Thirty-five Arab journalists have been fired since the beginning of April as a result of a campaign of intimidation and terrorism waged against them by Hamas and Hezbollah.

The journalists were working for the Saudi-owned pan-Arab Al-Arabiya television news channel, based in Dubai Media City in the United Arab Emirates. The network was previously rated by the BBC among the top pan-Arab stations.

But life for Al-Arabiya reporters has never been easy. Like most Arab journalists covering the Arab and Islamic countries, they too have long faced threats from various parties and governments.

That is the sad state of journalism in the Arab world: “If you’re not with us, then you must be against us and that is why we need to shut your mouth.” A journalist who does not agree to serve as a governmental mouthpiece is denounced as a “traitor.”

The absence of democracy and freedom of speech in most Arab and Islamic countries has forced many Arab journalists to relocate to the West. In the past four decades, some of the Arab world’s best journalists and writers moved to France and Britain, where they could work without fearing for their lives.

But in the Arab world, freedom of the media remains a far-fetched dream. There, if you are not threatened by the government, there is always someone else who will find a reason to target you.

The case of the Al-Arabiya journalists is yet another example of the dangers facing media representatives who do not toe the line or who dare to challenge a government or a terrorist group.

Earlier this week, Al-Arabiya announced that it was firing its eight workers in the Gaza Strip — three years after the Hamas government decided to shut the station’s offices there. The workers are Mohamed Jahjouh, Jamal Abu Nahel, Hanan al-Masri, Rula Elayan, Mahmdouh al-Sayed, Sha’ban Mimeh, Ala Zamou and Ahmed al-Razi.

In an email to the workers, the Al-Arabiya management wrote:

“We appreciate your work with us during the previous period. You were all an example of professional performance, but the time has come for the hard decision after we exhausted all attempts to reopen the offices, which were forcibly closed, as you know, by the party that controls the street in the Gaza Strip.”

Hamas shut the Gaza offices of Al-Arabiya in July 2013, under the pretext that the station had been broadcasting “incorrect news” about the situation in the Gaza Strip. In addition to the closure, Hamas also confiscated the equipment and furniture with an estimated value of $500,000, and prevented the employees from entering the offices.

Hamas shut the Gaza offices of Al-Arabiya in July 2013, under the pretext that the station had been broadcasting “incorrect news” about the situation in the Gaza Strip. (Image source: JN1 video screenshot)

The closure of the Al-Arabiya offices in the Gaza Strip did not receive much attention from the international community and human rights organizations. Had the office been closed by Israel, of course, there would have been an international outcry, with journalists around the world screaming about Israeli “assaults on freedom of the media.”

Here is an unpleasant fact: Al-Arabiya, like many other Arab TV stations, has a bureau in Israel, and its reporters enjoy more freedom reporting out of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv than they do in the Arab world. Today, the only free and independent Arabic newspapers in the Middle East can be found inside Israel.

In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the only newspapers available are those that serve as an organ for the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas. Many Arab journalists feel unsafe working under the PA in the West Bank. For the PA and Hamas alike, criticism is a crime.

Just this week, for example, Palestinian Authority security officers arrested journalist Tareq Abu Zeid in Nablus after confiscating his personal computer and mobile phone. No reason was given for Abu Zeid’s arrest. He joins scores of other journalists and bloggers who have been arrested or interrogated by the PA in recent years.

Even Arab countries that once used to boast of being a base for free media, such as Lebanon, are no longer able to defend journalists from threats and violence.

Last month, Al-Arabiya also closed its offices in Beirut, citing “security concerns.” In a statement, the Saudi-owned station said that the decision to quit Beirut was taken “out of concern for the safety” of its 27 employees.

The decision is believed to be the direct result of threats by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia. Hezbollah is furious with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries for their recent decision to label the Shiite militia as a terrorist group.

Al-Arabiya’s decision to close its bureau in Beirut came shortly after suspected Hezbollah thugs went on the rampage inside the offices of the Saudi-owned newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, destroying equipment and furniture.

The attack came after the pan-Arab newspaper published a cartoon marking April Fool’s Day, which was deemed “offensive” to Lebanon and its flag. The message behind the cartoon was that Lebanon has become a failed state because of the growing power of Hezbollah and Iranian meddling in the internal affairs of the country — something that has prevented the election of a new Lebanese president.

The crackdown on Arab journalists and media outlets by Hamas, Hezbollah and many Arab governments (including the Palestinian Authority) is not only aimed at silencing critics, but also at hiding from the world what life is like under dictators and terrorists. In light of the fact that Al-Arabiya’s staff has been recently decimated, advocates of freedom of the media might wish to tune in.

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist is based in Jerusalem.

Like all other European countries, Sweden is trying to fight against jihadists and terrorists, but it often seems as if the key players in Sweden have no understanding of what the threats are or how to deal with them.

In 2014, for instance, the Swedish government decided to set up a post called the “National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism.” But instead of appointing an expert as the national coordinator, the government appointed the former party leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin. Apart from Sahlin having a high school degree, she is mostly known for a corruption scandal. As a party leader of the Social Democrats, she lost the 2010 election, and as a minister in several Socialist governments, she has not managed to distinguish herself in any significant way. Göran Persson, who was Prime Minister of Sweden from 1996 to 2006, described Mona Sahlin this way:

“People believe she has a greater political capacity than she has. What comes across her lips is not so remarkable. Her strength is not thinking, but to convey messages.”

With such a background, it was no surprise that she was ineffective as National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism. But the fact that she used her high government agency to help her friends came as a shock to the Swedish public. Sahlin had hired her former bodyguard for a position at her agency and signed a false certificate that he earned $14,000 dollars monthly, so that he could receive financing to purchase a $1.2-million-dollar home.

Sahlin also gave the man’s relative an internship, even though the application had been declined. Before Sahlin resigned in May 2016, she said, “I help many of my friends.”

Despite the fact that Sweden has a Ministry of Justice responsible for issues that would seem far more related to violent extremism, Sweden has, for some reason, placed the agency to combat violent extremism under the Ministry of Culture.

While the U.S sees the fight against Islamic extremism as a security issue, Sweden evidently believes that combating violent extremism should be placed in a ministry responsible for issues such as media, democracy, human rights and national minorities. With such a delegation of responsibility, the government seems either to be trying to hamper efforts to combat violent extremism, or it does not understand the nature of the threat.

The lack of understanding of violent extremism, combined with politicizing the problem, has been evident, for instance, in Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city. After the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, the city councilor responsible for safety and security in Malmö, Andreas Schönström, said that European right-wing extremism is a bigger threat than violent Islamism. And on June 5, 2016, Jonas Hult, Malmö’s security manager, wrote: “The right-wing forces in Malmö are the biggest threat.”

With such statements, one would think that perhaps Malmö is a city filled with neo-Nazi gangs. Not so. Malmö is a city that usually ends up in the news because of Islamic anti-Semitism or extremist activists working to destroy Israel. There have been no reports of any neo-Nazi movements in Malmö in the recent past.

When supporters of Pegida (an anti-Islamic migration political movement in Europe) came to Malmö, they had to be protected by the police due to thousands of extremist activists and Muslims protesting the presence of Pegida. Of Malmö’s residents, 43.2% were either born abroad or their parents were.

Further, the Social Democrat politicians have held local municipal power in Malmö since 1919. To say that Malmö is somehow a place where right-wing extremism is a threat is simply not based on facts. Instead of seriously combating violent extremism, many in Sweden have chosen — possibly imagining it easier — to politicize the problem.

Sweden also has not yet reached the point where the authorities distance themselves from violent extremism. The association Kontrakultur (a cultural and social association in Malmö), receives about $37,000 annually from the municipal cultural committee of Malmö. On its website, Kontrakultur writes that it cooperates with an organization called Förbundet Allt åt alla (“The Association Everything for Everyone”). This organization, in turn, according to the National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism, consists of violent extremist activists.

The idea that municipal funds should in no way go to organizations that cooperate with violent extremists is something not yet rooted in Sweden. In June 2016, for example, a 46-year-old Islamic State jihadi arrived in Malmö. He was taken into custody by the police for speedy deportation. But when he applied for asylum, the Swedish Migration Agency took over the matter to examine his asylum application, and ordered the deportation stopped. Inspector Leif Fransson of the border police described the situation:

“As soon as these people throw out their trump card and say ‘Asylum’, the gates of heaven open.”

In August 2015, the Swedish government submitted a document to Parliament outlining the Swedish strategy against terrorism. Among other things, the document stated:

“It is important that there is a gender perspective in efforts to prevent violent extremism and terrorism.”

Under the headline “Gender Perspective” in a committee directive from the Swedish government on the mission of the National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism you can observe:

“The violent extremist environments consist mainly of men, and in the extremist movements there are individuals who oppose gender equality and women’s rights. It is therefore important that there is a gender perspective in efforts to prevent violent extremism, and that norms that interact and contribute to the emergence of violent environments are effectively counteracted.”

Perhaps the Swedish government has a secret plan to convince jihadists to become feminists? But as usual, Swedish politicians have chosen to politicize the fight against extremism and terrorism, and address the issue as if it were about parental leave instead of Sweden’s security.

Mona Sahlin, who was Sweden’s “National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism,” until she resigned in May amid corruption allegations, is shown posing with Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan in July 2010. The Swedish government’s directives to her agency stressed that it is “important that there is a gender perspective in efforts to prevent violent extremism.” (Image source: Social Democratic Party)

There is no evidence that “gender perspective” is relevant or useful in the fight against extremism and terrorism, yet we see that the Swedish government, in several documents related to terrorism and extremism, evidently believes that “gender perspective” is what should be used in the fight against those threats. This gives just some idea of how strenuously Sweden wants to disregard the problem, or even ask experts for help.

One might argue that this is because Sweden has never been exposed to Islamic terrorism or that extremism is not something that concerns the nation. Sweden has, however, had experience in facing Islamic terrorism. On December 11, 2010, a jihadist blew himself up in central Stockholm. Taimour Abdulwahab did not manage to hurt anyone, but Sweden got a taste of Islamic terrorism and has every reason to want to defend itself against more of it.

Islamic extremism is, unfortunately, becoming more widespread, especially in Sweden’s major cities. Gothenburg, for example, has been having major problems with it. In November 2015, there were reports that 40% of the 300 Swedish jihadists in Syria and Iraq came from Gothenburg. The only country that has, per capita, more of its citizens as jihadists in Iraq and Syria than Sweden, is Belgium.

As facts accumulate, there is much information indicating that Sweden has huge problems dealing with Islamic extremism and jihadism. The Swedish Security Service (Säpo), in the beginning of 2015, published a press release using the words “historic challenge” to describe the threat from violent Islamism. Already in May 2015 the head of Säpo, Anders Thornberg, expressed doubts that the agency could handle the situation if the recruitment of jihadists in Sweden continued or increased.

Experts in Sweden’s security apparatus have clearly expressed that violent Islamism is a clear and present danger to the security of Sweden, but the politicized debate about Islamic terrorism and extremism does not seem capable of absorbing this warning.

This general politicization, combined with the failure to prioritize the fight against terrorism and extremism, is the reason Sweden is, and continues to be, a magnet for extremists and terrorists. Jihadists who come to Sweden know that there are many liberal politicians looking for invisible “right-wing extremists”, and that there are feminists who think what is really important is using “gender perspective” in the fight against extremism and terrorism.

Jihadists also know that there are large gaps in the Swedish bureaucracy and legislation that can be exploited. These are the policies that have been created by Swedish politicians. One can therefore only question if Sweden seriously wants to fight the threats of terrorism and extremism.

Nima Gholam Ali Pour is a member of the board of education in the Swedish city of Malmö and is engaged in several Swedish think tanks concerned with the Middle East. He is also editor for the social conservative website Situation Malmö. Gholam Ali Pour is the author of the Swedish book “Därför är mångkultur förtryck“(“Why multiculturalism is oppression”).

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, until a few years ago, could astonish. Now the pattern of his primary political strategy boringly repeats itself.

The pattern started in 2009 with Erdogan’s shocking tirade against then Israeli President Shimon Peres. “When it comes to killing,” Erdogan told Peres at the Davos meeting, “You know very well how to kill.” In the following years, that romantic neighbourhood-bully behaviour against major powers added to his popularity at home — in addition to the anti-Zionist rhetoric and Jew-bashing that boosted his popularity both at home and on the Arab Street.

The target “tyrant” did not have to be non-Muslim. “Dictator Sisi” — his reference to Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and the “Tyrant, murderer of Damascus” — his reference to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad are still common currency.

Crowds vowed to march to war after him if he decided the mighty Turkish army should reach the gates of Damascus, Cairo or Jerusalem.

They cheered and cheered. In the personality of Erdogan, they were going to find the lost soul of their great imperial past. Erdogan, a smart politician, knew very well that even the talk of reverting back to “our glorious days” would suffice to mobilize “victory-hungry” masses behind him. You did not have to start the Third War to satisfy their thirst and convert it into votes.

This explains why Erdogan in later years diverted his empty, inflammatory rhetoric to the ailing European Union (EU). His — and his cabinet ministers’ — rhetoric regarding the EU looked (and still looks) quite “Duterte-ish” — ready to push people out of helicopters. That can be hardly surprising. This is what the “average Turk” wants to hear: The tough, brave guy challenging the world’s major Western powers.

The same holds true for the United States. The past few years have featured the same story between Ankara and Washington:

• Sir, the Turks are accusing the U.S.A. of…
• Turkey is our ally. We can always talk to them to prevent any misunderstanding.

So boring, with all possible turns of speech, writing and press releases of spokespersons’ cliché replies that never make it into big headlines. On December 28, for instance, Erdogan said he has evidence that U.S.-led coalition forces gave support to terrorist groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Syrian Kurdish forces. A U.S. embassy statement said:

“The United States government has not provided weapons or explosives to the YPG or the PKK [Kurdish groups] — period. We repeatedly have condemned PKK terrorist attacks and the group’s reprehensible violence in Turkey…. The U.S. is cooperating with Turkey in the operations against ISIL.”

So dry. So insufficient.

In Turkey’s multiple and extremely serious challenges against various countries in recent years, there was only one leader who knew in which language to talk to Erdogan: Vladimir Putin. On Nov. 24, 2015, two Turkish F-16 jets shot down a Russian Su-24. Ankara said that as part of the new rules of engagement, any foreign plane violating Turkish airspace would be shot down. Putin immediately downgraded diplomatic relations, announced scores of punishing economic sanctions but, more importantly, he promised that the price Turkey would have to pay would not be limited to the economy and trade.

Turkey’s economy started to suffer by losing billions of dollars in tourism and export revenue in half a year. Erdogan panicked. He sent envoy after envoy to normalize ties with Russia. Moscow demanded an apology, which in mid-2016 Erdogan offered to Putin. Since then, Erdogan has been behaving like a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), led by Russia and China. More than once Erdogan offered to abandon the EU and join the SCO.

In July 2016, Erdogan apologized for downing a Russian plane, and in August he went to Russia to shake hands for normalization. Pictured: Russian President Vladimir Putin with Turkey’s then Prime Minister Erdogan, meeting in Istanbul on December 3, 2012. (Image source: kremlin.ru)

Erdogan’s balancing act has been successful not because the Russians are fools. It has been successful because his Western counterparts were too naïve in deciphering him and his real political motives. There is something brave and cunning about Erdogan. He keeps fighting until the end, so long as he does not perceive or face any imminent major political or economic threat to his rule. He would, however, immediately change sides if the path he is on is potentially a costly one — as in how Putin “reshaped” Erdogan.

Burak Bekdil, one of Turkey’s leading journalists, was just fired from Turkey’s leading newspaper after 29 years, for writing what was taking place in Turkey for Gatestone.