The Case of MEMRI: good, evil, public service, conspiracy?

Great Debates
21

Having read over the site in question, I’m not sure I agree with this assessment.

Certainly, looking at the site, it divides its articles into several categories - some of which are indeed focused on hate talk. I don’t know if this in and of itself is intended to provide a skewed view of the society in question, as the site states up-front that the purpose is to document (for example) Jew hatred in the Arab
world.

For example, the topic heading “antisemitism documentation” states the following:

“This section of MEMRI’s website documents Arabic newspaper reports, editorials, and other media sources which are primarily based upon antisemitic themes.”

If the heading said “these are a random sampling of reports from Arabic newspapers”, and then only included ones which were anti-semitic, your point would be valid. But it does not. It says up-front that the purpose is to document and collect anti-semitic articles. Which I think is a serious topic and worthy of study - as indeed is (say) anti-Arab hatred in the West; the difference is, I can read those articles for myself if they are in English already, and don’t need a translation service to do it.

However, MEMRI does not record only hate speech, but also a lot of much more positive stuff. Another of their sections is based on “reform”, introduced as follows:

“MEMRI’s Reform in the Arab and Muslim World focuses on advocates of reform, and the debate surrounding it, within the Middle East and Muslim world. The project is divided into four main categories: Social Reform, which will focus on women’s rights, civil society, and educational systems. Political Reform, which includes debates on democracy and the rule of law, protection of the individual, and freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. Also, Religious Reform, which covers the debate on reform in Islam, as well as the misuse of religion. Finally, the Reform Project will cover Economic Reform, which examines issues of free market economy, globalization, and modernization.”

Which is also an important topic; and covering this hardly smears the Arab-speaking society and world, but the opposite. Reading about reform from within the Arab-speaking world is a positive thing, which ought to be applauded by Arabs as well as non-Arabs.

The topics covered by MEMRI are as follows:

• JIHAD AND TERRORISM STUDIES PROJECT
• U.S. AND THE MIDDLE EAST
• REFORM IN THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD
• ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT
• INTER-ARAB RELATIONS
• ECONOMIC STUDIES
• ARAB ANTISEMITISM DOCUMENTATION PROJECT

Which I think broadly covers what many Westerners are curious about. Only one of the topics covered is by its very nature hate speech, so it cannot be said that the site “focuses” exclusively on that.

While for balance it would be a great idea if some Arab media outlet would cover the same selection of topics via translations, to my knowledge such a service does not yet exist. Until it does, MEMRI is the only place to read translations of articles on these topics on a regular basis.

22

“His complete refusal to condemn terrorism in Arabic should tell you something.”
Actually Arafat has not only condemned terrorism in Arabic but been praised by Bush for doing so.
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/text/0508bshabd.htm

Did MEMRI translate or report this? If it did my opinion of it would go up a couple of notches. If it didn’t it would seem to support the arguments of its critics.

23

Some more about this: according to this report Arafat condemned terrorism in Arabic in April 2002 before his meeting with Powell.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/04/14/1018333437655.html

Here is the MEMRI page on the Arab-Israeli conflict; I can’t find any reference to the Arafat statement:
http://memri.org/conflict.html

24

I don’t know whether it refers to the same occasion or a different one, but MEMRI reports that Yasser Arafat supported a Palistinian condemnation of terrorism:

“Inquiry and Analysis Series - No. 101 - Arab-Israeli Conflict, July 5, 2002
The Palestinian Debate Over Martyrdom Operations Part II: A Palestinian Communiqué Against the Attacks”

"Recently, the Palestinian daily Al-Quds published a communiqué with some 500 signatories, among them leading Palestinians such as Professor Sari Nusseibah [and his wife Lucy], Hanan Ashrawi, Mamdouh Nofal, Ziad Abu Ziyad, and Hashem Abd Al-Razeq. The statement called for a stop to military operations harming civilians in Israel, s they produce no results except for an increase in the hatred between the two peoples and the destruction of the possibility of living side by side in peace in two neighboring states.[1]

Professor Nusseibah: Version I
In an interview with the Arab-Israeli daily Al-Ittihad, Professor Nusseibah explained the reasons behind the communiqué: “We must turn to means that serve our goal – which is to remove the occupation and get rid of its barbaric acts of repression. We do not think that murdering Israeli civilians serves our just, human goals; it turns the well-known murderer who destroys villages, murders children, usurps lands, and banishes people, into a victim who markets himself to the world, seeks support, and justifies his barbaric acts against us. Whatever the cruelty of the enemy, who has not a trace of human characteristics… Palestinians must not sacrifice their moral values in addition to their body. We must cling to human, moral values and standards, because our strength lies in our adherence to values and morality.”[2]

…

The PA’s Response: Version I
In an interview with the Israeli daily Haaretz[7], Yassir Arafat said that he supported this communiqué."

So, it would appear that MEMRI does report on Arafat’s position - which is that he supports statements opposing the use terrorism.

25

More:

“Inquiry and Analysis Series - No. 100 - Arab-Israeli Conflict, July 4, 2002
The Palestinian Debate Over Martyrdom Operations Part I: The Debate within the PA”

"PA Chairman Yasser Arafat issued several calls to stop these operations. In a speech on Nakbha Day (May 15, 2002) he said: “We declare today our un-acceptance of operations against Israeli civilians… The Palestinian and Arab public opinion is convinced that such operations do not serve our goals. Rather, they cause disagreements [with the international community] and unite large parts of it against us. You know better than me that such operations cause dissent… Let us remember the Hudaybiya agreement…”[1]

After the two martyrdom operations carried out in Jerusalem in June 2002, Arafat issued another statement calling to totally stop these operations.[2]"

The objection that positive statements by Arafat don’t get covered by MEMRI doesn’t hold water.

26

The dates would seem to indicate that this is a later statement than the ones I linked to. In any case MEMRI doesn’t seem to say if the statement is in Arabic or not which is a crucial issue. The headline is also not specific; compare it with the Sydney Morning Herald’s headline: “Arafat condemns terrorist actions targeting civilians”. The MEMRI page doesn’t hesitate to mention Arafat in the headlines for other stories; why not do it in a story where he is condemning terrorism? I guess a brief mention of the May 15 statement in an analytical piece in July is better than nothing but it doesn’t amount to objective coverage of Arafat. MEMRI should have translated or reported the April statement by Arafat and clearly mentioned it was in Arabic.

An example of objective coverage would be:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1928029.stm

A clear-cut headline: “Arafat on Terrorism”. A mention that the statement was in Arabic. And a full translation of the text. That is what MEMRI should have done if it wanted to cover the issue properly.

27

I just love this:

Oh, but what’s the point of the whole website: to provide translations!

But that’s not good enough for the critics. What kind of complaints do we hear:

“They’re not translating the right stuff”

“They have a pro-Israeli agenda”

“They don’t adequately explain who the authors are”

Guys – this is not made up shit, this is stuff that is being written about in the Arab/Muslim World!!!

Talk about “Blaming the Messenger”!

28

I stand corrected. Looks like my info was outdated.

29

That’s not much of a criticism.

The issue is not whether MEMRI is as good as the BBC in people’s opinions, but whether is is useful at all - or, on the contrary, an illigitimate, misinformative propaganda site.

So far, it appears that the critics are claiming the latter, but are unable to prove it objectively. I am open to someone posting a reason why the site is not to be trusted.

30

Well, I don’t think MEMRI is a totally useless site and I .am not sure who is saying that. I think it is a biased pro-Israel site which may have useful information occasionally but which doesn’t give us the whole picture reliably like the BBC or NYTimes. I think the non-coverage of Arafat’s April statement is a good example of this.

31

Well, for my part I don’t think anyone is alleging that MEMRI is a good replacement for the BBC.

From reading the site, it appears to be designed to translate the stuff that would not get into the mainstream Western press. A specialty service for those already familiar with the news from the area, not a complete general news reporting service like the BBC.

As for bias, that word is sort of meaningless - every media is “biased”. Selection of what to print is a bias, even if the content is completely objective. The issue is whether the bias interferes with, or distorts, the content so as to render the information presented unreliable. Or whether the bias is hidden, in such a way as to give the impression that no selection was made - a false objectivity.

In this case, the criteria for selection of stories are stated up front. That is a useful sort of bias. Want to read news stories stating anti-Jewish claims in the Arab media? Go to the section. I wish there was a service in English which similarly selected anti-Arab statements in the Western press.

32

“The issue is whether the bias interferes with, or distorts, the content so as to render the information presented unreliable”
I think that MEMRI’ s selection bias has the effect of distorting the picture that the reader gets of the issue as a whole. For instance conciliatory statements by Arafat are given less prominence than more radical statements which makes him look more radical than he is.

As for being upfront about selection criteria, the section under discussion is simply called “Arab-Israeli conflict” not ,say, “radical statements by Arab leaders”. So I don’t see any good reason why MEMRI couldn’t have covered Arafat’s Arabic statements condemning terrorism in a proper and timely manner.

33

I don’t understand - they did include his statements condemning terrorism in the relevant section. It was quite clearly labeled as such, and I quoted from them above. They were hardly obscure, given that the relevant section was entitled “The Palistinian Debate over Martyrdom Operations”. This was the seventh article from the top; the sixth also included references to it; and the second article from the top includes a whole section on the new PM’s opposition to suicide bombings, subtitled “The Al-Aqsa Intifada and the Struggle Against Israel – In Support of Resistance to the Occupation and Opposition to Suicide Bombings”.

While the sections may not include each and every example of Arafat’s statements opposing terrorism, there is no basis for complaining that the section of the site under discussion does not include such references about top Palistinian leaders, including Arafat. On the contrary, the site seems quite scrupulous in this specific regard.

Indeed, many of the articles which even mention Arafat also state his opposition to terrorism - in fact, in this one “Special Dispatch Series - No. 317 - Arab-Israeli Conflict, December 20, 2001 – Recent Statements By Yasser Arafat”, which you will note carries his name, also includes his statement opposing terrorism (he calls it a PR gift to Sharon).

This objection doesn’t fly - if you actually read the articles. Without even looking hard, I managed to find three different cases which undermine the thesis, not counting the new PM. No doubt there are more.

As for making Arafat look radical, it is hard to state that an accurate translation of what he actually said does that - unless you could prove that he is only quoted saying bad stuff but never saying good stuff. Which, as I just pointed out, is not true. Rather, they appear to exerpt selected quotes about the topic of Arab-Israeli relations.

I also recommend: “Special Dispatch Series - No. 253 - Arab-Israeli Conflict, August 8, 2001 – The PA Press Agency (WAFA) Calls to Use Stones Only and Refrain from Attacking Civilians Inside Israel”. Seems rather an odd thing for a “biased” news service to translate, if its mandate is to paint the PA as radical extremists - right? Why, if they are biased in their selection, would they decide to select that?

I would have thought that a far more cogent objection was the inclusion of a whole section on Jew hatred in the Arab press.

34

Arafat’s statement in 317 is: “These people could not find better timing [to carry out martyrdom operations] except the very moment when Sharon went to meet with President Bush with no cards in his hands. They gave Sharon these operations as a present…”

It appears to be more of a tactical criticism about timing than a full-blown condemnation of terrorism. And certainly the thrust of the comments in the article is about military struggle rather than peace.

His April 2002 statement by contrast:
“President Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian leadership express their condemnation of all terrorist acts against civilians, whether they are Israelis or Palestinians and whether this terrorism is sponsored by a state, group or person.”

“On this basis, we strongly condemn the violent operations that target Israeli civilians, especially the recent operation in Jerusalem.”

The language is a lot stronger and clear-cut than the quotes you have produced. Of the three statements you quoted, two are buried deep inside analytical reports whose titles don’t even mention Arafat and the third is at best a tactical criticism of terrorist acts not a condemnation. I don’t think they are an adequate substitute for failing to report Arafat’s most clear-cut condemnation of terrorism in Arabic.

35

MEMRI didn’t write the quotes, it just translated them. Why blame MEMRI if the language is not to your liking? :confused:

MEMRI is not a comprehensive news source, and doesn’t pretend to be. In all of 2003, they published exactly two articles in the section under discussion. To blame them for not including your favorite story is grasping at straws.

It would certainly be a valid critisism if they never translated anything about condemning terrorism by the PA or Arafat. But, as I have demonstrated comprehensively, that is not the case.

36

“To blame them for not including your favorite story is grasping at straws.”
The point about the story is that it’s the most clear-cut condemnation of terrorism by Arafat in Arabic. It was in response to a specific US demand and paved the way for Colin Powell meeting. As such I think it’s a lot more interesting and important than the other quotes you put up which don’t even mention whether Arafat’s statements were in Arabic (which is a crucial point) and which don’t condemn terrorism as clearly and concretely. There is also the matter of timeliness; Arafat made that statement in mid-April whereas the analytical reports with your quotes are in July. The page has several articles in April and June 2002 so I don’t see any good reason for them not to have reported this important statement by Arafat.

In any case there is no point going on and on about this. I have said pretty much all I have to say. We’ll just have to disagree about this.

37

In the final analysis, without:

Memri or IMRI

Would we, westerners, have the faintest idea what the multifarious Muslim regimes and their press mouthpieces were saying in their own language?

Our own governments and media certainly don’t tell us.

38

There is a very easy solution for this AOB : learn the language.
Salaam. A

39

Alde

On the net I am at liberty to select from a variety of translations of the “Holy” Koran and the “Authentic Hadiths”.

Apart from that, I could, if I so desired, refer to the sermons preached in the all of the major mosques of Islam. Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Yemen et al.

Translations of these are freely available on the net. Have you read them?

Are you not pleased, Fellaghah.

40

AOB,

As always, you manage to amuse me.

If you have that much “translations” available, then what are you complaining about?
By the way: I hope for your sanity that you didn’t think you just used “Arabic” to describe a male resident of rural area’s and having as occupation what is usually done there?

Salaam. A