The more things change the more they remain the same, says
the old adage, and nothing is more so than what goes on inside the fast
changing universe of communication. The hardware we use to stay in touch with
each other is changing at the proverbial speed of light in that sphere but
something remains stubbornly the same; it is what we, human beings, do with the
hardware. No matter how much we advance technically, we seem to remain
psychologically as primitive as the savage beings that used to communicate by
physical aggression more than they did by reasoned exchanges. And I have a
story to tell in this regard.
Before I get into the heart of the story, let me show you
something. On August 10, 2013 the editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ)
which is owned by the Australian Jew, Rupert Murdoch, wrote two pieces that
happen to illustrate a point I am trying to make. The first piece is titled:
“Mad Bob's 'election.'” The name here refers to Robert Mugabe, the President of
Zimbabwe. As to the second piece of the Journal, it is titled: “Quote-Unquote,
the Law.” It also has a subtitle that says: “Obama explains why he can ignore
the letter of his health-care law.” The name here refers to Barack Obama, the
President of the United
States of America where the Journal is
headquartered.
Both pieces discuss presidential powers. In the first case,
the editors of the WSJ describe the problem like this: “Mugabe called a snap
election, bypassing the MDC-run [opposition] parliament.” In the second case,
they describe the problem like this: “He [Obama] blamed his need to act
unilaterally on Republicans [opposition] … Which is weird.” As you can see,
they did not think Mugabe was weird but they thought their own President was.
And it was this contrast in treatment – however insignificant it may seem –
that brought to memory the true story I am about to tell you.
There was a time in the decade of the 1950s when setting up
a pirate radio station to undermine a regime that someone did not like was in
vogue. The first time I became aware of this reality was in 1957 when the
family returned to Egypt ,
having spent much of my childhood away from my birthplace. That was a turbulent
time in the country, coming less than a year after the attack on the Suez Canal
zone; a senseless attack mounted by the old colonial powers, Britain and France . They did not attack to
retake the canal that President Nasser had nationalized but to show the young
Egyptian “colonel” what the old powers can still do if and when they decide to
do something.
That was their immediate goal; to show Nasser
what they can do. A more subtle and long-term goal that came to light 11 years
later was the fact that the old colonial powers were training Israel's
military, and showing it how to attack Egypt, something Israel did in 1967,
thus starting a war that lasted till 1973 when the Egyptian army put an end to
the Israeli aggression. I had left Egypt
by then to come Canada and
live here – which means that I never lived in Egypt when that country was at war.
What I mean by that is real hot war, which is not to say I failed to witness
another kind of war; one that is fought via the airwaves.
It happened that Nasser – the man the colonial powers hated
so much as to risk losing their status of world powers in order to show him
what they can do – was hated even more by the Israelis. What these people did
in 1967 – mounting a Pearl Harbor style sneak attack on Egypt while pretending to prepare
themselves for peace talks – had a prelude that preceded the military attack.
What came before that attack was a war of the airwaves conducted not only by Israel 's official radio station but also half a
dozen or so anti-Nasser, anti-Egypt pirate stations that used to broadcast from
ships along the Egyptian coastlines on the Red and Mediterranean Seas
The attacks on Nasser were a steady stream of hate filled
statements whose purpose was to try and convince the people of Egypt they were
governed by a man who is so bad for them, they must rise up and protest against
his rule till they paralyze the country so effectively, he will have no choice
but to go away and let someone else rule the country. Needless to say the ploy
did not work, and Nasser remained as popular
as ever. Even after the sneak attack of 1967 for which he took full
responsibility and resigned, the people still loved him. They went into the
streets and the squares – the now famous Tahrir square being one of them – and
they told Nasser that his resignation was not
accepted. They strongly advised that they wanted him back on the job; they
wanted him to stay on and continue to serve the country. He listened to the
people, withdrew his resignation and served till he died of a heart attack a
few years later.
That was more than half a century ago. Did things change since that time? Yes, some things did change. For example, the hardware we now
use has changed in the sense that we have a visual sort of radio called
television. We also have the internet, connecting the world in a way that no
one could have fathomed then. And we have the ability to print the same
newspaper and same magazine on several points around the globe at the same
time, even publish them online so that everyone anywhere can have access to
them.
But what has not changed is the content of these media
outlets – as they are now called. They are used the same way that the pirate
radio stations were used more than half a century ago. And no one is more apt at
engaging in journalistic piracy than Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the Wall
Street Journal and its sister television station, Fox News. The people who run
them have behaved scandalously in Europe and
were caught red handed on that Continent. They are behaving scandalously in America as well
but so far, they have not been caught doing something manifestly illegal. But
you never know.