The world is not a Just place. Truth is hidden in this world. The nations are interested in opinions and many people suffer unjustly. This problem is reflected upon the media, which is a stage for world opinion. Excerpts from "Media Frenzy - Biased Reporting," by Emanuel A. Winston, dated November 2000: The international media, including journalists, film crews, editors, and publishers have spiraled down - down - down, in the opinion of the general public. The recent coverage of the eruption of conflict between arafat's "Palestinians" and Israel, was so slanted that even the left-leaning Hebrew Press was shocked... What has happened to the working press that they can no longer report on a story without their personal bias controlling the reportage? ...Clearly, journalists have decided to no longer report the news but rather to interpret or make the news. Some nations take a dim view of this slanted view of intelligence, clearly intended to provoke and affect their national and/or internal politics. This is especially true when journalists and their home base of operations seem to be an extension of their governments' foreign policy... The media--even the most shallow and uninformed, did know one thing. Namely, that twisted propaganda against the Jews had preceded the savage butchery of Six Million Jews... That preparing the minds of Germans and most Europeans had made normal people willing to act as bestial executioners. Although it was planned by evil minds, it was the press who carried the message to the people. Now, knowing that their media industry was an operational part of genocide, individual journalists and their corporations have, with malice, once again decided to incite the mobs. This has once more started the burning of synagogues in America, France, Russia, et al. Yes...the media is, in large part, to blame, although they will haughtily deny it and claim freedom to say whatever they want! They are sure to claim their hostility to Jews is neither passive nor aggressive--merely objective. ...While reporters have always faced the risks of being there in reporting wars, something has drastically changed. Now, they either take sides and become known for their bias or they slant their reportage because they fear the terrorists about whom they should be reporting... Then, terrorists are not terrorists but are called guerillas or freedom fighters. This is a form of media manipulation by semantics. In this period of globalization, such reports feed back into a larger constituency in their home countries and can dramatically affect not only the people, but also the decisions of governments and other influentials. Voting an issue up or down can be affected--either intentionally or unintentionally. Sending arms or even troops can be affected by inaccurate or biased reportage which can be intentional... ...We can recall arafat's war of terrorism in Lebanon when the media chose to corral themselves in the Commodore Hotel in Beirut and meekly accepted the media handouts from arafat's brother who was in charge of "information." Yes, they were scared to death of being killed (10 news people were killed during that period) or snatched up and held hostage in some urine-filled basement, chained to a radiator. The reportage according to arafat was a scandal of propaganda and the collaboration of the belly-up-to-the-bar reporters... More recently (October 19th [2000]), an Italian reporter released a film of 2 Israeli reserve soldiers who took a wrong turn into Ramallah and were savagely murdered, thrown out a window, and mutilated by the Arab mob, with the "Palestinian" police looking on. The reporter was threatened by arafat's terror threats so he wrote a letter of apology to arafat, disclaiming credit and blaming others. Films shot by other film crews were confiscated at the point of a gun by arafat's media wise terrorists who were on the spot to insure such footage did not reach the public. Regrettably, the media has developed a smoothly engineered operational coordination and understanding with arafat and the mobs. They receive pre-notification of "spontaneous" riots and the media provide film crews, still and video, who report the event with the agreed slant. One revealing example of this can be found by downloading a very provocative picture that exemplifies the problem. It shows a stone-throwing young man. Behind him is about a dozen photographers and videographers. It is as slick a pre-arranged and staged photo-op as possible. The journalists feed back tilted ‘stuff' to their editors, who wanted tilted ‘stuff' and who play it for their network audience as manipulated news. Israeli information outlets, as usual, were late in their response, preferring deep, thorough, and long investigations for the sake of accuracy. This is an admirable goal, however, in the media war of manipulation, Israel loses every time. When they finally get the truth out, the audience has left the theater, i.e., forgotten the original distortion, although they have absorbed the message that Israel is at fault. This is because, in the meantime, the media was soaking up and spitting out commentary by "Palestinian" spokesmen who exercised little or no restraint in their interpretation of events. Please note an essay by Jack Kelley in USA TODAY regarding the Voice of "Palestine" radio reporting: Israeli jets just bombed Beitlechem. "Israeli criminals have fired missiles into the homes of innocent 'Palestinians'...'Palestinian' blood is flowing in the streets! Oh God, God how can the criminals kill our innocent children?" On site checking immediately after found no evidence of an attack." ...And "Hebron was ‘under siege' by armed Jewish settlers who were shooting 'Palestinian' women and children." A visit to Hebron found calm and quiet there, too. And in Nablus--the 'Palestinian' correspondent reported that Israeli troops were "burning homes." No such thing, residents there said. "...Jerusalem will be our capital. We will fight until the end," a voice of 'Palestine' commentator said earlier this week. "No more negotiations [say the Arabs]. Just give us our guns." ["'Palestinian' radio: All the news that fits the cause; Israel says the broadcasts are nothing but lies and propaganda. Listeners say the station is the only information source they can trust." By Jack Kelley USA TODAY 10/25/2000] Was Jack Kelley of USA TODAY the only journalist with access to "Palestinian" radio newscasts? I doubt it. But, the working press simply ignored the incitement, preferring to film the kids rushing to the streets as a direct result of their wild announcements (and perhaps financial inducements). We interviewed the IDF military media staff as to why their response was invariably late. They indicated, with some pride, that they made every effort to confirm the facts which took considerable time--even though they knew the arabs and the media were crucifying them in the international media. For example, the underlying formative story put forth by arafat's media propagandists was that: Arik Sharon didn't walk around the Temple Mount; he charged up there with 1500 policemen... Except for the Chicago Tribune, none of the lead journals pointed out that 3 Arab members of the Israeli Knesset incited the mobs after the Sharon visit, or that the radical iman (religious cleric) gave a fiery sermon in the mosque on the Temple Mount on friday, resulting in a presumed "spontaneous" riot. The problem was that these youths, with the Waqf (Muslim caretakers), had prepared piles of stones, one pile (fist-sized) for throwing and others (smaller) for sling shots. According to Julie Stahl, the CNS Jerusalem Bureau Chief, the PA media started provoking "Palestinian" riots weeks before. "Palestinian" authority tv and newspapers carried inciting messages well before Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount... Jibril Rajoub, head of the PA "preventive security" promised Israeli Minister of Internal Security and Acting Foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, that there would be no reaction to the Likud Party's visit to the Temple Mount, as long as Sharon did not attempt to enter the mosque itself. This story was broadcast only once on Israeli radio and then buried until it appeared in the Jerusalem Post on October 4. The riots which came a day later were positioned by the media as "not" staged or triggered by a green light from yassir arafat, but were "spontaneous" and based upon the "sacrilegious assault" on al-Aksa mosque. The gathering of food and medical supplies by the Arab population for several months prior, was ignored by the media... Most of the accommodating media said nothing about the 3,OOO year old Jewish claim to the Temple Mount and that it is the most Holy Site for the nation of Israel, pre-dating arafat's "claims" by several thousand years. (Arafat's actual propaganda "claim" occurred only in 1967, gaining steam and credibility as the media repeated the "claim," no questions asked.) The story of the arab boy and father hit by [what was thought to be] Israeli and "Palestinian" crossfire, has been emblazoned across all media outlets. But the media seldom prints that the Israelis couldn't have seen them from their positions. Later, videotapes revealed that the boy had been part of the stone-throwing mob and his father came to pull him away. [However, an IDF investigation and re-enactment appears to show conclusively that the 12-year-old boy from Gaza, Muhammad al-Dura, was not shot by Israeli soldiers--but was rather the victim of a cruel plot staged by "Palestinian" sharp-shooters and a television cameraman. Former IDF sniper Yosef Doriel, who initiated the re-enactment, said that he had several reasons to suspect that it was not the Israelis who shot the boy. "For one thing, the boy and his father were hiding behind and to the left of a barrel that was between them and the Israeli forces. In the video clip, you see four clean bullet holes to the side of them. These were not shot by the Israelis--they are 'clean' and full holes, not mere grazes that would have been formed by the 30-degree angle of the Israelis--but rather by 'Palestinians' (stationed more directly in front of the father and son) to make sure that the two would stay put. Suddenly, you see the boy lying down in his father's lap, with another bullet hole in the wall directly behind him--again, it could not have come from the IDF position, which was behind the barrel and to the side, but only from the 'Palestinian' position, which was more directly in front of the father and son. This is the bullet that went through his stomach and out of his back. At that point in the video, you can hear the firing--but the Israeli position was far away! Rather, what happened was that a 'Palestinian' advanced to a spot very close to the photographer, and shot the fatal shot. You can also notice that at the moment of the fatal shots, the photographer suddenly 'shook' and the picture was blurred--a signal that the shots came from close to him." Doriel and a fellow physicist, Nachum Shachaf, proposed that O.C. Southern Command Yom Tov Samiyeh oversee a re-enactment of the entire incident, complete with the barrel and life-size dummies. Doriel concludes: "The 'Palestinian' forces staged the event. The Israelis were firing, for sure--but the fatal shots came not from them, but from the 'Palestinian' position in front of the boy, behind the cameraman." (Arutz Sheva Oct. 31, 2000 - 2 Cheshvan 5761)] The picture became the news with no attempt by the media to explain the actual circumstance in real time. And even the French photographer who filmed the evolving horror story for 45 minutes, could have notified the Israeli soldiers instead of getting his scoop. Here again, youngsters were incited by arafat's PA school and summer camp curriculum, that included training with real guns, even given time off to participate in the riots, but this was not reported by the media. However, hardly anyone noted the true story of the Israeli medical team who risked their lives to enter an Arab town and rescue Jihad Aloul, the critically injured son of Nablus's governor, to a hospital in Israel. This occurred less than 24 hours before Israeli Border Police Cpl. Yusef Mudhat, an Israeli Druse, bled to death because the "Palestinians" refused to allow his evacuation from Joseph's Tomb [which was later destroyed by the Arabs] in Nablus. The cynical use of women and children as human shields was not cited by the media as a typical arafat policy but, instead, was spun by arafat's spin doctors, nurtured by past successful events staged for the media, to show that Israeli troops deliberately targeted women and children. Clearly, the so-called children were often teens with good throwing arms and slingshots, lobbing rocks and gasoline bombs. Now, just behind them, firing from cover, were arafat's shooters, now called tanzeem--trained in far flung terrorist training camps from Afghanistan, through the Soviet Union, to the deserts of North Africa, including Libya [and also in Israel itself, in the "PA territories"]. Does the media know this and do they have collected data in their archives confirming this? Absolutely! This tactic created a field of fire between the Arab shooters, including arafat's rogue policemen/para-military forces, and Israeli troops, manning a static position at check-points in Israeli territory. When a child got shot or one of the teens was injured, the ever-present tv crews carried the scene live. There was no real time explanation as to why the shooting occurred, but merely the sympathetic film of the injured being carried away from Israeli fire or the ever present follow-on hysterical funeral processions with Arab women screaming and automatic weapons being fired into the air. ...The media was once looked upon as the watch dogs against crooked politicians, dictators, and terrorists, but not anymore. How did the media slide into the business of massaging the news and jimmying up the stories, as if they worked for the terrorists or the crooked politicians? ...Write opinion pieces if you must, but don't lie to the people and yourselves to call it "reporting the news"... Excerpts from the Jerusalem Post's, "The Only Honorable Choice?" by Evelyn Gordon, dated October 19, 2000: On the night of October 4-5, a ceasefire agreement was negotiated in Paris. At the last minute, "Palestinian" authority chairman yasser arafat refused to sign, signaling that the violence would continue. In response Israel nevertheless withdrew its forces from the areas specified in the agreement, just as if it had been signed. On October 6, in an effort to defuse tensions, Israel agreed to withdraw all its forces from the Temple Mount and let the PA handle security for friday prayers at the mosques there. The PA responded to this gesture by allowing Moslem "worshipers" first to stone the Jews praying at the Western Wall below, forcing Israel to evacuate all Jews from the site, and then to storm the Israeli police station on the Mount and to firebomb and torch a second police post by the Old City walls. Israel had to retake control of the Holy site by force, leaving two dead. In retaliation Israel did nothing. On October 7, still trying to reduce the friction, Israel agreed to withdraw its forces from Joseph's Tomb--a site over which Israel was granted control in the Oslo accords--in exchange for the PA's promise to protect it. It took the PA all of a few hours to violate its promise and let a mob completely destroy the ancient site. In response Israel did nothing. Also on October 7, Hizbullah kidnaped three soldiers [who were also murdered]. In response Israel did nothing. On October 12, two reservists took a wrong turn and wound up in Ramallah, where a mob led by "Palestinian" policemen brutally murdered them and mutilated their bodies. Israeli security experts warned that the country could not afford to do nothing again if it wanted to have any deterrent capability left. Prime Minister Ehud Barak therefore agreed to let the IDF bomb five "Palestinian" targets--after it first warned everyone in the area to leave and gave them several hours to do so. Total number of "Palestinians" killed in the attacks, according to "Palestinian" sources? Zero... What's Going on In Israel? When the UN or the world media condemns Israel for using "excessive" force, Israel should show them what "excessive" force is and throw the Arabs out of Israel. The world opinion belongs to the world, not to Israel, so let the nations keep their thoughts to themselves. If the nations are so intent upon spreading lies about Israel and damaging the name of my people, then let us give them something to talk about. The Arabs don't belong in Israel. Israel shouldn't have to be attacked by their women and children and shot at by their cowardly men [who hide behind the women]. The world's media should not be dancing around with the Arabs in Israel, playing games in our own backyard. If the media wants to attack Israel, let them join the Arab countries. And if the arabs want to attack Israel, let them bring out their armies; because I'm convinced that when Israel expells them, that's exactly what will happen. Then they'll know, for the last time, that Israel will never be theirs. They have no claims to the Land and they should have no ties to it either. If they want to fight a war against Israel, thinking they can occupy her open cities, then Israel will make space for the invadors. They'll be buried in the Land, and they'll remain in her soil as the dust of the ground. (See Ezekiel 39).