In a desperate effort to reverse America’s negative image in the Arab world, a new Arabic-language television station called Alhurra ("the free one") has been added to the diet of existing government-sponsored broadcasting outlets in the Arab region.

The new station joins America’s Radio Sawa and its slick Hi magazine as post-September 11 Arabic-language media tools that the US hopes to use to win Arab hearts and minds.

Judging from the broadcast content of its first day, Washington has a long way to go to achieve its goals.

Alhurra operates with a $62-million grant from the US government. Judging from its first broadcast day, there is no hint it will ever become self-reliant. Listeners can only conclude that Alhurra will always be an instrument of the US government.

The US secretary of state has a permanent seat on the station’s board along with four Democrats and four Republicans.

Sponsoring foreign radio broadcasts has been a favorite tool of colonial European governments. The British have been bankrolling foreign broadcasts on the BBC; the French on Radio Monte Carlo. But neither has attempted televising in Arabic, via satellite, as does Alhurra.

Arab regimes have for years monopolized the mass media to control their people and maintain power. But Alhurra will not contribute to efforts by many in the Arab world who want the air waves to be free to private and independent ownership.

While some expected the new station to be an important addition to the plurality of opinions available to the Arab public, its first day of broadcasting confirmed what the skeptics have been saying all along: What the US needs to do is change its policy, not its media strategy.

When Alhurra chose to launch the station with an exclusive interview with the US president, Arab viewers expected some new revelation or insight into the president’s Mideast policy. Instead they were lectured by the president, who used the interview to repeat worn-out positions regarding the war on terror and the need for democratic change in the Arab region.

BUSH BEGAN his exclusive interview with Alhurra saying he hopes to encourage the spread of freedom in the Middle East. His definition of freedom was very clear: "Open society, free parties, secular society and independent press."

Of course, Bush didn’t waste his time dealing with the mundane issue of freedom. Rather he used his air time to talk about his war on terror and what he considered his success in Iraq and Libya.

Ironically, the only three countries Bush specified by name as moving toward democracy were monarchies – Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. And the only Arab leader personally criticized by Bush was the only one democratically elected by his people in free and fair elections, Yasser Arafat.

The interview conducted by Mowafq Harb, Alhurra’s editor-in-chief, failed to challenge Bush on any of the issues being hotly debated in America. It had nothing of the intensity of Bush’s interview a week earlier on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The Arab audience was shocked that Harb didn’t ask a single question about Israel’s nuclear weapons when the president was talking ad nauseam about his efforts to free the Middle East from weapons of mass destruction.

In the process of asking a question, Harb lost all credibility with the remark: "when we entered Iraq." A few minutes later, Harb – an American Arab – suddenly became super-objective by telling the president, "In the Arab world, they feel that America is biased toward Israel."

Perhaps the biggest gaffe came after the interview was formally over. President Bush shook hands with Harb and said in the manner of an employer praising his employee: "Good job."

The gaffe was not what the president said, but that the editors and producers decided to keep this sentence in rather than simply edit it out.

In the 1990s in Palestine, I remember how we used the window of freedom we had shortly after the signing of the Oslo Accords to stress the importance of an independent media. We brought in American TV experts to discuss local US TV stations and looked up to American television as a positive model.

Working with the California-based Internews Network we held international conferences and hands-on workshops about independent broadcasting. We even talked about how to gain audience share and how to structure advertising income to cover broadcasting costs.

But no one in the Arab world will be able to see much of independent US broadcasting so long as the only TV station available to them from America sings to the tune of those paying this piper in Washington, and not its viewers in the Arab region.

It started with an email from an Israeli friend who wanted to know my thoughts about Ariel Sharon’s plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. I paid little attention to the question – apparently a big deal for Israelis. On further thought, I emailed back that it might be interesting if real, and suggested a face-to-face meeting.

We met for breakfast at a caf in west Jerusalem. After some pleasantries we quickly got into the subject. My Israeli friend seemed anxious. He wanted to know why Palestinians were leaving Sharon the freedom to do what he wants.

"Our opinion is not so important," I answered to my friend’s surprise. "The Israelis are used to negotiating between themselves. They are either negotiating between Labor and Likud, or between Likud and the settlers, or with the Americans. We are not even part of their negotiations."

My Israeli friend didn’t disagree, but was saved from having to respond by the arrival of our waitress. We both ordered the mushroom omelette and I continued my argument.

"You Israelis have a choice to stay or to leave, but we have no choice. We have no real power to force a change, and we are living on our land waiting for the Israelis to make the move."

"You do have a choice," my Israeli friend replied. "You can choose between Sharon’s unilateral plan and the road map."

Again I disagree. Who stopped the road map? The Israelis, I insist.

"No way. You don’t think that the road map failed because of those few outposts," he insisted.

"It wasn’t just the outposts, it was the failure to immediately end all settlement activities including expanding settlements, and of course the most crazy act of building the wall."

I also remind my Israeli friend that Sharon listed 14 reservations about the road map, while the Palestinians accepted it without any.

But my friend insisted that Palestinians do have a choice. If they had acted against terror they would have put Sharon in a position much different than the one he is in now.

I say: "First, no Palestinian leader can begin a civil war over a promise that is hardly reliable. Secondly, Israelis are the ones who are refusing to negotiate. Thirdly, Israel continues to refuse a cease-fire agreement. How can we stop the bloodshed while Israel refuses to be party to a cease-fire agreement which has to be bilateral, guaranteed by an outside neutral force and be followed by a serious negotiating effort?"

I continue with my argument: "You say that Palestinians have a choice, namely to implement the road map rather than allow the unilateral Gaza plan to go forward. Let us say we implement the road map, can you guarantee that Palestinians will have an independent state on the ’67 borders?"

Plainly, the Israeli track record has not been very encouraging.

My astute friend responds that Palestinians have consistently rejected offers they later wished they could have obtained.

I had to agree, but we work on a different time-cycle and political framework than Israelis.

"For us, our strength is our presence on our land and our unity. Our unity will not be compromised over a dubious promise from an Israeli with a terrible record toward Palestinians and their rights," I argue.

THE OMELETTES arrive. We begin eating quietly, but quickly move into a new disagreement. My Israeli friend refuses any attempt to compare the killing of Israelis with settlement activity.

"You are always thinking," I reply "of personal rights, and therefore you give priority to any violation of individual rights. On the other hand, we give priority to community or collective rights." I try to explain that for Palestinians the building of settlements is a violation of our national rights and killing our future as a people and a nation.

My friend discovers a piece of glass in his omelette and returns the dish to the waitress.

As he discusses this discovery with restaurant staff, I wonder what I really think about the Israeli prime minister’s idea of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. In principle, I like the idea because it means that we will finally begin the process of Israeli military withdrawals without having to pay a political price over an unknown future agreement.

On the other hand, I know quite well that with this gain of settler-free Gaza territory we will pay a high price as Israelis dig in their heels even deeper on the West Bank.

Once my friend sorts out the glass-in-the omelette ordeal, I explain that for Palestinians the greatest danger has always been the building of settlements on our land. It is settlement building which has been the biggest blow to any hope for an independent Palestinian state.

I told him that if the Jewish settlement drive has ebbed, as may be deduced from the decision regarding Gaza, Palestinians will have the time and patience to wait Israelis out until they understand that to achieve an agreement Israel must come to terms with our aspirations.

"We might not have the military or political power to get what we want, but we have the negative power to oppose any deal that doesn’t meet our minimum demands," I tell him.

We left the restaurant without having resolved all our political disagreements. It was not clear whether my friend would return to this particular restaurant, but I was certain that we could continue our discussions in the future.

The recent news from the World Economic Forum held in Davos was encouraging. Computer giant Microsoft has signed a one billion dollar agreement with UNDP. This five-year plan is aimed at bridging the digital divide in developing countries, starting with Egypt , Morocco and Mozambique .

While long over do, such corporate responsibility is highly welcomed.

Bridging the digital divide in developing countries is highly desirable, but in order to be effective much more is needed than setting up computer centers in remote areas. For the amount of money to be spent, simply setting up ICT centers will require high capital costs and would have insignificant long term effects. Costs will include real estate purchase or rental, equipment purchase and recurring administrative costs for technical and administrative staff. There is little proof that such centers can lead to a significant rise in computer or internet literacy or that they can ever become sustainable. Instead a major annual cost will have to be born by the host countries long after UNDP and Mr. Gate’s company leave town.

While in some cases ICT centers might be the answer, a more interesting idea would be to spend the money to create Internet literacy at a much wider scale. This can be done by supporting hitherto unnoticed phenomena in developing countries. Inexpensive and accessible Internet cafes can today be found in every corner of the world. In one street alone in the Jordanian northern city of Irbid a world record of 130 cafes exist. These well attended Internet cafes, often created by young entrepreneurs can be more cost effective than the traditional system of creating ICT centers. Their private nature lends them to longer hours and the public at-large will be less worried about governmental supervision than they would in government-run computer centers. As indigenous parts of their own communities these internet cafes  can easily adopt to the local and cultural needs of their own society.

In order to create wide spread internet literacy and pave the way towards e-government, developing countries need to have many much more Internet users than the present. This increase needs not  to be quantitative but qualitative. Women, minorities, farmers and individuals with physical need to be included in any Internet literacy drive.

To accomplish such idea, a voucher system can be used. Individuals will use authorized vouchers to redeem time at Internet cafes nearest to their homes. Such a voucher system could be sponsored by local and international companies and agencies and will drive prices at Internet cafes even lower than they are today. They will also encourage even more Internet café owners to establish or widen their existing centers. Except for the costs of the vouchers, this idea can be carried out without any long term costs to local or national governments or international agencies. The idea of the vouchers will be only as a primer or catalyst. A simple on line tutorial can be made available to train newcomers on the basics of Internet use. Once internet literate, most people will continue to use the Internet on their own.

Obviously creating such a voucher system will need monitoring and control. Distributing vouchers without regulation or control could mean that some of the same young people using the Internet cafes will continue to do that, chatting, following the scores of their favorite sports team or viewing indecent web sites. Instead these vouchers can be given to NGOs to distribute among their members on the basis of clear guidelines and criteria. Again this would encourage and empower NGOs and use them in this important computer/internet literacy battle. In almost every town village or district one can find a woman’s NGO, a farming cooperative, sports club or a labor union that would happily agree to be involved in such a distribution plan of vouchers for Internet cafes.

Finally bridging the digital divide can never happen unless local and international institutions, both governmental and non governmental put more time and money into creating content on the Internet.

As the most recent UN Human development report shows, the knowledge deficit in the Arab region is at a dangerously low standing. While filling this knowledge vacuum in print material will take a lot of time and resources, a much faster way to do that can be done through electronic publishing. Again there is much to be done in this area. While widely available in English, something as simple as e book conversion software for Arabic text is still unavailable. In a region that still witnesses traditional book censors, this seems like the simplest idea to bypass authorities that are still trying to control idea and thoughts. A tiny fraction of Microsoft’s billion dollars can do wonders in creating a real information revolution in the Arab region by posting important and useful content in Arabic and other non English languages on the Net.

Bridging the digital divide can be done in many ways and forms. Hopefully those interested in this important venture will consider alternatives and complimentary idea to the traditional form of creating ICT centers. This can be done in a more effective use of resources and much more emphasis on content than on hardware.