SPECIAL MEDIA REACTION: CRISIS IN LEBANON

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 ABU DHABI 003000 SIPDIS STATE FOR NEA/ARP; NEA/PPD; NEA/RA; INR/R/MR; PA; INR/NESA; INR/B; RRU-NEA IIP/G/NEA-SA WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESS OFFICE; NSC SECDEF FOR OASD/PA USCINCCENT FOR POLAD LONDON FOR MCKUNE PITRANSGRESS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: OIIP KMDR TC SUBJECT: SPECIAL MEDIA REACTION: CRISIS IN LEBANON ¶1. Summary: Reactions to the crisis in Lebanon continue to be negative. In the print media, editorials have heavily criticized references to building a new Middle East as well as the United States for facilitating Israel's offensive. One editorial entitled "Go home Condoleezza" appeared on the front page of the prominent English-language paper "Gulf News." In addition, a political cartoon featured in "Al-Khaleej" portrayed President Bush speaking from atop a pile of Iraqi, Lebanese and Palestinian skulls, while "Al-Bayan" dedicated a full page to photos of casualties and destruction in Lebanon. Meanwhile television coverage of the conflict has actively incorporated a range of perspectives on the topic, but continues to emphasize the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon and criticize the United States for not limiting or objecting to Israel's actions. A telethon held yesterday raised over 50 million dirhams in aid for Lebanon, while a larger telethon has been schedule for Friday. Both heavily feature dramatic footage of the conflict from on the ground in Lebanon. End Summary. ¶2. Under the headline "Go home Condoleezza," the prominent English-language daily "Gulf News" published the following editorial on the front page of its 07/24 edition: "Does Condoleezza Rice really expect to be welcome in the Middle East? Surely not, for as U.S. Secretary of State, we already know her agenda; it is pro-Israel, pro-US. Historically, Arabs are known for hospitality, but they do not want her here. It will be futile. Claims of impartiality are not credible. Arab patience has worn thin. Her bias and the U.S. agenda driven by Israel, is there for all to see. Even in announcing her visit to the region, Rice said she will "meet with Prime Minister Olmert and his leadership and President Abbas and his team". Does she mean Abbas does not have leadership? Is he some sort of football captain that only has a "team"? It is demeaning terminology of this type that gives her away. Rice has said she will not meet Hezbollah or Syria. So what does she expect to achieve in coming here? Maybe it is to give approval of Israel's actions, and confirmation the requested smart bombs will �A;be delivered. What will she say to Abbas in Palestine? Why doesn't she meet the Palestinian prime minister as well? The main conflict is in Lebanon, so why not go there and talk to the elected prime minister, whom the U.S. was so pleased to triumph when appointed? She acknowledges there are no "quick fixes" to the conflict, and says, "now is not the time to call for a ceasefire" as it would be based upon false promises. So why come here if she has nothing new to say? Is it to promote her belief that Lebanon is going through "the pangs of the new Middle East"? Are we to conclude that these "pangs" will be in accord with U.S. control, courtesy of Israel? Arabs, Muslims and Christians, mock so-called American impartiality. They know Rice will achieve little, if anything, in coming here. They know that Rice will reassure Olmert of continued support from the US, whatever agenda Israel may carry out against its neighbors. Only Israelis are happy to see Rice here. From an Arab perspective, Condoleezza is wasting our time and should go home." ¶3. Under the headline "A 'greater' or 'new' Middle East?", female Emirati columnist Aisha al-Merri wrote the following on 07/24 in the Abu Dhabi-based Arabic-language daily "Al-Ittihad" (circulation 65,000): "Secretary Rice brings us glad tidings of the New Middle East, a product of the Israeli war on Lebanon and Hezbollah, and Iran and Syria. Such descriptors as 'new' and 'greater' are old terms, used by Rice before to describe plans for the region... George Bush's reliance upon democracy to promote political change in the Middle East was once a vital part of American policy. But now American policy seems to have changed, as it demonstrates a willingness to impose on Arab countries such things as democracy, reform and human rights. Neoconservatives are using American foreign policy and the mainstream media, both of which are intertwined with Israel in unprecedented ways, towards their own ends. It seems that U.S. policy towards the Middle East is designed in Tel Aviv, not Washington. Countless observers have noted that the outcomes of American policy have served Israel more than the United States... American policies drag the region into violence, even as tension with the Arab world increases over America's blunt pro-Israel policy. These developments threaten to build a volcano of extremism, wherein moderation will be labeled a crime and Arab governments will become helpless. Washington will lose out because of its pro-Israel policy, and will only succeed at creating more terrorism." ¶4. Under the headline "The U.N. Security Council's responsibility", the Sharjah-based Arabic-language daily "Al-Khaleej" (circulation 90,000) published the following in a 07/24 unsigned editorial: "... The UN Security Council and America's actions within it have given the Israeli army a pretext for its slaughter, distorting the truth under the smoke of Israeli missiles, the ashes of destroyed houses and the blood of the Lebanese people. In such critical moments, when torrents of military and political pressure along with countless Israeli missiles are pouring on to Lebanon, other Arabs can only look upon Lebanon as an entity fighting against a bloody Satanic plan." ¶5. Under the headline "An American war", columnist Maan Al-Beyari wrote the following in a 07/24 editorial in the Sharjah-based Arabic-language daily "Al-Khaleej" (circulation 90,000): "Many experienced politicians involved in the 'March 14th Agreement' have leaked information expressing their surprise and disappointment over recent events. Most likely these people believed America's cruel joke in stating that it wanted an 'independent and democratic' Lebanon, free from Syrian custodianship. Hence it will be even more ironic if these same people believe America's new joke: statements that it wishes to prevent the weakening of Fouad Sinoria's government, even as it helps render the Lebanese government little more than an aid organization unable to bring Lebanon out of its humanitarian crisis... The massive destruction unveiled in Lebanon, facilitated by U.S. smart bombs, demonstrates that betting on American honor is a mistake. Lebanese opponents of Syria should stop claiming that this is somehow an Israeli-Iranian war... [Recently] John Bolton confidently stated that murdered Lebanese civilians, who died defending themselves, were not the equivalent of Israeli citizens killed by rockets from 'terrorist' groups. We observe this speech, and remember that politicians from the 'March 14th Agreement' participated in honoring this cruel man just weeks ago." ¶6. Under the headline "Israel's power is a lie", the Arabic-language daily "Al-Bayan" (circulation 85,000) published the following in a 07/24 unsigned editorial: "... It is painfully clear that the aggression against Lebanon, the destruction of its infrastructure and the slaughter of its innocent civilians has nothing to do with the rescue of those soldiers captured by Hezbollah. Rather, it more closely resembles the events of September 11th, which to this day impact world events. Today, Israel wishes to reshape Lebanon through force, as they would with Syria, Iran and the whole region if possible. The soldiers' abduction is being exploited to bring about changes desired in the region through violence, in order to complete the agenda of the greater Middle East and to eliminate all forms of resistance and reluctance that greet America's imperialist project. Meanwhile Arabs, instead of uniting in the face of Israeli aggression, have divided themselves in trying to uncover the causes of this war." ¶7. Entitled "Olmert's New Middle East," a full page of dramatic photos depicting Lebanese civilian casualties and the destruction of various Lebanese cities was published on 07/24 in the Arabic-language daily "Al-Bayan" (circulation 85,000). ¶8. On 07/24 the Sharjah-based Arabic-language daily "Al-Khaleej" carried a political cartoon featuring President Bush standing atop a pile of Iraqi, Lebanese and Palestinian skulls, saying, "Israel has the right to defend itself." ¶9. Meanwhile both of the main Arabic-language satellite news channels, "Al-Arabiyah" and "Al-Jazeera," have continued to dedicate most of their broadcast time to the ongoing crisis. Each channel has developed a large network of correspondents both in southern Lebanon and northern Israel. These networks have allowed both channels to actively cover the details of the conflict, including many attacks, public statements and rescue and relief efforts, in real-time. In addition, each channel carries several evening talk shows where experts, political figures and survivors are interviewed and provide additional commentary on the crisis. Smaller local channels such as "Abu Dhabi TV" and "Dubai TV" have also dedicated a good portion of their daily newscasts and programs to the ongoing crisis, although their more limited resources and focus on non-journalistic programming have prevented them from pursuing the same depth of coverage. Both channels have made efforts to retain impartiality by interviewing Israeli survivors of attacks and other individuals critical of Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. Yet a majority of commentators have expressed criticism of both Israel and the United States, the former for pursuing such wide-scale attacks and the latter for obstructing efforts to limit the Israeli offensive. Also, the humanitarian disaster in Beirut has become the major focus of the regional media's coverage of the attacks, encouraging sympathy for the Lebanese people and outrage over the scale of casualties and destruction revealed in newscasts. While satellite channels have attempted to retain a semblance of impartiality, outrage over the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon is most commonly directed at Israel and the United States. ¶10. The broadcast media has become increasingly involved in mobilizing action in support of the Lebanese cause. On 07/23, a telethon on the local "Al-Aqariah" channel co-sponsored by the UAE Red Crescent raised over 50 million dirham for relief efforts in Lebanon. A similar telethon will be held on 07/28 on all four channels owned by "Dubai TV", under special orders from Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and ruler of Dubai. The telethon is being heavily advertised on both "Dubai TV" and "Al-Arabiyah" in segments that heavily feature dramatic footage of casualties and destruction in Lebanon. SISON