• On May 5, 2024, the Israeli government accused Al Jazeera (AJ) of being a threat to its national security and a “mouthpiece for Hamas,” closing the channel in Israel for 45 days.

• The broadcaster has a long track record of being barred from operating in several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Jordan, Egypt, and Morocco, for similar charges.

• U.S. State Department spokesperson Mathew Miller said on May 7, 2024, “We think Al Jazeera ought to be able to operate in Israel.” Yet in 2016, America ordered the closure of AJ America.

• AJ is a well-known brand with enormous viewership. It understands how to target or manipulate its target audience. Its Arabic output is catered to appeal to the Arab Street mindset. The reportage is often emotionally charged, containing images of raw and brutal violence and bloodshed, displaying seriously injured and distressed civilians and even showing dead people.

• A second important factor to AJ’s massive success is that it does not need to make a profit like other media outlets. Since its establishment in 1996, it has received billions of dollars from the rulers of Qatar.

• Iraqi journalist Sufian Al-Samarrai, Chairman of the Baghdad Post, calls Al Jazeera “nothing more than a platform of armed political Islamist gangs, and their ferocity and terrorism are promoted as a legitimate resistance.” Its goal is “to overthrow the current secular-conservative Arab regimes…paving the way for political Islam, represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, to take over the region.”

On May 5, 2024, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu posted on X that “The incitement channel Al Jazeera will be closed in Israel,” following the unanimous cabinet vote to shut the Qatari-funded network’s operations in the country for 45 days. The Israeli government accused Al Jazeera (AJ) of being a threat to its national security and a “mouthpiece for Hamas.”

Shortly after that, AJ released a press statement strongly condemning and denouncing the closure of its offices, calling the move a “criminal act,” adding that “The network vehemently rejects the allegations presented by the Israeli authorities suggesting professional media standards have been violated.”

Western mainstream media and pro-Qatar supporters lined up to condemn the move, calling it an attack on “free speech,” with some projecting it would lead to widespread condemnations in Arab capitals. The AJ supporters entirely overlooked informing their readers that this was not the first time AJ was accused of “incitement.” The broadcaster has a long track record of being barred from operating in several Arab countries, including Saudia Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Jordan, Egypt, and Morocco, for similar charges: “threat to national security,” “incitement,” and “mouthpiece for Islamic terror organizations.” Add to the list, following 9/11, and particularly in the aftermath of the Iraq war and the toppling of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussain, many American commentators and politicians blamed AJ for fuelling anger and incitement in the Arab street against America and American troops stationed in Iraq.

The Israeli move was also condemned by some Western governments, including the United States, calling it “concerning to us.” Washington “made it quite clear that we support media freedom all around the world, including in Israel,” said U.S. State Department spokesperson Mathew Miller to reporters on May 7, 2024, adding, “We think Al Jazeera ought to be able to operate in Israel, as it does in other countries in the region.” The striking note is that in 2016, America ordered the closure of AJ America.

Notably, the United States, the UK, and many European countries have banned Moscow-funded broadcasters Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik from operating across the United States and Europe since March 2022. The then-UK Culture Secretary Nadine Dorris labeled RT the channel as “Putin’s polluting propaganda machine,” and the EU accused both broadcasters of promoting “systematic information manipulation and disinformation by the Kremlin.”

RT, like AJ, vehemently rejected the allegations and strongly condemned the decision, stating that “the facade of a free press in Europe has finally crumbled.”

If It Quacks Like a Propagandist…

This begs the question of why it is justified by the United States, the UK, and the EU to ban the propaganda arm of the Russian government, but it is not justifiable for Israelis to ban the propaganda arm of the Hamas-supporting Qatari government. So, is it a “dark day for the media” when Israel “temporarily” shut down AJ operations in Israel, but not a “dark day” when RT and Sputnik are banned from broadcasting across Europe and the United States?

I have spent more than a decade working for several Qatari media outlets, including being employed by Alaraby Television Network as a full-time field producer. Besides working for Alaraby TV, I also worked as a freelance journalist for the Pan-Arab newspaper, The New Arab. I worked on three documentaries for Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera Documentary, mainly covering the Israeli narrative. My last assignment ended in October 2023 as an Israel-based producer on a film for Al Jazeera English about the life of the Lehi Jewish resistance founder Avraham Stern (released in February 2024).

It is essential to point out that the output of Qatari media differs if it caters to Arab or Western audiences. For Arab audiences, journalists and presenters must use emotionally charged rhetoric to evoke anger or sympathy. For example, Israel is called the “occupying state” or “the Zionist entity;” Palestinian casualties are often referred to as martyrs, while Israeli casualties “died.” In 2017, I was in charge of a documentary about the 100^th Anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. Accredited as the Senior Researcher, I was the leading journalist who interviewed all the contributing guest experts and secured the copyright to use an interview with Lord Rothchild. On the eve of airing the documentary, it is customary to invite the person responsible to talk on-air about the filming process, the main themes, etc. For this specific film, “My Dear Rothchild,” the channel management decided it was best for someone else to talk about the film. The person they chose was a good colleague of mine. When I asked about the logic behind London/Doha’s choice, I was told, “Suzan, I will be honest with you. The management is concerned that you would refer to Israel as a ‘state of Israel.’ It may give the adversary (meaning Israel) some understanding.”

Going back to my last working assignment for Al Jazeera’s Avraham Stern film, broadcast in AJ English, I was allowed to refer to Israel as the “state of Israel,” and the Israeli experts I interviewed were given a platform to express their opinions.

Gregg Carlstrom, the Economist’s Middle East correspondent, argues an enormous gap exists between AJ Arabic and AJ English, launched in 2006, ten years after the Arabic channel opened. Carlstrom writes, “They share a name, but little else, even operating out of separate buildings across the street from each other. Their editorial lines are also sharply different,” he explained. “Much of the English programming remains fair and objective—adjectives that no longer apply to its Arabic sister channel.”

Why Al Jazeera Succeeds

Despite the constant controversies, AJ is a well-known brand with enormous viewership. Its success can be explained for several reasons. First, it understands the media market and how to target or manipulate its target audience. Its Arabic output is catered to appeal to the Arab Street mindset, e.g., when reporting a war/conflict story, the reportage would often be emotionally charged with the reportage containing images of raw and brutal violence, bloodshed, displaying no dignity towards seriously injured and distressed civilians, and even showing dead people. This view is primarily employed if the piece is about Palestinian casualties. As a journalist, this reporting style aims to lead and shape the audience’s mind rather than inform them about a specific news item.

A second important factor to AJ’s massive success is that it does not need to make profits like other equally giant media outlets. Since its establishment in 1996, it has received billions of dollars from the rulers of Qatar. The broadcaster’s senior management, including its former Director-General Wadah Khanfar, a Palestinian from Jenin, always insisted that “the hefty subsidy paid by the Qatari royal family to Al-Jazeera did not buy editorial influence.”

AJ prides itself on being a free speech campaigner and a platform where all opinions are welcomed. In some cases, it covers a crisis in Congo or Latin America. But editorial independence and impartiality are out of the window when the broadcaster covers topics known as “red lines” among Arab journalists – topics considered as politically sensitive/important to Arab and Muslim audiences, such as talking about coexistence between Israeli Arab and Jewish citizens. A favorable story about Israel will lead to severe consequences, including the journalist/producer losing their job.

And yes, most Arab rulers, including the powerful Crown Prince Mohamed Ibn Salman, cannot evade criticism on AJ’s screens, but editorial independence and free speech do not apply to the Emir of Qatar, the Al-Thani royal clan, or Qatari domestic and international affairs.

Qatar is a tiny emirate with a small population that does not exceed more than half a million. Yet, its enormous wealth successfully pushed Doha above its weight and made a name for itself internationally. Shibley Telhami, who has written extensively about the role of Arab media, argues that the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, established AJ to embellish his and the Qatari Sheikha’s image. Telhami writes, “Another service that Al Jazeera provided to Qatari rulers: as a welcome voice viewed by Arabs reflecting their own aspirations, Al Jazeera helps protect the Qataris from intense criticism for being a pro-American emirate that hosted a base for American airplanes attacking Iraq in the unpopular 2003 Iraq war.” Adding, “One cannot completely rule out an ideological position of the emir,” the strategy of Qatari rulers has always been about “the long-term survival of the Qatari leadership and of the emirate itself.”

In the first 15 years of its establishment, AJ enjoyed immense popularity among Arabs, but its image started cracking during the height of the civil war in Iraq (2006). Many viewed the channel as a tool to promote Qatar’s political agenda and a weapon to use against Qatar’s adversaries. In Iraq, AJ often glorified ISIS-affiliated militias as freedom fighters and martyrs, while the regular Iraqi army and security forces who were battling them were seen as an oppressive tool to silence the raging Iraqi street.

A few years later, with the arrival of the Arab Spring upheaval, Doha saw its opportunity to pursue its long-wished foreign policy in the region of supporting and financing radical Sunni Islamists, e.g., the Ennahad “Renaissance” party in Tunisia. In Syria, AJ supported figures like Mostafa Sabbagh, a leader of the anti-Assad Syrian National Coalition of Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (SNC), and Muslim Brotherhood supporter Moaz Al-Khatib, president of the SNC. In Libya and Egypt, it also backed Sunni Islamists. In Bahrain, it supported Shia Islamists affiliated with the Mullah regime in Iran. AJ became the propaganda arm of Qatar’s foreign policy. Favorable media coverage was given to causes close to the heart of Qatar’s rulers, foremost those promoting a Muslim Brotherhood (MB) narrative.

Many Arab rulers viewed the Muslim Brotherhood as an existential threat against the status quo. For years, Doha has been the haven for prominent exiled Islamist figures, including the illegal MB’s late spiritual leader, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, and other prominent leaders who oppose Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Doha is also home to the highest-echelon figures of Hamas and the Taliban.

During the Arab Spring, AJ played a significant role in whipping up popular support for the Brotherhood in Egypt and Ennahada in Tunisia, ensuring electoral victories for both.

Qatar’s support and funding of Islamist organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood and its Hamas affiliate, are the key to understanding why the Israeli government banned AJ and why four Arab countries, plus Jordan, decided to boycott Qatar for three-and-a-half years (June 2017 to January 2021). The four-Arab countries presented Doha with a list of 13 demands, including the closing of AJ. The blockading countries ordered the closure of the network’s local offices, accusing AJ of promoting extremism, fomenting unrest across the Arab world, and interfering in the internal affairs of Bahrain and Egypt. Doha rejected the allegation of being a “sponsor of terrorism” and “safe haven” for exiled terrorists.

AJ’s response to the Israeli authorities’ decision to ban the broadcaster echoes similar words of denial it uttered during the Qatar blockade years: an attack on free speech and an attempt to restrict voices of dissent.

Since the ongoing war between IDF and Hamas, AJ continued with its mantra that Israel is a brutal aggressor, and Hamas, who instigated the war, is holy. The Qatari network gives Hamas leaders and pro-Hamas supporters a vast platform on its screen. They manipulate events to shape and lead the audience to fit within the Hamas-MB narrative.

Prominent figures within the channel chain of command launch attacks against any Arab media figures and channels that host experts who oppose Hamas or question Hamas’s so-called truths. One of those figures is Matar Al-Ahmadi, a prominent Saudi journalist and former editor of Al-Arabiya, who refers to AJ as

The channel of Nasrallah, Khamenei, and Bin Laden; I acknowledge that Al Jazeera is far more successful than Al-Arabiya at throwing invective, whining, and riling up the simple people (…) Al Jazeera is nothing but a tool for creating chaos and anarchy. The proof is in the results. It lost all its media and ideological campaigns aimed at marketing Hizbullah, Al Qaeda, and the Spring of Anarchy (referring to the Arab Spring).

Almost three decades after it aired, AJ Arabic still sees itself as the champion for free speech and the voice of the voiceless. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs approached Iraqi journalist Sufian Al-Samarrai, the Chairman of the Baghdad Post and the New Iraq Centre, for a statement. Al-Samarrai said the West is too blind to see what AJ stands for and how it manipulates and penetrates Western societies. He stressed the massive differences in how news is portrayed in AJ English and AJ Arabic. AJ English projects itself as the standard-bearer of global liberalism, promoting democracy, human rights, freedom, and justice for all. It softly markets political Islam as a strategic solution to many of MENA’s problems. In addition, it portrays Islamism as a political ideology that can coexist with people and nations of different religions and ethnicities.

Al-Samarrai continued: AJ Arabic, on the other hand, “is nothing more than a platform of armed political Islamist gangs, and their ferocity and terrorism are promoted as a legitimate resistance.” He added, “Al Jazeera waging a systematic psychological war against Arab societies, through its careful selection of guest-experts where the producers pre-agree with guests about what needs to be said. In where a guest can openly glorify and support jihadism without being challenged by the presenter.”

Al-Samarrai continued that AJ has ignited unrest in many Arab countries, supporting Al-Qaida actions in his homeland Iraq. Following the invasion of Iraq, Al-Samarrai said that AJ played a significant role in inciting sectarian violence and gave legitimacy to the so-called Afghan-Arabs (an Iranian-backed armed militia that operates in several Arab countries, including Syria and Yemen) who led the largest sectarian party, the region has ever seen. AJ, through its platform, tried to manipulate the Arab Street by presenting political Islam/MB narrative as the solution to the problems faced in the Arab world, Al-Samarrai adds.

Al-Samarrai argues that liberal-left-woke camps in America and Europe have been contributing factors in empowering AJ’s ideological message by virtue of their shared interests with Qatar. Many within the far-left political activism are directly benefitting from Qatar. Therefore, we are hearing voices coming from the West in support of Hamas, denying responsibility for what’s going on in Gaza and, at worse, justifying its murderous actions on Oct 7.

When asked if AJ is still popular among Arab masses?” without hesitation, Al-Samarrai replied: “Yes, it’s still popular mainly because the Qatari state heavily invests in its media sector, especially pouring billions of dollars into AJ.” Qatar’s vast wealth, he continued, has made it possible for the Qatari rules to spread and market their political agenda via several media outlets it owns and funds, from AJ to Alaraby TV, Al Mayadeen, and The New Arab, etc.

These media outlets have been “transferred into a leadership and partisan ‘PowerCenter’ promoting political Islam and far-left radicalism,” states Al-Samarrai, adding the goal is “to overthrow the current secular-conservative Arab regimes via ferment social unrest across the region.” The endgame, Al-Samarrai claims, is “paving the way to political Islam represented by the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the region.”

* * *

Notes