Morocco’s largest daily newspaper, Al Massae, has been running excerpts from Palestinian journalist Abdel Bari Atwan’s memoir A Country of Words. Here is an excerpt from his latest editorial, “Kyrgyz Lesson to Arab Peoples,” in which he draws lessons from the recent popular revolt against strongman President Kurmanbek Bakiyev.

President Bakiyev’s downfall was that his regime was characterized by corruption, cronyism, supression of the populace by the security forces and looting public funds, in a manner not that far removed from that of his counterparts in some Arab and Islamic countries.

Bakiyev… held deeply flawed elections and appointed members of his family — including his eldest son — to key positions, just as certain Arab leaders are wont to do. …

Some may argue that people in these repressive Arab states are too frightened of the security forces to rebel and this is why they are so passive and submissive. Yet the security forces in Kyrgyzstan are proving to be exceptionally brutal and violent — they opened fire on protesters, killing well over a hundred to date, and yet they continue to demonstrate, even storming the presidential palace and setting it on fire.

People who are oppressed must start to defend their interests and their basic human rights; they need to be prepared to make sacrifices for this lofty goal. Since they do not, it seems that the problem is no longer Arab rulers alone, but Arab people as well. …

No amount of foreign bases in Kyrgyzstan can ultimately protect an unpopular leader from the anger of the people and their demands for political reform and true democracy. If the Arab people would only learn this simple lesson of history our current state of opression would be ended.

Via Palestinian Pundit.

For all I know, “radical Muslim cleric” Anwar al-Awlaki has done something deserving of a death sentence — but that’s what the judicial process is supposed to determine. In America we have the principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” but instead, the National Security Council has condemned this man to death based on secret evidence.

Here’s what the British newspaper the Guardian presents as the reasoning behind the decision.

“Awlaki has been accused of encouraging terrorism in his sermons and writings. … He has been linked to Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, in November, and to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day. …

“The decision to place Awlaki on a hit list took place this year… as U.S. counterterrorism officials judged he had moved beyond inciting attacks against the U.S…. to participating in them. ‘The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,’ an official told the New York Times. ‘He’s gotten involved in plots.’”

The New York Times adds this detail.

“American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula…. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad.”

So we have the word of anonymous officials that al-Awlaki is an “operative” and “recruiter” for Al Qaeda who has “gotten involved in plots.” It’s not even a question of being asked to take their word for it — the decision to target al-Awlaki was made weeks ago, and might never have been announced publicly if journalists hadn’t done a little digging.

Of course the CIA “hit list” is nothing new, as we’ve seen in numerous drone strikes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen dating back to 2002. The only advantage al-Awlaki got as an American citizen was that his death sentence was approved at the highest level, in a National Security Council review.

al-Awlaki is “linked to” two terrorist plots, one successful, one not. In the case of the Fort Hood shootings, the link seems to be limited to an exchange of emails. In the case of the Christmas bombing attempt, he allegedly met with Abumultallab in Yemen and helped recruit him into the mission. He also says hateful things in his sermons that encourage others to resort to violence — but even Rush Limbaugh has been accused of that.

Even if he directly aided and abetted the two plots mentioned — by suggesting specific targets, for example, or by supplying materiel — it isn’t clear this would earn him a death sentence in a U.S. courtroom. In the Oklahoma City bombing case of 1995, Terry Nichols got off with life in prison for helping Timothy McVeigh to assemble his bomb. In any case, the charges against al-Awlaki have yet to be proven in court.

al-Awlaki with his thick beard, foreign-sounding name, and militant Islamism may not be a sympathetic figure to most Americans, but it might be helpful to remember this famous principle from the Nazi era.

“They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. … Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

al-Awlaki may very well be a security risk to the United States, if he is indeed part of a network that recruits, trains and arms terrorists. But the thing is, nothing has been proven. All we have is the word of anonymous officials, whose judgment we’re supposed to trust.

All U.S. citizens are entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution, which was designed as a check on the arbitrary use of power. Condemning someone to death without a trial, in a Star Chamber proceeding with secret evidence, is just that — an arbitary use of power.

Those who cheer this decision because it involves a “radical Muslim cleric” might ask themselves how they would feel if the same thing were to happen on American soil. Should the National Security Council approve “targeted killings” of groups like the Hutaree Militia, who allegedly plotted to kill a police officer and bomb his funeral?

I think we’re on a slippery slope here. America has to stick to the rule of law, no matter how inconvenient it may sometimes seem.

Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Peace Prize winner and potential challenger to the 30-year rule of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, had this to say last week:

“Western policy towards this part of the world has been a total failure, in my view. It has not been based on dialogue, understanding, supporting civil society and empowering people, but rather it’s been based on supporting authoritarian systems as long as the oil keeps pumping.

“If you bet on individuals [like Mubarak] instead of the people, you are going to fail. And Western policy so far has been to bet on individuals, individuals who are not supported by their people and who are being discredited every day. …

“The West talks a lot about elections in Iran, for example, but at least there were elections — yet where are the elections in the Arab world? If the West doesn’t talk about that, then how can it have any credibility?

“Only if you empower the liberals, if you empower the moderate socialists, if you empower all factions of society, only then will extremists be marginalised.”

I wish Dr. ElBaradei all the luck in the world with his quixotic crusade to bring democracy to Egypt. He is exactly the sort of moderate, popular, independent-minded reformer the West has long claimed to hope for in the Middle East, so whether the West responds positively to his efforts (assuming they gain traction) will be a test of sincerity.

On the other hand, maybe Western governments should keep their mouths shut even if they do favor him, so as not to poison the well of his support. Unfortunately, the policies of the Bush administration have given “democracy creation” a bad name in the Middle East.

One thing is clear, President Mubarak is not long for this world. He is already over 80, and just returned from three weeks in Germany where he underwent surgery to remove his gall bladder. The choice of a new leader will be upon Egypt very soon, certainly no later than the presidential elections of 2011, in which he is not expected to run.

For further coverage of ElBaradei’s campaign to reform Egyptian politics, see Zeinobia’s blog, The Arabist, or this excellent summary from blogger Baheyya.

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

On some of the websites where this quote appears, commenters chime in that America’s Founding Fathers had it right when they allowed only landowners to vote (more precisely, landowning white males). They seem to feel that most people who voted for Obama are ignorant freeloaders who aren’t paying their dues, are easily manipulated by the “liberal media,” and aren’t really citizens in the full sense of the word. Limiting the vote to landowners (or people who pay taxes) would presumably solve this problem. They say that America was meant to be a republic, not a democracy, and that democracy means mob rule.

Perhaps even my non-American readers have heard of the Tea Partiers, people who feel that we are living in an era of “taxation without representation” like the one that brought about the original American Revolution. Repressive laws are being forced down our throats, irresponsible spending will bankrupt the nation, and Obama is leading his blind worshippers into socialism, Nazism or Armageddon. Some of these people feel that Obama stole the election with the help of a group called ACORN, while others, like the author of the quote above, admit that he won the most votes, but feel the American people have been brainwashed by the aforementioned “liberal media.” Either way, they feel isolated and surrounded in a nation that is slipping away from them.

Some of this “Left Behind” crowd are arming themselves and talking revolution. The growth of right-wing groups on the internet such as ResistNet, Grassfire and Oath Keepers testifies to this. They want to take America back to an era before the New Deal (1933), before the income tax and the Federal Reserve (1913), and as I mentioned above, even before the vote was given to non-landowning white males in the first half of the 19th century. This extremism, which is what I have to call it (though they call themselves patriots), directs its anger at the Republican and Democratic Parties alike, but what really lit their fire was the election of Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States.

Some of these folks have resorted to violence, the Hutaree Militia of Michigan being the latest example. A handy list of the ten most egregious examples is here. This recalls the first couple of years of the Clinton administration, which saw a similar upsurge in right-wing militias, along with burnings of black churches, abortion clinic bombings, and of course, the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people. Only this time the anger seems to be fiercer. So when I get impatient with Obama for not meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or pushing for a Canadian-style national health care system, I become a little more tolerant when I realize what he’s up against. If his centrist style of governance has these people up in arms, imagine the explosion if he really were bringing socialism to America, as they fear—and I can only dream!

“‘Semi-authoritarian regimes’ have political parties and NGOs, hold elections, and look on paper as though they at least have some democratic attributes. But behind the scenes the power elite makes sure it remains in power and reduces the ‘democratic’ activities to a shadow play for the benefit of a restless domestic public and for that of international bureaucrats.”

Middle East expert Juan Cole thinks that American policy in recent years has encouraged the formation of semi-authoritarian regimes throughout the Middle East. Those that were pure dictatorships in the past have learned to hold elections without putting at risk the monopoly of their ruling elites. As Israel hardens its nature as an apartheid state, it is moving toward authoritarianism and away from democracy. In Iraq and Palestine, where the U.S. experimented with democratization but didn’t like the results, semi-authoritarian regimes have become the more comfortable path for U.S. interests. America’s clumsy attempt to support democratizing forces in Iran has led to more authoritarianism, not less. In the two cases he mentions where movement has been in the other direction, Turkey and Pakistan, greater popular control at the expense of the military is “disturbing the world status quo,” creating awkward relations with the U.S.

Cole concludes:

“You have to wonder how committed most Washington elites really are to democratization, and have to wonder whether semi-authoritarianism in Middle Eastern allies might not be perceived as holding benefits for the U.S.”

The book to which he refers in this post, Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-Authoritarianism by Marina Ottaway, can be found here.

“Racism as much as fear drives the Israeli policy toward Palestinians. This has always been known. But who now will deny that there is also, in the Israeli distrust and visceral ridicule of Barack Obama, an undercurrent of racism?”

He goes on to point out the parallel between racism against Palestinians by the Israeli settler movement, and racism against blacks by their staunchest supporters in the U.S., the white evangelicals he calls Christian Zionists. It is almost as if, their segregationist fantasies defeated here at home, the religious right is projecting them onto the Holy Land by helping the settler movement to build an apartheid state.

“The operation of Israeli racism against a black American president is powerfully enforced by the settler movement and by its American allies, the Christian Zionists. … Settler racism and Christian Zionist racism (associated with the ‘birther movement’ in the U.S.) converge in a belief in the political and the social superiority of Israeli Jews over Palestinians — a superiority that for the Christian Zionists corresponds (in ways that need no comment) to the natural superiority of American whites to blacks.”

He calls on Americans to become aware of the racist nature of the Israeli settlement project, and its implications for American security interests.

“Will Americans now stop calling the annexation wall — which cuts off West-Bank Israeli colonists from their Palestinian inferiors — ‘the security fence’? It is a wall. Its function is only partly to secure. It is there also to separate, to mark off, and to overawe. … The separation produces…a condition of constant inequality. It seems too weak to call the result ’segregation.’ Ehud Barak, a solid authority one would have thought, has recently called it apartheid, and language that is accurate in the eyes of the defense minister of Israel should be good enough for Americans. …

“The existential threat in the vicinity of Israel is not extermination but expulsion. And Israel is the agent rather than victim of that threat. The project is being carried forward by legalized acts of dispossession, by harassment, by deprivation of useful work, and by the deliberate infliction of misery.”

Fortunately, he feels that Americans are starting to become aware of these ugly truths. Beginning with the war in Gaza, and continuing through the diplomatic crisis surrounding Joe Biden’s visit to Israel, forty years of self-imposed silence in the American media, which have prevented a frank discussion of Israel’s policies, are starting to fray.

“So the door to an honest discussion of Israel and Palestine has been opened wide. Too wide for AIPAC, and all its journalistic outlets, to close with their usual dispatch. We are in possession now of the realistic knowledge that Israel’s policies endanger American troops and American interests; that by creating new terrorists, those policies also threaten the security of the United States. …

“It is one thing to sacrifice yourself for a friend in the cause of justice; another to sacrifice yourself for a friend in the cause of injustice.”

I thought it would look ugly, but I like it….

What Joe Biden told the Israelis:

“This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”

What Hillary Clinton told CNN:

“The announcement of the settlements the very day that the vice president was there was insulting.”

What Hillary Clinton told the Israelis (paraphrased by State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley):

“The secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States’ strong commitment to Israel’s security.”

What a senior U.S. official told the Washington Post:

“We think the burden is on the Israelis to do something that could restore confidence in the process and to restore confidence in the relationship with the United States.”

What Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren told his colleagues:

“Israel’s ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975…a crisis of historic proportions.”

What General David Petraeus told his superiors back in January (paraphrased by Mark Perry in Foreign Policy):

“The message couldn’t be plainer: Israel’s intransigence could cost American lives.”

So American interests and Israeli interests are not identical? Finally, a confrontation where it counts!

“Iran is definitely in Obama’s sights. He has ceased courting it, and is girding for the confrontation. But not yet. … Last year was the year of public relations; 2010 is the year of pressure. The crushing blow that comes after the pressure will not be dealt before next year.”

“The year of public relations” — that’s what worries me. Did Obama “court” Iran not because he wanted a deal — whether a narrow deal on uranium enrichment, or a broader deal leading to warmer relations — but as a gesture designed to fail? Did he set out merely to show the world that he was being reasonable, that he offered his hand and Iran refused? If that is the case, the failure will now be used to isolate Iran even further, softening world public opinion for military action down the road — once punitive sanctions, too, have been tried and failed.

The Ha’aretz writer I cited above thinks he can read Obama’s mind. He believes that Obama has given up on negotiations and will attack Iran, but is waiting until after the November elections for political reasons. I’m not so sure, but I do worry. Washington has limited its outreach to Tehran to a single issue — an all-or-nothing uranium swap — and now keeps repeating how unimpressed they are with Tehran’s attempts to meet them halfway. (Iran is willing to do a swap, but not all at once, rather in stages over several months.) Negotiations are at a stalemate, and the U.S. is busy rallying the global powers to punish Iran through sanctions. Meanwhile, Congress has passed its own sanctions bill by an overwhelming vote. Unless the game changes suddenly due to an Iranian popular revolution in the next few months — which won’t happen — it increasingly looks like the stage is being set, and consciously so, for a military showdown in 2011 as Ha’aretz claims.

What has Iran done to deserve this? Its leaders have said repeatedly they don’t want a nuclear weapon. Western intelligence has found no evidence that they are pursuing a weapon. Stories were planted in Western newspapers claiming that the Iranians are testing some sort of nuclear detonator, but these stories have been shown to be false. Iran’s uranium enrichment program is well within its rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and they are cooperating with IAEA inspectors. I don’t understand the justification — moral, strategic, or otherwise — for a showdown with Iran.

If it’s true that Obama has already made up his mind to attack Iran, that would prove him to be even more duplicitous than I already know him to be. The condescension of pretending to want peace, while preparing for war — I’ve perceived it in him since his Nobel Peace Prize speech. But if he goes so far as to attack Iran, a country that has done nothing to the U.S., after pledging to reach out — may he be condemned by history, may he be buried in shame.

Of course, I may be jumping the gun. Perhaps the Ha’aretz columnist is projecting his own fantasies onto Obama. My own fears, too, could be wrong — I certainly hope so. If Obama decides to negotiate sincerely, without preconditions as he promised during his campaign, far-ranging breakthroughs are possible, instead of this senseless division. Or maybe Russia and China will make the price of military action too high. Or maybe the U.S. will blunder into the bloody chaos of its third Middle East war. I guess we’ll know soon enough — in another year or two.

— • —

Here’s Iranian rapper Salome calling for the Iranian people to remain united regardless of “family” differences — since there are those trying to exploit those differences “who don’t care about us.” This addresses itself to those in Washington who hope a “Green Revolution” will play to its advantage, as well as to opportunists in Iran hoping to use the divisions to gain power. (Thanks to Lenin’s Tomb for the link.)

The three “terrorist” stations are carried on the two largest satellite providers in the Middle East, NileSat of Egypt and ArabSat of Saudi Arabia. Between them, NileSat and ArabSat offer hundreds of stations, most of which show cheesy movies, game shows, and cartoons for kids, as well as the official state programming of the various Arab nations. This resolution, known as H.R. 2278, would require NileSat and ArabSat to block any channel the U.S. labels as terrorist, or see themselves labeled as supporters of terrorism. The resolution still needs to be approved by the Senate and signed by the president to become law — it is currently before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chaired by John Kerry. So there is still time for Washington to come to its senses, but it should be clear that by issuing such a heavy-handed demand for censorship, Congress has sent exactly the wrong message to the Arab world.

Al Manar is the voice of Hezbollah, which besides being an armed resistance movement against Israel, is a political party active in the Lebanese government. Al Aqsa is linked with Hamas, also a resistance movement and the de facto government of the Gaza Strip. Al Rafidayn is an Iraqi station described by the Open Source Center, an arm of the U.S. intelligence community, as a “pro-Sunni, anti-U.S. Iraqi channel believed to be affiliated with the Association of Muslim Scholars.” Of the three, only Al Rifadayn could remotely be accused of “incitement to violence against the United States,” since it supports resistance to the American occupation of Iraq. There is a blurring of lines here between “terrorism” and legitimate resitance — a difference which is in the eye of the beholder. None of these stations supports random acts of violence against civilians, such as suicide bombings or kidnappings, which is the usual definition of terrorism. All provide legitimate news services to the population. And the target of resistance for both Al Manar and Al Aqsa isn’t the U.S. at all, but the state of Israel.

I’ve watched Al Manar here in Morocco, and while they have their share of pro-resistance propaganda — scenes of heroic battles from the 2006 Lebanon War, accompanied by patriotic songs — they are also a news source with high standards of professionalism. In fact, they were the only ones providing on-the-ground coverage during the Israel–Lebanon conflict — even Al Jazeera used their footage — and it was through their station that I became aware of the devastation Israel was raining down on a beleaguered nation. Perhaps that’s what bothers the U.S. Congress. It’s certainly what bothers Israel. Henry Lamb, an American lawyer living in Lebanon, who seems to be the only one writing in depth about H.R. 2278, cites a “Washington DC observer” on the motivations behind the proposed law.

“Regarding Al Manar it’s personal for Israel. The reason is that Al Manar did to the Israeli government propaganda machine during and following the July 2006 war what Hezbollah fighters did to Israeli troops. Al Manar kicked butt. That station must be made to disappear. The plan is to stop the 15-20 million daily viewers of Al Manar from receiving its transmission and well as to intimidate all the other Middle East TV channels that are suspected of moving toward the growing ‘Culture of Resistance’….”

In another article, Lamb praises Al Manar’s “reputation for accuracy, thoroughness and objectivity and getting the latest news on the air fast.” Speaking of the tragic crash of an Ethiopian airliner in Beirut on January 25, he adds:

“As Lebanese woke to the news this morning an estimated 80% of the population is thought to have turned into Al Manar at least once sometime between the hours of 7 am and 11 am, as they and the region regularly do during war or crisis. … Al Manar was the first Lebanese station to give the most details…. Ironically, staff at the American Embassy, and surely the large contingent of CIA agents here, almost certainly sat glued to Al Manar to evaluate what really has happened. [If H.R. 2278 becomes law] US officials may be deprived of this reliable source of information.”

During a recent visit by Senator John McCain, Lebanese president Michel Sleiman asked “that Washington backtrack on its decision to ban certain television channels, including Al Manar,” according to an official statement. Meanwhile Nabih Berri, the speaker of the Lebanese parliament, sent a letter to U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi denouncing the proposed law.

“[The bill] harms the principles of freedom of expression and civil rights, and leads to further complication in relations. … This bill represents bypassing to the sovereign national laws of the targeted countries, among them Lebanon which is a free ‘Hyde Park’ for the Lebanese and Arab satellite ‘public opinion’ media channels. … Therefore, the bill issued by your Congress undermines our sovereignty as well as the sovereignty of many countries….”

Lebanon is proud of its diversity of opinion, which is the thread holding society together after a generation of civil strife. The above statements show that Congress, in its hastily considered attempt at censorship, has united the entire Lebanese political class in protest — not just Hezbollah, a political movement the U.S. still labels “terrorist,” but the elected government as well, which Washington supports.

But there is another dimension to the problem, namely the excuse that H.R. 2278 gives to Arab nations with reasons of their own for censoring opposing views. Chief among them are Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which coincidentally or not, are home to NileSat and ArabSat, respectively. Egypt has been ruled by Hosni Mubarak, known as “the Pharaoh,” for 28 years under martial law. Saudi Arabia is the home of Wahhabism and the obscenely rich Saudi royal family. Both have a history of silencing domestic critics, and both are sponsors of an Arab League proposal to monitor TV stations in all its 22 member nations.

The Arab League first discussed a satellite TV charter back in February 2008, but the recent action by Congress has given new momentum to their plans. On January 24, 2010, Arab information ministers met in Cairo to discuss the proposal. According to Reporters Without Borders, the plan would set up an “Office for Arab Satellite Television” to ensure that stations “respect the ethical standards and moral values of Arab society” and “no longer serve as fronts or outlets for ‘terrorist’ organisations.” In a statement, the Paris-based watchdog group warned of the potential for abuse.

“The danger is that this super-police could be used to censor all TV stations that criticise the region’s governments. It could eventually be turned into a formidable weapon against freedom of information.”

Anthony Mills of the International Press Institute issued a similar warning.

“The International Press Institute is wary of efforts to engage in that kind of monitoring particularly given the record of most, if not all, Arab Middle Eastern countries on press freedom. It’s an example of states in the Arab world using the notion of security to in fact monitor and stifle independent reporting.”

The influence of H.R. 2278 can be seen in two of the stations mentioned by Reporters Without Borders as targets of the new plan — Al Aqsa and Al Manar — along with the plan’s emphasis on “terrorism.” However, as Daoud Kuttab shows in a 2008 article, the original motivations have little to do with “terrorism” or “incitement to violence.” Arab governments simply want to shield themselves from an increasingly independent and critical media universe.

“[Arab information ministers] have been gradually losing power to the satellite stations. For some time governments have been resigned to the fact that the rich and elite will have access to alternative information coming from satellite but the poor masses will continue to be spoon fed through the terrestrial stations. But as the prices of satellite dishes have become affordable to the poor masses, and as the satellite stations have cut deeply into the audience of national broadcasts, the alarm bells started to sound and the ministers of information increased their meetings hoping to find a regional solution to this problem. …

“Couched between clauses that prohibit broadcasting obscenity, pornography and scenes encouraging smoking, the charter calls for ‘Abstaining from broadcasting anything that would contradict with or jeopardize Arab solidarity….’ It also calls for ‘abidance by objectivity, honesty and respect of the dignity and national sovereignty of states and their people, and not to insult their leaders or national and religious symbols.’

“The strange notion that politicians are somehow immune from attack, that leaders are not to be insulted or that the satellite broadcasters are obliged not to jeopardize Arab solidarity is nothing short of censorship.”

It’s clear that by taking up the issue just one month after the passage of H.R. 2278, the Arab League is doing its best to defuse to the claims that NileSat and ArabSat are enabling “terrorism.” However, it’s equally clear that they were given an excuse to do what they want to do anyway — rein in stations whose independence is a thorn in their side. One indication is that along with Al Aqsa and Al Manar, Reporters Without Borders names Al Jazeera as a target of the proposed “super-police.” Al Jazeera is the most popular news channel in the Middle East, and the only one with an international reputation for journalistic excellence and independence. They have reporters around the world, even providing excellent coverage of the 2008 American presidential elections. Their investigative reporting is provocative, as are their discussions with public figures and intellectuals. They are an indispensible actor in the move toward greater freedom of expression in the Arab world.

Some in the U.S. seem to have the impression that Al Jazeera is a jihadi station that shows nothing but suicide bombings and tapes from Osama bin Laden. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is frankly insulting. People in Morocco rely on Al Jazeera to get an independent perspective on what is happening in their own country, and I’m sure the same is true in other Arab nations. This forces the official state channels to compete in a world where they are no longer the sole source of information. This makes them uncomfortable, and forces them to get better if they want to retain credibility. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera has earned its reputation. They aren’t pushing an agenda. They simply provide balance to Western networks like CNN and the BBC by showing what the world looks like from a perspective outside the West. This can be refreshing, even for an American.

Congress did not name Al Jazeera in H.R. 2278, but the Arab League is using the resolution as an excuse to pressure the station. After all, they hold the power. If Al Jazeera were denied access to NileSat and ArabSat, it would vanish from TV screens across the Middle East. This recently happened to another station that annoyed Saudi Arabia, Al Alam of Iran. When Saudi Arabia got involved in a Yemeni civil war that its propaganda blames — falsely — on Iran, it pressured Egypt to kick Al Alam out of the NileSat lineup. Since ArabSat is controlled by Saudi Arabia, there was no problem there. The station went dark across the Arab world, upsetting my friend’s aunt who liked to watch it daily because “it tells the whole truth.” She also likes Al Manar, also for its independence. What business does Congress, none of whose members have ever watched an Arab news channel, have telling my friend’s aunt that she likes “terrorist” TV?

The Arab League is divided on the “super-police” proposal, with Egypt and Saudia Arabia as key sponsors, and Qatar and Lebanon strongly opposed. Al Jazeera is based in Qatar, where it began as a project of Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa, so Qatar is defending its own interests there. We’ve already seen that the Lebanese political leadership is ready to defend Al Manar on the grounds of national sovereignty. So it comes down to a test of wills between two nations, Qatar and Lebanon, who are pioneers of Arab media diversity, and two others, Saudia Arabia and Egypt, who represent state censorship and control. Guess which side the U.S. Congress is on? And isn’t it ironic that around the same time Hillary Clinton made a big speech defending the “freedom to connect” on the internet, Congress should be demanding that Arab states use their authority to pull independent media off the air?