Columbia Arab politics professor Joseph Massad wrote that the Nazis successfully “killed the majority of Jewish enemies of Zionism,” or those Jews who might oppose Israel today.

“While the majority of Jews continued to resist the anti-Semitic basis of Zionism and its alliances with anti-Semites, the Nazi genocide not only killed 90 percent of European Jews, but in the process also killed the majority of Jewish enemies of Zionism who died precisely because they refused to heed the Zionist call of abandoning their countries and homes,” Massad wrote, before discussing “the affinity between Nazis and Zionists.”

Massad also condemned America and the West for touting “pro-Zionist Nazi policies.”

One of Massad’s colleagues at Columbia said his piece “reflects profound ignorance of Jewish history.”

“The notion that the Protestant Reformation is the basis for Jews’ belief in the continuity of Jewish life from ancient times, or for their ties to the land of Israel, reflects profound ignorance of Jewish history,” Professor Paul S. Appelbaum, the university’s Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law, said in an email.

Appelbaum said that Massad skews history in order to slander Jews and Christians.

“The chain of Jewish tradition and the centrality of the land of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people have been a focus of Jewish thought, daily prayer, and self-consciousness since the destruction of the Second Temple and the subsequent exile of the majority of Jews,” Appelbaum said, refuting Massad’s core argument.

“The contention can only be understood as a rhetorical device aimed at slandering Jews and Christians simultaneously, setting the stage for the essay’s rather dubious conclusion that only the Palestinians stand ‘in the way of a complete victory for European anti-Semitism,’” he said. “Such an excursion into post-modern fantasy does not deserve to be taken seriously.”

Prominent Middle East observers such as Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg quickly criticized Massad for arguing that “all the good Jews”—i.e., those who opposed the creation of Israel—“were killed in the Holocaust.”

“Congratulations, al Jazeera,” Goldberg tweeted, “You’ve just posted one of the most anti-Jewish screeds in recent memory.”

Columbia University spokesmen and several other representatives declined multiple requests for comment on the controversy when approached by the Washington Free Beacon.

Massad argued in his 4,000-word piece that the state of Israel is the chief proprietor of anti-Semitism and that so-called Zionists colluded with and courted the Nazis and other anti-Semites in order to spur Israel’s creation.

These types of anti-Semitic theories are typically propagated by Holocaust deniers and other various anti-Semites.

“Israel’s claim that its critics must be anti-Semites presupposes that its critics believe its claims that it represents ‘the Jewish people,’” he wrote. “But it is Israel’s claims that it represents and speaks for all Jews that are the most anti-Semitic claims of all.”

Israel demands that “for there to be peace in the Middle East, Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims must become, like the West, anti-Semites by espousing Zionism and recognising Israel’s anti-Semitic claims,” Massad wrote.

Massad incorrectly writes that Jewish Zionists rushed to befriend the Nazis in order to advance their political agenda.

“The Zionists would strike a deal with the Nazis very early in their history,” he wrote. “Zionist envoys were dispatched to Palestine to report on the successes of Jewish colonization of the country.”

“The Nazis’ Final Solution initially meant the expulsion of Germany’s Jews to Madagascar,” Massad said. “It is this shared goal of expelling Jews from Europe as a separate unassimilable race that created the affinity between Nazis and Zionists all along.”

Massad has a loose grasp on Nazism and history, his critics argued.

“Zionism, according to Massad, emerged not as a response to European anti-Semitism but in sympathy with its racialist precepts,” wrote columnist and blogger Liam Hoare.

“As for the comparison of Nazism and Zionism, I think such an attempt at equivalence says a good deal more about the author than he intends,” Hoare writes. “It is the statement of a sick and disordered mind. To compare the two and deem one as bad as the other is beyond the pale.”

Hoare excoriates Massad for his comments about the so-called “good Jews” being killed off by the Nazis.

“It is not much of a stretch to characterise Massad’s thesis as follows: All of Europe’s good Jews were the ones that did not heed to call to make aliya [immigration to Israel] and died in the Holocaust; the Zionist Jews who made it to Palestine and survived were (and are) bad Jews,” Hoare wrote, before summing up the essay thusly: “It’s enough to make you heave.”

Gore told the crowd that “American democracy has been hacked” by special interests, and later emphasized his opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline, the Globe and Mail reports:

In a public interview with The Globe and Mail’s editor-in-chief, John Stackhouse, Mr. Gore also spoke of his wish that U.S. president Barack Obama would cancel the Keystone XL pipeline intended to transport heavy crude from the Alberta oil sands to U.S. refineries. In part because oil-sands crude requires more energy to extract than conventional sources, and so produces more greenhouse gases per barrel, he suggested that the full social and environmental cost of developing the oil sands made it a more expensive proposition than a faster move by the U.S. to renewable sources.

When Mr. Stackhouse asked whether Alberta oil was more ethical because it came from a democratic nation with a commitment to human rights, Mr. Gore rejected the term.

“There’s no such thing as ethical oil,” he said. “There’s only dirty oil and dirtier oil.” The remark triggered applause from a nearly full house at the Globe-sponsored event at a Ryerson University auditorium.

Gore pocketed an estimated $70 million after debt on the January sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera, which is backed by the oil-rich Qatari monarchy. He reportedly pushed for the sale to be completed before Jan. 1, 2013, to avoid an increased tax burden. Since his defeat in 2000, Gore has acquired an estimated $200 million, Bloomberg reported earlier this week.

President Barack Obama’s nominee to be defense secretary ran into sharp opposition from Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee who questioned Hagel on an array of controversial policies.

Senators questioned Hagel about his opposition to tough U.S. policies toward Iran, his calling the successful U.S. military surge in Iraq a “blunder,” and his support for sharp unilateral cuts in U.S. nuclear forces.

Hagel also backtracked on past statements that a “Jewish lobby” was intimidating the Senate into adopting “dumb” policies.

Hagel maintained a calm demeanor but at several points in the hearing appeared unprepared for some questions during seven hours of testimony.

Freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), in his first public appearance as a member of the committee, played portions of a 2009 Al Jazeera interview in which Hagel was asked how the United States could lead in reducing nuclear arms when the “perception and the reality” views the United States as “the world’s bully.”

Hagel, in the video, responded saying: “Well, her observation is a good one, and it’s relevant. Yes, to her question.”

A visibly upset Cruz then asked Hagel during the hearing: “Sen. Hagel, do you think it’s appropriate for the chief civilian leader of the U.S. military forces to agree with the statement that both the perception, quote, ‘and the reality’ is that the United States is, quote, ‘the world’s bully’”?

Hagel disagreed with the email and said his comment was a “relevant and good observation.”

“With respect, I think the record speaks for itself,” Cruz said. “It was in writing that she said the U.S. is the world’s bully, that it is the reality. And your response—you did say you agree with it. You said her observation is a good one, it’s relevant; yes to her question. You explicitly agreed with the characterization of the United States as the world’s bully.”

“I think the United States has spilled more blood, more treasure standing for freedom, liberating people across the world,” Cruz said. “And to go on Al Jazeera, a foreign network, broadcasting propaganda to nations that are hostile to us, and to explicitly agree with the characterization of the United States as the world’s bully, I would suggest is not the conduct one would expect of a secretary of defense.”

The exchange was one of several heated debates between the former Nebraska Republican and Republican committee members.

Democrats uniformly supported the nominee during the hearing, noting Hagel’s record as a senator from 1997 to 2009 and his experience as an enlisted soldier during the Vietnam War.

“It would be a positive message for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in harm’s way around the world to know that one of their own holds the highest office in the Department of Defense and that he has their backs,” said Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.).

Leading the opposition was Ranking Member Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.), who said he is opposing Hagel for the post.

“[Hagel’s] record demonstrates what I view as a lack of steadfast opposition to policies that diminish U.S. power and influence throughout the world, as well as a recent trend of policy reversals that seem based on political expediency rather than on core beliefs,” Inhofe said.

Hagel was pressed by several senators to explain controversial comments on Israel and the American Jewish community.

Hagel has sought to distance himself from those remarks in the weeks prior to the committee hearing, although some lawmakers have questioned his sincerity.

“Name one person, in your opinion, who is intimidated by the Israeli lobby in the United States Senate,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said. “Name one,” Graham insisted after Hagel sidestepped the question.

“I don’t know,” Hagel said.

“Well, why would you say it?” Graham asked.

“I didn’t have in mind a specific person,” Hagel said, declining to explain his controversial comments.

“Do you agree it’s a provocative statement, that I can’t think of a more provocative thing to say about the relationship between the United States and Israel and the Senate or the Congress than what you said?” Graham said. “Name one dumb thing we’ve been goaded into doing because of the pressure from the Israeli or Jewish lobby.”

“I have already stated that I regret the terminology I used,” Hagel said.

Under questioning from Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah) Hagel was asked about his 2003 comment that Israel keeps “Palestinians caged up like animals,” Hagel recanted.

“If I had an opportunity to edit that, like many things I’ve said, I would like to go back and change the words and the meaning,” Hagel said in a comment that surprised some observers. “I’ve said many, many things over many years.”

“If I had a chance to go back and edit it, I would,” he added. “I regret that I used those words.”

Hagel also backtracked on his opposition to a measure designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization.

“If you had a chance tomorrow—today, after lunch, to vote to say that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was a terrorist organization, would you still vote no?” Graham asked.

“Well, times change,” Hagel said. “I recognize that. And yes, I would reconsider.”

Hagel continued to face questions about his past opposition to U.S. sanction on Iran. He confirmed that he was responsible for blocking a 2008 Iran sanctions measure.

“I was one of some Republican senators who did not want that vote to go forward,” Hagel replied to Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.). “I voted against it in subcommittee.”

Hagel maintained at multiple points in the hearing that he now supports tough sanction on Iran.

Hagel said if he is confirmed, a top priority would be to “continue bringing our troops home [from Afghanistan] and end the war, which has been the longest war, as we all know, in America’s history.”

A second priority would be to continue actions against terrorist organizations expanding in places like Yemen, Somalia, and North Africa.

Hagel also said he is committed to the president’s goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

He also promised to continue nuclear reductions in both warheads and launchers as part of the U.S.-Russian New START treaty.

“America’s nuclear deterrent over the last 35 years has played a central role in ensuring global security and the avoidance of a World War III,” Hagel said. “I have been committed to that. My record is clear on that. I am committed to modernizing our nuclear arsenal.”

Rebalancing U.S. military forces for the Asia Pacific also will be a priority, he said.

“If confirmed, I’m committed to effectively and efficiently using every single taxpayers’ dollar the right way, to maintain the strongest military in the world and to working with Congress to ensure the department has the resources it needs and that the disposition of those resources is accountable,” Hagel said.

Defense budget cuts are set to take effect March 1 when $660 billion in cuts over 10 years will be imposed under the Budget Control Act unless a compromise is reached.

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), considered a crucial moderate, appeared to turn sharply against Hagel over the former senator’s characterization of the 2007 U.S. military surge of troops in Iraq as a “blunder.”

“Were you correct in your assessment?” McCain asked.

“Well, I would defer to the judgment of history to sort that out,” Hagel said.

McCain demanded a clear yes or no answer several times. Hagel repeatedly declined to respond in such a manner.

“I want to know if you were right or wrong. That’s a direct question. I expect a direct answer,” McCain said, adding “your refusal to answer whether you were right or wrong … is going to have an impact on my judgment as to whether vote for your confirmation or not.”

Hagel’s association with the anti-nuclear group Global Zero also drew sharp attacks from Republicans who questioned whether the top civilian official in charge of nuclear weapons supports deep cuts in nuclear arms, including the elimination of all land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, and that the cuts could be made unilaterally by the United States.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, asked Hagel about recent efforts to backtrack on his support for an international anti-nuclear weapons forum called Global Zero and a report by the group that advocated sharp cuts in U.S. nuclear forces.

Hagel asserted that Global Zero “didn’t propose or call for anything” and that other administrations had proposed such bilateral, not unilateral arms cuts.

Quoting the Global Zero report, Sessions stated that the report called for either bilateral cuts with Russia, or reductions “implemented unilaterally.”

“I don’t believe that’s consistent with the policy of the country as a whole,” Sessions said, adding that he was troubled by Hagel’s anti-nuclear views.

“I believe the secretary of defense should be the core, the rock-solid person for defense of America,” Sessions said. “I believe he should project an image of solidity and steadfastness that the whole world and American people can depend on. And I’m more than a little troubled by the report that you participated in, Global Zero report, that calls for the total elimination of nuclear weapons and clearly suggests that’s an achievable goal in a realistic period of time, although certainly not immediately.”

Democrats praised Hagel for his having served in combat during the Vietnam War.

However, Levin questioned Hagel’s past comment that imposing sanctions on Iran is a wrong approach to dealing with the Tehran regime.

“I believe that while effective multilateral sanctions are preferable, that unilateral sanctions are an important part of the approach that the Obama administration has followed and that Congress has supported, and it appears that sanctions are producing tremendous pressure on Iran,” Levin said.

Hagel later said he supports the Obama administration’s sanctions-oriented approach to dealing with Iran’s nuclear program.

1. Hagel can’t answer yes or no on whether the Iraq surge worked

Hagel once called the surge “most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.” Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) came ready Thursday, bombarding Hagel with a simple, repeated question: Did the Iraq surge work?

2. Cruz roasts Hagel over agreeing that America is ‘world’s bully’

Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) lambasted Hagel over his 2009 interview with Al Jazeera where he agreed with a description of the United States as the “world’s bully.”

3. Inhofe asks Hagel, Why has Iran endorsed you?

Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.) concluded his questions for Hagel with, “The question I’d like to ask you, and you can answer for the record if you’d like, why do you think the Iranian Foreign Ministry so strongly supports your nomination to be the secretary of defense?” Hagel replied, “I have a difficult enough time with American politics, senator. I have no idea, but thank you.”

4. Hagel says he supports the president’s ‘strong position on containment’…

Hagel announced his support for President Obama’s “position on containment” of Iran’s nuclear program.

5. …and walks it back four minutes later

“I was just handed a note that I misspoke that I said I supported the president’s position on containment. If I said that I meant to say that we don’t have a position on containment,” he said.

6. Hagel calls Iran’s government ‘elected, legitimate’…

Hagel stated Iran has an “elected, legitimate government”—not the first time he’s characterized the Iranian government as a “legitimate power.”

7. …and walks it back

“What I meant to say–should have said–it’s recognizable,” Hagel said. “It’s been recognized, is recognized at the United Nations. Most of our allies have embassies there. That’s what I should have said, and…thank you.”

Bonus: Carney won’t say if Iran’s government is ‘legitimate’

LAUER: Yet even as you sold to Al Jazeera, you in the book blast other television news programs, saying this: “Virtually every news and political commentary program on television is sponsored in part by oil, coal, and gas companies–not just during campaign seasons, but all the time, year in and year out–with messages designed to soothe and reassure the audience that everything is fine, the global environment is not threatened.” And the critics jumped, and they said, here’s the guy who just sold to Al Jazeera, which gets an undetermined amount of funding from the country of Qatar, which gets its money from oil reserves. Isn’t there a contradiction in that?

GORE: I certainly understand that criticism. I disagree with it. I think Al Jazeera has, obviously, long since established itself as a really distinguished and effective news gathering organization. And by the way, its climate coverage has been far more extensive and high-quality than any of the networks here–

LAUER: But if they get funding from a country that bases its wealth on fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are the enemy you target in climate change, isn’t there a bit of hypocrisy in that?

GORE: Well, I get the criticism. I just disagree with it, because this network has established itself. It’s objective, it’s won major awards in countries around the world and its climate coverage, as I said a moment ago, has been outstanding and extensive.”

Gore pocketed an estimated $100 million on the sale, which was completed earlier this month. Reports indicate Gore had pushed for the sale to be completed before Jan. 1, 2013, in a bid to avoid higher taxes on the transaction.

Current TV cofounder Joel Hyatt hailed the network’s “journalistic integrity” in a memo sent to staff, many of whom are likely to be cleared out by the oil-backed company as it forms a new network, possibly called “Al Jazeera America” or “beIN,” after Al Jazeera’s sports network. (Yes, Al Jazeera has a sports network.)

What to expect from such a network? We’ve compiled seven of Al Jazeera’s greatest hits to provide some clues:

1. Al-Qaeda’s Anwar al-Awlaki praised Al Jazeera

Anwar Al-Awlaki (AP)

Al Jazeera received praise from Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni-American jihadist who was killed in a 2011 American drone attack. The al Qaeda leader defended Al Jazeera in a video recording shortly before his death.

2. Egyptian Salafist Muhammad al-Zawahiri justified 9/11 in an Al Jazeera appearance

Egyptian Salafist Muhammad al-Zawahiri, brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri, appeared on the network in 2012 to justify the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in which some 3,000 Americans were murdered.

3. Al Jazeera staffers chanted ‘down with fascist America’ on air

After some of the network’s staff members were detained at Guantanamo Bay following terrorism charges, an Al Jazeera anchor openly expressed solidarity with his “brother” while on the air, the New York Sun reported in 2005:

On November 25, 2005, Al-Jazeera covered an anti-American demonstration of enraged people cursing America and President Bush.

“Down with fascist America!” “Bush is a criminal! … He should collapse and be trampled on!” “Al-Jazeera … exposed Bush and his despicability!” the crowd chanted. Such scenes are not uncommon in the Middle East—but in this case, the demonstrators were Al-Jazeera staff in Ramallah.

Other employees of the network—which, at the last minute, has changed its name to Al-Jazeera English—hold the distinction of being jailed at Guantanamo Bay and around the world for their connections with terror organizations. In an al Qaeda Internet news broadcast last year, an anchor even expressed solidarity with his jailed “brother,” who works for the network.

4. Sudan’s president slammed the U.S. government’s human rights record on Al Jazeera

The Sudanese president and radical Islamist Omar al-Bashir slammed the U.S. government’s human rights and justice record on Al Jazeera in March of 2012. Al-Bashir is an internationally sanctioned war criminal.

5. Hugo Chavez called Al Jazeera a “model of honor, bravery, and the fight for justice”

AP

Al Jazeera is the network of choice for anti-American world leaders, including President Chavez of Venezuela. In 2006 Chavez expressed amazement with the network’s staff and commended them for being “a model of honor, bravery, and the fight for justice.”

6. Al Jazeera aired a series of Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi speeches on how the Jews deserved to be punished by Hitler

Al Jazeera aired a series of speeches in 2009 by Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi in which he said Jews deserved to be punished by Hitler and he hopes the “next time will be at the hand of the believers.”

7. Al Jazeera interviewed Afghan Mujahideen leader on Osama bin Laden’s death: Americans “barbarians, who mutilate bodies”

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (AP)

Al Jazeera has interviewed notorious Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who said that Americans are “barbarians, who mutilate bodies” when describing Osama bin Laden’s death.

In an email sent to Current TV’s staff, co-founder and former chief executive officer Joel Hyatt describes the selling process he and co-founder Al Gore went through in considering sale to Al Jazeera, acknowledging Current TV was a failed model.

Hyatt points to the Al Jazeera’s many accomplishments, including its global reach and for being the “only news network” that Obama-supporter Colin Powell watches, as factors in their decision.

The announcement makes clear that Al Jazeera plans to create a new international news network for an American audience called “Al Jazeera America.”

Hyatt reminds his staff that the Qatari government funds Al Jazeera in the announcement, but fails to mention that the news network is considered by some a political and diplomatic tool for the oil-rich monarchy. Drivers in Qatar currently pay about $1 per gallon at the pump, due to massive oil subsidies handed down by the government.

Gore’s post-vice presidential work has notably centered around reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other green causes. The former vice president will pocket an estimated $100 million on the sale. According to the New York Times, which first broke the story Wednesday, Gore wanted to complete the sale before Jan. 1, 2013 to avoid getting slammed with higher taxes.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Glenn Beck’s the Blaze inquired about buying Current last year, but was rejected due to ideological differences. Current leadership told the Blaze at the time that ”the legacy of who the network goes to is important to us.” Beck confirmed the inquiry late Wednesday.

The new network, meanwhile, is already facing problems as one Current TV distributor, Time Warner Cable, did not agree with the sale and has already dropped the network.

Read Hyatt’s full email below:

From: Joel Hyatt
Date: January 2, 2013, 6:36:46
Subject: BIG NEWS FOR THE NEW YEAR!

Al and I are thrilled and proud to announce that a few moments ago Current was acquired by Al Jazeera, the award winning international news organization.

When considering the several suitors who were interested in acquiring Current, it became clear to us that Al Jazeera was founded with the same goals we had for Current: To give voice to those whose voices are not typically heard; to speak truth to power; to provide independent and diverse points of view; and to tell the important stories that no one else is telling. Al Jazeera, like Current, believes that facts and truth lead to a better understanding of the world around us.

Al and I did significant due diligence as part of our evaluation process. We were impressed with all that we learned about Al Jazeera and its journalistic integrity, global reach, award-winning programming, and growing influence around the world. That influence has recently been demonstrated by Al Jazeera’s important and impactful coverage of the Arab Spring, which was widely credited as being the most thorough and informative coverage from any media company. Colin Powell told Al that Al Jazeera is the only cable news network he watches (which he is able to do because Comcast carries it in the Washington, DC market).

As you may know, Al Jazeera is funded by the government of Qatar, which is the United States’ closest ally in the Gulf Region, and is where the United States bases its Middle East Air Force operations. I have had first-hand knowledge of Qatar’s policies as a result of my tenure on the Board of The Brookings Institution. The Saban Center for Middle East Policy is a joint venture of The Brookings Institution and Qatar, and it has offices in Washington, DC and Doha, Qatar. Its purpose is to propose practical public policies that can contribute to peace in the Middle East, and its founding Director is my friend, Martin Indyk, the former U.S. Ambassador to Israel.

While considering this decision, I spent a week in Doha, Qatar, where Al Jazeera is headquartered, and I am pleased to tell you that I could not have been more impressed with their operation. First of all, they are bringing large-scale resources to journalism – something which we have not been able to do. Al Jazeera has more than 80 bureaus around the world, and is seen in more than 260 million homes in 130 countries. Al Jazeera has a staff of over 4000 people, including 400 journalists. Its journalists hail from more than 50 countries, with every conceivable nationality and religion represented on its professional team. Al Jazeera is a major global media player.

The rest of the world thinks so too. Al Jazeera English has won many, many awards including an Alfred I DuPont Award for Best Documentary, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Four Freedoms Awards for freedom of speech and expression, an Amnesty International Award for International TV and Radio, the prestigious Peabody Award, and the Huffington Post Ultimate Media Gamechanger award.

All of this is compelling, but what really convinced Al and me that Al Jazeera would be a great home for the people of Current was their publicly stated Values and Core Capabilities. Their mission includes the following: Diversity (“bringing stories from the underreported communities, societies and cultures from across the globe), Journalistic Integrity (“committed to the uncompromising pursuit of truth and the ideals of journalism”), and A Voice for the Voiceless (“promoting the basic human right of the freedom of expression for people everywhere”).

Al Jazeera is planning to invest significantly in building “Al Jazeera America,” a network focused on international news for the American audience. Al and I will both serve on the Advisory Board of Al Jazeera America, and we look forward to helping build an important news network.

Obviously there will be a lot of transition work in the coming weeks. Al Jazeera does not have a management team in place in the U.S to run this new venture. They are extremely impressed with our people and our accomplishments. I will be holding staff meetings in the next few daysand will introduce the senior folks from Al Jazeera who have led the planning for this entry into the United States. (I will separately communicate as to the day and time for those staff meetings.) We will communicate more of the details of this acquisition during those meetings.

Getting this transaction done was very difficult. One of Current’s distributors, Time Warner Cable, did not consent to the sale to Al Jazeera. Consequently, Current will no longer be carried on TWC. This is unfortunate, but I am confident that Al Jazeera America will earn significant additional carriage in the months and years ahead. In the United Kingdom, it has become the number three news network (behind the BBC and Sky News). It did that by investing in great programming – as it intends to do in the United States.

Al and I are incredibly proud of what all of us have been able to accomplish together. Throughout our short history, Current has been a thought leader for the media industry, innovating many exciting features that became standard after we introduced them. (Tweets on television anyone?!) Just this past year, we’ve been able to provide our viewers with fantastic interactive and social TV 2.0 coverage of the Presidential Election, including a peek inside the Obama Campaign headquarters, in depth analysis of the Libor Scandal, the breaking and relentless coverage of the Trayvon Martin scandal, and the list goes on and on. We have won most of the important awards in the journalism profession. We have stayed true to our independence and courage. And in our choice of new corporate parent, we are continuing to strive to make a difference – to provide the American people with information and analysis they need to live better, more secure, happier lives. I am confident this will continue into the future.

As I reflected deeply about this decision – both to sell the company and to whom – I kept coming back to one basic notion: The purpose of journalism is to provide those who don’t know with information and knowledge so that they can become those who do know. Bias and hatred are fueled by ignorance. Information and knowledge are the only antidotes to that ignorance. That is the role journalism must play – to provide the knowledge that sweeps away the bias and hatred caused by ignorance. It is a noble pursuit. I am proud of each and every one of you for your dedication to pursuing that noble goal. And it is a privilege to have worked with all of you these past few years.

Please accept my best wishes for a happy, healthy, exciting and fulfilling New Year!

All the best,
Joel

If the deal is completed, Current will provide the pan-Arab news giant with something it has sought for years: a pathway into American living rooms. Current is available in about 60 million of the 100 million homes in the United States with cable or satellite service.

Rather than simply use Current to distribute its existing English-language channel, called Al Jazeera English and based in Doha, Qatar, Al Jazeera will create a new channel based in New York, according to people with knowledge of the deal negotiations. Potentially called Al Jazeera America, roughly 60 percent of the programming will be produced in the United States while the remaining 40 percent will come from Al Jazeera English.

Al Jazeera may absorb some Current TV staff members, according to the people, who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. But Current’s schedule of shows will most likely be dissolved in the spring.

The plan will bring Al Jazeera, which is financed by the government of Qatar, into closer competition with CNN and other news channels in the United States.

This is not the first sign of trouble for Current; earlier this year, the network faced the risk of being removed from one cable carrier because of its low ratings.

The Times reports Current’s programming lineup is likely to be cleared. That slate currently includes such luminaries as former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm who is, at times, “high on democracy” and Cenk Uygur, who believes former President George W. Bush “didn’t want to get” Osama bin Laden. Former New York governor Eliot Spitzer earlier this year replaced the network’s most infamous personality, Keith Olbermann, who threatened to sue the network after his exit.

Gavin Newsom also has a show on Current, while simultaneously serving as the lieutenant governor of California.