Bias and Deception in the Media’s Coverage of Mideast Turmoil

By Matthew M. Hausman

Showing that the line between advocacy journalism and deceptive reporting is very fine indeed, the American media has abdicated any pretense of objectivity in its coverage of the Arab-Muslim world. Rather, it is guided by an absurd political sensibility that downplays the totalitarian and supremacist aspects of Sharia, eschews any rational discussion of the scriptural underpinnings of Islamist extremism, and disregards clear radical influences in the Arab Spring. Some journalists come by this sensibility through simple ignorance, while others take their cues from a liberal press establishment that inexplicably finds common cause with the Islamist repudiation of western values, and accepts the canard that Muslim extremism is an understandable reaction to the past sins of European colonialism.

This useful idiocy is on full display when Hamas is portrayed as a legitimate political entity with which Israel must negotiate, or when the Muslim Brotherhood is regarded as a positive force for change in Egypt. In recently reporting on the murder of Vittorio Arrigoni, an Italian, pro-Palestinian activist, the New York Times offered a case study in dissimulation as it subtly attempted to draw artificial distinctions between Hamas and Al-Qaeda, implicitly portraying one as moderate and the other as more radical, when in fact both were spawned by the same parent organization and each is as extremist as the other in word and deed.

The Times reported that Mr. Arrigoni “died at the hands of a fringe group of Palestinians, inspired by Al Qaeda.” According to the article in the Times, the murder of Arrigoni:

Raised embarrassing questions for Hamas about the security it has restored in the Palestinian coastal enclave since it ousted its secular rival, Fatah . . . It also raises the specter of a growing boldness on the part of more extreme virulently anti-Western Islamic groups in Gaza, which pose a challenge not only to Hamas but to foreign activists promoting the Palestinian cause.

(“Killing of Pro-Palestinian Activist in Gaza Deals a Blow to Hamas,” Fares Akram and Isabel Kershner, New York Times, April 16, 2011.)

By stating that the acts of a “fringe group … inspired by Al Qaeda” could somehow embarrass or pose a challenge to Hamas, the Times implies that Hamas is not really extremist, but instead is moderate when compared to groups such as Al-Qaeda. This analysis is beyond absurd, however, ignoring as it does that Hamas is included on the U.S. State Department’s List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and overlooking the fact that Hamas arose out of the Muslim Brotherhood – the world’s oldest and largest Islamist movement.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, a Nazi admirer and committed antisemite, and from its inception has advocated jihad against “nonbelievers.” Its targets have included Coptic Christians, Jews, Israel, and western interests, and it played an important role in the recent uprising in Egypt, though one would hardly know this from the mainstream news reports at the time. Despite the Obama Administration’s attempts to soften the official view of the Brotherhood, it undeniably supports terrorism and lists among its primary goals the imposition of Sharia and the restoration of the Caliphate. In hearings before Congress in February 2011, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified that “obviously, elements of the Muslim Brotherhood here and overseas have supported terrorism.” Not insignificantly, Hamas was founded as a military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Mahmoud al-Zahar.

One need look no further than the Hamas Charter to understand that it seeks to destroy Israel and exterminate her people, and that it advocates the use of terrorism as a means to achieve these ends. Hamas is hardly a benign entity, and it makes no such pretentions about itself. On the contrary, it is brutally honest about its extremism and antisemitism, and is open in its belief that both are ordained by the Quran and Hadith. The organization’s supremacist and genocidal aspirations are as apparent on the face of its charter as were those of Hitler in the pages of Mein Kampf.

Regarding the organization’s Islamist pedigree, its commitment to the destruction of Israel and her people, and its methods of operation, the Hamas Charter clearly states, among other things, the following:

‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it’ (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

(Hamas Charter, Preamble.)

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised (sic) by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement (sic), the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.

(Hamas Charter, Article Two.)

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Muslim Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Muslim Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation (sic) of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

The Day of Judgement (sic) will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews. (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

(Hamas Charter, Article Seven.)

In describing Hamas as a moderating force that brought security to Gaza, the Times report on Arrigoni’s murder glosses over the organization’s description of itself as “one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine.” The sanitized characterization of Hamas also ignores its continuing use of terror against Jewish and Arab civilians, and its affinity for “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Moreover, in referencing the supposedly improved security conditions in Gaza, the Times conveniently forgets the war that Hamas brought upon Gaza by its unprovoked rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers; its location of weapons and fighters in residential neighborhoods, hospitals, schools and mosques; its use of civilians as shields during wartime; and its suppression and murder of those who dissent.

Any attempts to distinguish Hamas simply as a political party are undercut by its history of terrorist activity and suicide bombings against Jewish men, women and children in Israel and elsewhere, and by reports of its involvement in terror activities in Europe. Though Hamas may claim that Israel is the sole focus of its enmity, its condemnation of the United States for killing Osama Bin Laden, and its beatification of him as “a Muslim and Arabic warrior” within hours of his death, belie a far broader scope of intent.

Hamas is clearly not moderate, and any suggestion to the contrary by the New York Times and like-minded publications reflects either naiveté or – more likely – an editorial policy of misrepresenting the group’s legitimacy for political or philosophical reasons. As reflected in its charter, Hamas was specifically created to wage war on Israel and to carry on violent jihad. In addition to engaging in terrorism, Hamas advocates not only the destruction of Israel, but also the subjugation of all lands that were considered to have been incorporated into the world of Islam by jihadist conquest – which lands necessarily include the Iberian Peninsula, the Balkans, and Central Asia.

Indeed, Article 11 of the Hamas Charter includes the following passages:

This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Muslims have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations till the Day of Judgement (sic).

It happened like this: When the leaders of the Islamic armies conquered Syria and Iraq, they sent to the Caliph of the Muslims, Umar bin-el-Khatab, asking for his advice concerning the conquered land – whether they should divide it among the soldiers, or leave it for its owners, or what? After consultations and discussions between the Caliph of the Muslims, Omar bin-el-Khatab and companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, it was decided that the land should be left with its owners who could benefit by its fruit. As for the real ownership of the land and the land itself, it should be consecrated for Muslim generations till Judgement (sic) Day. Those who are on the land, are there only to benefit from its fruit. This Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void.

‘Verily, this is a certain truth. Wherefore praise the name of thy Lord, the great Allah.’ (The Inevitable – verse 95).

(Hamas Charter, Article 11.)

The New York Times is disingenuous when it portrays Hamas as a responsible organization embarrassed by Al-Qaeda’s extremism, because in truth there is no meaningful difference between the two groups in terms of ideology. Like Hamas, Al-Qaeda grew out the Muslim Brotherhood. Osama Bin Laden belonged to the Brotherhood before creating Al-Qaeda, as did Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who founded Islamic Jihad before its merger into Bin Laden’s organization. In light of this shared patrimony, it should surprise no one that Al-Qaeda and Hamas have similar objectives. Indeed, consistent with the foregoing Hamas Charter passage, Al-Qaeda’s Charter states, among other things, that: “There Will Be Continuing Enmity Until Everyone Believes In Allah. We Will Not Meet [The Enemy] Halfway And There Will Be No Room For Dialogue With Them.”

Despite common philosophies, aims and methods, the artificial distinction often employed by the New York Times and similar outlets is that Hamas is political while Al-Qaeda is militant; a false distinction based partly on Hamas’ electoral success in Gaza. Nevertheless, such facile differences elevate form over substance. That Hamas may have seized power through the political process does not rehabilitate the illegitimate nature of its stated goals or justify its unprovoked terror attacks against Jewish civilians. Rather, the election of Hamas highlights the extremist rejectionism of Gaza’s civilian population, and undermines liberal claims that the people of Gaza endorse a two-state solution with Israel.

The media’s sophistry is not limited to its slanted reporting of Arrigoni’s murder or its attempt to posture Hamas as a moderate political organization. Rather, the same dramaturgical contrivance – i.e., that liberal, democratic principles are blossoming and taking root in Muslim society – has shaped the reportage and commentary regarding the upheaval in the Arab-Muslim world. To hear the American press tell the tale, the uprisings have been inspired by an affinity for western values. Despite the prominence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and its influence on much of the Egyptian population – and although discord elsewhere in the Mideast is more about Iranian-inspired Shiite discontent with Sunni or Alawite political hegemony – prominent news organizations have crafted a myth that disregards the Islamist influence lurking in the shadows or actively stirring the pot.

News coverage of the early uprisings omitted any inconvenient truths that did not fit the preferred storyline. The protests in Tunisia, which produced an interim government that soon became the object of renewed protests, featured placards and banners that excoriated Israel and proclaimed “death to the Jews.” During and after the protests, the small Jewish population of two-thousand souls – though clearly uninvolved in the machinations of government – lived in fear of assault and murder by the Tunisian demonstrators. Anti-Jewish sentiment was on display throughout the protests, but it was largely ignored by the media because it conflicted with the contrived narrative of a popular revolt motivated by an ideologically-pure yearning for freedom and democracy.

The protests in Egypt were not benign either, despite having been marketed by a friendly press as the “Facebook Revolution.” The images broadcast by CNN, Reuters and the national television networks typically featured signs and banners proclaiming the protestors’ desire for liberal democracy and western values. But these images were chosen for their adherence to the accepted narrative, not necessarily for their depiction of reality. As they did in Tunisia, the networks generally failed to broadcast images of protesters condemning America and proclaiming death to Israel, or to air videos showing crowds chanting Islamist and antisemitic slogans.

In the beginning of the Egyptian revolt, most networks even failed to report the risk of violence to their own reporters, until CBS correspondent Lara Logan was assaulted and raped by a crowd of Egyptians shouting antisemitic epithets. Although the networks reported the assault on Ms. Logan (who is not Jewish) after it happened, one might question whether their correspondents were fully aware of the extent of the risk to their persons prior to being dispatched to cover the demonstrations.

Perhaps worse still was the media’s failure to question why a supposedly democratic revolution ended with a military junta still in power, or how Egypt’s subsequent constitutional referendum included amendments that, according to many observers, all but guarantee the success of the Muslim Brotherhood in next September’s elections. In order to continue pushing its chimerical narrative, the media has offered minimal commentary on official statements and conduct that betray the junta’s intent to scuttle the peace treaty with Israel and to cease the even-handed administration of the Suez Canal that had characterized Mubarak’s foreign policy for 30 years. Moreover, the press has largely avoided critical analysis of the clear signals emanating from the Egyptian military regarding realignment with Iranian interests, and has overlooked the troubling significance of Egypt’s role in brokering a rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas in Cairo.

Unfortunately, the conditioned response of many news consumers – when finally confronted with pictures and reports of violence and racist antisemitism exhibited by the protesting throngs – is to blame the conservative press for engaging in alarmist hyperbole. However, these disturbing images do exist and are consistent with popular attitudes as gauged by reputable polling organizations. According to a recent Gallup survey, for example, 64% of Egyptians polled approve the imposition of Sharia, while a large percentage of those who claim they don’t want Sharia still favor a government guided by Islamic law. Moreover, the Egyptian public’s views on a number of key issues show a troubling affinity for political Islam, whether labeled Sharia or something else. In a recent Pew Research Poll, for instance, a majority of Egyptians favored laws requiring the execution of apostates and adulterers, the latter by stoning. (Interestingly, the definition of “adulterer” includes the victims of rape.) Such attitudes appear to be pervasive and don’t bode well for a secular, democratic Egypt. Why then were such polling data shunted aside in the mainstream media’s coverage?

The selective presentation of facts in order to justify preordained conclusions does a great disservice to those who rely on the news to be presented objectively. One could question whether the media’s failures in its slanted coverage of events in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere were intentional or merely negligent. Did western editors and correspondents intend to report only what reinforced the popular fairy-tale of downtrodden masses thirsting for political freedom? Or did enthusiasm for their own well-made play cloud their professional judgment and influence them to suppress or spin uncomfortable facts?

If there were any doubts about whether the distorted coverage in Egypt and Tunisia was intentional, indications of the same impulse in reports coming out of Yemen, Bahrain and Libya should put the issue to rest. Despite disturbing evidence that the turmoil in these countries has little to do with a popular desire for liberal political values, much of the press continues to peddle a warmed-over rehash of its analysis in Egypt and Tunisia. Regardless of any facts to the contrary, the media is again citing the desire for liberal democracy as the driving force behind political unrest in societies that have never known it, and which reject its values.

It cannot be that all journalists covering events in the Arab Mideast are ignorant. It seems more likely that they are molding the story to shape public opinion according to their own political views. Although the interpretation of objective fact is always influenced by subjective perception, traditional standards of journalism at one time encouraged professionals to rise above personal bias in presenting the news. However, recent coverage of the political chaos in the Mideast suggests that these standards are dead – if indeed they ever truly existed – and that the line between journalistic integrity and partisan advocacy has been blurred into irrelevance. Therefore, those seeking truth in reporting should scrutinize the mainstream media’s offerings with a jaundiced eye and a healthy dose of cynicism, and perhaps should start looking elsewhere for their news.