New Page 1

The media coverage and attention to terrorism and to the pending war as well as the demonstrators leaves a lot to be desired. The only way to effectively fight media bias is not to have media. This is actually a more reasonable way to fight bias than say, abolish all laws so as not to have any crime. Because this way we will still have undesirable behavior but at least it will not be badly reported and interpreted. Short of such drastic a measure the second best thing to do is expose media transgressions. Media watchdog organizations like CAMERA, HonestReporting, and Palestinian Media Watch constantly provide valuable bias alerts and so do some columnists like The Jerusalem Post's Brett Stephens. One of the best recent exposés against no less of an icon than the New York Times demonstrates that the dangers of its long-standing bias is directly related to its important stature as a respected and influential newspaper ("All The News That's Fit to Print? The New York Times and Israel." Tom Gross, The National Review, March 14, 2003).

Tom Gross eloquently demonstrates that when it gets to Israel and the Jews the New York Times is awfully underhanded. That is very disconcerting if one is really interested in learning about facts and gaining a better understandings of events. It is perhaps even worse when one actually cares about Israel, freedom, and truth. The paper covers (Israeli and Arab) victimization differentially in terms of their characterization, their background, and their numbers. It also displays an over-reliance on Palestinian sources which are notorious for their lies and deception. Gross demonstrates how the paper blows out of proportion stories on a Palestinian pregnant woman who died and compares to the lacking coverage of Israeli victims and that when it "sympathetically profiled women who have died in this conflict, it has more often been the suicide bombers than their Israeli victims." Gross argues that the Times' agenda is in influencing policy decisions and he shows how the paper was able to tilt important decisions with its biased coverage. Gross maintains that the Times is guilty not only of commission but also of omission. For example, it has not included in its "Year in Review" reference to the Passover Massacre where 29 people were murdered and scores injured relegating it to a footnote saying "more than a dozen people died."

Gross argues that the sympathetic ear to the Palestinians and the distortion or acceptance of "facts" created a media bias that resulted in actually prolonging the conflict. It ends with a quote from the Times Executive Editor that when you get it wrong "get it right as soon as you can." I would not hold my breath waiting for that to happen "soon." The case of the Times actually debunks claims made by anti-Semites about the "Jewish control of the media." The Times proves exactly the opposite: Jewish ownership of a most important media outlet is put in the service of bias and the enemy interest but certainly not the in service of the values that this paper purports to stand for. Clearly it is not helpful to Israel. It is fair to say that Jews and Israel would be far better off without having the Times owned by Jews. Sad but true.

Moran may have been a fool and after a public outcry stepped down from his "leadership role" ("Moran Quits Party Leadership Post," R. H. Melton, Washington Post, March 14, 2003). Yet Buchanan is clearly a knave and seems to represent more the anti-war "liberal" camp than his conservative views (as expressed in a conservative magazine) even when he couches them in a desired "isolationism" for the U.S.
Buchanan who is intellectually-challenged in the integrity department tries to trap his readers to believe that it is only in the interest of Israel alone to topple Sadam: "For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud." He then goes as far as asserting that Bush is captive in the hands of the neoconservatives and is not protecting the interest of his own country: "Though we have said repeatedly that we admire much of what this president has done, he will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives' agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect."

Those who suffer from such twisted logic cannot be cured and there are no known asylums for them (perhaps Argentina?); one can only be thankful they are not in the leadership position they aspire for (Buchanan is a deprived presidential-aspirant) and remain wondering what would he do if war is launched against the U.S. by the Islamic terrorists and their sponsoring nations like Iraq and Iran (assuming the U.S. does not go to war at all and remains passive)? Would he then tell the American people that he - "as president" - prefers not to protect them "because it will serve the interest of Israel?" Buchanan may not realize it but his convoluted logic places him as a sympathizer and supporter of the reactionary regimes he surely does not see as being up to par with his own values yet Israel is treated by him as "the problem." And if you say that he is an anti-Semite he'll argue that "I told you so - you cannot be critical of Israel without being called an anti-Semite..." Well, he clearly has a place of dishonor in the anti-Semitic Hall of Shame.

As the responsible segment of the free world is preparing to deal with the evil of Iraq and beyond it is worth looking at another segment of the world that accommodated the residues of the Hitlerian evil that served as a backdrop that supported current terrorism. One that Buchanan and his ilk either tend to ignore or perhaps admire. Citizens of Argentina would not be amused to be called Argentinazis but in effect that is what they have become by offering such a cosey haven for Nazis who sought refuge there fleeing potential prosecution after WWII ("Argentina, a Haven for Nazis, Balks at Opening Its Files," Larry Rohter, The New York Times, March 9, 2003).

While not very cooperative on the Nazis it harbors in its midst, Argentina found itself a fertile ground for state-initiated terrorism and it has indicted Iranians for the 1994 bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires and Iranians are also suspected in the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy there ("Argentine Judge Indicts Iranians in Bombing of Jewish Center," Larry Rohter, The New York Times, March 10, 2003).

Perhaps Argentinian courage is limited to their court (although we are still far from a guilty verdict and proper punishment) because their president implied that the bombing on Argentinian soil was retribution for Argentinian support of the Gulf War in 1991 and therefore would prefer not to be actively involved again: "We've been through some difficult moments, like the gulf war in 1991...I don't know if the consequences of that were the attack on the Israeli Embassy in 1992, the A.M.I.A. bombing in 1994 and an aborted attack in 1996." The Argentinian president may or may not be right in his assumption but the facts remain that his country is hospitable to Nazis and serves as a comfortable vehicle to terrorize Jews and Israelis by Iranians.

It is interesting to note that there are those who unequivocally equate Hussein with Hitler ("The New Nazi's," Bill O'Reilly, BillOReilly.com, Thursday, Mar 06) and hence closing a full circle from WWII to the current crisis connecting the dots between evil doers, their supporters, their hosts, and their followers. Thus, whether it is the Third Reich in Germany, its residues in Argentina or its following in the Middle East, the connection needs to be made.

Yet it appears that the momentum against the war is picking up and what was a very marginal force is certainly gaining some wind and certainly wide media attention. The most ridiculous development is - without a doubt - the possibility of invoking a U.N. convention to use military force against the U.S. ("Could U.N. use military force on U.S.? Americans urge invoking obscure convention to halt 'aggression,'"Art Moore, WorldNetDaily.com, March 15, 2003). So the same demonstrators who object to a war on Iraq are willing to use force against the U.S. If that is not the epitome of treasonous hypocrisy nothing is. This, more than anything, debases any "peaceful" intents and any "anti-war reasoning" they have been mouthing off.

In fact it appears that we have been on the "verge of war" for months now yet as one columnist sees it as a non-rush to a non-war ("This non-rush to non-war's killing me," Mark Steryn, The Jerusalem Post, Mar. 10, 2003).
Indeed, some have started to grow impatient - if tolerant - with the peacemongers. A former governor and a policy analyst posed a series of rhetorical questions to them and provides eloquent answers which point out again how groundless their arguments are even if well intended ("Getting Serious: Questions for the peaceniks," Pete du Pont, The Wall Street Journal, March 14, 2003). Or, to paraphrase General Tommy Franks: "It is better not to turn hope into a strategy."

A far more genuine set of thoughts and even doubts is offered by an Italian writer who experienced WWII and served as a war reporter and knows something about wars. ("The Rage, the Pride and the Doubt: Thoughts on the eve of battle in Iraq," Oriana Fallaci, The Wall Street Journal, March 13, 2003). Fallaci rejects outright the principle that all wars are "unjust, illegitimate" and she argues that the war on Iraq should have started a year ago or more, that too much emphasis was placed on Ossama Bin Laden and only lately attention was given to Iraq. She has a point there because Iran which is a serious menace (see Argentina above) receives very little attention these days. Finally, Fallaci objects to calling this "a humanitarian war" to liberate the Iraqis. She is correct on that count as well. Otherwise the U.S. could have liberated Iraq in 1991 and it did not. Her point is that it is better to suggest that this is a political war and as such a legitimate one in the interest of saving western lives and lifestyle. She is willing to give her life for that cause which is more than could be said about most of the demonstrators who have no clue why they are out there.

The strongest moral support for war against Iraq is offered by a notable holocaust survivor, the writer Eli Wiesel ("Peace Isn't Possible in Evil's Face: Rational people must intervene against the likes of Hussein," Los Angeles Times, March 11, 2003). Wiesel argues that while he knows all too well how horrible wars are "And yet, this time I support President Bush's policy of intervention to eradicate international terrorism, which, most civilized nations agree, is the greatest threat facing us today. Bush has placed the Iraqi war into that context; Saddam Hussein is the ruthless leader of a rogue state to be disarmed by whatever means is necessary if he does not comply fully with the United Nations' mandates to disarm. If we fail to do this, we expose ourselves to terrifying consequences...In other words: Though I oppose war, I am in favor of intervention when, as in this case because of Hussein's equivocations and procrastinations, no other option remains."

Yet the development of this past week are indicative that the U.S. is going to move against Sadam even without U.N. approval probably by mid week. In fact some see his push for the U.N. vote as a trap ("Prez is ready to finish off the Security Council, too" Zev Chafets, Jewish World Review, March 11, 2003): "The President added that he wants the UN to be a "robust, capable body." By this he meant a body capable of following America's robust lead. If the Security Council reassesses the situation and comes around, swell. If not, well, look what happened to the League of Nations.... Governments that vote against America in the coming Security Council roll call are about to learn - if they haven't figured it out already - that America's cowboy President has led them into a genuine Texas ambush. War is coming to Iraq, but the real shootout is about to take place at the UN corral."

Last week attention was given to a "what if" that assumed a most successful outcome of the war against Iraq as planned and hoped for. Yet a concern was raised as to what comes after such a success when attention would be given (again) to Palestinian violence ("The morning after Iraq," Norman Podhoretz, The Jerusalem Post, Mar. 6, 2003). In short, it appears that Israel is going to play the sacrificial lamb yet once again perhaps to save Tony Blair or to appease some of the Arabs that are still considered supporters of the U.S.

And indeed, in a surprise hastily-organized briefing at the White House, President Bush - on the eve of war against Iraq - pulled a rabbit out of the hat for the Palestinians and Europeans by declaring that once a Palestinian Prime Minister is appointed (a matter of days) he will reveal the "road map" for peace in the Middle East ("Bush Pushes Mideast Peace Agenda: The president cites pending confirmation of a prime minister to share power with Yassir Arafat as an opportunity to move forward," The Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times, March 14, 2003).

If there is a silver lining in his declaration it has to do with the conditions he placed on the Palestinians to cease terror before Israel is expected to do its part with the "settlements: "A Palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful and democratic state that abandons forever the use of terror," Bush said. "The government of Israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, must take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable and credible Palestinian state and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement" ("Bush plays Mideast card ," George Edmonson, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 3/15/03).

This silver lining is evident in the obvious chagrin displayed by Henry Siegman in his NPR interview on this topic on ("Reaction to Bush Mideast Roadmap," NPR, March 14). Siegman is a long-time Arab and Palestinian supporter and he was dismayed that terror needs to cease before negotiations are to begin.

Yet the problem with the "road map" is that it leads to a dead end. Pun fully intended. It will be DEAD and END for the State of Israel but it will also be deadly and costly for the U.S. if the threat emanating from Palestinian and other Arab corners is not realized. This is not only because the character of the Arafat-hand-picked and controlled puppet is not less dangerous ("Holocaust denier and armed struggle advocate, Abu Mazen is likely PM," Debbie Berman, israelinsider, March 10, 2003): "...there is evidence, which has caused an uproar in Israel in the past week, that Abbas has not abandoned the armed struggle but only objects to its specific tactics." The problem is far more serious than that (as if this is not serious enough). The western mind has a tendency to have a short-span limited-focus on one issue and one person. It is Ossama Bin Ladden. It is Sadam Hussein. It is Yasser Arafat. Rarely it is more complex than that. Just look at how difficult it was to accept an axis of evil that consisted of Iraq-Iran-North-Korea as if the non acceptance make the axis go away.

The anti-Israel and anti-American vitriolic propaganda that emanates from Palestinian quarters is proof positive that no peace accord will be respected by them or will be sufficient for them until they get Israel and topple the U.S. Examine these sentiments in a series of Palestinian and Arab commentary and cartoons.

But also witness the constant preaching to hurt Americans and the alignment of the Palestinians with Iraq. Even Jordan that did so in 1991 seems not to be repeating that mistake. The Palestinians are in the forefront of fully exercising the complete gamut of hate, vilification, dehumanization and violence. They did not hesitate using it in the past, are using it and present, and will certainly use it in the future if not prevented from doing so. Therefore any "road map" that ignores these issues is doomed to fail and to trip others in the process. Any reward for terrorism is a mistake and even for the sake of short-term coalition considerations the sacrificing of Israel will also end up backfiring at the U.S. as well.

The great love affair between the Palestinians and the Saddam has been evident in the 1991 Gulf War when Palestinians provided intelligence to Iraq and danced in the streets when SCUDs rained on Israel. The Sadam has returned his love sealed with a check totaling some $35 million ("Bereaved Palestinians Get $245,000 from Saddam," Nidal al-Mughrabi, Reuters, March 12, 2003). Regrettably, media reports from a well known news agency opted to define suicide bombers as those "killed by Israel" prompting sarcastic remarks about such journalistic practices ('Killed by Israel,' James Taranto, Best of the Web, Wall Street Journal, March 14, 2003): "So according to Reuters, a suicide bomber was "killed by Israel." The "news" service doesn't explain how this works. Did Mossad agents plant a chip in his brain that allowed them to direct his actions by remote control?"

The Palestinians continue to glorify their mass murderers (whom Reuters defines as being "killed by Israel") who serve as role models for the new generation ("Mass Murderers are Heroic Symbols in the Palestinian Authority," Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, March 12, 2003).

And the Palestinian press energetically campaigns on behalf of Iraq ("Iraq Crisis 2003 (5): The Palestinian Press," MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Iraq, March 14, 2003, No. 479). It decries what it calls the "American takeover," charges that "The U.S. Wants to Take Over the Entire Arab Nation" urges that "the Arab World Must Demonstrate in Protest" and actively calls for violence against the U.S.: "The Hamas website posted excerpts from a communiqué distributed to journalists during a Hamas-organized march in Gaza City. In the communiqué, Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin called on the Islamic nation "to strike at Western interests everywhere if Iraq is conquered." Yassin continued, "The hate-drenched West, headed by America, declared today a crusade on the [Islamic] nation and on the Muslim belief when it gathered to strike Iraq." Sheikh Yassin called on the Iraqi people to join ranks under the banner of Jihad, and demanded that Iraq "open its borders to all Muslims across the world so that they can play their part in the defensive battle of the [Islamic] nation."

To view previous e-Letters:

"Bus No. 37" (e-Letter #164)

"It was calm at first, everyone thought it was part of the act" (e-Letter #162)

"The terrorist as a killer and destroyer" (e-Letter #160)

e-Letters on the web

Additional e-Letters and articles:

"Everyone is a critic"

* * *

* Text of the e-Letter includes hyperlinks to the source articles (where available).

* Your feedback, comments, suggestions, and your referral of additional sources is appreciated. Please provide complete and precise web link addresses (URL).

* This e-Letter has been sent for the use of the intended recipients. The message may contain information that is privileged or confidential.

* As a recipient of this e-Letter you have permission to distribute it.

* Should you wish to be taken off this mailing list please indicate so in a return e-mail.

* * *