the same time, we are not interested in changing self-destructive habits such as selfishness, over-indulgence, and ultra-consumerism in order to regain our independence from a foreign power.

Perhaps we could be thought of as a fine generation if we reversed the trends set in motion by our baby-boomer parents. If we made personal sacrifices such as disciplining our consumption, individually cutting our fuel usage (our grandparents even rationed their food!), and averting imminent servitude, we might just command that kind of respect from our grandchildren. In the meantime, we would financially weaken the terrorists who depend on the revenues from Saudi Arabian oil.

This interesting development has caught my attention. When I lived in Syria, I was exposed to types of dialogue that are much less common in the U.S.A. For example, nearly everyone spoke openly and matter-of-factly about their dislike of Jews. While this initially shocked me, I became less judgmental as I learned about regional politics and history. For one thing, Syria was and is in an official state of war with Israel. Additionally, much of the pan-Arab rhetoric for three decades was calculated towards fighting “The Zionist Entity”.

Much of this overtly anti-Semitic dialogue contained references to a Jewish lobby, and to the cooperation of American Christian organizations with this lobby. According to the common thread of discussion, these two powerful entities (ill defined as they were in the conspiracy theories) combine to control U.S. finances and politics, place key figures in positions of authority, and shape media opinion.

The Syrians would ask: “How else could America support Israel’s blatant terrorism and disregard for U.N. laws?”

For the curious reader, below are the most common Jewish Lobby conspiracy theories as I heard and disputed them in Syria. You will see that I treat these theories with no small degree of sarcasm. Please do not mistake this to be disdain for Syrians or Arabs. Remember, these sentiments rise out of three generations of perpetual war, indoctrination, and political dispute. Many of those who expressed these theories are refugees. Many have lost loved ones to Israel military forces. So, enjoy this peek into the Syrian mind. But don’t get the impression that I am mocking Syria or its people:

1. Monika Lewinsky was a a plant by the Jewish Lobby. Her job was to humiliate and bring
Bill Clinton. Why? Because he was going to start playing hardball with Israel.

2. The Middle East version of Big Brother, based in Bahrain, was the brainchild of Jews. The goal was to undermine Muslim unity, introduce corrupt Western Morals (this one I believe), and generally weaken the resolve of the Arabs. Because of a multi-national uproar, the producers pulled the plug on the show after only 2 or 3 episodes. In fact, the promotionals leading up to the premier of the show lasted longer than the show itself.

3. The Jews had JFK assassinated. First of all, because he was Catholic. Second…you guessed it. He was going to make policy favorable to the Arabs.

4. The Jews were behind the attacks on September 11, 2001. When I asked a Syrian friend what his reaction was on 9-11, he told me that he was watching the news with his father-in-law, and that the first words out of his mouth were: kulna Kharaa: We just ate Sh–. Being more naive at that time, I asked him what he meant by that. The answer: As soon as those buildings went down, we knew that the beast had been awakened, and that the backlash against Arabs was going to be unprecedented. The immediate implication of this was carte blanche for Israel in its Palestine problems.

The evidence: None of the hundreds of Jews who worked in the buildings showed up to work that day. They had all been notified in advance to call in sick.

Obviously, the New York Times article I’ve linked to above brings all of these memories back. If you have not read it yet, go back up to the top and open it. As you read, you may hear faint music in the air around you. That would be the theme of The Twilight Zone.

Adhere to the journalistic values of honesty, courage, fairness, balance, independence, credibility and diversity, giving no priority to commercial or political considerations over professional ones.

This is the first article of Al-Jazeera’s Code of Ethics, and it reflects the ideal for which most other mainstream news sources strive. Unfortunately, a quick scan of Al-Jazeera’s reporting on any given day verifies that the news agency seeks the exact opposite. To illustrate this, I have drawn a story reported by the BBC and by Al-Jazeera. The story refers to Pakistan’s new crackdown on foreign students at madrassas (religious schools). I chose the BBC to represent a western version of the story specifically because they are not generally characterized as pro-American. Now, to the story:

In the both versions, the basic story is the same. However, the devil is in the details. For example, the BBC quotes Pakistani President Gen. Musharraf saying

We will not allow madrassas to be misused for extremism, hatred being projected in our society.

In addition, the BBC article mentions the fact that one of the recent London bombers studied at a Pakistani madrassa. Finally, the BBC reports Tony Blair referring to “extremism” and “radical madrassas in context of the bomber who had studied in Pakistan.

But, the BBC article then presents another view of the madrassas. The students themselves are acknowledged:

The students said they were there simply to learn and were “more disappointed than angry” at the terror links.

To finish the article, the BBC recognizes that many of the poor and rural turn to the madrassas for their education. I think this passes as a balanced report.

Al-Jazeera paints a dramatically different picture of the incident. First of all, they never hint that any London bomber studied in one of the madrassas. Instead, they mention that Blair’s reasoning for urging a crackdown was that some of the bombers had recently visited the country.

Unwilling to purport any terrorist ties to the schools, Al-Jazeera moves on to tell us how great they are:

Madrassas offer free religious education and board for more than one million Pakistani children, especially in areas neglected by state education services. Some have been targeted for preaching hatred against the West.

If this is so important to Al-Jazeera, they should be glad that Pakistan is denying foreign students Visas to study at the madrassas. After all, those foreign students are essentially taking food out of the mouths of the “more than a million Pakistani children neglected by state services”. But, Al-Jazeera is not afraid of a little self-contradiction in the fight against America.

Instead of recognizing the terrorist activities, Al-Jazeera claims that they are targeted for preaching hatred to the West. After that, Al-Jazeera throws a curve:

Some schools were set up as military training sites during the 1979 to 1989 US-backed war against the Soviet occupation in neighbouring Afghanistan.

The implication is that any militant element related to the madrassas is the fault of the U.S.

Al-Jazeera also mentions President Bush’s phone call to Gen. Musharraf in order to discuss the “war on terrorism” (yes, those quotes come from Al-Jazeera, not me).

So, connecting the dots, we see that under pressure from America, Pakistan is unjustly depriving poor and rural students of their education (that the state can’t provide) in a misguided attempt to curb anti-Western teaching. What is the Arabic word for Uncle Tom, by the way?

If you want to read both stories and decide for yourself, here they are:
BBC
Al-Jazeera

While Danny Glover is busy acting as a member of the advisory board on the new Telesur network to give his support to the Chavez-backed channel, a highly predictable development surfaced. Apparently, they are seeking to link up with Al-Jazeera. Of course, according to the President of Telesur:

We launch Telesur with a clear goal to break this communication regime and present a vision, a voice which until now has been silenced. Telesur is an initiative against cultural imperialism.

Those touching sentiments, combined with the possible coupling with Al-Jazeera translate into an obvious, simple message: Anti-American propaganda.

In regard to the Telesur’s debut, Chavez has produced such gems as:

I am sure that Telesur will maintain its independence. Telesur will not depend on any government … it will be free to navigate in the waters of truth and contribute to the construction of a new world…

Yes, Hugo holds himself in very high regard. He constantly accuses Bush of trying to topple him. Of course, Bush has been too busy toppling other, more important dictators. Sorry Indio.