The Doha Debates Media Book

MediaBook

SERIES6 2009 - 2010

Free speech is a tough proposition in the Middle East - and getting tougher! Governments have recently had more bad news to cover up - especially on the economic front - and state interference in the media has increased substantially.

That is the context in which we operate at The Doha Debates, based in Qatar, funded by the Qatar Foundation - and yet, maintaining total editorial independence. No one outside the team has any say in what we discuss or who we invite to speak. We are therefore a small island of free speech in a sea of censorship and determined to fly that flag as conspicuously as possible.

As we wind up our sixth series, it’s worth remembering that the stars of the debates are the students who make up the bulk of our audience. They come from all over the Arab and Islamic worlds and have become assertive, well-informed and disciplined debaters. They have learned to ask the questions that matter - and to insist on answers. In this region, that sets a powerful example.

A WORD FROMTIM SEBASTIAN

As for our television audiences, they continue to grow - thanks to BBC World News and five other new broadcasters which now carry the debates. We’re also making good use of the new social media - Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

But there’s no complacency at The Doha Debates. We believe free speech is a constant battle - not a single destination. We intend to go on fighting with new ideas, opening minds and spreading the concept of constructive and peaceful argument.

So take a good look at what we do. Tell us what you like or don’t like. Change is important to us. As someone once said....it’s the only way we know we’re alive!

Tim SebastianDoha, Qatar

SERIES6THE BIGGEST GROWTH SINCE INCEPTION

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

IN THE NEWS

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

ONLINE http://www.arabianbusiness.com/579082-doha-debates-seals-us-egypt-europe-deals

13

http://www.qu.edu.qa/newsletters/campuslife/article.php?id=1&issue=161

Back to the Issue

Students participate in mini Doha Debate

Part of launch of Doha Debates’ Arabic websiteFour QU students took part in a spirited mini Doha Debate last Thursday on the motion “This House believes that Muslim women should be free to marry anyone they choose”.

The Debate was part of the launch hosted by QU of the Arabic website of the Doha Debates, the discussion forum on issues, events and developments in the Arab world televised on BBC World News.

QU President Prof Sheikha Abdulla Al-Misnad and Doha Debates Chair Tim Sebastian gave brief presentations to the audience who comprised QU External Relations Director Zeina Al-Azmeh, Director of QU International Affairs Program Dr Amira Sonbol, students, faculty and staff.

In her address, Prof Al-Misnad, said: “Debating helps students to be critical thinkers and problem solvers, which is part of QU’s approach to student learning outcomes. Qatar is going through a social change and in the future, we expect to have elections and a parliament, so developing debating skills from now will be very helpful to our students later in life”.

“The Arabic page extends our reach enormously into the Arab world, and we are looking forward to a response to our debates from a much wider audience”, Tim Sebastian said, adding, “It is good to see that so many people here in QU are involved and passionate about debating, and we are glad to provide the opportunity to do this, and to address issues which were never before discussed in public”.

The newly-created website will provide Arabic translation of the debates in order to reach the largest possible number of new viewers within the scope of the Middle East. For the first time, millions of people in Arab countries will have the opportunity to follow the dialogue and discussions in their own language.

The new site will feature information about the Debates, previous episodes, transcripts, and also opinion polls that were conducted throughout the Arab world.

Doha Debates PR consultant Patrick Forbes explained: “We started the Doha Debates project five years ago, and it is now the most popular show on BBC World. Our English page receives more than a million hits a month. Now, our next frontier is the Arabic-speaking population who will be able to access the website in Arabic, as well as watch the debates with Arabic subtitles. We are talking with different Arabic broadcasters including Qatar TV and another in Egypt to air the Arabic-subtitled version of the Debates. There is a huge demand for tickets for the show; however, we have an outreach program for Qatar high school and university students who make up 65% of our audience”.

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

http://www.nox-mag.com/article/Speaking+truth+to+power/

Speaking truth to powerTim Sebastian tells NOX why the improvement of the quality, diversity and freedom of Arab media needs to start from the ground up

Issue: Jan, 2010

Investigative journalism in the Arab World has an oxymoronic quality, unless the subject of investigation is who married whom and, even more importantly, what they wore and where they then honeymooned. In a region where media is shackled, information restricted and editors more concerned with retaining their jobs than serving their readers, holding rulers, presidents, ministers and any number of officials accountable is all but impossible. But that is exactly the point; accountability is the last thing Middle Eastern governments want. Indeed, as media control shows certain signs of easing, many of the region’s journalists are poorly placed to take advantage, so used are they to the limited scope of their work. Asking the tough question, pursuing the real angle and speaking truth to power simply isn’t a professional instinct in the Arab World, or something taught on the job in the local papers; it is an aptitude that has to be acquired. Only five Arab countries ranked in the top 100 in the 2008 Press Freedom Index, while Egyptian journalist Yousri Fouda estimated that it would take the Middle East at least ten years to reach Western levels of investigative journalism. One man they could all do with watching in action is Tim Sebastian, the award-winning BBC journalist whose

15

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5359198,00.html

relentless interrogations of the powers that be made Hardtalk compelling, if occasionally deeply uncomfortable, viewing. He now chairs The Doha Debates, a political round-table show that offers Arabs in a live studio audience a similar opportunity. In Amman recently to participate in the fourth week-long seminar for Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ), a foundation created by Jordanian journalist Rana Sabbagh, Tim’s passion for freedom of speech was to the fore in each of the workshops he conducted. And when we met him in the foyer of the Landmark Hotel just after a session in which he demonstrated how to get around the evasions of a government spokesman – based almost entirely it seems on Israel’s unctuous Mark Regev – he was still animated. The famous drooping moustache and slightly hunched disposition was in evidence, and a lot of his observations were punctuated with a garrulous laugh – and a good deal of optimism that times might just be changing. NOX: You’re taking part in this seminar on investigative journalism here in Amman with journalists from across the whole region. Why do you think this is so important in the Arab World in 2009?Tim Sebastian: Well, digging is good! But there are so many obstructions in the way of Arab journalists, so many things in the way, so many people warning them off, or penalties hanging over their heads like a sword of Damacles – it is very, very hard for them. I have enormous respect for those who do push boundaries here because they take enormous risks. If I annoy someone here from my office in London, I just don’t get a Christmas card that year, but journalists in the Middle East can actually go to jail or face huge, huge fines. NOX: You did a roleplay in this seminar on interviewing government spokespersons. What did you want to get across to the journalists?TS: Mainly the use of facts in an interview, because to me you’re cross-examining on the basis of the facts. Without that, you just have emotions and hypothetical positions like “But surely…!” and “Why not?”, which are easy to bat away. They think you have to argue, but you don’t – you confront them with facts. If you stray from the facts, you have no credibility. And don’t be frightened to use your notes; a lawyer never enters court without them, and a good journalist is really doing the same job – the case for the prosecution. NOX: In The Doha Debates, your role is really allowing the general public to grill the speakers directly, which is a different emphasis.TS: Well, I have a go at each of the speakers in turn, and that is to set the tone – and to show the audience that it’s really okay to ask tough questions. It’s all about accountability and this is one way the public can hold their leaders accountable.

NOX: And there is nothing in the Arab World which would allow people to challenge politicians so directly. Have there been any specific questions that left you really stunned?TS: Oh, there have been many. The one for me, though, was when Mahmoud al-Zahar, the Hamas leader, was being questioned by Palestinian students. At one point, a woman stood up and said, “It’s un-Islamic to kill women and children.” And he begins to respond with, “But the Israelis are killing us…” But she simply cut him off by saying, “I don’t expect any better from the Israelis, but I expect better from you.” His jaw just dropped! It was one of those extraordinary moments where he’d never been spoken to before like that – not least by a Palestinian woman. He probably never will be again. And we gave her the opportunity to do that, and that is some kind of contribution. It’s only a step, but it’s a step in the right direction. NOX: Have you then noticed a change in public courage in the five years you have been hosting The Doha Debates?TS: I remember the first time I went to Qatar, and this was long before we’d started The Doha Debates, and I was grilled a lot about Western double standards and hypocrisy and all this. I got a hard time. At the end of it, I said that was great, but I’m easy target; I can get on a plane and go home. I challenged them to put those same questions to their leaders, and not one hand went up. I think if I asked a Doha audience, that might change – there just might be one or two hands. NOX: Isn’t the first battle, then, to convince the next generation of journalists that these risks are worth taking…?TS: Well, these people know better than I do that unless they get a free press, it’s going to blight everything else that occurs in their countries, because censorship kills everything. It kills creativity, it kills free spirit, it kills entrepreneurship, it kills education, because with censorship education is simply propaganda. What on earth is the point of this deadening censorship that covers everything in this region? It has to change, and these journalists are spearheading the change – and that is the point of the seminar, because if they realise that the world is interested, then it might encourage and help them.

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

http://www.nox-mag.com/article/Speaking+truth+to+power/

NOX: Where do you think the inspiration can come from? Is it the likes of the BBC interrogating Syrian foreign ministers, for example? Is it The Doha Debates? Or is it from examples within the region…?TS: I think it’s the latter group that we have to really focus on. I have been particularly impressed by the Egyptian bloggers, who run the gauntlet of the state apparatus, who get sacked from their jobs, whose families get harassed – but still they continue putting out the information. They are tremendously well connected, they are well networked and they know what is going on in the region. NOX: Is blogging the real forefront of this charge in this region?TS: Yeah, definitely. Newspapers might be dying, magazines might be going through tough times, but real journalism is going through a revival because of the internet. The people are taking it into their own hands. As long as you have a mobile phone and a computer, and the means of getting the images out there, you’re a journalist. The story may not have the polish of an experienced writer, but it’s getting the information out there. And it’s the dissemination of information to people who want to read it. I take my hat off to the guys that do this, because they run enormous risks. NOX: It’s 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and we’re really looking at another, virtual Berlin Wall – and again the citizens are at the forefront of jumping over them.TS: Well, no one else is going to do it. The thing about the Berlin Wall, and I was there, was that a crowd of thousands had turned up at a checkpoint wanting to get across, and the soldiers were frantically dialling their superiors to ask what to do. Then, one border guard simply took the decision to open it all up, and that was effectively the end of the Cold War. And that’s the lesson: mass action from the people can do it. That’s the greatness of the Berlin Wall – that people can do it. NOX: How important is a BBC-like organisation in this whole process? By that I mean a public-financed body that is almost entirely free of commercial influence from advertisers, many of whom will have political affiliations and viewpoints.TS: Well, the BBC is pretty rare in that regard – and it’s very hard to get this kind of objective, commercial-free news outlet in the West, let alone in the state-dominated Arab World. There’s nothing in the States to match the BBC, and even their state-run channel, PBS, carries BBC news. That says everything! So I don’t see how you can do it. The best way, perhaps, is for the bloggers to organise in some way and form their own public channel, one that serves their own interest and not those of the advertisers. If they come as representatives of themselves, they can be the best hope for this region – they’re young, they’re talented and very bright. NOX: How can we harness that, then? How can progressive, pro-democracy advocates or movements help them to organise?TS: I would love to play a part in trying to harness that, to reach out to them and try to develop as professional a set of journalistic skills as possible. They want guidance and support, whether editorial or financial, because investigations take a long time and if you’re getting thrown out of your job as well, you need help. And we should try to give it to them. The best of what they do needs to reach as wide a possible audience, but it is not only compelling stuff in a lot of cases, it’s circumventing the boundaries their governments put up around them. NOX: Where did you find the worst barriers to the ability to do your job as a reporter in the Middle East?TS: Pretty much everywhere to be honest. It took me two years to get a visa to Saudi Arabia, and I know that Iran isn’t an Arab country, but it took years to get a visa to go there as well. So it is an extraordinary achievement to have an Arab investigative journalism conference. Just having it, just to focus people’s minds on the need to get around this deadening censorship and impart knowledge and information to the people out there who want it. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a huge amount of people who are doing it – but delivering information is a public service, whether you’re a government-backed agency or a commercial enterprise. And if you start with the premise that the public has a right to know, then you’re in a position to try to give it to them. That’s your job.

NOX: Do you miss the day-to-day journalism of shows like Hardtalk?TS: I miss it when there’s a big story from the Middle East, and I especially miss it when I see a government minister getting away with telling lies. So I miss putting the boot in…! NOX: How much of a problem is the growth of the rolling news networks now, the reliance on the two minute interview in which you simply don’t have the scope for follow-ups? Soundbite journalism, basically.TS: Well, if it’s a two-minute interview you know you’re not going to get anything out of him. Actually, in a set-piece interview, the first two minutes are the most important as it sets the tone for the

17


remainder of the interview. In fact, the most important battles are fought in the first minute. The real dynamics of the whole thing are decided then; if you let it go, and allow the guy to reel off his talking points or his spin unchallenged, then he’s won. People complained that I jump in before the guy has had the chance to say anything, but you have to, otherwise it’s a party political broadcast for half an hour. NOX: Is it something like a game, where after a barrage you ease back, allowing him to get comfortable, and then get tougher again?TS: You only ease back as a tactic, allow him to gather himself before you put the boot in again. I think the whole thing is a process by which you lead the interviewee down the path you want. Doesn’t always work, of course. NOX: We’ve seen a massive segmentation of the media around the world, with news consumption more than ever coming from an ideological viewpoint – you watch the show that gives the news as you already perhaps see it. Fox News, for instance. Is there a danger in this trend?TS: They already do this, they already choose their media this way. And unfortunately, this is particularly true of the Arab World. You know if you’re a fan of Hezbollah, you’re going to watch al-Manar TV because that carries the party line. In fact, that has been the problem with the BBC working in the Arab World because we are not seen to be representing any side – people always say things to me like, “Well, you were nice to the government yesterday, and now you’re being hostile. I don’t know where I am with you… who do you speak for?” They don’t understand that we don’t speak for anyone, that we always try to be objective. They think that truth has a point of view. NOX: To what extent are editors or media owners to blame for this situation, though? A journalist might have the will, but if the editor won’t print it because he’s scared for his job, it’s meaningless. It’s not the information, it’s the control of the information.TS: Exactly. But what we have to realise is that free speech is a battle everywhere. There’s no destination you reach where you can say “we’ve got free speech, we’re fine”. It’s a fight in Britain, it’s a fight in the States. It’s not easy anywhere. Here in the Middle East, it’s a huge fight – a slightly different fight, but it’s all part of the same war. NOX: The key issue is to make a start, to get people to understand that speaking truth to power can have profound results – when put together.TS: And unless they do, more importantly, they will never have their interests represented. Democracy, as we loosely define it, is a participatory sport. It’s not a spectator sport. If you want to have a say in how your affairs are run, you have got to stand up there and say it out loud, in public and be heard. If you’re content to have other people make your decisions for you, then sit there, stay silent. But our message is that if you are a young, educated, well-travelled Arab, and someone who knows much more than your parents do, unless you want to go on living in the same world as your parents, do something. Use your knowledge, use your skills and use your confidence to make your voice

heard – and have your questions about your life, your future, your country, answered by the people in power.

NOX: Journalism still provides the best scope for this, do you think?TS: Well, none of us are in journalism to keep the world as it is. Most

journalists enter the profession out of a desire to change something; it could be the desire to improve

human rights, eliminate war, or whatever area we want to see change. But none of these things will change unless we speak out. The powers that

be don’t want to hear those voices, they want us to remain silent. It’s up to

people in the Arab World to stand up and make their voices heard.

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56f4f554-e8d3-11de-a756-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

Iran woos Arab states as sanctions loomBy Digby LidstonePublished: December 14 2009 17:18 | Last updated: December 14 2009 17:18

At the official level, relations between Iran and the leaders of neighbouring Arab states tend to be polite without being warm. But beneath the surface, it seems, suspicion of Iran on the western side of the Gulf has deepened markedly.

A survey by YouGov, commissioned by Qatar’s Doha Debates and published last week, found that on the Arab side 80 per cent of those surveyed do not believe Iran’s assurances that it is not trying to develop nuclear weapons.Tim

The poll, which surveyed more than 1,000 people in 18 Arab countries last month, found that most see Iran as a bigger threat to security than Israel, with a third believing Iran is just as likely as Israel to target Arab countries.

So Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian foreign minister, faced an uphill task when he arrived in Bahrain at the weekend to attend a security summit organised by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Iranian officials tried to use the event, a rare occasion on which senior politicians from both sides of the Gulf meet openly, to enlist the support of Arab states as the west considers tougher sanctions.

Iran was ready to settle any “misunderstandings” about a 1971 statement in which the pre-revolutionary government in Tehran recognised Bahraini independence on certain conditions, Mr Mottaki said. He also opened the door to renewed talks with the United Arab Emirates over ownership of the islands of Abu Moussa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs, which both sides claim. “There is no issue on which two countries cannot talk and settle through negotiations,” he said.

Relations between Iran and its immediate Arab neighbours have ebbed and flowed. The Arab Gulf states were strong backers of the Baathist regime in Iraq during its 1980-88 war with Iran. Since then some, notably Dubai and Oman, have forged stronger links on the back of trade and investment while Qatar has built strong diplomatic links with the Islamic regime. This is in spite of other states’ concerns about Shia Iran’s meddling in Arab affairs.

Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, Bahrain’s foreign minister, said western nations had only cursorily consulted Arab states in the nuclear dialogue with Iran. Many felt the US and European nations were “talking behind our back”, Sheikh Khalid said. In addition, Arab Gulf states opposed any sanctions that hurt the Iranian people, he said.

19

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56f4f554-e8d3-11de-a756-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

Mustafa Alani, a security analyst at the Gulf Research Centre in Dubai, says the six Arab countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council do not have a unified strategy towards Iran.

“Countries such as Oman have better relations than those such as Saudi Arabia and the Iranians play on these differences,” Mr Alani said. “The Iranian objective is to negotiate a package deal with the US – its relations with the GCC and even Europe are secondary . . . They want recognition as a regional power, and they think this deal can be secured from the Obama administration.”

Iran has said it will pursue its nuclear programme with or without foreign help, opening the door to tougher sanctions.

The US, Russia and France had proposed a deal by which Tehran would export most of its stock of low-enriched uranium, which would be further enriched in Europe and returned to Iran under a closely monitored programme. Tehran declined to endorse the plan, but protests that a counter-proposal has been ignored.

“What do they mean Iran has not responded?” said Mr Mottaki. “Iran has proposed a middle way, a compromise solution.”

Western officials at the IISS summit said the Iranian counter-proposal – Mr Mottaki reiterated that his country needs 10 to 15 nuclear plants to generate electricity – would get short shrift in Washington, where plans for tougher sanctions are being drawn up.

William Cohen, former US defence secretary, described Mr Mottaki’s comments as “a thumb in the eye” of the international community. “It is very clear what needs to be done,” he said. “If they were so determined to pursue a peaceful nuclear programme, why reject the Russian proposal?”

Mr Cohen said the appeal for greater Arab involvement in nuclear talks fell on sympathetic ears, but was unlikely to alter western policy. “The issue right now is timing, the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] and the UN have been involved in negotiations for an excessive period of time, and people think time is running out for a diplomatic solution.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/0916/p17s01-wome.html

By Caryle Murphy, Correspondent / September 16, 2009

Doha, Qatar; and Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaAs soon as the cameramen called it a wrap, the audience swarmed onto the TV studio set. Almost giddy with delight, several university students from Saudi Arabia went straight for chairs vacated by the performers and pretended to be stars of the show.

The program that thrills these students isn’t a reality show, a religious forum, or a sexy soap opera. It’s something far more ordinary – but also mightier. As the show’s producers like to say, it’s about “the power to change minds” – through words.

That is the theme of The Doha Debates, the five-year-old hit show on BBC World News. Produced eight times a year in Doha, capital of the tiny Gulf emirate of Qatar, the program features speakers debating such controversial questions as “Does political Islam threaten the West?” “Does the face veil hinder Muslim integration?” “Do Gulf Arabs value profit over people?” “Are Muslims failing to combat extremism?” “Is Arab unity dead and buried?” and “Should Muslim women be free to marry anyone they choose?”

Moderated by former BBC interviewer Tim Sebastian, the debates follow the format of the prestigious British debating club, the Oxford Union. After four speakers (two on each side) argue for and against a motion, the panelists are questioned by Mr. Sebastian and the audience, which then votes electronically to determine the winning side.

21


Through the BBC, The Doha Debates can be seen in some 300 million homes in 200 countries. But its greatest legacy may be in the Middle East, where authoritarian regimes stifle free speech, newspapers are heavily censored, children are raised to obey without question, and school systems reject critical thinking in favor of rote learning.

Amid this smothering environment, The Doha Debates is perhaps the freest public forum for probing tough issues that deeply resonate in the Arab world.

“It offers an opportunity for free speech and expression of an opinion, which is very much in demand and very highly appreciated,” said Asaad al-Asaad, an English instructor at Riyadh’s Yamamah University, who accompanied his Saudi students to Doha for a taping.

One student, Mishaal al-Rasheed, said the program has taught him that “you don’t need at the end of the debate to agree with me. But at least respect me for my ideas.”

He is impressed, he added, that Qatar “took the lead in having debates in our Islamic world.... In another Arab country, [the debaters] might be in jail right now.”

One of the show’s failings, Mr. Asaad said, is that it lacks Arabic subtitles, which would make it more accessible.

Asked about this, moderator Sebastian, who also founded the program, said in an e-mail that he wasn’t aware of any “full-length BBC current affairs show [that] carries subtitles in any foreign language.” But, he added that starting in October the program will start an Arabic website that will carry subtitles on streamed video of the debates.

Free tickets to the live tapings are given mostly to students from all over the Middle East attending universities or high school in Qatar. For an hour, they have the rare experience of being able to say whatever they like without fear of reprisal.

At times, their pent-up frustration explodes on air. During a recent program, a young Egyptian was urged by a debater to make his views known. “How can I voice out my opinion if my leaders are actually oppressing me to not talk?” he shouted back. “My leaders are in power [for] 27 years and I am not allowed to speak.”

The program’s impact is evident in the hundreds of appreciative e-mails, including some from Israel, that pour onto its website, www.dohadebates.com, which gets about a million hits a month, according to Alexandra Willis, who until recently was the program’s producer. Some messages praise the program for giving a new generation “the tools to think for themselves,” she added.

One “legacy” of the show, Ms. Willis said, is “an incredible surge in debating activities in Qatar and the region.” This is evident in new debate clubs at high schools and universities across the Middle East, including in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and at a Palestinian university in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

The Doha debates has also staked out new territory by inviting Israelis to be on the program and grapple with controversial aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In March 2007, for example, Ilan Pappe, of Haifa University, and Yossi Beilin, a former peace negotiator and Knesset member, spoke on opposite sides of the motion that “Palestinians should give up their full right of return.”

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6


Israeli debaters also have included former Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami and Deputy Education Minister Michael Melchior. President Shimon Peres was a special guest.

When another program debated whether Palestinians “risk becoming their own worst enemy,” the audience agreed by 71 percent. And in March, the program tackled whether “it’s time for the US administration to get tough on Israel” during a taping at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. (The audience said, “yes,” by 63 percent.)

On another show, senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar got a harsh grilling from young Palestinians. “He kept answering questions by talking about what the Israelis are doing and the students kept telling him we expect something better from you,” recalled Sebastian.

The program’s birthplace, Qatar, is a feisty Arabian Gulf nation of 200,000, whose natural gas exports gives it one of the highest per capita incomes on earth.

The show arose from a 2004 conversation that Sebastian, former host of the BBC interview program HARDtalk, had with Qatar’s ruler, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, and his wife, Sheikha Mozah. She is chairwoman of the Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development, which funds worthy causes. The couple asked Sebastian to suggest projects the foundation might sponsor.

“I said, ‘What about town-hall debates?’ “ Sebastian recalled. Given a green light, he hired Willis away from the BBC to be his producer.

They showed tapes of the initial debates to BBC executives, who agreed to broadcast the show after realizing “this was something quite special ... in the Arab world for people to speak out this way,” Willis recounted.

The program is “an independent unit” of the Qatar Foundation, which provides the funding. But “they have no say in what we do, who we invite, or the topics we choose to debate,” Sebastian said in a phone interview. “And they’ve never sought to have any say. One of the biggest favors they’ve done us is to let us entirely alone.”

There’s no better place to see the impact of The Doha Debates than Yamamah University, a private college in Riyadh’s sprawling desert outskirts. Seated in his campus office, Asaad said that when he decided to teach debating his only model was Arabic TV shows, where discussions “turn into more of a rooster fight than an actual debate.”

Initially, his students «were shouting at each other or answering a question with a question,» Asaad recounted. «I said, ‹Hey guys, we ... should be doing some things in a different way. There should be some quality. There should be some research. We should go a little bit deeper beyond what people say in the coffee shops or the bus stops.› «

Then Asaad found The Doha Debates website. «As a teacher, it provided me with everything I needed,» including the ability to download past debates and read transcripts. «We discussed the format, the role of the moderator, and I said, ‹Fine, can we try a debate like this?› «

Their first public debate in the university›s auditorium took on the motion «This house believes coeducation improves education.» (The audience of both male and female students gave the idea a thumbs down.)

His students were so taken with debating that Asaad organized what he believes is the first

23


debating club at any Saudi university. It now has about 25 regular participants.

«You could say that our debate club is the legitimate child of The Doha Debates,» said the Syrian-born instructor, adding that Yamamah now offers a course in debate. «By preparing the students to become good debaters, you›re preparing the future community leaders to become better negotiators.»

Saud Al-Thonayan, a club member, said that before he discovered The Doha Debates, «when anyone talked about debating in Arab countries, I said it›s not debating, it›s fighting.» He recalled being «shocked» during a taping when the «sensitive issue» of political Islam was discussed before an audience of conservatives and liberals. «All of them were debating and asking questions in a new way for Arab countries,» he said. «In a friendly way.»

Learning this «new way» has been a personal struggle for Mr. Thonayan. «There is an important thing that I love in debating: How to be calm. Because I face a lot of problems in this case. I get angry. I always debate with extremists, with religious people about some Saudi issues, like women›s rights. And we always end up fighting because I get nervous and angry.»

But, he added, «I have learned how to be calm, how to control myself.»

Saudis generally aren›t used to formal debate. The older generation often admonishes young people not to bring up certain topics – like the ban on women driving – because it›s regarded as impolite to discuss contentious issues in public, said debate club member, Abdulrahman al-Duwaish.

«If it›s a sensitive issue, it will be opened sooner or later … so we have to talk about [it],» Mr. Duwaish said. «And because of our debate club, because of The Doha Debates, we are opening these issues ... and, inshallah, you will see us after 10 or 15 years leading Saudi Arabia for a better era.»

Sebastian doesn›t debate that. He›s encouraged to see young audiences «testing the limits of what is possible.... They want to take their societies forward. They don›t want to follow; they want to lead,» he said. «They feel much more confident. If they represent the direction that the Arab world is headed in, then the world is in for some pleasant surprises.

«What we›ve done is let out a genie, which will be very hard to put back in the bottle.»

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091113/FOREIGN/711129908

Qatar Q&A show’s value beyond debateDavid Lepeska, foreign correspondentLast Updated: November 12. 2009 10:59PM UAE / November 12. 2009 6:59PM GMT

DOHA // During the question and answer session of this week’s Doha Debates, a Qatari student named Donna stood up and asked one of the guest analysts a tough question about political trust, then pressed him to give an honest response. This exchange raised the question: why aren’t there many TV shows like this in the United States?

The thought seems revolutionary. The common wisdom is that it is Arab countries that lag behind, with poor education, little freedom of expression and a dearth of quality entertainment. There is some truth in these beliefs.

The Doha Debates is financed entirely by the Qatar Foundation and the majority of its speakers and audience are of Arab origin. It is by any reckoning an Arab production, one that regularly hosts illuminating and often heated discussions on some of the most pressing topics of the day, including extremism, women’s rights and the occupation of Iraq.

It is also closing in on its 50th episode, and with its appeal to the region’s expressive youth, it may be creating a new image of Arab intellectualism.

“In some ways the show has exceeded our expectations,” said its host and founder, Tim Sebastian, who hosted the BBC’s HARDtalk interview show for decades.

The Doha Debates is its most popular weekend programme, according to producer Tanya Sakzewski, and the show’s website is among its most visited. This week The Doha Debates rolled out an Arabic-language website, where episodes can be viewed with Arabic subtitles.

At least 2,000 Arab and Qatari students have attended debating classes at QatarDebate, a national debating society established in September 2007 in response to the show’s success. The Qatar Foundation recently launched an Arabic-language student debate show, Lakom Al Karar (“The Decision is Yours”) and Doha will be host to the World Schools Debate Championship in February. Debating clubs have sprung up not just in Doha, but in Saudi Arabia and at a Palestinian university.

This in a region with a rich intellectual history and tradition of debate that many – especially in the West – assume has been lost.

“In a sense, this is a giant leap backwards – and that’s a good thing,” added Sebastian. “These young people are questioning, probing, arming themselves with good questions and being dogged about getting answers.”

This week’s motion, “this house trusts Iran not to build a nuclear bomb”, could hardly be more timely. The international community has been pressing Iran on a UN-brokered plan to swap its low-enriched uranium

25

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091113/FOREIGN/711129908

for nuclear fuel. Iran agreed to the deal last month in Vienna but has wavered, hinting that it does not trust western negotiators to keep up their end of the bargain.

The opinions expressed were wide-ranging, belying the “Arab street” myth of ideological uniformity that lingers in much of the West. “One of the surprising things is Arab diversity, in terms of opinion,” said Sebastian. “We used to be able to tell by dress how people would vote. Now we rarely have any idea.”

Iran and its nuclear ambitions have long been a grave concern in the Gulf. Arguing for the motion, Mr Marandi placed Iran’s nuclear energy programme in the broader framework of breaking the western monopoly on advanced research and technologies.

“We should question the motives of those countries who have and use nuclear weapons,” said Seyyed Mohammad Marandi, the head of the North American studies programme at the University of Tehran. “While Iran is the world’s biggest victim of WMDs [in the Iran-Iraq war], it is very revealing that it has never produced chemical weapons, because Iran deems them immoral.”

An Egyptian student named Rama braved catcalls to voice a challenging query: “How can we trust that any Supreme Leader, present or future, will not issue a fatwa saying it is a Muslim duty to nuke or attack any nation?”

Alireza Nourizadeh, director of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies in London, argued against the motion. “How can you trust a government who kills its own people?” he asked.

“Where is your evidence?” asked Sebastian.

“I’m not going to disclose my evidence here,” said Mr Nourizadeh.

“Well then it doesn’t sound very credible, does it?” said Sebastian, earning titters from a studio audience made up mostly of local high school and university students.

Yet that audience seemed to side with Mr Nourizadeh, as 52 per cent voted against the motion. But a Qatari student who voted in favour was unfazed. “I like how this reveals two sides to every question,” said Ahmed al Malik, 18. “We can express both sides, and understand the issues better.”

Sebastian left impressed.

“You’d be hard-pressed to walk down Oxford Street in London,” he said, “and find students that would rather go debate than spend the day shopping.”

Email:[email protected]

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com

Doha Debates websitegets more visitors

Web posted at: 4/8/2010 3:47:48Source ::: THE PENINSULA

DOHA: The number of Israelis visiting the Doha Debates website grew by 131 percent following the last debate on Hamas-Fatah conflict held on March 15, says Doha Debates’ Series Producer Tanya Sakzewski.

The special edition of the Debates that brought together senior officials of Hamas and Fatah evoked tremendous interest across the region, particularly in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

“We are still getting a lot of feedback about our two recent editions, focusing on the Palestinian issue and the credit crisis in Dubai. The Doha Debates are gaining more popular across the globe, especially after we introduced several new features that helped expand our worldwide reach and access,” Sakzewski told The Peninsula yesterday.

Sakzewski has worked as the Series Producer of The Doha Debates since the start of the current series 6. In her previous capacity, she worked as Producer on The Doha Debates for four years.

Her last position in London was with the BBC’s award-winning Hardtalk programme, where she worked as a producer for more than four years. She also worked for several other international broadcasters and television news agencies including Bloomberg Television, APTN and WTN.

Besides the BBC, the monthly Doha Debates are now aired by the Bosnian TV and three North American channels — the Real News Network, Channel 13 and MHZ.

The Doha Debates recently launched its Arabic website where the debates videos are made available with Arabic subtitles. The site also provides updates about the new editions with profiles of the speakers.

Open and interactive discussions on Facebook and Twitter have also played an important role in raising the popularity of the Debates.“About 15,000 to 20,000 people from 155 countries visit our English website every month. We saw a

29


sudden surge in the number of visitors last month, especially from the Arab region, after the special edition on the Hamas-Fatah issue,” said Sakzewski.

The number of visitors to the website last month increased by an amazing 303 percent in the Palestinian territories, 152 percent in Jordan and 50 percent in Qatar.

“Every edition of the Debates is followed by an opinion poll across the Middle East to know the opinion of the wider public on the issues debated. The results vary according to the nature of the issue,” said Sakzewski.

Doha Debates yesterday released findings of the latest poll seeking the Arab opinion on the current Palestinian leadership.

“The results of the poll are more or less in conformity with the views expressed in the last edition of the Debates. Majority of the respondents have aired their distrust in the current Palestinian leadership, whether it be from Fatah, Hamas or other factions,” said Sakzewski.

She said that interesting video footage from the Debates with on-the-spot interviews with the participants will soon be made available on the website.

“We are planning to include a film, along with the next edition, on how the set is made for the event. There will be more footage in future focusing on the reactions of the audience,” she added.

She said a number of people from other GCC countries had evinced interest to attend the Debates. “At one session, we had 12 students who came from Saudi Arabia.

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6


Peace talks will not end Israeli occupation, Arabs tell survey Web posted at: 4/8/2010 3:55:23Source ::: THE PENINSULA

DOHA: A majority of Arabs say that resistance — not peace talks — stands the best chance of resolving the conflict with Israel, according to an opinion poll commissioned by The Doha Debates.

Moreover, eighty percent said the Palestinians should use all means to resist the Israeli occupation — including violence.

The survey, conducted last month by YouGov in 18 of the 22 Arab states, also reflected widespread disappointment with the two warring Palestinian factions- Fatah and Hamas.

Fifty-six percent said they preferred Hamas’ tactic of violent resistance to the non-violent policy, espoused by Fatah, but two thirds said they had no faith in either faction and 86 percent called on the entire Palestinian leadership to step down.

The results supported the outcome at last month’s special session of The Doha Debates, where 89 percent of the mainly Arab audience said they had no confidence in the Palestinians’ political leaders. Although Hamas won greater approval than Fatah for its record in government, a majority cited their conflict as the biggest obstacle to Palestinian unity. However, just under half of those polled said they still believed that a united Palestinian state was within reach.

Internal divisions and conflicts, rather than the Israeli occupation, are regarded as the biggest obstacle to Palestinian unity.

In general, only a small proportion of those interviewed appear opposed to the idea of a national unity agreement which was signed in October 2009 in Egypt.

In fact, Egypt and Saudi Arabia emerged as the most qualified countries to mediate between Hamas and Fatah whereas very few actually favoured the US to play a key role in these negotiations. Most of those interviewed (75 percent) described the conflict between Fatah and Hamas as a ‘destructive political rivalry’.

Finally, the results of the survey clearly demonstrate that opinion is split on whether a united Palestinian state will soon become a reality. Those in the Levant appear to be especially pessimistic.

As would be expected, those who have faith in the current Palestinian leadership have greater belief that a united Palestinian state is just around the corner (62 percent).

31

INRECOGNITION

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

OUTREACH

Dear Mr. Sebastian: As an active debater within Junior Chamber International and interested in political debate, I find the Doha Debates a very interesting concept. Although I have briefly visited Qatar, I have not had the opportunity to be amongst the audience. I have, however, watched the Doha Debates on BBC World. I understand that the Doha Debates are to bring questions to debate that are controversial and relevant to the Arab world. I would really appreciate if you took this concept out to the fullest and really went politically incorrect, by taking on an issue that is not only controversial to the Arab world but to the world at large, namely the “democratic cursade” at the courtesy of the Potomac regime. Some motions that may be interesting: - This House believes that democracy has shown to be a failure in the West, and that exporting this failure to the Arab world is a bad idea.- This House believes that democracy does not fit the Arab culture.- This House believes that the spread of democracy has resulted in less freedom, and that the Arab world thus should resist the spread of democracy to this part of the world.- This House believes that the crusade to “make the world safe for democracy” is a grand failure, and that it must stop before it does more damage to the Arab world.democratic

From: J.K. BaltzersenTo: The Doha DebatesCc:Subject: suggested motions: democracy

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

Hello Ms.Sheela

Thank you for your mail.It was lovely meeting with you and note the passion in your voice in your voice when you speak about debating.

My name is spelt as Dr.Vandana Nair.

You could just address me as Dr.V.

RegardsDr.Nair For background information I would like to suggest: Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Democracy -- the God that Failed. You might also want to check out an article by Mr. Peter Hitchens: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/may/01/00038/ An important point is that until recently -- historically speaking -- in Western political philosophy democracy was met with skeptical eyes, and with the democratic “consensus” being a new concept, why should we insist that other cultures adopt democracy? Moreover it has been said that democracy in the West developed gradually, and that it is works badly to try to impose it over just a few years. I would greatly appreciate if you would please consider my suggestion. Thank you very much in advance. Yours sincerely,__________________________________________________________________________| Siviling. J.K. Baltzersen

From: Dr Vandana Suresh Nair To: The Doha DebatesCc:Subject: FW: DOHA DEBATES - NEXT DEBATE

37

Dear Sheelagh,

Thanks a lot for delivering the promised series to me which was coincidental with the Visit of the His Excellency The Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Nigeria’s visit to Qatar Foundation today Wedsday 28 April 2010 @ 12.00 noon till 1.30pm.During the presentation of Qatar Foundation to the Ambassador by the Communication Directorate Officials at the Visitors center today, series of questions was asked on Doha Debates:From how the topics originates, to recording, to voting and turn outs etc. Based on my observations of the Ambassador’s interest in your programmes and I’m having the DVD’d just delivered to me I offered and gave the package to the Ambassador and he was very happy and appreciative. In case it’s possible to get another sets of series 6 DVD’s for myself kindly try to do so. However I’m satisfied that DD gifts to our (Qatar Foundation) VIP guests shall definitely go farer than for myself alone. Keep up the good works. Best Regards. Mohammed Basheer NaasirQF - Element of Excellence (QFEE) Specialist.HSSE (Health, Safety, Security & Environment) DirectorateQatar Foundation

From: Mohammed Basheer NasiruTo: The Doha DebatesCc:Subject: Doha Debates Series - 6 DVD’s

Dear Aida,

Thank you for your email. I actually use the Doha Debates quite often in my courses and I agree they are wonderful teaching resources. We’d be delighted here at the Center for Media, Religion and Culture to use more of your tapes.

I have one quick question about the Doha Debates. Are the debates always held in one place or could they be hosted in the United States? As you know, our center has been conducting research on Islam and the media and the emergence of a dynamic Muslim media culture. Is it logistically possible to host the debates here in the US around a motion on this topic? Please let us know how to make that possible.

Look forward to hearing from you.Best regards,

Nabil EchchaibiAssistant Professor of Journalism and Communication Associate Director of the Center for Media, Religion and Culture University of Colorado-Boulder [email protected] Islam in a New Media Age Blog http://www.nabilechchaibi.com/blog.php

From: Nabil EchchaibiTo: The Doha DebatesCc: [email protected]: Re: Introducing the Doha Debates

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

Dear sheelagh, A few words in the early morning to tell how much we appreciated your visit to our school yesterday and how interesting your orientation was. Our students were very delighted and their comments were highly positive about their meeting with you.Your performance was simply stunning and, talking about persuasion, you were incredibly convincing, apart from great wittiness and friendliness. Also, the letter attched to your message is extremely encouraging and I can never thank you enough for all the support you showed in our favour. Later on today, I will forward to you the final list of the 4 students who are supposed to attend this Sunday’s Doha Debates. I wish you a very nice and bright day!

Monam

From: monam hashadTo: The Doha DebatesCc: Subject: Thank you for the orientation

Good morning dear, I just want to renew my sincere expressions of thankfullness for making up our day last Thursday. It was a truly wonderful occasion for all of us here at Omar School to meet with such a prominent figure as Tim Sebastian and such a lovely lady as yourself. Our principal, my colleagues, the students who were present, and myself were simply enthralled by the encounter. Tim’s words were so inspiring and motivating for our students, and for all of us, it was certainly a lifetime experience. I am not sure how much time it will take us to do that again, but we will be waiting for as long as it takes to have you again in our school, and we genuinely hope you consider visiting us again some time in the future. Thank you again and have a beautiful day. Monam

From: Monam HashadTo: The Doha DebatesCc:Subject: Thank You so much!

39

From: Mohammed Basheer NasiruTo: The Doha DebatesCc:Subject: Doha Debates Series - 6 DVD’s

Dearest Sheelagh,

I just want to say thank you for your wonderful presentation at MIS today, and not just 1 but 2!I have to say this, Sheelagh I was personally touched by your warmth and affection.It indeed is a pleasure to know you!, I have seen and talked to you earlier but have had the pleasure of “knowing” you only now.And yes thanks for connecting us with Qatar Debates.See you soonWarm Regards..............nutan

From: Nutan BudhirajaTo: The Doha DebatesCc: Subject: Re: MIDDLE EAST INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL

42

IN THE NEWS

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

46

IN THE NEWS

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

The World A show of sympathy for Iran at a Qatar forum Opinions are strong and plentiful on both sides of whether Tehran’s nuclear plans pose a regional threat. November 13, 2009|Borzou Daragahi

DOHA, QATAR — It’s a sentiment bubbling just below the surface of a lively and charged televised debate over whether to trust Iran not to build a nuclear weapon.

But it isn’t until the last few minutes of the freewheeling and at times revealing hourlong discussion that a member of the studio audience finally drops the bomb.

“Why in the first place should Iran seek the trust of anyone?” he says. “Iran is an independent, sovereign country, and it has every single right to defend itself. If it wants a bomb, definitely it should have one.”

Applause erupts.

“What I don’t understand is this love for war and nuclear weapons,” responds Baria Alamuddin, one of the panelists arguing that Iran cannot be trusted. “Don’t people want to live? Don’t people want to enjoy themselves?”

The emotionally charged debate, which will be broadcast seven times this weekend on BBC World, exposes a wellspring of anxiety and anger about Iran’s nuclear program among those in the Middle East who would be caught in the crossfire of any war. Ultimately the proposition -- “This house trusts Iran not to build a nuclear bomb” -- narrowly fails, 48% to 52%.

But sympathy for Iran’s nuclear ambitions evident in the eruption of applause is perhaps the most surprising outcome of the debate, part of a monthly series organized here by the Qatar Foundation and hosted by former BBC “Hardtalk” host Tim Sebastian.For years, Western diplomats and analysts have been advising their governments that Arabs view Iran’s nuclear program as a greater threat to regional stability than anything else, including longtime nuclear-armed nemesis Israel. But the response of an audience made up of mostly Anglophone Arab

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/

49

and Muslim elites as well as a smattering of expatriates suggests some support for Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“There is something called balance of power,” says a man in the audience. “As long as there is Israel, we need a nuclear bomb.”

The discussion features two diametrically opposed representatives of Iran’s ideological spectrum. Voice of America commentator Alireza Nourizadeh, a fixture of Iran’s exile opposition, argues against trusting Iran. Tehran University professor Mohammad Marandi articulates in flawless American English the Islamic Republic’s view that its nuclear program is no cause for concern.

“Since the revolution, Iran has been trying to break the Western monopoly over high-tech research, development and industry,” he says. “There is no doubt that oil will soon fail us. Such technologies must not be monopolized by a few powers.”

Marandi and Iran expert Mahjoob Zweiri of Jordan argue that Western propaganda has bathed Iran’s nuclear program in an ominous light, even though international inspectors have yet to find a smoking gun proving Iran has an active weapons program.

“Iran has a problem with perception,” says Zweiri, of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan. “How the West perceived Iran is a matter” of importance.

Nourizadeh teams up with Lebanese journalist Alamuddin to argue that the nature and previous actions of the Islamic Republic make it untrustworthy.

“How can you trust a government that kills its own people, tortures them, rapes them, kills them on the streets of Tehran in front of your own eyes, and then the

president comes and denies it and says that was a conspiracy?” Nourizadeh says, referring to the government’s harsh treatment of protesters after the disputed June presidential election.

Many members of the audience also voice doubts about the Iranian leadership. Hostility to Israel aside, many Arabs continue to fear a government whose supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is officially regarded in Iran as God’s representative on Earth.

“How can we trust that any supreme leader, now or future, will not issue a fatwa saying it’s a Muslim duty to nuke or attack another nation?” says an Egyptian woman.

Qatar, about 100 miles across the Persian Gulf from the Iranian coast, could suffer the consequences of any war to get rid of Iran’s nuclear program, or any attempt by Tehran to boost its power by making the bomb.

“What guarantee [is there] that Iran is not hiding something right now?” asks one Iranian Canadian woman, a resident of Qatar. “They have hidden so many things. And the government is so unpredictable.”

An Iraqi woman in the audience voices exasperation about the future of the Middle East locked in an arms race.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/13/

52

IN THE NEWS

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

58

IN THE NEWS

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

62

IN THE NEWS

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

ONLINE

69

http://gulf-times.com

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

http://www.timesofindia.com

Winds of change Surbhi Bhatia/TNN

QATAR,the capital of Doha,has adopted a multi-pronged strategy to develop its education programmes,strengthen its research engagements and facilitate community programmes.In keeping with the spirit,10 students from universities and schools in Doha were at St Stephens College in Delhi recently.As part of the visit,the students participated in a forum called Doha Debates.

Mohamed Farid was one of them.A student of mass communication at Northwestern University in Qatar,he is president of the Human Rights Students Organisation in Doha.According to Farid,it is not enough to be aware of human rights and freedom within ones own country.We need to know how other countries are tackling these issues, he said.

The theme of the debate forum this year which has been providing a platform to discuss and deliberate on different issues over the last few years was Muslims in India are not getting a fair deal. Talking about the experience,Farid said that it gave him an opportunity to understand where the Muslim community in India stands vis--vis the socio-political reality.Listening to both sides of the argument has given me a fresh perspective.India as a country is complex and rich in various cultures,religions and communities and we need to listen to various view points before being judgmental.

Hessa Al Misnad,a school student from Qatar Academy,was also part of the group.This has been an enriching experience as I got a chance to see Indian society more closely, she said.The visit,according to Misnad,also gave her a chance to compare her countrys economic,social and cultural realities with that of India.Our society is changing and it is exciting,especially for girls.Earlier,women barely had any career aspirations.Even if there were few with high aspirations not enough opportunities were available to them.But now the number of women in higher education institutes is increasing and the society is becoming more adaptable to these changes, she said.

71

http://www.timesofindia.com

Muslims not getting a raw deal In Doha Debates At St Stephens College,Audience Rules Out Bias

Manash Pratim Gohain | TNN

New Delhi: The audience at St Stephens College,that had turned up for the Doha Debates on Monday evening,voted against the motion This house believes Muslims are not getting a fair deal in India after impassioned arguments by eminent participants enriched the debate,being held for the first time outside the Arab world.

Doha Debates provide a unique platform for conflicting opinions to be expressed on major political topics of the region.Financed by Qatar Foundation for Education,Science and Community Development,they are chaired by Tim Sebastian.

On Monday journalist and political commentator Seema Mustafa teamed up with civil rights activist Teesta Setalvad in support of the motion while journalist M J Akbar and minister of state for communications and information technology Sachin Pilot spoke against it.

Opening the debate,Mustafa said Muslims in India were not getting a fair deal.She claimed it wasnt because of the common man but because of the system in place and the structure of governance. It is the government,political parties and Muslim leadership which is to be held responsible, she said.

Countering Mustafa,Pilot said it would be gross injustice if we say that Muslims are being discriminated in India.Instead,he argued that the poor and disadvantaged have not got a fair deal and this is not specific to Muslims.It would be unfair to say that only the Muslims are being discriminated against. Pilot added: Look around us.No other country with 130 million Muslims is a democracy.Here everyone has equal rights,right to vote and equal opportunity for earning a livelihood.Therefore,it would be unfair to make such a comment.

Setalvad opened her remarks by focussing on the political leaderships role in promoting vote-bank politics even as she tried to connect statistics with her allegation that there was discrimination against Muslims in government jobs and high positions. Muslims are not getting a fair deal in India.The elite political leadership doesnt want to empower the poor Muslims and at the political level there is discrimination, she said.

Disagreeing with the motion,Akbar said that on the contrary,Muslims were on the threshold of modernity due to the fact that they were a part of India. Only Indian Muslims,in the history of the community,enjoyed six decades of uninterrupted democracy.Indian Muslims are among those few Muslims who are able to meet the challenges of modernity,such as gender equality,religious equality and literacy,among others.In India we dont insult each other in the name of religion.Some Indians do,but India doesnt.We are not talking of frozen realities but of a dynamic evolution we are witnessing, he said.

After each speaker made his or her opening remarks in about two minutes,the stage was thrown open for questions.There were interesting posers from the audience like how can when one national party treats Muslims as vote-bank and another for communal gains we say that Muslims got a fair deal in India or Why is there no credible Muslim leadership in India

At the end of the debate when the audience cast its vote,Pilot and Akbar seemed to have won the day.The Doha Debates were launched in 2004.No government,official body or broadcaster has any control over what is said at the sessions or who is invited.The debates are based on a centuries-old format,refined by the famous Oxford [email protected]

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

http://blogs.hindustantimes.com

HT HOME / BLOGS HOME > THEY CALL ME MUSLIM / INDIA / WITH MUSLIMS IN MIND, THE DOHA DEBATES TRAVELS TO INDIA

With Muslims in mind, The Doha Debates travels to India63 Comments

The Doha Debates, a Qatar-based debating platform that brought free speech to the Arab world, is in India.

As it always does, The Doha Debates has picked a fairly explosive but pertinent issue for its Delhi debut on February 15. The motion is, “This House believes Muslims are not getting a fair deal in India”.

Eight times a year, the Doha Debates holds highly controversial public debates televised around the world. Available in nearly 300 million homes, it has the largest audience of any BBC television service.

The debates are chaired by the award-winning former BBC correspondent and interviewer Tim Sebastian, who founded them in 2004 and secured their editorial independence.

The debates are based on a centuries-old format, refined by the famous Oxford Union. They focus on a single controversial motion with two speakers for and against. Once they have outlined their arguments, each speaker is questioned by the chairman and the discussion is then opened up to the audience for argument and a final electronic vote.

The India debate will surprisingly see a Muslim columnist, M.J. Akbar, speak against the motion, along with Sachin Pilot, the Union communications minister. Human rights activist Teesta Setalvaad, along with journalist Seema Mustafa, will speak for the motion.

This is the fourth time that the Debates has been hosted outside Qatar. Previous sessions were staged at Georgetown University, Washington, in 2009 and at the Oxford and Cambridge Unions in 2007.

A small group of students, based in Qatar and representing a selection of high schools and universities, also get a chance to attend the debate in Delhi followed by visits to a number of educational institutions.

The India debate is important for the same reasons why past debates have been so critical. In a world where many governments smother free speech and tolerance levels are dipping, talking helps.

It takes head-on modern India’s most contentious issue of how the country can be at peace with its Muslims, the largest minority of over 130 million and accounting for 13.4 per cent of the population.The motion on Indian Muslims clearly highlights that while, on the one hand, India’s cultural diversity

73

http://blogs.hindustantimes.com

is remarkable, on the other hand, issues surrounding Indian Muslims have caught the world’s attention.

“It will be an illuminating debate for the outside world…to see how India manages its diversity,” Sebastian tells me over coffee at Delhi’s Imperial Hotel.

According to Sebastian, it’s a good topic with the right framework and in such debates, the most important thing is to conduct it in a fair manner.In a fairly argumentative country like ours, where quibbles can snowball into rivalries and then riots, India has yet to master the art of peaceful disagreement. The Doha Debates can help us achieve it.

Public debates like the Doha Debates are important because, as Sebastian points out, they can change minds. It can defuse tension rather than create it. “The achievement is that people do change their minds. They come with baggage. But debates can open people’s minds not close them.”

Our debates are mostly restricted to television studious or university auditoriums. They largely lack any meaningful engagement. In fact, we hardly debate.

The Doha Debates’ India motion, Whether Muslims are getting a fair deal in India, hits the hammer straight on the nail’s head. No other issue in India is touchier, has deeper consequences and so integral to India’s unity.

Is the majority community indeed unfair to Muslims? If so, how far are Indian Muslims responsible for it?“In Kerala, school enrolment is very high among Muslims. But it thins out in the middle-school level. What are the reasons of this drop-out? Is it that they lose motivation along the way?” Sebastian points out.

Two recent high-level reports, one by the Sachar Committee and the other by Ranganath Misra Commission, have probed and proved disadvantages faced by Muslims.

But there are larger issues. Why do Muslims harbour a feeling of being discriminated against? Or do they at all harbour such a feeling. We do not know for sure. And also, along with rights of minorities, rights of the majority are equally important. Are India’s majority Hindus and minority Muslims stepping on each other’s toes. We will get the answers, hopefully, through The Doha Debates polling that have shattered serious myths elsewhere.

Doha Debates is known for cutting through posturing and touching the rawest of nerves, but ultimately paving the way for understanding. Past motions have questioned if it was time to talk to Al Qaeda; whether Hezbollah had the right to fight a war on Lebanon’s behalf; and whether the pro-Israel lobby was successfully stifling criticism of the country’s actions.

It has now given a chance for outstanding issues between Muslims and Hindus to be addressed with patience, objectivity and honesty.(15 votes, average: 3.2 out of 5)POSTED BY ZIA HAQ ON SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2010 AT 9:58 PM FILED UNDER INDIA · TAGGED ARAB WORLD, BBC TELEVISION SERVICE, DEBATING PLATFORM, FREE SPEECH, M.J. AKBAR, OXFORD UNION, THE DOHA DEBATE, TIM SEBASTIAN· COMMENT (RSS) · TRACKBACK

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

IN THE NEWS

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

ONLINE http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/opinion/03iht-edsebastian.html

I.H.T. OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Dinner With Hamas and Fatah By TIM SEBASTIAN

Published: April 2, 2010

DOHA, QATAR — Put two warring Palestinian factions in a room together, park the six bodyguards outside, feed and water them all and after two hours you’ll be amazed at what they’ve agreed on. Absolutely nothing.

And yet for one electric moment, it seemed that the tiniest of forward steps was about to be taken. Out of nowhere came the suggestion that the two conflict-weary camps might — just might — once again sit down together sometime, somewhere, and then, like Eeyore and Piglet, sheltering under a tree from the midday sun, would start to figure out what it all meant.

A piece of paper appeared on the dinner table. One of the Fatah officials toyed with a pen. “Write an agreement,” said someone. We held our breath. But the thought disappeared as fast as it had arrived.

Perhaps it was foolish to hope for even a glimmer of light. Yet these were senior Palestinian figures, licensed to talk. Nabil Shaath, one of Fatah’s most experienced negotiators, had brought with him Abdullah Abdullah, a senior spokesman for the movement. Hamas had also fielded a top-level team — Osama Hamdan, a member of the Hamas political bureau, and one of its senior Damascus-based officials, Mohamed Nazal.

They had come to Doha for a special edition of the Doha Debates, the only independent free speech forum in the Arab world, broadcast regularly by the BBC. (Full disclosure: I am the chairman of the Doha Debates.) The purpose: to air their differences in front of a mainly Arab audience and offer a way forward.

It may have been the wrong time to do any kind of deal. It mostly is in this region. Too many people might have been around — or too few. Too much light, too little light. In any case, there’s always someone else to blame.

Israel, of course. Egypt — bugbear No 2. The United States, Europe, who knows? The conversation quested from one to the other.

After two hours, I felt as if I had witnessed a surgical operation of indeterminate nature. The medical team had assembled around a very sick patient, made a few incisions, muttered darkly about the prognosis and then sewed him up again without anyone saying — or even knowing — whether he was better or worse.

Such is “dialogue” these days in the Middle East.

81

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/opinion/03iht-edsebastian.html

Buzzwords and phrases came and went. “We’re all brothers.” It seemed churlish to mention the 1,400 or so Palestinians they themselves had killed and the hundreds jailed, tortured and abused.

Hamas to Fatah: “You’ve been kissing Israelis.”

Hamas to everyone: “We have to manage the resistance.”

Fatah: “We have to remain united.” Some hope.

As we sat there, I could detect no sense of urgency on either side to end their bloody feud. Perhaps, after years of fighting and failed reconciliations, they simply had no concept of a peacetime identity. In this region hardship is the only currency they know. So what’s another miserable day in Gaza after 7,000 years of poverty?

I couldn’t help recalling a real-life episode in the Gaza Strip, recounted to me some years ago. It’s the story of a donkey and cart, hit late one night by a speeding Mercedes in the narrow back streets of Gaza. The driver insisted that the man on the cart pay for the damage to his car. The man, of course, refused. Fast forward a few weeks and the whole affair had escalated into a shoot-out. A handful of people were killed in the gunfire, half a dozen exiled. All for a scuffed bumper. You don’t find life much cheaper than that.

The debate was an acrimonious event, marked by the audience’s palpable disappointment with what they heard, and capped with an 89 percent vote of no confidence in the Palestinian leadership. But if any of the panelists were dismayed, they showed no sign of it at dinner. None of them seemed inclined to accept the audience’s blunt invitation to step down.

Of course, they’re not the only ones who need to move on. The Middle Eastern stage is clogged with bad actors playing lousy parts. Like the well-meaning Irish foreign minister Micheál Martin, who wrote a few days ago in these pages about how unacceptable the Gaza siege was, but omitted to mention how it got there. The word “Israel” was almost completely absent from the article, leaving the uninitiated to conclude that the siege had probably happened by itself.

Too many global players in this murderous humanitarian tragedy. Too many conflicting agendas. Too many egos and too much international posturing that does little for the Palestinian people — apparently so dear to all our hearts.

The so-called Quartet seems to have been unable to play a new tune for several years. The Arab states trumpet the need for a peace deal, yet in Cairo you hear murmurings in the corridors of the Arab League that maybe the Palestinians “aren’t worth it” anymore.

For a minute or two America seemed to offer a new crumb, but then President Obama’s insistence on a freeze of Israeli settlements got stomped on by Benjamin Netanyahu. And the Arabs rolled their eyes and concluded it was all business as usual.

Major absentee at the dinner: the Palestinian people — barely mentioned by anyone.

Saddest words of the night: “We are the new generation” (Hamas).

Cost of the dinner: One more missed opportunity.

Over coffee, I found myself in a macabre little interlude with Nabil Shaath, discussing new restaurants in London. When I look back, it was no more absurd than anything else that got said that night.

Tim Sebastian is a television journalist and chairman of the Doha Debates.

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/qatar/doha-debates-give-palestinian-leadership-no-confidence-vote-1.598516

Doha debates give Palestinian leadership no-confidence voteMajority at Doha Debates express lack of belief in the Palestinian leadershipBy Rania Al Hussaini, Special to Gulf NewsPublished: 14:04 March 16, 2010

Palestinian children participate a protest against the blockade on Gaza in Beit Hanoun, near the Erez Crossing between Gaza Strip and IsraelImage Credit: AP

Doha: It was no surprise to the audience at the Doha Debates that took place last night, that 89 per cent of the people who took the vote at the event expressed their lack of belief in the Palestinian leadership.

The event that focused on the political differences between Hamas and Fatah, gave each of the panelists room to express his point of view, whilst taking questions from the audience.Speaking for the Palestinian government and representing Fatah were Nabil Shaath, PLO’s (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) chief negotiator who has served as the Palestinian Authority’s first foreign minister for two years and Dr Abdullah Abdullah, Chairman of the political committee of the Palestinian Legislative Council and a senior Fatah spokesperson.

Representing Hamas, were Osama Hamdan, the Hamas representative in Lebanon and a member of the organisation’s Political Bureau and Mohammad Nazal, a senior Hamas leader in Damascus and spokesperson for the Political Bureau.

83

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/qatar/doha-debates-give-palestinian-leadership-no-confidence-vote-1.598516

The debate was opened and directed by the host (Debates’ Chairman) Tim Sebastian from BBC, who asked key questions on the latest Palestinian issues.

The Egyptian documentFirst to speak Shaath, described the urgency and the importance of signing the Egyptian paper which is an agreement between Hamas and Fatah drafted by Egypt.

Fatah has signed the paper; however Hamas did not because they had some reservations.“We need to sign the paper now before the Arab League Summit in Tripoli. A united Palestine is required, for the Arabs to help us implement this agreement,” Shaath said.

From his side Nazal of Hamas blamed the American-Israeli interference for failing the negotiations between both parties. “We are trying to find a solution and to reach an agreement especially with out brothers in Fatah, but we have failed because of the American-Israeli pressures.“We need to sit down and have a meaningful dialogue in order to find a permanent solution for national unity,” Nazal said.

Hamas representatives denied all claims that Iran was behind the failure of the Egyptian-backed agreement, saying that one can not ignore the external factors, the Israeli-American along with the Egyptian’s pressures.“Despite our sincere efforts to make this agreement work, it did not. This is not a peace deal it is a piece of paper drafted by the Egyptians, and is know by the Egyptian paper, and we did not sign it because the final draft was changed due to the American-Israeli pressure that was imposed on them,” Hamdan said.

“The Palestinians are suffering from the Israeli occupation, which is the main problem, and Israel is our main and sole enemy, and no one is highlighting this,” he added.

From his side Dr Abdullah explained that Hamas’ recent political announcements point to a new way to achieve unity between the two parties, which will assist them in resisting the occupation.“We tell Hamas to sign the agreement… the cause is ours, the land is ours… you can not do it alone and we can not do it alone, so let us do it together,” he said.

Addressing the issue of Hamas prisoners in Fatah’s jail and vice versa, Hamdan explained that none of the prisoners were jailed for their political opinions but for committing crimes.

“We can form a joint committee from Fatah and Hamas, along with members from the Human rights organisation and Egypt to check the situation, we refuse to put people in jail for their political views and opinions. The committee can investigate that and if they found any prisoner jailed for his political view we will release him, and those who are jailed for committing crimes will be send to court,” Hamdan said, arguing that the number of Fatah prisoners in Hamas’ jails are far less from what the media is claiming.

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6


MIDDLE EAST | 16.03.2010

United in disagreement: The peace process is deadA senior Palestinian negotiator from Fatah has given the clearest indication yet that peace negotiations are doomed to fail with the current Israeli government. It comes in the wake of Israel’s latest expansion plans.

Speaking to Deutsche Welle ahead of a rare public meeting with rivals from Hamas, Nabil Shaath, a Palestinian chief negotiator and former foreign minister, said that in the two-decade peace process he had never faced an Israeli government so opposed to making concessions.

“Things have changed,” he said. “We’ve never had an Israeli government like this one, publically saying I will continue to colonize and settle because this is my right. I will keep the whole of the Jordan valley, which is 40 percent of the West Bank, Israeli and I will not withdraw from one inch of Jerusalem.”

Shaath said the moderate Palestinian Authority, nominally authorised to lead negotiations with Israel, had given America a chance to “restrain” the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, but it had failed and that any chance of negotiations, even indirectly, were finished.

US Vice President Joseph Biden, left, was left embarrassed by Israel’s announcement to build new settlements.Israel’s ambassador in Washington, Michael Oren, has called the situation “a crisis of historic proportions.” He said that relations between the two countries were the worst in 35 years, referring to the stand off between Henry Kissinger and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin over the Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai in the aftermath of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

No land and no peace

The rift was sparked during US Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories last week during which Israel’s Interior Ministry announced plans for 1,600 new Jewish homes to be built in Palestinian East Jerusalem, despite President Barack Obama’s demand for a freeze on such illegal settlements.

The Israeli plan to build new units in East Jerusalem in the mainly ultra-orthodox Ramat Shlomo settlement, an area taken by Israel in 1967, but regarded by Palestinians as part of their future capital, sparked outrage among Palestinians and the Obama administration alike.

“The speed at which Jerusalem is being Judaised and de-Arabised has surpassed any period in the history of the peace process and is so alarming that we cannot possibly continue giving cover to Mr Netanyahu that we are still negotiating while he is doing this,” said Shaath.“We came in to this thing on the basis of land for peace. There is no land and there is no real peace. But the land is being eaten piece by piece. How do you keep negotiating that? There is a time you decide you cannot continue this way. You learn,” he said.

Palestinians say the Ramat Sholmo settlement is an integral part of their future capitalUS Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called the announcement “an insult” and warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that his government sent a “deeply negative signal” by undermining months of US diplomacy aimed at starting so-called proximity peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis.

85


Clinton demanded the Israeli decision be reversed and called on Israel to make a public declaration stating talks with the Palestinians will deal with the conflict’s core issues: final status agreement on the borders of a Palestinian state; the right of Palestinian refugees to return; East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital; security arrangements; water resources and settlement issues.

Right to armed struggle

Fatah’s position on negotiations with Israel was echoed by Osama Hamdan, a member of the Hamas’ political bureau: “The peace process is dead.”

The last round of talks broke down in December as a result of Israel’s devastating war on Gaza, but had been revived by the US, despite the massive political and geographical division between the Palestinian leadership.

Fatah and Hamas have long had a cantankerous relationship which came to a head after Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian elections. Heavy fighting in May 2007 between the two parties ended with Hamas taking control of the Gaza strip whilst Fatah remained in control of the West Bank.

The victory of Hamas, an Islamist movement sworn to the destruction of Israel and listed as a terrorist organisation by the US and EU countries, led to sanctions and the suspending of foreign aid on which the Palestinians depend.

Aid to Gaza has been promised to resume if Hamas fulfils three core demands by the international community: recognise Israel; accept agreements made by the previous Fatah-led administration; and renounce violence.

The meeting in Doha between Hamas and Fatah was the first public encounter since 2007The two sides came together in Doha this week for their first public meeting since the 2007 split for a special session of the so-called Doha Debates hosted by the Qatar foundation. Although the two sides have tried to reconcile their differences, most recently in Egyptian-brokered talks, no deal has so far been signed.

According to Hamas’ Hamdan one of the major stumbling blocks to reconciliation is their differing positions on the Palestinian armed struggle. “Abu Mazen totally opposes armed struggle against Israel, whereas we believe resistance is a major tool in the struggle,” he told Deutsche Welle.

“The question is not rockets,” said Hamdan. “The question is whether we have the right to resistance.”

To underline Hamas’ position, Hamdan cites future Israeli plans for Jewish settlements. “When Mitchell [US peace envoy to the Middle East] came they announced the construction of 112 units in the West Bank. When Biden came they announced 1,600 new units in Jerusalem, and to Hillary Clinton they have announced plans of 50,000 new units,” said Hamdan, referring to Israel’s plans to build 50,000 more housing units in East Jerusalem. As for the proposed peace talks Hamdan asked: “What’s the point?”

Obama’s priorities

This may be the worst period in relations between traditionally strong allies US and Israel, but neither Hamas nor Fatah appear to have any solutions to the divisions in the Palestinian leadership.

What they can agree on is that President Obama´s administration seems unable to extract from Netanyahu any concessions that would help restart the peace process.

“Mr Obama has too many things on his plate,” said Fatah’s Nabil Shaath. “Number one is his domestic programme of health care reform, the financial situation and unemployment. He’s already threatened with the loss of his majority in November’s elections and is therefore not willing to risk losing Jewish votes.”

“Number two is Iran, then it’s getting US soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan, then protecting Pakistan which has a nuclear arsenal. We come number five or six.”

Author: Annasofie Flamand (Doha)Editor: Rob Mudge

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

WEAKMONDAY 26TH APRIL 2010 7:30 PM

Students: please apply for seats through the Doha Debates staff contact at your school

THIS HOUSE BELIEVESBARACK OBAMA IS TOO

TO MAKE PEACEIN THE MIDDLE EAST

90

IN THE NEWS

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taufiq-rahim/obama-deemed-too-weak-to_b_553322.html

Obama Deemed too Weak to Make Peace in Middle East DOHA -- “You cannot underestimate Obama,” claimed New York Times columnist Roger Cohen to an unconvinced audience of 300 at the Qatar-based Doha Debates last night. He and Sami Abu Roza, former adviser to the Office of the Palestinian President tried to make the case for Obama’s Middle East peace efforts. In the end, however, they could not overcome the skepticism of a crowd of young Arabs -- from Egypt to Qatar and everywhere in between -- and others, as the proverbial House voted 58% in favor of the resolution that “Obama is too weak to make peace in the Middle East.” Abu Roza and Cohen’s counterparts -- Ahmed Moussali of the American University of Beirut and Philip Weiss a Jewish-American blogger and journalist -- played to the largely Arab audience’s experience with empty promises of the past. While the vote was decisive, if it was taken in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, or even Palestine, it would have been even more so. What happened to the New Beginning in Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world?

When the President opened his speech with a familiar “Assalaamu alaykum” in Cairo not even a year ago, you could feel the hearts of millions of Muslims flutter with hope for the future. Then he proclaimed, “America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.” It was nearly a watershed moment in U.S.-Arab relations. Nearly. There was a significant boost in the approval of his presidency in the Arab world. A Gallup survey found that between March and July 2009 (the speech was given in June), Obama’s approval rating jumped for example from 7 to 20% in the Palestinian Territories, from 25% to 37% in Egypt, and from 22% to 55% in Bahrain. Yet, as Philip Weiss argued during the debate, “even I was a believer then” but now I think the obstacles he faces in reaching a Middle East peace are too great. Those obstacles have manifested themselves largely in the form of a powerful Israeli lobby in the U.S. and a recalcitrant Congress that has rebuffed Obama’s recent “spanking” -- as Cohen and Weiss termed it -- of Israel.

The Doha Debates is a rare and unique forum in the heart of the Middle East that facilitates open and critical discussion of sensitive issues. Founded and presided over by BBC presenter Tim Sebastian, its audience includes a diverse smattering of young Arabs -- as well as Westerners and others -- mostly students that provides a ready pulse on current trends. In this debate, which will air on BBC in early May, the audience, while sympathetic to Obama, did not feel he could overcome the challenges, with one audience member even challenging the notion that any President was strong enough. That was a position that Cohen took exception to, point out that Obama overcame

ONLINE

93

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taufiq-rahim/obama-deemed-too-weak-to_b_553322.html

questions about his racial and religious identity, and the campaign machines of Clinton and McCain to ascend to the Presidency. Yet, Weiss, audience members and Arab academic Moussali were adamant that it was only weakness on display when Netanyahu embarrassed Biden during his visit with the announcement of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem. And Obama was further emasculated when 76 Senators sided with Netanyahu rather than the President after the dust-up, chiding any public criticism of Israel.

The Arab street -- which apparently exists although I have not seen it on any map -- is waiting. Yet, perhaps this is where the real discussion needs to happen. Is Obama truly the indispensable savior? The wait for Messiah Obama and the fear of a coterie of-DC based lobbying groups too often undermines the imaginative agency of people in the region. That is where Palestinian leaders such as politician and human rights campaigner Mustapha Barghouti, or Sami Abu Roza who was at last night’s debate are starting to play an increasing role behind the scenes. They are supporting non-partisan (i.e. not Fatah or Hamas) Palestinian rallies and demonstrations and building links with the Jewish lobby group J Street who will be touring the West Bank in the coming weeks. They are shifting the ‘fight’ from the arena of violence to the International Court of Justice and other non-violent forums. Whether or not Obama is too weak or not disregards the fact that Palestinians and Arabs themselves will have to provide strong leadership themselves to lead the way to peace.

Yet, despite these activities and peace efforts supported by the U.S. even the self-admitted optimist Abu Roza offered an ominous warning: the window for a two state solution “ends in 2011.”

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6


In Doha, I struggle with my elitismby PHILIP WEISS on APRIL 28, 2010 · 89 COMMENTS

On Saturday night I flew business class to Qatar for the Doha debates. I always fly economy, but as the saying goes, I could get used to this fast. The seats on the Boeing 777 folded down to make a full bed and I was next to a guy from Cesar Pelli’s architectural firm. At the Four Seasons in Doha, I sent my wife an email. “They have Occitane soap in the bathroom.” “Life is good,” she responded. A BMW took me to and from the souk.

The debate was over the proposition, Obama is too weak to bring about Middle East peace, and I argued the affirmative along with a guy from American University of Beirut named Ahmed Moussali. He was unshaven and chain-smoked and kept the other side off balance in the green room by making fun of their clothing and telling scatological jokes. They were both courtly men, Roger Cohen of the New York Times and Sami Abu Roza of the Palestinian Authority. Abu Roza had longish hipster hair and a German-inflected accent from a youth in Europe. Cohen has an English accent and opened the debate by speaking with fervor about Obama’s character and strength. Moussali promptly undercut him by saying the question was not about whether we love Obama or don’t love him.

He and Cohen clashed a lot during the debate. It wasn’t just a difference in manners, but in world views.

Moussali talked about the right of return. He said Arabs were made to pay the price for European crimes of World War II, and 1 million Russians moved to Palestine when people who were born there cannot visit their former village. He said that Palestinians ended up with less than 22 percent of the land. Cohen was dismissive of that view. He said we cant keep dwelling on history and trying to outvictimize one another. Cohen had just been in the West Bank. He said to Moussali, When is the last time you have been in the West Bank? He spoke about how much progress the Palestinians were making economically with reduced checkpoints, and he said that Salam Fayyad says the Palestinians are trying to build something and go forward. Cohen was saying that Moussali and I are stuck in the past.

Before the debate Cohen and I had met in the Four Seasons lobby and both regretted that we were on opposite sides. He’s been a leader in American mainstream journalism; and I have several times celebrated him here, for saying that he was ashamed of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, for his personal courage in Iran last year, for attacking neoconservatives on the craziness of the idea of attacking Iran.

Still I don’t know how a liberal can say that it is a good thing for people who are denied basic political rights and human rights to accept a hot lunch of economic progress. The Boston tea party was about that. Palestinians want freedom, to come and go, and not to live with separate roadways for Jews who are steadily taking more of their land. I talked about East Jerusalem and the creation of ethnically-cleansed Jewish neighborhoods that memorialize Israel’s annexation of an international city, a violation that happens not in the past but under our noses.

Strategizing that afternoon over espresso at the Four Seasons, Moussali had told me to tell the audience that this debate doesn’t happen in the U.S. There is not a panel that pitted Cohen and Abu Roza on the right and me and Moussali on the left. Indeed, later this week Cohen will be debating a neocon at

95


the American Jewish Committee on the vital question of Iran (the same debate Cohen won handily at a synagogue in New York last year), but no American stage explores the difference between his views and mine, between his attachment to the two-state solution and my own strong feeling that Israel, a democracy that denies leadership to 20 percent of its population, must be reformed. Between his concern for the civil rights demonstrators murdered in Iran, with endless attention in the US, and my concern for the civil rights demonstrators murdered by Israel without a squeak from our press.

It was a foregone conclusion that our side would win, 58-42. Moussali told me if the debate were held in Syria it would have been 90-10.

I sat up late at the Four Seasons talking with friends from Saudi and Palestine, both highly educated and well off. The Saudi had lately given me the book, Imagined Communities, Benedict Anderson’s classic about nationalism, and the Palestinian had read it in grad school. He told me that the negotiating team for the Palestinians always gets along with the Israelis, because “elites always get along with one another.”

I thought about that bit of wisdom for the next day. Of course elites do. When you are at the Four Seasons and discussing the history of nationalism, you get along. And as a Jew, I am accustomed to thinking in such terms. I’m a member of an elite. Israel’s Reut Institute says frankly that Israel needs to personally cultivate the “entire [American] elite” in culture, arts, politics and academia to maintain its status. And Fayyad is the elite of Palestinian society. Roger Cohen and I both went to fancy schools and lead privileged lives in the US, and surely some of his love for Iran had to do with the education levels of the protesters.

On the trip back I rolled my seat down, drank Bourdeaux, and watched Avatar till it got too boring. I saw it as others have, a parable for the US relationship to the Arabs-- its glorification of an indigenous people tied to the land (the Nabi) and of the American “grunt” hero who is up against the pencil-necked elites. A Jew couldn’t write a movie from the vantage point of a jarhead, I thought. Well I couldn’t.

But during the debate I had been the most forceful on the issue of Palestinian conditions, about life in East Jerusalem and Gaza. On my left I saw Sami Abu Roza nodding his head in agreement. We’re both good guys. Somehow I think the Palestinians also need others to represent them.

MEDIABOOK | SERIES6

100

Texas A&M Campus - USAMiddle East Centre - UKGeorgetown DC Campus - USAWorld Bank - Washington - USAThe American University of Paris - Dept. of International and Comparative Polities - FranceMiddle East Institute - USASciences Po - Paris Office - FranceSciences Po - Menton - FranceSultan Qaboos University - OmanAl Yamamah College - Riyadh - Saudi ArabiaAl Ittihad High School for Girls - Amman - JordanSt. Stephen’s College - New Delhi - IndiaSOAS - London - UKCambridge University - Oriental Studies Dept. - UKGulf Research Centre - Dubai - UAEMorocco University - Al-Akhawany University - MoroccoEmirates International School - Dubai - UAESt. Margaret’s College - New ZealandKing Abdullah University of Science and Technology - Saudi Arabia Kapsarc-King Abdullah Petroleum Studies & Research Centre - Saudi ArabiaUniversity of Colorado at Denver - USAUniversity of Sarajevo, School of Journalism, Bosnia and Herzegovina

GLOBALEDUCATIONOUTREACH

The Doha Debates Media Book

Documents

Transcript of The Doha Debates Media Book