Israeli/American/Democrat/Zionist seeking to buy Al-Jazeera

by on October 10, 2009 28

Haim Saban’s bid. Mondoweiss couldn’t make this up. What Zionist control of the media?

About Bruce Wolman

Bruce Wolman is a citizen journalist who has lived in Norway and the Washington area.
Posted in Beyondoweiss, Israel Lobby

{ 28 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Richard Witty says:
    October 10, 2009 at 9:32 am

    This was reported a week ago. I was about to complain to Phil, “how come you didn’t post this when I e-mailed the Haaretz notation of this?”, but saw that it was Bruce’s name.

    I think Haim Saban joining as equal partners with an Arab co-publisher and Arab editorial staff, indicates the oppossite of your thesis.

    • Donald says:
      October 10, 2009 at 9:47 am

      The wikipedia entry on Haim Saban has a long portion devoted to his feelings about Israel. You’d have to be an idiot not to wonder if those feelings don’t play some teensy bit of a role in his desire to purchase Al Jazeera.

    • Colin Murray says:
      October 10, 2009 at 10:37 am

      Richard, Al-Jazeera has been gut punching Israeli credibility for years with its on-the-ground and honest reportage of Israeli government criminality. Do you seriously think that Haim Saban has any objective for purchase of Al-Jazeera other than to buy the power to censor its reportage of Israel? Ah, I see your answer in a comment farther down the page: “So what?”

      • US_Objector says:
        October 10, 2009 at 1:24 pm

        There can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever in any sane person’s mind that if Haim Saban had owned al-Jazeera at the time of Operation Cast Lead, there would have been no images of the raw carnage transmitted to the rest of the world. That’s Saban’s sole interest in seeking to buy half of the channel. Full stop.

  2. Richard Witty says:
    October 10, 2009 at 10:29 am

    As I said,
    Saban assuming 50% ownership (only by consent of those that sell that interest to him anyway), indicates that he is willing to PARTNER with those of different views and perspective.

    I don’t know if its a good or not. But, the thesis of “Jewish control of the media” is contradicted by the partnership, not supported by it.

  3. Bruce says:
    October 10, 2009 at 10:54 am

    Richard,

    As so often here at Mondoweiss, you seem to be clueless about what you are commenting upon. Haim Saban does not invest in money hemorrhaging businesses “to PARTNER with those of different views and perspective.” Nothing in his character or past actions would suggest any such motive. He’s a power ranger that plays to win and doesn’t care who gets offended or squashed in the process.

    And even Saban doesn’t have the kind of money to pay $5 billion for an investment that has no clear path to profitability. So who is backing his bid?

    I hope you are just pulling our chains. Otherwise, you are even more detached from reality than any of us considered possible.

    • Richard Witty says:
      October 10, 2009 at 3:03 pm

      He, like other investors, puts money in with the hope of making more money out of it.

      Partnership is a two-way street. You imagine that his Arab partners are not interested in making money, or are unwilling for his participation.

      I’m sure there are others with money to invest. Maybe not.

    • Richard Witty says:
      October 10, 2009 at 3:08 pm

      Clueless?

      Again,
      I’ve been in partnerships. BOTH sides compromise.

      I get that you fear that the “fearlessness” of Al-Jazeera will be tarnished.

      I think it is a good thing for Arabs and Jews to work together. They’ll have to listen to each other.

      Don’t you?

      • Chaos4700 says:
        October 10, 2009 at 5:32 pm

        Because that worked out so well for the Palestinians when European Jews came to their country before 1948. Or hell, for the British for that matter, before they surrendered to the original terrorists. Nice precedent for partnership with Zionists that set, didn’t it?

      • Nolan says:
        October 11, 2009 at 5:28 am

        He’s not “clueless”.

        He pretends to be “clueless” so as to both exhaust those who debate him as they try over and over to explain their point and get it to sink in and to avoid revealing his cards, so he can turn around the next day and spin it differently.

  4. harveystein says:
    October 10, 2009 at 11:10 am

    And just a little tidbit on Al Jazeera: on three occasions (2 in Israel and 1 in Niilin in the West Bank), Al Jazeera has refused to interview Khaled Mahameed (the Palestinian who is featured in my documentary, who presents Holocaust workshops to Palestinians). In Niilin, they refused to interview him, even though they were visiting a small exhibit of Holocaust photos that Niilin villagers decided to put up, after being inspired by meeting Mahameed.
    So, I guess Al Jazeera likes to control their “message” as much as any other multinational media conglomerate…

    Maybe a little Jewish money might loosen them up (but 50% is probably too high….)

  5. America First says:
    October 10, 2009 at 11:52 am

    We can expect the same objectivity from Al-Jazeera that we now get from the Saban Center at Brookings, headed by by Iraq war cheerleader Kenneth Pollack.

    Saban, in a 2004 New York Times interview[3], ascribed his interest in politics to his concern for Israel: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.”

    link to en.wikipedia.org

  6. Rehmat says:
    October 10, 2009 at 12:39 pm

    Al-Zajeera being a Zionist front – is an old story:

    “I wish all Arab media were like Al-Jazeera,” – Gideon Ezra, former deputy head of Israeli General Security Service, quoted in ‘Foreign Policy (FP)’, July/August 2006 issue.

    Al-Jazeera – Pro-Israel Arab Network
    link to rehmat1.wordpress.com

    • Chaos4700 says:
      October 10, 2009 at 5:40 pm

      Rehmat, I appreciate the information and perspective you bring to the discussion but… sometimes you post stuff that’s a little… er… out there. I’m not going to argue the specific details in your article, I don’t have the wherewithal to verify them, but to characterize Al-Jazeera as pro-Zionist is… well… kind of ludicrous. I could see maybe some criticism that they go soft on Israel at times (although my experience with al-Jazeera is at odds with that so I would disagree) but to portray it as a “Zionist front” doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

  7. Cliff says:
    October 10, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    Who told me, Witty is just ‘blind’?

    Look at this clown, he’s a blatant liar.

    Just like his approval of Blair’s response to the Buffalo student (ex: Israel left Gaza and it got rockets in return.) – he is again here being a complete dishonest troll and also a liar.

    And you wonder why most people here are irritated w/ him. It’s not like he’s stimulating conversation. He’s dragging it down to a 3rd grade level.

    Witty simply relies on ‘point-scoring’ rhetoric. He would have been banned long ago if Phil truly cared about sincere debate and not just banning people who have websites named ‘Judeofascists’.

    • Chaos4700 says:
      October 10, 2009 at 5:35 pm

      I can sympathize. It’s bad enough that he perpetuates falsehoods, and inadvertently makes Jews bad with the whole “Judaism as the personal human shield of Zionism” technique he’s evolved (nowadays, nothing furthers anti-Semitic stereotypes worse than a Zionist).

      But when he makes a mockery of liberalism and progressivism? For me, that’s personal.

  8. Mooser says:
    October 10, 2009 at 3:20 pm

    “He would have been banned long ago if Phil truly cared about sincere debate”

    Phil would have to monitor the comment section 24/7 to ride herd on the debate.
    I suggest you read his post on comment standards.

    I might mention that over at JSF ( link to jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com
    ) Witty would have been banned or more likely warned about his constant prevarication.
    You might like their comment section more, prevaricators don’t get much play there.

  9. Mooser says:
    October 10, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    Cliff, please don’t reject out-of-hand the idea that Witty is Phil (or Adam) when they are manifesting another side of their identity or personality. Sort of a Dr. Jeckelstine and Mr. Hydowitz type of thing. One never knows, does one?

  10. nextyearin says:
    October 10, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    has it occurred to anyone that just because something is written in an egyptian newspaper doesn’t mean its true? is there ANY evidence that saban might buy al jazeera besides the el-masryoon story? until there is, this is a pointless debate.

  11. US_Objector says:
    October 10, 2009 at 8:23 pm

    Richard says: the thesis of “Jewish control of the media” is contradicted by the partnership, not supported by it.

    Um, gee, Richard, I’m as big a fan of hasbara as the next guy, but this is way too intellectually dishonest for any Mondoweisser to swallow.

    You want us to believe . . . that Haim Saban . . . is not trying to exercise editorial control . . . over the Arab version of CNN . . . and that he’s hoping to make a “profit” by investing $5 billion in al-Jazeera (which is bleeding money, by the way) . . . and that this is a great example of how Jews don’t want to control the media, but how they . . . um, what exactly are you saying Haim Saban wants to get out of it???

    • Nolan says:
      October 11, 2009 at 5:35 am

      Even a 50% partnership doesn’t mean that ‘both’ sides of the debate will suddenly be heard on al-Jazeera, especially by those who now accuse it of being biased and anti-Israeli. It just means that pro-Israel propaganda and bias would have infiltrated yet another news organization. As if we don’t have enough now with the CNNs and the NBCs of the world.

  12. DG says:
    October 10, 2009 at 10:40 pm

    The link to the Press TV article doesn’t work. Here it is–
    link to presstv.ir

    “The account comes amid reports that the largest and most controversial Arab news channel in the Middle East is grappling with a terrible financial crisis at present. Saban had previously made an offer to purchase al-Jazeera in 2004, but it was turned down.”

Leave a Reply