Nationhood and Jerusalem

• Israel became a nation in 1312 BCE., two thousand years before the rise of Islam. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.
• Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE. the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 CE. lasted no more than 22 years.
• For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.
• Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.
• King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.
• Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.

Arab and Jewish Refugees

• In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.
• The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.
• Arab refugees were intentionally not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.

The Arab - Israeli Conflict

• The Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation.
• The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.
• The PLO's Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them with weapons.
• Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

The UN. Record on Israel and the Arabs

• Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.
• Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.
• The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.
• The UN. was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.
• The UN. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid- like policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

The following was written by a former American of exceptional insight. A board-certified nurse-practitioner and former president of the Conservative synagogue in Nashville, Stuart Goldstein lives in a small town near Haifa in Israel with his wife and three sons.

Jews are often accused, particularly since the Holocaust, of being overly paranoid about anti-Semitism - seeing the effects of anti-Semitism where none really exist. After watching and listening to the world news (CNN International, BBC, Sky News) along with the reaction of world governments and the UN to the latest violence here, most of us here can only conclude that anti-Semitism in the guise of anti-Israeli sentiments is alive and well in the world at large. Just last night I watched a 20 minute report on CNN in which Saeb Erakat and Hannan Ashrawi were interviewed and lied openly without challenge by their interviewers while I waited for an Israeli response. In a 20 minute report not one Israeli was interviewed. On my way home from work I listened to the BBC discuss what Israel was doing in "the occupied territories", a pre-Oslo term that bears no relation to reality when discussing the totally Palestinian controlled areas of Ramallah, Nablus, etc.

Before I head off to work for a 17 hour Yom Kippur shift, here are some facts as many of us see them and are living them in the current days:

·The myth of Ariel Sharon:

Sharon probably wishes he was as powerful as the world press makes him out to be! Was Ariel Sharon's ascent to the Temple Mount a smart thing to do in the current situation? No. Was his ascent to the Mount a sufficient "provocation" to trigger off the violence we have seen since that Friday? Also no. He went unarmed and without violence to visit a Jewish holy site that all agree is an act allowed to all Jews. Arab Israeli MKs were there as well without "provocation" even though they are Israeli Members of Parliament. Let's review.

The Thursday before Sharon's visit, an Israeli Border Patrol soldier was murdered by a double roadside bomb inside if Israel, an unprovoked act of violence we had not seen in years. The next morning (before Sharon's ascent to the Mount) a Palestinian policeman, on a joint patrol with an Israeli partner, pulled his automatic rifle on his partner murdering him and then wounded another Israeli policeman. When Sharon ascended the Mount, he saw the mounds of boulders which had been prepared well in advance for pelting Jewish worshipers at the Western Wall below. There was obviously well-planned uprising in the wings waiting for a convenient spark which Sharon provided. It is clear to Israeli security forces that that spark would have come from somewhere else eventually.

After he left, the Imam in the El Aksa mosque on the Mount whipped the congregation (about 2 thousand worshipers) into a frenzy repeating the "new Palestinian truth" that the Israelis have secret plans to take over the mount and destroy the mosques there and that Sharon represented their scout. The Moslem sermon on the Temple Mount today included the following supplications: "We want the battle against the enemy to be orderly. We want dead amidst the enemy. We want to kill and not be killed. We must fight guerrilla warfare." Thus the violence started as the crowds surged out after their prayers and began throwing the awaiting boulders over the wall and surging into the Old City to take over and burn an Israeli police station there, severely injuring a number of policeman who did not shoot into the crowds. Did you see it on the news?

We again ask the world, did the unarmed visit of a Jew to the Temple Mount justify this past week's violence? Are we to then assume that the Palestinian people are so out of control that any act to which they object may produce such violence as the only response? How then are we to trust any peace agreement? How then are we to trust Palestinian sovereignty in the Old City or trust them as our peaceful neighbors? Why is it that the world ignores the fact that the only time in history that there has been unlimited access to all religions to their holy sites in the Old City has been since the 1967 recapture of the Old City by Israel?

·The myth of mere rocks against rifles:

Here is what a typical Palestinian attack looks like. Thousands (no exaggeration) of Palestinians, mostly young men and children, begin to storm an Israeli outpost which protects an Israeli village or the road bordering Palestinian territory (NOT occupied by Israel) with Israel proper. I have never heard the question asked as to why we need such protection if we have a peace agreement and a partner for peace. Behind this mob, hiding behind buildings and other cover are both Palestinian police and civilians with automatic weapons who fire on the outpost.

The soldiers can either ignore these "mere rock throwers" until they physically overrun their outpost and attack what is beyond (unarmed Israelis) or selectively fire to try to stop the surging crowd from reaching the village they are protecting. As the world decries the 80+Palestinian deaths, no one stops to ask how many would actually be dead if Israeli forces were actually doing what they are accused of -- shooting indiscriminately into these crowds with their automatic weapons. Literally hundreds or thousands of Palestinians would be dead by now if that were the case. And, instead of stopping the violence, the Palestinian diplomats now sing their one-note tune demanding an international inquiry into the violence, as if this will be a solution to anything no matter what is discovered.

Yes, tanks and helicopter gunships have been moved in to the worst areas. But they have been used as tactical scare tactics not as offensive weapons. Simply imagine how many would be dead if the fire power in these weapons had been used.

So, rock throwers are not mere nuisances. These masses of attackers represent a true threat to both the soldiers in their outposts as well as the Israeli citizens that live behind these outposts. Are more Palestinians being killed and injured than Israelis? Of course. They are out in the open while the Israeli troops are trapped within bunker-type buildings. The Israelis are not leaving these outposts to give chase as they well could. They are defending their positions. All media reports I have seen paint this as Israeli aggression.

Are children being killed? Indeed. I ask you, what kind of parent allows, and in many cases encourages, their child to go to the front lines of what is basically a war to throw stones at armed troops?? ! This is NOT civil disobedience or demonstration. This is mass mob rioting with all the dangers that entails. The Palestinians send their children to be slaughtered and then cynically use this against us in the court of world opinion. The reporters know this but are quick to blame us for the outcome.(I hope you all saw and read about the false front page NY Times/AP photo" showing" an Israeli soldier about to attack a bleeding Palestinian boy which turned out to be an Israeli soldier trying to protect a bleeding American yeshiva student who had been pulled out of a taxi, stoned and stabbed, from further attack. The press assumption: if a youth is bleeding, it must be the outcome of Israeli aggression).

·The myth of Israeli presence as a provocation:

The Palestinians have come to their borders with us and not vice versa. There has been no unprovoked Israeli insurgence into Palestinian territory. Wherever there is an Israeli presence - as approved by the Oslo agreements- it is to protect Israeli citizens who are constantly under threat of attack by our "peace partners." The Israeli outposts, well outside the independent Palestinian towns and villages, did not suddenly move towards those towns and villages and magically become objects of provocation. The Palestinians left their homes in masses and attacked these sites. Their diplomats ask us to remove our troops from these areas of "provocation" in order to gain land by violence that they did not gain by negotiation. If we allow that, where does it end?

Still, with all that, Israel yesterday agreed to hand control of a Jewish religious site in Nablus (Joseph's tomb) over to the Palestinian police in order that there would be absolutely no "provocative" Israeli presence anywhere near the Palestinian town. A few days before, in an unprecedented act of sheer hatred, the Palestinian police refused to allow Israelis to evacuate a severely wounded border policeman who had been shot in the neck by Palestinian rioters. Negotiations went on for 4 hours to no avail and the policeman died. In the meantime, Israel smuggled doctors dressed as Arab residents into Nablus to try to save the live of the son of the Nablus governor. He was airlifted to an Israeli hospital for treatment. Did you see this in your news?

In an agreement worked out by both sides, the Palestinians promised to protect this holy site as the Israelis withdrew. During the withdrawal, one Israeli border policeman was killed and several seriously wounded. After the withdrawal, the Palestinian masses stormed the tomb, pulled out Jewish religious articles, prayer books and the like and burned them, set fire to the inside of the tomb, and destroyed as much of the tomb itself that they could, stone by stone. These are acts by people who, according to Saeb Erakat and Hannan Ashrawi, just wanted Jewish presence out of their town but bear no hatred towards Jews or Israelis. They just want peace.

In all the years of conflict, not a single mosque, whether occupied and used or not, has been touched by Israeli authorities or civilians. This is the behavior of people who propose to have control over a city holy to 3 religions and to protect the holy sites of all. This horrible act yesterday said more to Israeli Jews about the Palestinians true feeling towards the Jews than almost any other act during the current violence. Attacking army outposts represents a totally different statement than that made by destroying Jewish holy artifacts and sites. To us, it represents the true face of modern Islam.

·The myth of one-sided effects of violence:

As I speak, I can only exit my village in one direction, the roads being closed off in the other 2 directions by burning tires and rock and Molotov cocktail throwers. Last week, my car was stoned and molotoved while exiting an archaeological site near my home and far from Arab towns, This is inside Israel proper where we are expected to trust our Israeli Arab citizens and try not to believe that there is fifth column within our midst. Throughout the country many main roads have been sealed off by either Palestinian or Israeli Arab riots. There are Jewish towns and villages where food and supplies must be airlifted in because there is no open roadway in or out of the villages. These are homes in Israel proper, not in yet to be negotiated territory. Have they mentioned this in your news? Is our government simply supposed to ignore this and abandon its citizens to whatever fate may await them at the hands of the mobs? Would an American (or French) government allow its citizens to be slaughtered by a mob of armed rioters? (By the way, Le Monde finally came out yesterday and publicly decried Chirac's emphatic and public support of the recent Palestinian actions).

Perhaps the most telling interview I heard was on the BBC with a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council. When asked if Arafat truly had the power to stop the mob violence, he said that it probably could not be done without exerting fatal force on the rioters. I was amazed when the logical follow-up question was not asked: "Then how do you expect the Israeli forces to stop this violence without using fatal force?" That question has never been probed in any media report I have seen. It is the duty of any government to protect its citizens from violence. Just what are we supposed to do here? Even a thousand soldiers in a row cannot stop a mass of thousands of rioters with rocks and automatic weapons.

·The myth of Lebanon & the UN:

Four months ago, Israel left Lebanon and then waited patiently while the UN took months to get permission from the Lebanese government to supervise the drawing of the border between the 2 nations. Israel withdrew to that border without hesitation and has been there ever since. The UN moved in to "monitor" the situation. Every single day since our withdrawal, mobs of Lebanese come their side of the border to throw rocks, bottles of burning oil, and molotov cocktails at the soldiers siting in their outposts, and worse, at farmers trying to tend their fields. What do they want??? For years the myth was that if Israel would only leave their security zone then things would return to normal.

We left. We continue to be taunted daily by mobs that have increased in size rather than decreased over time and whose weaponry had increased in sophistication (they now use rock catapults which are a serious weapon) and the damage they produce. The UN sits there in silence (other than their readiness to condemn Israel at the drop of a hat). Israeli soldiers have acted with the ultimate in restraint and there have been minimal casualties..

Yesterday, the worst nightmare of our country occurred. In an incredibly well-planned attack, Hizbullah forces crashed the border fence, drew a small patrol to the fence break with fire and then kidnapped 3 soldiers who were whisked away in a civilian automobile - not spontaneous act of violence. One of those soldiers was the cousin of the Bedouin chief of security at my hospital. I comforted him as he cried like a baby on my shoulder when he got the news at work last night.

Lebanon, of course, has clean hands in all this because it was done by the Hizbullah, not the Lebanese army. No matter that Lebanon, as a supposedly sovereign nation, should be held accountable for cross border violence instigated from within its boundaries. No matter that after Israel returned its security zone to Lebanese control that the Lebanese turned the area over to the Hizbullah rather than placing their own troops in control there. Lebanese sovereignty, between Syria and the Hizbullah, is a total myth. Where is the UN? Why they're debating a proposal condemning Israel for their recent aggression against Palestinians. Kafka lives!

And I return to my original premise about anti-Semitism posing anti-Israelism. The facts discussed above are available to the world press and they are certainly available to world leaders as well as the UN. Where is there any semblance of justice here? Surely there is enough wisdom around to understand that the side with the most weaponry is not always the aggressor. Was Russia condemned in the UN over Chechnya? Do you remember the massive fire power used in those battles by the Russian army against poorly armed rebels (also Muslims by the way)? Did you see the pictures of massive destruction of the Chechnyan towns and villages? Did that incident get half the attention that the Palestinian cause always gets? Ask yourselves why.

The last and most unfortunate myth:

·The myth of modern Islam as peaceful religion:

The three monotheistic religions of the world either began or perpetuated themselves through wars and holy battles. The two oldest of these religions, Judaism and Christianity, learned eventually to put away the sword and center their religions on faith in their God and acts of loving-kindness in the world.

The third religion, Islam, still separates the world into the "Lands of Islam" and the "Lands Under the Sword." The violent acts of recent days, instigated by the Imams in the mosques, show that Islam continues to put little value on human life and continues to believe that the world will be converted to Islam through violent subjugation. Any concept of sharing space or land in which there is a Muslim presence is anathema to them (no nonbeliever may even enter the city of Mecca).

In addition, they find it necessary in every way possible to try to negate all holy site claims of other religions, particularly Judaism, as we are witnessing with their denial that the Temple Mount ever housed a Jewish temple along with the denial that Joseph's tomb was a Jewish holy site. This, all ironically, while Jews the world over turn towards Jerusalem to pray, Muslims (even in Israel) turn their backs on Jerusalem as they turn towards Mecca.

When will the world media awaken and realize that Islam is not the peaceful faith it pretends to be and that the Islamic "cause" is, by definition, a violent one? Even as they report on the world's hottest trouble spots, overwhelmingly caused by Islamic violence, they continue to paint the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab world as victims and not the aggressors they are.

And so, these are very sad times for us as a people. What many don't comprehend is that they are perhaps even sadder times for the world at-large. If the world's moral compass becomes so warped as to accept almost any act against Israel as legitimate, where does that end? Israelis watched in stunned silence as 2 thousand Palestinian supporters crowded into Times Square. We see it as the ultimate chutzpah and ask where the AMERICAN Jews are?

So my friends, it is a very sad start to a new year. I am heading for our hospital, where I will be for at least the next 17 hours as we are the government army evac hospital for all of Northern Israel. As you might suppose, we are on high alert. A nice way to spend my Yom Kippur. Those of you who believe, please pray for the Peace of Jerusalem and our nation as a whole. Those of you who don't, we could sure use some positive energy, thoughts, and actions coming our way. We feel abandoned as in no time in recent history. Whether you even support Israel itself, support truth and justice and don't allow lies to warp your thinking and that of your friends..

In dreams of peace,

Stuart, Wendy, Josh, Noach & Eli

Courtesy of Aish HaTorah

by Marshall Roth

* * *

One key aspect to the Mideast struggle today is use of the media to influence public opinion. Journalistic ethics dictate that the news be reported as objectively as possible, while injecting personal opinion is a violation of the public trust.

We would like to assume that journalists are fair and impartial. But like most people, journalists have their own agenda, and this can translate into a lack of objectivity.

If truth is to prevail, we can't just "read" the newspaper. Be discerning and become part of the process. Otherwise, you're just a passive object of someone else's agenda. As Mark Twain once said, "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."

How can the reader discern the truth between the lines? Listed here are common methods that the media employs to subtly influences public opinion. By being aware of these methods, we can all avoid being used as a pawn in the media war.

VIOLATIONS OF OBJECTIVITY:

1. Using true facts to draw false conclusions.

2. Imbalanced reporting.

3. Distortion of facts.

4. Lack of context.

5. Definitions and terminology.

6. Selective omission.

* * *

Media reports frequently use true facts to draw erroneous conclusions.

EXAMPLE: In discussing the recent violence, many articles report that "over 100 people have been killed, the vast majority Palestinians." This is an indisputable fact, yet without qualifying these figures, the reader is led to the false conclusion that Israeli soldiers are the aggressors and have used excessive force.

As an astute observer, consider how many would be dead if Israeli forces were actually doing what they are accused of -- shooting indiscriminately into crowds with automatic weapons. If that were the case, many thousands of Palestinians would be dead.

The media has failed to publicize Israeli army instructions, where soldiers have orders not to shoot unless they are in direct danger. Israeli soldiers are told never shoot at an ambulance or at women. Unless the Palestinians begin shooting first with live bullets, Israeli soldiers are instructed never to shoot to kill, and then, to aim only at the source of the shooting, never randomly. No other army has such restrained orders.

* * *

Media reports frequently skew the picture by presenting only one side of the story.

EXAMPLE: In a recent report on CNN, Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said: "We are not bombing Israeli towns. We are not sieging Israeli people. We are not firing at Israeli children. The war is being waged against us, and the international community must equate Israel as the aggressor, and us as being aggressed against." Erakat's comments went without challenge or qualification by the interviewer, and in the 20-minute report, not one Israeli was interviewed or given a chance to respond.

EXAMPLE: CNN.com offers a list of web sites relating to the Middle East. Under the heading of "General Information Sites," all 12 sites are Arab-related, including one specific Palestinian site. There are no Jewish or Israel-related sites listed in this category.

Each Middle Eastern country is then giving its own listings of web sites. A tiny under-developed country like Yemen is given 5 sites, as are 5 sites given to Palestine. The Israel category lists 4 sites.

EXAMPLE: CNN.com posts a running tally of Palestinians killed since the start of the intifada. However, there is no equivalent tally for Jews killed by Palestinians -- in suicide bombings, lynchings terrorist attacks, bus hijacking, café bombings, etc. By counting only the number of Palestinians killed, the media gives the impression that the sole victim in this conflict is the Palestinians.

* * *

In today’s competitive media world, reporters frequently do not have the time, inclination or resources to properly verify information before submitting a story for publication.

EXAMPLE: The New York Times, Associated Press and other major media outlets published a photo of a young man -- bloodied and battered -- crouching beneath a club-wielding Israeli policeman. The caption identified him as a Palestinian victim of the recent riots -- with the clear implication that the Israeli soldier is the one who beat him.

It is now well known that the bloodied "Palestinian" depicted in the photograph was Tuvia Grossman, a 20-year-old Jewish student from Chicago, studying in Jerusalem. And that the assailants were not Israelis, but members of a Palestinian mob who beat and stabbed Grossman mercilessly for 10 minutes. And that the infuriated Israeli policeman with a baton was deterring the Palestinians from finishing their lynching.

Media bias assumes that if there's a victim, it must be a Palestinian. Yet who are the real victims and who are the aggressors? The truth is often the opposite of how it appears.

* * *

By failing to provide proper context and full background information, it is easy to dramatically distort the true picture.

EXAMPLE: The world was horrified by news footage of 12-year-old Palestinian boy shot and killed. The film, replayed again and again as a demonstration of the cruelty of Israeli soldiers, does not provide any context, leading to the false conclusion that the boy was directly fired upon in full view of Israeli soldiers.

As an aerial photo of the area depicts, the scene is actually a highway junction near a Jewish town, with an Israeli military outpost stationed nearby to guard the road into the Jewish town. During the confrontation, the Israeli post was surrounded and fired upon from three sides by Palestinian gunmen. The unfortunate father and son were caught in the crossfire. As the photo clearly shows, Israeli soldiers could not see the father and son from their vantage point at the far side of the intersection.

An astute media observer would ask: Since there are no Palestinian homes or towns in the area, nor are there stores or playgrounds, what were the father and son doing there to begin with? Had they come to riot? Furthermore, why didn't the Palestinian gunmen, who were positioned right next to the father and son and who were presumably aware of their presence, do anything to protect them -- or at least signal to the Israelis that innocent civilians were caught in the crossfire?

* * *

By using terminology and definitions in a way that implies accepted fact, the media injects bias under the guise of objectivity.

EXAMPLE: The BBC recently discussed Israeli presence in "the occupied territories," a pre-Oslo term that bears no relation to reality when discussing the areas now under total Palestinian control like Ramallah, Nablus, etc.

EXAMPLE: In recent weeks, The New York Times has subtly altered its references to the Temple Mount, which unbiased historians have always described precisely as what its name represents -- the site of the two Holy Jewish Temples. Of late, in apparent deference to Palestinian leaders who claim that no Jewish Temple ever stood on the Jerusalem hill toward which Jews have prayed for millennia, The Times has appended the phrase to include "which the Arabs call the Haram al Sharif."

More recently, The Times referred to "the Temple Mount, which Israel claims to have been the site of the First and Second Temple." No longer established historical tradition but a mere "claim."

Then a day later, The Times described Israeli troops as having "stormed the Haram, holiest Muslim site in Jerusalem, where hundreds of people were at worship." No mention whatsoever in that article of any "Temple Mount."

EXAMPLE: Ariel Sharon, the democratically-elected leader of the second-largest political party in Israel, is consistently referred to in the media by the derogatory moniker "hard-line opposition leader."

EXAMPLE: Arab mobs, whose actions range from stoning Jews praying at the Western Wall, to firing guns at Israeli soldiers, to destroying Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, are typically characterized as "protestors" or "demonstrators."

The New York Times (Oct. 10, 2000): "...the Israeli cabinet decided early this morning to avoid exploding a tense situation and gave Yasir Arafat more time to quiet protests." The article continues: "The demonstrators threw rocks and firebombs at the soldiers, and taunted them over loudspeakers."

* * *

By choosing to report certain events over others, the media controls access to information and manipulates public sentiment.

EXAMPLE: The media virtually ignored the recent murder of a women and her 2-year-old child who were attacked by Palestinian firebombs while driving through Jericho. By failing to cover Jewish tragedies in the same way as Palestinian deaths, the media denies public sympathy for Israel as the victims of Palestinian aggression.

Deadly attacks on Israelis often receive no media attention. Last week, respected American Rabbi Chaim Brovendar barely survived a brutal lynching at the hand of Palestinian rioters, after he accidentally made a wrong turn into Beit Jalla, a neighborhood near Jerusalem.

EXAMPLE: A recent Los Angeles Times editorial cartoon depicted an Orthodox Jew praying at the Western Wall, with the stones of the wall forming the word "hate." The caption read: "Praying to their God." (http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/ramirez/ramirez_20001003A.htm)

In defense, L.A. Times artist Michael Ramirez pointed out that that a second man in the cartoon (who was sprawled out on the ground and much less noticeable) was actually a Moslem praying. Unfortunately, the keffiah which would supposedly identify the Moslem is practically invisible to the naked eye.

Furthermore, Ramirez was unable to explain why the chosen venue of "hate" was the Western Wall, a site sacred only to Jews, and which has never been used as a place of Moslem prayer.

* * *

CONCLUSION:

By being astute media observers, we can make a difference. In response to public pressure, The New York Times reprinted Tuvia Grossman's picture -- this time with the proper caption -- and a full article detailing his near-death beating at the hands of Palestinians rioters.

Similarly, following a hailstorm of protest, the Los Angeles Times altered its cartoon, deleting the unique Herodian frame around the Western Wall stones, to make it look more look a generic wall.

You are encouraged to submit examples of media bias to webmaster@aish.com.

* * *

Courtesy of Aish HaTorah

by Marshall Roth

* * *

With so much information available about the Mideast conflict, forming an intelligent opinion requires distinguishing the myths from the facts.

MYTHS:

1. Israel is using excessive force.

2. Israel is the obstacle to peace.

3. Israel is the aggressor.

4. Sharon’s visit provoked the riots.

5. Jerusalem is more holy to Moslems than to Jews.

6. Palestinians will reliably safeguard holy sites.

* * *

FACT: Israeli military reaction has been one of incomparable restraint. After the brutal lynching of two Israelis in Ramallah, Israel limited its response to bombing one floor of the negligent Ramallah police headquarters, the radio station that had been broadcasting incitement to violence, and two targets in Gaza. Israelis gave a 3-hour warning, to allow Palestinians to evacuate; indeed, no one was killed. Similarly, following the recent torching of an ancient synagogue in Jericho, Israel's only response was to bomb a military training school.

On the front lines of this "intifada," Israeli soldiers have orders not to shoot unless they are in direct danger. Israeli soldiers are told never shoot at an ambulance or at women. Unless the Palestinians begin shooting first with live bullets, Israeli soldiers are instructed never to shoot to kill, and then, to aim only at the source of the shooting, never randomly. No other army has such restrained orders.

As the world decries the 100 Palestinian deaths, no one stops to ask how many would be dead if Israeli forces were actually doing what they are accused of -- shooting indiscriminately into crowds with automatic weapons. If that were the case, many thousands of Palestinians would be dead.

First of all, what kind of parent encourages children to go to the front lines to throw stones and firebombs at armed troops?! Palestinians know that Israelis are reluctant to shoot at children; and if a child does wind up getting killed, it makes for excellent anti-Israel propaganda.

Children are taught in school the heroics of dying as a martyr for the Palestinian cause. The Jerusalem Post reported that the Palestinian Authority is encouraging children to participate in clashes by offering their families $300 per injury and $2,000 for anyone killed. How tragic that Palestinians send their children to be slaughtered and then cynically use this against Israel in the court of world opinion.

The BBC recently asked a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council if Arafat truly had the power to stop the mob violence. He replied that it probably could not be done without exerting fatal force on the rioters. Given that reality, how can the world possibly expect Israel to stop the violence without such force?

It is the duty of any government to protect its citizens from violence. Imagine what the response would be if this violence was occurring to any other country. During "Black September" when Palestinians rioted in Jordan in the 1970s, King Hussein massacred 10,000 Palestinians in a few days. Likewise, Syrian President Assad slaughtered 20,000 of his own people during civil unrest in Hama.

* * *

FACT: "Aggressor" implies that Israel is somehow responsible for initiating the violence. In fact, the Palestinians have created the climate of violence.

Within months of the Oslo agreement of 1993, Arafat gave a speech in South Africa promising jihad for Jerusalem, a call he has consistently repeated in the Arabic press. Today, the Palestine Authority's official maps and children's textbooks treat Israel as nonexistent -- and show the Palestinian state stretching all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. The PLO Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.

The Palestinian violence is fueled in part by Islamic doctrine. The Koran calls for "eviction by the sword" of any non-Moslem entity holding sovereignty over land in the Arabian Peninsula. In other words, annihilation of the Jews is an Islamic religious obligation, hence the term jihad -- "holy war.'

Throughout the current wave of violence, Arafat refuses to call on his people to stop the rioting, shooting and firebombing. This is in direct violation of the Oslo Accords.

In fact, official Palestinian TV, radio and newspapers have urged people to blood and martyrdom. The day before an Israeli soldier was dragged through the streets of Ramallah tied to the back of an automobile, official Palestinian TV depicted the scene of a mannequin tied and dragged by an automobile.

Following is excerpt of a sermon broadcast live on October 13, 2000 by the official Palestinian Authority television. The speaker is Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, Member of the PA appointed "Fatwa Council" and former acting Rector of the Islamic University in Gaza:

* * *

FACT: Sharon came to the Temple Mount unarmed and without violence. Sharon's visit was so non-confrontational in tone that he was even accompanied on his visit by Arab members of the Israeli Parliament!

Palestinians say he shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Yet why should the Moslem claim to their third-holiest site override Sharon's right as a Jew to set foot on the single most holy place for Jews?

Sharon's visit was an excuse for violence, not the real reason. Days before Sharon's visit, Arafat met with the tanzim, his armed militia, and told them to "be ready." Palestinian violence had already begun before Sharon's visit. The prior week, an Israeli Border Patrol soldier was murdered by a double roadside bomb inside of Israel. The morning before Sharon's visit to the Mount, a Palestinian policeman, on a joint patrol with an Israeli partner, used his automatic rifle to murder his partner, and then wounded another Israeli policeman.

The rioting that followed Sharon's visit was not spontaneous. When Sharon ascended the Mount, he saw the mounds of boulders which had been prepared in advance for pelting Jewish worshipers at the Western Wall below. The next day, the preacher at al Aqsa mosque called at prayers to "eradicate the Jews from Palestine." Official Palestine television began playing over and over archival footage of the Palestinian intifada of 1987-1993 showing young people out in the streets throwing stones. Arafat then closed the schools and declared a general strike, causing everyone to go out into the street.

* * *

FACT:

Arafat accuses Israel of attempting to "Judaize Jerusalem," further corroborating his deep-seated belief that Jews are interlopers in the Holy City. Arafat knows that once the legitimate religious connection of Jews is removed from the land, then the continued physical presence of Jews in the land can eventually be called into question.

In fact:

• Jerusalem was founded 3,000 years ago by King David, as the capital of Israel.
• Mohammed was never in Jerusalem in his lifetime.
• Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Jewish Bible, and not once in the Koran.
• Jews pray facing Jerusalem, while Moslems pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.
• For over 3,000 years, Jerusalem has always been the Jewish capital, but never once the capital of an Arab or Muslim entity.
• In the 20 years that Jordan occupied Jerusalem (1948-1967), they never sought to make it their capital, nor did Palestinians demand it as theirs.

* * *

FACT: Following the unification of Jerusalem in 1967, the Israelis acted quickly to normalize Moslem rights to pray on the Temple Mount, despite the fact that the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism.

By contrast, during the years when the Old City was under Arab control (from 1948-67), Jews were fully barred from ever visiting the Western Wall.

Indeed, the only time in history of unlimited access to all religions to their holy sites in the Old City was under Israeli control of the Old City since 1967.

Most recently, in an agreement worked out by both sides, the Palestinians promised to protect the Jewish shrine at Joseph's Tomb. But within minutes of Israeli withdrawal, Palestinian masses stormed the tomb, tore up prayer books, and burned, desecrated and destroyed the Jewish holy site brick by brick. Jews are now barred from the site, and Palestinians are building a mosque in its stead.

* * *

WAR TILL ISRAEL GIVES IN

I think this article is cogent. Mr. Krauthammer is an intelligent, perceptive analyst.

Warmly,

Rabbi Packouz, Aish HaTorah

MIDEAST WAR NOW MORE THAN WORDS --
ARAFAT WANTS WAR TILL ISRAEL GIVES IN

By Charles Krauthammer
(a syndicated columnist for The Washington Post Writers Group) October 23, 2000

WASHINGTON -- Once again, the great sphinx looms over the Middle East. Yasser Arafat has everyone baffled.

Yes, after Arafat started a war just weeks after being offered a generous peace, most Westerners awoke to reality. Even The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, searching in Arafat for "statesmanship and real peaceful intentions," discovered "Mr. Arafat, it's now clear, possesses neither." (This, on Day 16 of the killing.)

But the bafflement remains. What does Arafat hope to achieve with violence? Israel's defeat?

Isn't that totally irrational? How are his rock-throwing mobs and newly trained 40,000-man militia going to defeat the Israeli military machine?

Well, look what happened this year in Lebanon, say the Palestinians. (The best place to follow what Palestinian leaders say to their people in Arabic is at www.memri.org, where indispensable translations are provided by the independent Middle East Media and Research Institute.) A ragtag guerrilla army in an almost open field drove the Israelis into a retreat so disorderly that they left many of their Lebanese allies behind, Saigon-like.

On the West Bank, moreover, the Palestinians enjoy additional advantages: a crowded urban battlefield where conventional armies are almost useless, an aroused population and a sympathetic world press.

The Palestinian strategy is open and clear: Use violence to bring international pressure on Israel; keep the nation mobilized, draining its resources and exhausting its will; bleed it as in Lebanon, but this time in the suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv; and force it back to negotiating from a position of weakness.

Arafat doesn't oppose negotiations. He just opposes negotiations where he lacks the upper hand. The aim of the violence is to gain the upper hand, force Israel to sue for peace and then dictate the terms of a settlement.

Among the Arabs, writes defense analyst Ze'ev Schiff, "there is an increasing feeling that they have hit on the formula for bringing Israel to its knees." How? "Ongoing, low-level war that combines massive terrorism, guerrilla warfare and the international media. ... This strategy will expose Israel's Achilles' heel; an extreme sensitivity to loss of life and the kidnapping of its soldiers."

Despite the apparent current lull, the fighting could last for months, even years (as did, for example, the Arab Revolt of 1936-39). Gun battles and casualties. International condemnation, boycotts and oil threats. Suicide bombings, terrorist attacks from Lebanon on the northern frontier.

How long before Israel sues for peace? Remember, Israel found the first intifada (1987-93) so intolerable that it sued for peace with the Oslo accords. And that intifada--rock-throwing mobs, but few guns and no suicide bombings--was a picnic compared to today.

If Israel is brought to her knees, what terms does Arafat dictate? That's easy. He'll demand three things:

First, Jerusalem.

Second, a return not to the 1967 borders, but to the borders drawn by the 1947 UN commission for the partition of Palestine. That Israel is much smaller and barely viable. Arafat tried out that demand last year without success. Should he gain the upper hand, he will insist upon it.

The third is the coup de grace, to be administered were Israel to be totally prostrate. Indeed, it is so devastating that Arafat could forgo the first two and accept the terms Barak offered him at Camp David with but a single additional provision: the return to Israel of the descendants of the 700,000 Palestinians who left in 1948-49.

With a million Israeli Arabs already in open revolt against the Jews, imagine adding another 3 million to 5 million to Israel's population. With fewer than 5 million Jews, that single provision is demographic suicide. It means the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Within weeks, such a state would be absorbed, like East Germany, by Arafat's Palestine.

No muss, no fuss, no blood. Victory. Most Israelis would leave, deciding quite rationally that it is better to live as a minority in the tolerant West than as a minority among hostile Arabs.

Notice: just a single line in a new agreement is all it takes to liquidate the world's only Jewish state. Notice, too, that Arafat and his lieutenants never fail to include the "right of return" when demanding their "just rights" as the price for peace.

Smug Westerners think Arafat is an old fool. He "never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity," Abba Eban once said. Well, Arafat sees his opportunity now--for fulfillment of maximal Palestinian dreams. The means is this war, and the world is behind him. Only a fool would forgo such an opportunity. Arafat knows exactly what he is doing. The fools are those who think he doesn't.