Grotesque pro-Israel bias in the U.S. media

The screws are tightening TW - see how international law grinds slowly but surely. London Mayor's comments about international criminality are to ready Sharon for arrest, trial, conviction.

As goes Pinochet, so goes.....

Three Points on Terror

AP provides distorted coverage of a key terror conference

Media coverage of Islamic terrorism continues to misrepresent the stark reality. This week, three items caught HonestReporting's attention:
-1- ROOT CAUSE: ISRAEL?

A high-profile international conference on combating terrorism, with Kofi Annan and other world leaders in attendance, is currently underway in Madrid. It takes place one year after terrorists killed 191 people in an attack on that city's commuter rail lines.

One of the topics addressed in Madrid yesterday (Mar. 9) was the source of Islamic terrorism. A number of opinions were expressed, including that of a former Mossad chief, but the Associated Press summary chose to amplify only one opinion ― that Israeli policy is the 'root cause' of the entire international terrorist scourge. The article begins:

Resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is key to any hope of curtailing global outbursts of violence, panelists at a summit on democracy, terrorism and security said Wednesday. That is at the heart of Arabs' feelings of discrimination by foreign political, social and economic policies.

AP continues with a heavily editorialized statement from Palestinian Saeb Erakat ― note where the Erakat quote ends and the reporter picks up:

"I have a 17-year-old boy, Ali," said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat. "I don't want him to become a suicide bomber" as a desperate way to achieve legitimate dreams including an independent state, viable homeland with Jerusalem as capital and right of refugees to reclaim lost land. "Help me. Help me put hope in his mind."

HonestReporting asks: (1) Why did AP choose to report only the 'blame Israel for world terror' opinion from this session at the conference? and (2) Why did the reporter supplement Erakat's quote with what appears to be personal opinion on the 'legitimate dreams' of Palestinians?

Comments to AP: feedback [at] ap.org


-2- 'BODY COUNTS' IGNORE REALITY OF TERROR

Arnold Roth, whose daughter Malki was killed by a suicide bomber in the Sbarros pizzeria in 2001, was interviewed for a recent Associated Press article on Palestinian and Israeli child deaths during the conflict. In the article, AP compared the two death counts in a manner that prompted Roth to respond to the AP journalist:

'It upsets me very much to see the agonizing story of child murders largely reduced to an AP statistical analysis. Counting bodies ― whether it's factually correct or incorrect ― ignores the central reality of terrorism. The terrorists want as many bodies as possible, and they don't make any effort to hide it. Counter-terrorism warfare causes innocents to lose their lives. This is awful ― but it's not the same as the cold-blooded, deliberate viciousness that motivates people like the murderers of my daughter.'

To view Roth's entire response to the AP reporter, see HR's blog, BackSpin.


-3- OKRENT: OMITTING T-WORD IS A POLITICAL ACT

New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent has finally delivered a long-promised statement on the use/non-use of the term 'terrorism' to describe Palestinian violence. Okrent couches the issue among other controversial matters that exasperate editors aiming to achieve neutral language, but concludes by agreeing with former Times Jerusalem bureau chief James Bennet that the 'T-word' should appear more often in
news reports:

I think in some instances The Times's earnest effort to avoid bias can desiccate language and dilute meaning.
In a January memo to the foreign desk, former Jerusalem bureau chief James Bennet addressed the paper's gingerly use of the word "terrorism": "The calculated bombing of students in a university cafeteria, or of families gathered in an ice cream parlor, cries out to be called what it is," he wrote. "I wanted to avoid the political meaning that comes with 'terrorism,' but I couldn't pretend that the word had no usage at all in plain English." Bennet came to believe that "not to use the term began to seem like a political act in itself."

I agree. While some Israelis and their supporters assert that any Palestinian holding a gun is a terrorist, there can be neither factual nor moral certainty that he is. But if the same man fires into a crowd of civilians, he has committed an act of terror, and he is a terrorist... Given the word's history as a virtual battle flag over the past several years, it would be tendentious for The Times to require constant use of it, as some of the paper's critics are insisting. But there's something uncomfortably fearful, and inevitably self-defeating, about struggling so hard to avoid it. (emphasis added)

Read Okrent's piece here, and see HonestReporting's special report on this topic: 'Calling Terror by Its Name'

Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias.

HonestReporting


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article can also be read at: http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Three_Points_on_Terror.asp

Copyright © 2005 HonestReporting - http://www.honestreporting.com

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Sea_Change_in_Palestinian_Opinion$.asp


Sea Change in Palestinian Opinion?

Media outlets report only the segment of Palestinian opinion that denounces the ongoing terror.




Islamic Jihad
holds a press conference

Five Israelis were murdered and dozens injured when a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up at the entrance to a Tel Aviv nightclub on Friday night (Feb. 25). Syria-based Islamic Jihad admitted responsibility for the terrorist attack.
Then on Monday (Feb. 28) in the West Bank, Palestinian terrorists opened fire on two Israelis, and the IDF found a car bomb packed with half a ton of explosives ― the largest bomb produced by Palestinian terrorists in the past four years.

As this wanton violence threatened the de-facto ceasefire agreement between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, the media posed an important question that cuts to the heart of future peace chances: 'What do most Palestinians think about this ongoing terrorist violence from their midst?' Here were two typical reports:

● Associated Press (Feb. 27): In an article entitled 'Palestinians Angry Over Tel Aviv Attack', AP's Mohammad Ballas reported a veritable sea change in Palestinian attitudes toward terrorism:

Palestinians expressed anger Saturday at an overnight suicide bombing in Tel Aviv... a departure from former times when they welcomed attacks on their Israeli foes... In contrast to the dozens of previous suicide bombings, no celebrations were held in the West Bank on Saturday and militant groups didn't hang the customary posters of congratulations at the bomber's home.

AP also quoted a claim by Mahmoud Abbas that 'all Palestinian factions, including the prisoners, were outraged by this operation.'

● Financial Times (Feb. 28): An article entitled 'Palestinian Militants Denounce Tel Aviv Bombing' includes this quote from an 'Islamic Jihad spokesman':

It's the first time I've been distressed to hear about a suicide bombing in Israel... It came at a time when we had a consensus to preserve quiet to allow the Palestinian Authority to pursue a political breakthrough with Israel.

This sober, remorseful response may have characterized a portion of Palestinian reaction. But its accuracy as a blanket assessment of Palestinian opinion was brought into question by a large, open rally held on Monday (Feb. 28) in Hebron ― to almost complete media silence. At the rally, Islamic Jihad leaders called out, 'Our beloved Jihad blew up Tel Aviv!', and 'No peace with Israelis!'




Monday's rally in Hebron

Though media outlets were quick to report the official Palestinian denunciations of Friday's terror attack, this chilling Islamic Jihad rally received almost no coverage. [Associated Press did mention the rally ― but buried it deep down in an article that dealt with another topic altogether.]

The media can facilitate genuine peace taking hold by reporting the full reality on the ground.

Did your local media outlet report Palestinian denunciations of Friday's terror attack, but fail to report the ongoing jihadi incitement and support for terror, held in Hebron? If not, write your local editor demanding full and accurate coverage.

BBC APOLOGIZES... AGAIN

For the second time in two weeks, BBC has issued an official apology for irresponsible coverage of the Mideast conflict.

In the wake of Friday's Tel Aviv bombing, BBC One TV produced a segment called 'A Family in Mourning', which showed extensive footage of the parents of the Palestinian terrorist, but no pictures at all of the mourning families of the terrorist's victims!

After a wave of protest, BBC issued this 'correction', which comes right on the heels of a BBC apology for a recent radio spot accusing the IDF of ordering soldiers to 'shoot unarmed [Palestinian] schoolchildren.' [See Feb. 16 HonestReporting communique.]

Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias.

HonestReporting


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article can also be read at: http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Sea_Change_in_Palestinian_Opinion$.asp

Copyright © 2005 HonestReporting - http://www.honestreporting.com

And what, pray tell, dear stupid Sefarad, is HonestReporting?

Why, let's just go see...

From their own website:
Why is the media biased? It could be they are intimidated by Palestinian strongmen into covering only their 'positive' side, while Israeli democracy permits more open coverage of the Israeli position. Or it could be that it's more exciting to root for the underdog. Or it could be that the world applies a moral double-standard to Israel.

Blurbs linked in HonestReporting's site:

from New York Jewish Week:
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=4491
Honest Reporting was started by two student activists in London, in the early days of the war, to correct misleading coverage of Israel. Now, with 12,000 subscribers, it’s in the hands of Media Watch International, an independent New York-based group that spruced up the Web site (honestreporting.com) and hired Sharon Tzur to direct the project. Tzur, 28, an Israeli air force veteran, had been national director of project development for the Jewish National Fund, and also an assistant to Tel Aviv Mayor Roni Milo. The group has earned respect and success, getting CNN and the Washington Post to correct inequities.

from the Jewish Federation of Greater Washington:
http://www.imakenews.com/federation/e_article000010619.cfm
This effort was borne out of frustration by some to want to combat the apparant bias against Israel in the overseas media. The group was formed in England and Jerusalem headed by Shaul Rosenblatt.

The goal is to build up an email list of a minimum of 10,000 names from all over the world. The Jerusalem group will scour the press for articles that are clearly biased against Israel or just plain anti-semitic. A complaint will be sent to each registered person who can forward it on to the offending news organization. The presumption is is if, say, cnn.com were to receive 10,000 emails or more, perhaps they would alter their coverage. honestreporting.com affiliates claim they are neither to the right nor to the left. Its aim is simply to ensure that Israel receives the fair coverage that every nation deserves.

from the Jewish Bulletin of Northern California:
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk010323/ibritmedia.shtml
Last month [the London Guardian] was the target of an email campaign begun by a group called HonestReporting.com.
Started by a couple of young Londoners last October to monitor what they saw as anti-Israel bias in the press, Honest Reporting was soon taken over by Media Watch International, a new group based in New York.

Four days after the Honest Reporting petition went out, the Guardian's comment editor, David Leigh, wrote an article saying that hundreds of emails had come in from around the world about the bus driver article.

Leigh traced the campaign back to Honest Reporting and Media Watch International. He linked both groups to the Orthodox group Aish HaTorah...

Excerpt from David Leigh's report:
...Who was behind this Internet harassment? the website gave no address. It had been registered last October under a London name and phone number that seemed not to exist. Eventually, it transpired that it had been set up by a 27-year-old Jewish web-designer from north London called Jonathan.
...But the operation was now being funded and run from the US by an organization concerned with media fairness, Media Watch International. And who were they? "We're pretty new," says their director, Sharon Tzur, speaking from Manhattan. "It's a group of concerned Jewish business people in New York."

Yet a bit more inquiry reveals that this is not quite the whole story either. For this week's bulletin denouncing the Guardian was in fact composed in Israel by a man named Shraga Simmons.

And when he is not working for HonestReporting, Mr. Simmons is to be found employed at another organization altogether - Aish HaTora. This is an international group promoting Orthodox Judaism. "I do some work for Aish," Mr. Simmons says, from Israel. And Jonathan, the web- designer who started it all in London, also concedes: "I go to the odd class at Aish."

Aish verge on the colorful in their antics. Founded by Rabbi Noah Weinberg, who complains that "20,000 kids a year" are being lost to Judaism by marrying out, Aish invented speed-dating - eight-minute sessions in cafes to help New Yorkers find compatible Jewish partners. They're widely regarded as rightwing extremists. And they're certainly not people entitled to harass the media into what they would call "objectivity".

Now back to the Jewish Bulletin of Northern California piece: "Sharon Tzur, the director of Media Watch International, said that some people associated with her group are also associated with Aish, but there are no institutional links between the organizations."

Re-read that last sentence. This is a neutral-to-friendly source stating that HonestReporting's DIRECTOR denies any affiliation with Aish HaTorah. The following is from the MASTHEAD in HonestReporting.com's HOME PAGE:
"HonestReporting was started at the initiative of the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah, and is now an independent non-profit organization (501c3) with its own board of directors."

In other words, the rabid Zionist maniacs at "Honest" Reporting are so insane THEY CAN'T EVEN GET THEIR OWN LIES STRAIGHT!!!!! Kinda like you Sefarad.

More about Aish HaTorah:
Likud money conduit and propaganda agency. Posing as an Orthodox Jewish religious group, Aish HaTorah is a sophisticated psychological center garnering major contributions for the Likud/extreme right apparatus. Among important donors are actor Kirk Douglas and talk show host Larry King. Aish HaTorah's headquarters is in East Jerusalem, and it has offices in New York and Los Angeles. According to the Israeli Labor Party's current General Secretary, Knesset Member Ofir Pines-Paz, Aish HaTorah is suspected of acting as a secret channel illegally funding Netanyahu.

Aish HaTorah runs HonestReporting.com, a McCarthyite Internet police organization created to attack American critics of the Likud war policies. This operation mobilized hard and fast to kill the 2001 "Israeli art students" espionage scandal related to the Sept. 11 attacks, after that story was broken by EIR and by Fox News in December 2001.

One aspect of the Aish HaTorah money flow is the group's Jerusalem Fund, created in 1992 in conjunction with Jersualem Mayor Ehud Olmert. It is part of Olmert's complex of dirty-money Likud front organizations, including his own New Jerusalem Fund, which raises political cash from Armageddon-seeking Christians in America.

More juicy goodies from HonestReporting's own site:

Since October 2000, in addition to fighting an anti-terror war, Israel has been fighting a media war. In news outlets around the globe, journalists regularly misrepresent Israel as the aggressor and Palestinians as the victims.

In response, HonestReporting was established to scrutinize the media for anti-Israel bias, then mobilize subscribers to respond directly to relevant news agencies.

In a short time, HonestReporting has become a major international effort with 100,000 members, affiliates in Canada, Australia and on Campus, and foreign language sites in Spanish, Russian and Italian.

HonestReporting has succeeded in shaking up the media and putting them on alert. Correspondents and editors now think twice before releasing stories, knowing they will be held accountable for inaccurate or misleading material.

In June 2002, major editorial changes occurred at CNN which greatly shifted public perception of the Arab-Israel conflict in general, and the role of Palestinian suicide bombers in particular. HonestReporting was cited in The New York Times (July 1, 2002) as playing a role in this shift, and the Jerusalem Post reported that "HonestReporting.com readers sent up to 6,000 e-mails a day to CNN executives, effectively paralyzing their internal e-mail system."

"Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East" is HonestReporting's powerful one-hour documentary film that uses Palestinian TV footage to examine how the Mideast peace process unraveled in a surge of violence. In its first 6 months since release, 400 large event screenings of Relentless were held in conjunction with AIPAC, Hadassah, ADL, JNF, the Israeli Consulate and others. Michael Medved, film critic and talk radio host, called Relentless a "stunning new film... chilling... 4 stars… a must-see!"

MediaBackspin.com is HonestReporting's daily weblog, covering issues of the media and the Middle East conflict from an in-depth, insider's perspective.

TerrorPetition.com is HonestReporting's campaign calling on the media to label Palestinian suicide bombers as "terrorists." (Most media outlets favor terms like "militants," "activists," or even "freedom fighters.")

HonestReporting also sponsors the annual "Dishonest Reporting Award," presented to the journalist or media outlet that most blatantly violates the principles of media objectivity. Past "winners" include Reuters (2003), British media coverage of the Jenin battle (2002), and BBC (2001), whose blatant bias was perhaps best articulated by Fayad Abu Shamala, BBC's Gaza correspondent for the past 10 years, who declared at a Hamas rally (May 6, 2001): "Journalists and media organizations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people."

HonestReporting's seminar, "Israel's Battle Against Media Bias," has been presented to groups throughout North America and Israel, and is a key component of the Hasbara Fellowships program to train college students in pro-Israel activism.

Why is the fight against media bias so important?

Israel is fighting an uphill battle and needs all the help it can get. Much has been achieved, yet there is much more yet to do. One person alone may not make a difference, but thousands united can...

Join HonestReporting.com and help Israel win the media war.

HonestReporting's brand-new Media Patrol Program -- how YOU TOO can join the rabid zio-screamer thought police:

1) From a list of hundreds of newspapers worldwide, choose one newspaper to monitor on a daily basis. You can also get involved in organizing a group of local activists. Contact details for hundreds of U.S. newspapers is online at:
http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=Newspapers+U.S.+list

2) To be registered as an official HonestReporting Media Patroller, send your name and the name of the media outlet you are monitoring to:
action [at] honestreporting.com

Below we present the Media Patrol Guidebook, with all you need to know about effectively fighting media bias:
- The 10 Principles Of Media Patrolling
- How To Analyze The Media
- Tips For Writing Good Letters
By working together, we can make the changes that are very necessary, and ensure that Israel gets the fair media coverage that every nation deserves. Welcome to the team!

THE 10 PRINCIPLES OF MEDIA PATROLLING
Put yourself in the shoes of a reporter or editor. They are more receptive to constructive criticism than they are to pressure. Don't just demand that the media be pro-Israel -- but rather, factual, impartial, and honest. Always ask yourself: What would make this report better? Show the news agency not only what's wrong with their story, but how there is a more balanced alternative. One way to do this is by showing how their competitors reported the story more fairly. This is this difference between complaining and constructive criticism.

Mobilize a local monitoring group to increase your impact. Build an email list and alert the entire group when bias is spotted. This is the principle behind HonestReporting: One person acting alone may not be able to make a difference, but hundreds or thousands working together can. Be in touch with others from your city, for coordinated patrol activities.

Clearly document any bias you see. Keep a log-book and note the specific article (with URL), or the exact date and time of a broadcast. What exactly did the reporter say? Then pinpoint why it is a problem, by citing relevant facts, etc. Also note examples of excellent reporting.

You will never be able to convince the media to do things 100% your way. Refrain from nitpicking little points. Instead, pick one point that is the key to many others. For example, demanding that suicide bombers be labeled "terrorists" frames the conflict in completely different terms. Another example is contrasting Palestinian corruption and incitement with Israeli democracy. Choose your main battle and hammer away until your point is heard.

Conduct an extensive study of your local media to determine if there is an objective pattern of bias. Analyze every article for one month, and systematically tabulate the frequency of photos for each side, the frequency of spokespeople quoted, etc. Individual examples intuitively indicate anti-Israel bias, but the typical response from media agencies is: "Our reporters are under extreme deadline pressure, and occasionally there will be an error in judgment. But it all balances out -- sometimes skewed toward one side, and sometimes toward the other. But overall, our reporting is 100 percent fair and impartial." This month-long content analyses will lay rest to that claim.

Arrange a meeting with local writers and editors to express your concerns, to better explain the Israeli position, and to hold the newspaper accountable for what it publishes. Formulate a name for your group -- e.g. the Gotham City Concerned Citizens Coalition; this demonstrates broad-based community support for your position. At the meeting, make your case persuasively and with as much documentation as possible; present your month-long content analyses. Instead of attacking the newspaper's character, focus on their work and appeal to their professional integrity. A newspaper's entire ability to stay in business is based on their perception of being accurate and impartial. If you have evidence to the contrary, they will listen.

Meeting: Phase Two. At the end of the meeting, make them a deal: If they will agree to regular meetings, you will promise to restrain your rapid-response team and to restrict your complaints to only major errors. This takes tremendous pressure off the media, who abhors beings flooded with email complaints and all the bad publicity. This also creates an ongoing dialogue, whereby local editors will eventually turn to HonestReporting activists as a resource on the Israeli perspective. You can then encourage local editors and reporters to visit Israel to see the complex issues first hand. Offer to help plan their itinerary and meet former local citizens who now live in Israel. And you can invite local reporters to meet with visiting Israeli academics or decision-makers.

If the media agency refuses to meet with you, or if they continue to display a anti-Israel bias, then consider a public protest. This may take the form of a rally in front of their building (this must be coordinated with the local police department), or it may involve a campaign to cancel subscriptions (even for one day). Beware, however, that these methods can have a negative backlash, as it strikes some people as an attempt to limit freedom of the press. These tactics must be used wisely, and only when other methods have failed to produce results.

Don't limit yourself to print and broadcast media. Make your voice heard as well in Internet chat rooms, bulletin boards, and radio call-in shows. Hand out informational flyers at your local community center, school, and house of worship.

Expand your horizons. Get your news from a variety of sources in order to get a good sense of how different media groups promote different views. Also visit pro-Palestinian websites (e.g. ElectronicIntifada.net) to see how the other side is operating, and the arguments they use. You can also use this information to encourage your local media to report examples of incitement in the Arab world.

HOW TO ANALYZE THE MEDIA
You click on MSNBC.com and notice a hot new development in the Mideast. How should you go about analyzing the news report? There are certain questions you can keep in mind that may reveal underlying bias. For example:

Are acts of violence directed against civilians termed "terror"? If not, does this conform to the media's policy regarding other areas of conflict around the world?

In reporting violence, is the sequence of events clear, as to which side was attacked and which side retaliated?

Is sympathy being elicited for one side of the conflict, through the portrayal of its victims in humanizing terms (e.g. including personal information like the victim's name, age, familial relationship, or profession)?

Though both sides blame each other for perpetrating the violence, is one side portrayed as the more violent aggressor?

Are the perpetrators of violence described in passive or active terms?

Does the media attempt to give justification for an act of violence -- e.g. for reasons of poverty, frustration, or national liberation?

Are suicide bombers and collaborators included in Palestinian casualty counts? Are causality counts expressed unqualified, or is a distinction made between combatants and civilians?

Is "equal time" granted to both sides of the conflict, or is one side given preferential treatment -- hence lending more weight and credibility to that side's position?

When one side makes a claim, is the other side given a chance to refute, or does the claim stand unchallenged? Does one side usually "get the last word"?

Does the media quote dissenting or extremist opinions within each camp, or does the media only quote moderate voices that parrot the leadership's line?

Does the headline skew the story by failing to identify which side was the aggressor and which side the victim?

Photos and captions: Are these pertinent to the story, or do they diverge from the main story and garner out-of-context sympathy for one side or the other?

And finally, look specifically for the "7 Violations of Media Objectivity":
Did the story contain misleading definitions and terminology?
Was the reporting one-sided and imbalanced?
Did the reporter editorialize in what was supposed to be an objective news story?
Did the reporter fail to provide proper background and context?
Was key information missing (selective omission)?
Did the reporter use true facts to draw false conclusions?
Did the reporter distort the facts?

from TIPS FOR WRITING GOOD LETTERS

The absolute choice excerpt:
"Write as a concerned individual. Mentioning that you are part of an organized campaign may lessen the impact of your letter."

In other words, follow the Zionist cardinal rule: be a DEVIOUS ideologue loon. Don't let them know you're part of a massive network of raving maniacs, or they might become wary. Gee, ya think?

So Sefarad, does Honestreporting.com have a program called IndyMediaWatch? Thank you for this penetrating glimpse into the zio-screamer media intimidation machine. It was highly instructive.

They're not. The stupid ones are the goy lemmings who mindlessly support Israel against their own interests. But that's okay -- just hold on tight to this inane assumption.

What is the evidence that the media is biased against Israel?

News Bias?

Journalists are supposed to be objective and independent, delivering reporting that is as close to the "real truth" as humanly possible. Journalists insist they belong to a profession that does just that. But, sadly, there often seems to be an unwarranted bias against Israel and in favor of Israel's opponents when covering events in the Middle East, a bias that ranges from blatant unfairness to much more subtle misrepresentation of Israel's situation.

This discussion does not include partisan publications that obviously advocate for one side or another. No one expects the Tehran Times (Iran) to have anything postive to say about Israel. Rather, the concern is with the elite media, the New York Times, CNN, and the BBC, among others, organizations that should represent the highest journalistic ethics but frequently fail to do so.

Some examples:

ABC's Nightline, in covering the March 27, 2002 suicide bombing in a Netanya hotel that had occurred just hours earlier, reduced the Israeli dead and wounded to mere statistics, while they gave Arab spokesmen free rein to portray the Palestinians as the real victims of terror attacks. Reporters rarely make clear that most Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism are innocent civilians, while most Palestinian casualties have been killed with weapons in their hands as a result of their participation in violence against Israel.


Andrea Koppel of CNN, in a report about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process which aired on October 16, 2000 said, "When Camp David ended without an agreement, Palestinian despair eventually led to violence." The reference to "dispair" implies little was offered by Israel at Camp David, when in fact most of the Palestinian demands were met. Reporters almost never ask Palestinian representatives, "Why did you resort to terror when an agreement was so close?" They rarely mention that President Clinton blamed Yasser Arafat for the collapse of the Camp David talks.


On a more subtle level, words are often chosen by reporters that bias the impression that news consumers will get from the account. For example, Palestinian terrorist killers are called "activists" or "militants". An Israeli anti-terrorist military operation will be called an "invasion" or "incursion". The term "occupied territories" is almost always used to describe the West Bank and Gaza, even though under the Oslo peace process Israel has withdrawn so that over 90% of the Arab Palestinian population has been governed by the Palestinian Authority for years. Even the nomenclature "West Bank" is misleading since that area that was historically Jewish Judea and Samaria until Jordan invaded and captured it during Israel's 1948 War of Independence.


News organizations and individuals have largely accepted the basic propaganda of the Palestinian Arabs. They accept "facts" that are not facts, probably out of ignorance of the history of the region. They refer to the "Palestinian National Authority" even though no such institution exists (Yasser Arafat inserted the word 'National' with no official standing), they say Israel violates international law when no such law applies, they speak of crimes by Israel under the Fourth Geneva Convention even though this is a complete sham, they talk of Palestinian oppression and humiliation in the "occupied territories" even though most Palestinians were better off economically and politically before the Palestinian Authority took over in 1994. And they repeat the Palestinian version of the meaning of UN resolutions like Security Council Resolution 242, an interpretation that the authors of the resolutions have disputed.

AP

Woman Staged at Security Fence, 7 Feb 2004

These examples are only the tip of a massive iceberg of biased reporting against Israel. Reasons have been advanced for such media bias and the best explanation would seem to be some combination of the following factors, operating in a different mix in the case of each individual journalist:

A three-month investigation of the foreign press in Israel concluded that some foreign correspondents do impose their private sympathies on the news they report


Palestinian intimidation of journalists and manipulation of the journalistic process in the areas they control has been rampant, although not well reported. In March 2001, Marwan Barghouti, leader of the PA's Tanzim militia, warned outright that any Israeli journalist who entered PA areas would be killed. Since then, most Israeli journalists either stay home or make sure to be accompanied by well-connected Palestinians. In 2003, Dr. Riyad Al-Hassan, the director general of the PA State Information Service (SIS), admitted in an interview that newspapers and journalists can be subjected to, "Sometimes a little punishment, [laughter] sometimes."


Ignorance of history erases the context of events and makes it easy to accept bogus claims.


Palestinians are perceived as the underdog, skillfully portrayed that way by propagandists. "Children with rocks against Israeli tanks" is a popular image, ignoring the rifles, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, and more that are utilized against Israeli troops by Palestinian fighters lurking in the background.


The open, democratic Israeli society includes vibrant debate that uncovers weaknesses, failures and contradictions. Instead of seeing this as a strength, and a mirror of American values, the press often uses it against Israel. The autocratic, media-suppressed Palestinian Authority has been more successful in "controlling the message".


Because Israel is a western, secular, democratic society, the press and the public have higher expectations of Israel and therefore find fault more quickly when Israel is less than perfect.
For an excellent discussion of media bias and how to recognize it, see "What is Bias" on the Honest Reporting web site.

Winston Mideast Analysis & Commentary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chicago Tribune as a Provocateur

Emanuel A. Winston, a Middle East analyst & commentator
February 25, 2001

Once again, the CHICAGO TRIBUNE remains consistent in twisting the news so that somehow, the reader is left with the impression that the Israelis are the aggressors and the Palestinians are the innocent victims. Their Saturday, February 24th issue is another vulgar display of the TRIBUNE'S vicious bias. Let's dissect the article by Hugh Dellios, the TRIB's foreign correspondent and their current Spinmeister of the news.

This front page article is first preceded by a large center color photograph of a Palestinian man carrying a child and leading another through a chain link fence. (Stage One in a massaged sympathy story guides the reader into thoughts that this innocent man and babes are somehow being victimized by those unfair Israelis.) This photo is juxtaposed above a provocative headline "Mideast Unrest Greets Powell's Visit". It just so happens that many Palestinians are walking along the Mediterranean Beach because the roads are blocked due to Palestinian violence with live gunfire and grenades. The man and his children are in no danger although juxtaposed with a provocative headline, it appears so. What's missing are the four mortar shells that previously fell first on Jewish homes in two separate Jewish settlements. No pictures of Jews being killed or maimed are generally featured lead visuals in the TRIBUNE'S arrangement of photos to maximize psychological waves of sympathy. The picture, the provocative headline, are all designed to set the mind of the reader to see each Israeli action as unfair, unjust and aggressive. Eliciting misleading sympathy, the photo of this man and children, the chain link fence and small sign saying: "Danger, No Entry" are all artfully composed to lure the unwary reader!

LET'S GO ON

Hugh Dellios tells us that Israelis used tanks to fire on two Palestinian Police Posts and cut the Gaza Strip in half with road closures. Now, with that lead statement and only after the reader has increased his/her anger does Dellios mention that Palestinian 'militants' (not called terrorists) fired mortar shells into two Jewish settlements. Note that, if Dellios had started with the fact that Palestinian militants had fired mortar shells into two Jewish settlements and then followed by the Israelis retali ation the reader would have an entirely different outlook. Dellios also neglected to mention that Arafat's Police have taken an adversarial position shooting Israelis along with the other shooters.

Dellios goes on to speak about the 5 month escalation of the Palestinian war of attrition when Arafat declares another Day of Rage against the Israeli 'occupation of Palestinian territories'. This escalation interferes with Colin Powell's plans to ask (demand) that Israel lift the restrictions of the Palestinian economy. This is an artful propagandistic twisting of the facts and the readers' minds.

First, the 5 month Palestinian war was in preparation for several years prior to the "Green Lights" to violence. Before Prime Minister Elect Ariel Sharon's supposed provocation of his visit to the Jewish Temple Mount, the prior two months were used as to stockpile food, medicine and weapons. The Palestinian media admitted this later. Dellios, an 'on the ball' reporter had to know this, since most of the International Press corps were well-briefed in Arafat's war preparations.

Next, Arafat ordered the violence after he already had control over 95% of the Palestinian people, plus Barak had offered half of Jerusalem, control of the Temple Mount, , the Jordan Valley, return of refugees and more. (None of which Barak had the right to offer but nevertheless, Arafat rejected even that when he issued his "Green Light".) Remember, the territories they call 'occupied' came into the hands of Israel after the Arabs initiated 4 wars (followed by another 2 wars) all intended to annihilate the Jewish State of Israel.

Then, Colin Powell, on orders from the new President George W. Bush, Jr. had no right to ask Israel to lift restrictions instituted due to attacks by Palestinians against Israelis. The Palestinian economy is now in dire straits due to their own war of attrition. The other Arab countries have stopped their financial donations to Arafat (except for Saddam Hussein). Similarly the Europeans also stopped their donations to Arafat's corrupt Palestinian Authority. But, Israel, at American request or orders is supp osed to provide dollars to the collapsing PA to pay its soldiers and buy ammunition for them to attack Israelis.

Page 2: Large composed photo of Israeli soldier sleeping on the ground next to a large artillery shell. He has what looks to be an M-14 rifle with a grenade launcher laid casually across his sleeping body. In the background is a large bulldozer. Are you getting the picture and its intent? In this one paragraph, Dellios cleverly turned the facts on their head and guided the reader toward the conclusion that all of the violence was Israel's fault. There lies the 'aggressive enemy' who is responsible for shoot ing large artillery shells and a bulldozer used to destroy Palestinian houses. This is called subliminal advertising in the parlance of the PR or Propaganda Profession.

In the copy on that page, Dellios speaks of anti-American sentiment which grows among Palestinians angry over American/British bombing strikes against Iraq. That's what Dellios says, but - this is what he means to convey:

'American readers, take notice that Arabs are blaming you for your support of Israel and they are linking the Bush strike against Saddam with your support of Israel. So,' (according to Dellios) 'Be angry with Israel. Send messages to Bush NOT to support Israel in their war against the Arafat and the Palestinian people.'

Are you beginning to wonder about whom Dellios and the CHICAGO TRIBUNE are working for and allied with?

To continue: Dellios: "After a march (by Palestinians) in Ramallah, dozens of Palestinian demonstrators hurled stones at Israeli troops. The Israeli troops responded with rubber coated steel bullets. Ten Palestinians were hurt." "Later", Dellios says, "gunman in the crowd shot at Israeli troops who returned the fire."

Note the Dellios subterfuge: The gunman didn't come from nowhere; they had to be there all the time. This has been the M.O. (Modus Operandi) of Arafat's Tanzim gunman - mingle with the stone-throwing crowd of young people used as human shields, then start shooting. Other reports state that soldiers were attacked by gunfire and grenades in Gaza.

Dellios knew this but positioned the story as if the Israelis were the attackers in conflict with a crowd of stone-throwers (usually young people brought in by cars and buses by the Tanzim to infiltrate the crowd and hopefully become photogenic martyrs). Dellios tells us that, only 'later' did the gunman shoot. Note, how Dellios artfully avoids calling them Arafat's Tanzim or terrorists. They are merely 'gunman' and not quite as aggressive.

It is all supposed to be 'spontaneous' and the Israelis are the 'aggressors'. Lucky that Dellios had paid photographers on the spot to record the 'spontaneous' flare-up! But, today there were no child martyrs so photographers had to use what was available. Apparently, the Israelis didn't hurt or kill anyone, so the TRIB had to fall back on static shots of babies and sleeping soldiers.

Dellios later speaks of Arafat calling on the E.U. (European Union) to play a more vigorous role in Middle East Peace-Making - (an Oxymoron).

Dellios did not tell his readers what he knows, namely that Arafat's original plan in his "Green Light" war of attrition was to get the E.U. and the U.N. to use international pressure to stampede Israel into total capitulation to end with a coalition of Arab nations completing their intent of six prior wars, namely elimination of the non-Muslim Jewish State of Israel.

Now, Dellios, in order to cover his very exposed journalistic a.., closes his propaganda 'tour de force' by stating in the last paragraphs:

Dellios: "The latest flare-ups began Thursday night when Palestinians fired four mortar shells into Jewish homes at the Jewish settlements of Dugit and Alei Sinai in the Northern Gaza Strip. In response, Israeli tanks shelled two Palestinian Police Stations [from which the mortars were fired]. Friday, Army bulldozers later razed the buildings.

Israel also blocked the main North-South roads, cutting the Gaza Strip in half. Hundreds of Palestinians walked along the Mediterranean Beach to get around Army roadblocks."

Now, we are back on the Front Page photo with the man and his babies going through a chain-link fence. The picture was arranged to give the impression that these civilians were victims under fire escaping and in vital danger or in a fenced concentration camp.

The TRIBUNE has often earned itself the appellation of a purveyor of yellow journalism. The TRIB has always been thought of by the Jewish people as anti-Semitic and an enemy of the Jewish State. If there was journalistic justice, these people would be drummed out of the profession as unethical provocateurs who incite hatred, with hostile articles, carefully spun to appear as accurate reporting. Surely, such biased reporting will hurt the reputations of all other Media resources (some of whom do follow their example and assist in the demonization of the Jewish State).

This is an issue that pulpit rabbis and Christian clergy would want to use as a sermon for ethical behavior. This is not a trivial passing matter since the CHICAGO TRIBUNE has a record dating from the times of Col. McCormack, the TRIBUNE'S founder, through the times of the Holocaust - up to the present of hostility toward the Jews and Israel.

We, the Jewish people, are well acquainted with the media and other institutions preparing the minds of its public for acceptance of Genocide and whatever creative malevolence they could inspire.

The moral question to be discussed is whether readers should be exposed to biased journalism which could incite hatred of Jews. Teachers in the public school system should make the biased articles of the CHICAGO TRIBUNE a class for discussion of ethical journalism. Truth in reporting should be spoken about in every pulpit, classroom and, above all, in those meeting where the editors decide what's fit to print.

1. "Mideast Unrest Greets Powell Visit: Israel Splits Gaza in Half After Shelling" by Hugh Dellios CHICAGO TRIBUNE February 24, 2001

CAMERA Letter Published in South Florida Sun-Sentinel



January 22, 2005

'Palestinian Land' still undetermined

Referring to Israel's security fence, Tim Collie wrote that "the fence runs deep into what the United Nations and many other countries regard as Palestinian territory" ("Town spotlights divide over barrier," Jan. 11).

It should be noted that the U.N.'s most authoritative body, the Security Council, does not regard the land along the fence's route as "Palestinian territory." Security Council resolutions 242, 338, 1397 and 1515 emphasize that a border between Israel and Palestinian territory—and thus the specifics of what is "Palestinian territory"—has yet to be determined.

These resolutions stress that boundaries should be secure (many, including the drafters of 242, argue that the Green Line would not be a secure border) and, more importantly, that they should be agreed upon by the parties in a negotiated settlement. Since such a negotiated settlement has yet to occur—Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat rejected the last attempt to reach a settlement—the land under the fence cannot be correctly termed "Palestinian territory."

Gilead Ini
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America Boston, Mass.

So you keep puking out HonestReporting bits, but you drop the attribution, now that they've been exposed? And then you throw CAMERA's bullshit on top of this? You're just SO wildly STOOOOOOOPID. I don't know how other Zionists can watch your stupidity and not lose it.

The Emanuel A. Winston piece was from Gamla.org

Please PLEASE everybody, go check out Gamla

http://www.gamla.org.il/english/index.htm

These are the REAL whackos

French Media Bias Against Israel Blamed for Anti-Semitic Violence
By Eva Cahen
CNSNews.com Correspondent
February 21, 2005

Paris (CNSNews.com) - As the number of violent anti-Semitic incidents continues to rise in France, critics are voicing concern that the French government itself is partly to blame because of its anti-Israeli and anti-American foreign policy.

Roger Cukierman, president of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France, cited several government policies that he said contributed to anti-Israeli sentiment, sometimes prompting anti-Semitic behavior.

Some 1,000 acts of anti-Semitic violence were recorded in France in 2004, a fifteen-fold increase over five years.

"I must express the malaise that I feel -- malaise in the face of what appears to me to be an incompatibility between France's foreign policy and its internal struggle against anti-Semitism," Cukierman said at a recent gathering of French Jewish organizations.

Among the policies that Cukierman singled out were last year's granting of a broadcast license to a Hizballah television station and the "grandiose" funeral ceremony organized for PLO leader Yasser Arafat at a French military air base before his body was flown to Egypt for a state funeral. Arafat died in Paris last November.

"I could wish that France would show as much friendship toward Israel as it does to the leaders of Arab countries," said Cukierman.

Responding to his comments, the dinner's guest of honor, Prime Minister Jean Pierre Raffarin, said he planned to travel to Israel in March, the first such visit by a French leader in five years.

In an interview with CNSNews.com, Cukierman said French anti-Israel policies could be traced back to 1967, following the Six-Day War between Israel and its Arab neighbors and after France's own Algerian war.

General Charles de Gaulle decided that it was in his country's best interest to adopt a positive attitude towards the Arab world because Jews made up a "self-assured and domineering" nation, he said.

The recent U.S.-led war in Iraq also marked President Bush as an aggressor, creating a negative association between America and Israel in the public's mind, Cukierman said.

"Public opinion today in France is that [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon and Bush are the bad guys. It's not easy to change that opinion, especially when the policy of the government goes in the same direction."

Cukierman said that a press that was not sufficiently informed about the real situation in Israel also contributed to that opinion.

He urged the government to take steps to change public opinion about Jews, beginning at a local level, with mayors organizing inter-religious meetings and school programs to teach tolerance.

"If the foreign policy of France would be changed, it would also contribute positively," he said.

France's participation in the recent commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz was a positive development, he said. Official French approval of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations would also influence public opinion in a positive way.

Philippe Karsenty, who runs a French media watchdog agency called Media Ratings, has kept an eye on bias in journalism and notes numerous instances of an anti-U.S. slant in reporting.

"The French government, especially since [President Jacques] Chirac [took office], defines itself in its opposition to the United States," said Karsenty.

"And the media never question French foreign policy. That's how the media has become anti-American."

Karsenty said complacent journalists found it easier to repeat the government line than to do their own investigations. Because state television and radio dominated broadcasting anyway, they often were forced to repeat the official position.
Alain Hertoghe wrote a book entitled La Guerre a Outrances (The War of Excesses) in 2003 about the anti-American coverage by French newspapers of the Iraq war.

Not only was his book completely ignored by the French press but as a result, Hertoghe also lost his job as deputy editor-in-chief of the online version of the Catholic newspaper, La Croix.

Karsenty's website lists what he says are examples of distorted press coverage, including an article by the newspaper Le Monde (along with the Reuters press agency) associating Bush with Hitler, Stalin and the Ayatollah Khomeini after the president was named Time magazine's Person of the Year in 2004.

French media had also emphasized their disapproval of the U.S. by referring to perpetrators of terrorist attacks in Iraq as "resistance fighters."

May 20, 2002
U.N. Bias Against Israel
U.N. institutional structures consistently are used to isolate and vilify Israel.
· Israel is the only country in the world that is not eligible to sit on the Security Council, the principal
policymaking body of the U.N. This situation violates the principle of the “sovereign equality of all member
states” of the U.N. under Article 2 of the U.N. Charter.
· Seven of the 140 items submitted for a vote in the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) in 2002 were anti-Israel.
Last year, the UNGA adopted 19 anti-Israel resolutions.
· Israel is the object of more investigative committees, special representatives and rapporteurs than any other
state in the U.N. system. For example, a special representative of the Director-General of UNESCO visited
Israel 51 times during 27 years of activity. The Director-General of the International Labour Organization
has sent a “Special Mission” to Israel and the territories every year for the past 17 years.
· The “Special Committees” and “Palestinian Units” of the U.N. spend more than $3 million a year, essentially
to spread anti-Israel propaganda. These bodies—the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of
the Palestinian People, the Division on Palestinian Rights and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli
Practices affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs—are the focus of the worst
anti-Israel activity under the aegis of the U.N. They organize, inter alia, the annual “Palestine Day” events at
the U.N., as well as symposia and other events.
· The U.N. has repeatedly held “Emergency Special Sessions” focusing solely on Israel. Originally conceived
in 1950 for emergencies like the Korean War, Emergency Special Sessions over the past 15 years have only
focused on Israel. No Emergency Special Sessions were convened to examine the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic
cleansing in the former Yugoslavia or other major world conflicts.
· The U.N. routinely attempts to circumvent the founding principle of direct negotiations. The UNGA passes
annual resolutions that undermine the principles of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, based on direct
negotiations between the two parties. By proposing specific solutions to issues such as Jerusalem, the Golan
Heights and settlements, the U.N. pre-judges the outcome of negotiations. Ironically, it was the U.N. Security
Council that proposed bilateral negotiations through Resolution 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).
The U.N. has failed to investigate Palestinian actions supporting terrorism.
· The U.N. has never initiated any inquiry into Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority’s role in aiding and
abetting terrorists, or passed one resolution condemning any terrorist organization operating against Israel.
· One glaring example of the U.N.’s biased policy against Israel is the concealment and vehement denial of the
existence of videotape of Hezbollah’s abduction of three Israeli soldiers made by U.N. peacekeeping forces in
Lebanon. For 11 months, the U.N. lied to the world and denied the existence of any evidence related to the
abduction. When the cover-up was exposed, revealing the existence of the videotape, the U.N. eventually
showed Israel a heavily edited videotape with the faces of the terrorists blurred. When asked the reason

March 9, 2003 by Deborah Passner

STUDY: Chicago Tribune Headline Bias



Headlines are meant to capture the reader’s attention and often determine whether people choose to read an article at all. In many instances, they are the only information readers derive about a story. Moreover, since the headline precedes other details, it greatly influences the reader’s interpretation of information that follows in the text. For these reasons, it is especially important that newspaper headlines be consistent, accurate and specific.

The Chicago Tribune, one of America’s most prominent newspapers, has a significant headline problem. In looking at seven months of coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, CAMERA found notable differences in the nearly 200 headlines for stories reporting Israeli versus Palestinian actions.

The analysis considered all Chicago Tribune headlines that related to Israelis or Palestinians taking, or threatening to take (often violent), action against the other party during the period of June 1, 2002 to Dec. 31, 2002. Each headline was assigned to one (sometimes two) of four categories: Israelis identified taking action, Israelis taking action but not identified, Palestinians identified taking action, Palestinians taking action but not identified. The study considered “Arafat,” “Fatah” and “Hamas” as “Palestinian.” “Sharon” and “West Bank settlers” were classified as “Israel.” The analysis included only news events that involved both Arabs and Israelis.

The results were dramatic.

When Israel was acting against Palestinians, Israel was named in the headline 78 percent of the time. In contrast, when reporting Palestinian belligerency the Tribune identified Palestinians by name in only 19 percent of the headlines.

During a seven month span in which nearly 50 suicide bombers and gunmen blew up or shot to death nearly 200 Israelis, the Chicago Tribune never used the terms “Palestinian suicide bomber” or “Palestinian kills” and only once used “ Palestinian gunman” in headlines.

When the Tribune reported Palestinian attacks against Israel, the newspaper only indentified “Palestinians” by name in three headlines. It should be noted that the Tribune regularly employed “Palestinian” to identify the target or victim of Israeli actions, underscoring that the length of the word did not preclude its use.

One Week in August
For example, a reader of the paper who only skimmed the headlines for the first week of August would extract the following information:

• 7 die in Israeli campus attack (Aug. 1) • Israel hits Nablus in wake of deadly campus bombing (Aug. 3)
• Israel says deadly attack was mistake (Aug. 3)
• Israeli army raids Nablus; dozens held (Aug. 3)
• Israel presses searches in Nablus (Aug. 4)
• Israelis comb Nablus for suspects (Aug. 4)
• Bomb explodes on bus in Israel (Aug. 4)
• Wave of attacks stuns Israel (Aug. 5)
• Israel cracks down in wake of attacks (Aug. 6)
• Israeli forces hit houses in Gaza (Aug. 7)

In just one week, Israel was identified to have participated in seven aggressive actions. Israel was specifically named as it “hit houses,” “crack[ed] down,” “search[ed],” “raid[ed]” and “hit” its adversary–and as it committed a “deadly attack” that was “a mistake.”

In contrast, the Tribune completely omitt ed direct mention of Palestinian participation in violence. Palestinians were not identified even once as perpetrators of violence although that week they were responsible for a suicide bombing that killed nine, a bomb planted in Hebrew University’s cafeteria that also killed nine, and lethal shootings that targeted civilians and killed both parents of three young children.

The Chicago Tribune printed more than twice as many headlines in this first week of August that described the Israeli response to the terrorist attacks than the paper printed on the assaults themselves. One might assume the Tribune ran such a disproportionate number of stories about the Israeli response because Israel engaged in more separate reportable actions than the Palestinians. However, there were many events the Chicago Tribune chose to omit.

For example, Israel foiled 10 suicide bombings in just that week, including preventing a 17-year-old girl from carryi ng out a suicide mission. No headline alerted readers to this. Yet the foiled attack was arguably as newsworthy as the demolition of terrorists’ homes, which was reported. The same week, Palestinian terrorists pulled up next to the car of a young family and shot to death the parents driving with their now orphaned children. There was no headline here either.

Seven Month Period
It is also revealing to compare the headlines of those events that entailed a high casualty count during the seven month analysis. Mass deaths were more frequently inflicted on Israelis but even in these cases the Palestinian perpetrators were rarely identified. In the many fewer events in which Israel caused a comparably large Palestinian death toll, Israel was invariably named.

“Israeli strike kills at least 12 in Gaza; Targeted Hamas chief among dead” (July 23) was the headline for the story about an air strike that killed terrorist leader Salah Shehade h along with 14 civilians. Other titles for stories involving multiple Palestinian casualties read: “5 killed as Israeli troops sweep town” (Nov. 20); “ 9 Palestinians die as Israel hits Gaza” (Sept. 24); “5 killed in Israeli Helicopter strike;” (Sept. 1);“Israeli tank fire kills 4 in Jenin; 3 children among the fatalities in curfew ‘disaster’” (June 22).

Such headlines in which Israel is clearly identified as a perpetrator sharply contrast with the portrayal of Palestinian actions that kill and wound a large number of Israeli civilians. “20 die in blast, Israel vows to retake West Bank lands” (June 19) was the headline for a story about a Palestinian suicide bomber who detonated himself on a crowded bus.

“Jewish school raid ends with 6 deaths; Israeli army holds car-bomb suspect” (Dec. 28) was the grossly misleading headline for an attack in which Palestinian terrorists infiltrated a school where students were celebrating the Sabbath meal.

“Car bomb near Israeli bus kills at least 14” (June 5) was the title for the story about a Palestinian suicide terrorist who exploded a van packed with explosives alongside an Israeli bus.

The headline that read “Wave of attacks stuns Israel” (Aug. 5) was a report about a one-day total of six attacks that killed more than a dozen and wounded nearly 100 Israelis. If the newspaper followed the style of headlines applied to Israeli actions, the story would have read “Six Palestinian attacks kill 13 and wound dozens.”

Although every one of these attacks was committed by Palestinians, the attackers were never named.

The Chicago Tribune is also more likely to identify in headlines young Palestinian victims. While it specified in seven headlines that Palestinian children were killed, not once did the newspaper report in the headline that Israelis murdered were children.

The repeated identification of Israelis alone as perpetr ators reinforces their allegedly aggressive or belligerent participation in the conflict whereas the almost total omission of “Palestinian” in the headlines obscures Palestinian involvement in aggression. Furthermore, the disproportionate number of headlines emphasizing Israeli actions misleadingly implicates Israel as the primary initiator in the conflict and violence. One can only speculate at the cumulative effect on readers, many of whom may not read the text that follows, of headlines that continually characterize Israel as the aggressor while omitting identification of Palestinians as perpetrators.

For a complete list of Chicago Tribune headlines about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, click here.




Copyright © 2003 by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. All rights reserved. This column may be reprinted without prior permission.

So now we have another screed from CAMERA, the pre-eminent pro-Israel propaganda pukehole

That first one is from CNS News, a propaganda organ of the Media Research Center (MRC), an extreme-right media advocacy group funded by scary-ass billionaire extremist Richard Mellon Scaife, who is also behind the Heritage Foundation. Scaife is largely responsible for America's present resemblance to Nazi Germany. Using the MYTH of the U.S. media's "strident liberal bias" as a smokescreen (a myth this organization has itself MANUFACTURED), MRC earns Scaife's money with its real work of relentlessly PROMOTING right-wing bias in media.

You know, kinda like how CAMERA and HonestReporting are actually about PROMOTING pro-Israel bias...

Next month in Washington, MRC is throwing a "gala" featuring America's leading fascist media workers, glassy-eyed goose-stepping freakazoids like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and his punk-ass kid David. Also making appearances will be: infamous right-wing traitor Oliver North; The "Honorable" Clarence Thomas; and Katherine Harris of 2000 Florida election vote-rigging fame -- now a right-wing celebrity of course. While they're at it, they should invite the Gambinos and Hoffas, too.
On its fascinating "affiliations" page, CNS News boasts of its endorsements from and "accreditation" by the Pentagon, the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate, and -- get this --
KNESSET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.cnsnews.com/corporate/affiliations.asp
Gee willikers, that's funny. I didn't know those were media organizations.
Of course, no mention of where their actual FUNDING comes from:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Media_Research_Center

Oh, and the second thing was a screed from -- get this folks -- AIPAC
http://www.aipac.org/unbias.pdf
HAAAAHAAHAAAHAAAHAAHAHAHAHAhaaaaaaaaa!!!
What a SCREAM!!! Thanks Sefarad, that's the best laugh I've had all day!
Did you actually think I wouldn't find this out?

We Must End Media Bias Against Israel
by I.H. Asper, O.C., O.M., Q.C. - October 31, 2002
Throughout my lifetime I have had an unshakeable commitment to three cornerstones of my personal value system: my first commitment is to this great nation, Canada. My second is to Israel as a symbol and teacher of excellence for all of humankind, and the third is to the media as the most honourable and steadfast advocate, defender and distributor of truth, honesty, fairness, freedom, democracy and human rights.
With a combination of sadness, fear and anger, I must now tell you that both Israel and the honour of the news media are under grievous assault. And, even more painful for me, even though at first glance those two pillars should be separate, I regret to say, they are both threatened by the same cancer and have thus become inextricably linked. This is because dishonest reporting is destroying the trust in and credibility of the media and the journalists, and the same dishonest reporting is biased against Israel, thus destroying the world's favourable disposition toward it.

I want to make it clear that I am not here speaking for our own media company, CanWest Global Communications, but only as a concerned Canadian and a long-time journalist myself. As well because my company competes with most Canadian media, I will not make specific reference to our competitors' record, with one exception. That exception is the CBC -- because all Canadians own it and the governments we elect are responsible to us and it for its quality, and integrity.

Before turning to specific examples and analyzing the causes of this outrage, we should touch on some fundamental lies on which many reporters and analysts base their view of the war.

The first and worst lie is what this war is all about. Dishonest reporting tells you that it's about territory, and Jerusalem, and Palestinian statehood, and alleged refugees. Honest reporting would tell you that it is a war to destroy Israel and kill or expel or subjugate all the Jews. That is proved by the words and deeds of all the key Arab Palestinian leaders. But the media has bought and reported dishonestly and relentlessly the big lie. That big lie is that this war could be ended by Israeli land concessions.

The second fundamental big lie disseminated by world media, including those in Canada, is what gave rise to the current version of the Arab war of extermination of Israel and the Jewish people -- the so-called al-Aqsa uprising or intifada.

The truth is that when Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, one of the world's most cruel and vicious terrorists for the past 30 years, that corrupt dictator and thief of billions of dollars of world-intended aid for his people, could not get the extravagant concessions he demanded from the Clinton Camp David meetings, he planned the uprising of terrorism as a means of intimidating the U.S. and Israel into giving in to his maniacal demands.

But he needed an excuse, an appealing argument in which to clothe his new latest war.

And so, in early September 2000, when parliamentary opposition leader Ariel Sharon (he wasn't even prime minister) told both Israelis and Palestinian officials he intended to visit the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, legally part of Israel which is co-sited with the Muslim al-Aqsa mosque, they agreed and both Palestinian and Israeli Security detachments accompanied him on his brief tour.

This was the opportunity Arafat sought. He immediately unleashed the rioting, stone-throwing and armed attacks allegedly as a "spontaneous" uprising against Israel allegedly in response to Sharon's provocation!

It was then that most of the world media bought the propaganda that launched the second big lie of the current warfare: "Sharon's visit provokes Palestinian rebellion." They didn't even ask the fundamental question: Is this true?

The third big lie is that the current conflict arises from Palestinian frustration over the slowness of the so-called "peace process."

The central, and conveniently ignored, fact is that the current warfare is merely the latest chapter in a war against the Jewish people. That war began in earnest 85 years ago, when in 1917, Britain and the League of Nations declared, with world approval, that a Jewish state would be established in Palestine.

The region's Arabs have engaged in terrorist slaughter, riots and multi Muslim states military invasion against the Jewish nation ever since. The only periodic lulls in this savage and often barbaric assault, specializing in seeking women, children and elderly victims, has occurred when the Arabs have been resoundingly defeated.

Then, they sue for peace, issue poor-me hand-wringing pleas for international help, and use the lull in the battle to regroup, re-arm and plot their next assault -- and it is routinely launched.

Any reportage or commentary that is not clothed in this context is, at best, misleading, or ignorant and plain dishonest at worst.

A great deal of the dishonesty arises from the failure to report and the failure to opine on many factors which must be considered in judging the Middle East war. Such as:

- Failure to report honestly an incident in February, 2002. CNN reported "Israeli police shot and killed a Palestinian in a gun battle Sunday near an army base in northern Israel and another Palestinian died nearby when a car exploded."

CNN failed to report that the two Palestinians were in the process of attempted double suicide bombings. They were strapped with explosive belts.

- Failure to report that money granted to the Palestinian Authority by Canada has gone to produce anti-Israel propaganda distributed to Palestinian children.

- Failure to report how the Saudi, Syrian and Egyptian media continue to write and propagate the myth that Jews use human blood for their holiday celebrations.

If the omissions don't adequately make the case of planned and engineered media bias, then the commissions of misleading reporting certainly cement a bulletproof case against the media.

And now let me turn to by far the worst offender in Canada.

- The CBC, along with The New York Times and other left-wing media, will still not label the Palestinian murderers as terrorists. By any world recognized definition of terrorism, they are terrorists, but the CBC, particularly in the person of Neil Macdonald, simply refers to them as "militants."

- CNN has reported that 30 Palestinian women have died in labour while being held up at Israeli checkpoints. The story is a complete fabrication, generated from Palestinian spokesperson, Nabil Sha'ath. To this day, CNN has neither published a categorical withdrawal nor the main proven fact, that not a single woman had died.

- To prove that many journalists have been enlisted in the propaganda army of the Palestinians, in May last year, Fayad Abu Shamala, the BBC correspondent in Gaza for the past 10 years, spoke at a Hamas rally and declared: "Journalist and media organizations are waging the campaign soldier-to-soldier together with the Palestinian people."

BBC countered outraged complaints against his journalistic ethics, by saying that his remarks were made in a "private capacity."

But if nothing else in this entire sad and sordid story irrefutably demonstrates the dishonest reporting and inherent media bias against Israel, it is the Jenin massacre myth on which the herd of ravenous reporters descended with vulture-like hysteria.

Hysterical, hyperbolical Palestinian propagandists shrieked "massacre -- 5,000 innocents slaughtered," and the United Nations, the Third World pawns, dutifully closed ranks to condemn Israel, as is routine for that corrupt organization. Soon the Palestinians reduced their alleged death toll to 3,000. Then the number of alleged deaths claimed mysteriously dropped to a mere 500, but the media still sang the massacre melody.

Finally, when the UN Commission declared that only 54 Palestinians had died, and over half of them were armed combatants, the myth exploded. However, few media apologized or retracted the charges of "genocide," "war crimes" and "heinous Israeli atrocities" they had falsely trumpeted to the world.

Why is this happening? The answer is plain to see.

Firstly, too many of the journalists are lazy, or sloppy, or stupid. They are ignorant of the history of the subject on which they are writing.

Others are, plain and simple, biased, or anti-Semitic, or are taken captive by a simplistic ideology.

The result is that the biggest casualties of the Palestinian-Israeli war are truth, and the integrity of the media.

Every one of us must do what we can to correct this travesty. It is time to say "enough!"

The solution starts on the campus, and in the journalism schools, then it goes to the boardrooms of the media owners, and finally, and most importantly, with the public.

At this time, the appropriate position for all Canadians should be to stand tall in support of honesty in reporting, as well as for the right of Israel to exist and to take whatever actions it needs to battle its savage attackers, and to demand that our media and our politicians act with honour in this quest.

I.H. Asper is President of the Asper Foundation and Executive Chairman of CanWest Global Communications Corp. This an excerpt of Mr. Asper's speech to the Israel Bonds Gala in Montreal last night.


http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/oct02/bias.html

So Sefarad, is this still you, or is 'Milton' what's known as a 'ringer?' All you guys are really doing is giving me a superb education on the workings of the international Zionism's massive propaganda machine. Thank you so much.

By submitting THIS particular linked version of the late ISRAEL "Izzy" Asper's speech, out of the 40-some available, "Milton" is obfuscating the fact that Izzy and the other Aspers (an extremely powerful family) aren't Christian at all, but card-carrying off-the-deep-end Zionist Jews, the Canadian JDL, as it were. Or as one source puts it:

"Mr. Asper is Jewish and you could say that his politics run to the right of Ariel Sharon."

...and pro-Israel extremists, natch:
http://www.adbusters.org/metas/corpo/canwestwatch/asperbias.html

Five years ago, the Asper Family's media company, CanWest Global Communications Corp., purchased the Hollinger and Southam newspapers, thus abruptly becoming Canada's largest newspaper publisher. Prior to this, they were already dominant in Canadian television, second only to the CBC. In the case of Canada, at least, the Aspers substantiate the claim that "Jews control the media," which Zionists always represent as pure racist propaganda. Since acquiring them, the Aspers have imposed an extreme authoritarian editorial culture on these papers -- particularly on the subject of Israel -- that many Canadians have found alarming. For instance, the Aspers have used their newspaper empire to bombard all of Canada with their personal political views, in the guise of "editorials." You'll never see a CanWest rag breathe a critical word about Israel, unless it's to complain about Tel Aviv's ongoing failure to go ahead and nuke the Palestinians out of existence, along with all the other Ay-rab "cockroaches." Izzy Asper's kvetching against anti-Israel bias is thus typical of all such blatting, which is really a sneaky attempt to silence its critics and PROMOTE PRO-Israel bias.

For the Aspers' unfortunate employees, going along with all this is a condition of employment. Of course, those who aren't Zionist extremists themselves have probably mostly hit the road by now anyway.

Izzy Asper's snarling, venomous, defamatory hatred of the U.N. was typical of extreme Zionist ideologues:

"...and the United Nations, the Third World pawns, dutifully closed ranks to condemn Israel, as is routine for that corrupt organization."

Third World pawns. Yuh-huh. So I guess this means the U.N. thinks the consensus of the Third World (80% of the world's people) should outweigh that of Zionist Jews (±0.2%). Gee, how ... democratic ... of them (WTF?). Or is it their recognition of the way Israel's policies irritate, alienate, and polarize hundreds of millions worldwide, thus destabilizing international relationships? Again, all Asper really expressed here was his own gross PRO-Israel bias, which is clearly why he hated anyone anywhere who criticized it.

As for this website, christianactionforisrael.org, I'm hardly convinced it's a *Christian*-controlled propaganda outlet. It's been impossible to find out who's behind it, and EVERY single article relates only to Israel and JEWISH Zionism, no mention of Christian subjects of interest anywhere, e.g. Christian Zionist whacko theology. This is pretty bizarre for a "Christian" site. This featured page is exemplary:
"I Am A Zionist, Because..." by Gil Troy
http://christianactionforisrael.org/because.html

Their "Our Goals" page is also revealing, in that it has nothing to do with CHRISTIAN objectives, but only goes on about "Jewish this, Jewish that." It's also similar to such statements from CAMERA or "Honest" Reporting

- Counter the increasing proliferation of destructive anti-semitism and anti-Israel misinformation, EXPOSE THE PREVAILING ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA (gee, where have I heard that one before?)

- Expose and counter Holocaust denial and revisionism.

- Support just Jewish causes, combat wrongful treatment of Jews and hostility towards the modern state of Israel and its' still chosen people as God moves to fulfil their destiny according to His covenant with them as a people.

- Be a research source in respect to the above mentioned matters.

This site is just cut and dried JEWISH Zionist propaganda, not even faintly disguised as anything else

Nice work. Keep trying

Eat it up, Sefarad, not that it will do you any good -- It assumes the reader has a triple-digit IQ.

I haven't read the whole thing, so I haven't seen the part where it says to blat and whine interminably about all the nasty bias against Israel in "mainstream media." Nonetheless, among Zionist bullshit artists this is clearly a popular principle

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WEXNER ANALYSIS:
ISRAELI COMMUNICATION PRIORITIES 2003

OVERVIEW:

The world has changed. The words, themes and messages on behalf of Israel must include and embrace the new reality of a post-Saddam world.

In the past, we have urged a lower profile for Israel out of a fear that the American people would blame Israel for what was happening in the rest of the Middle East. Now is the time to link American success in dealing with terrorism and dictators from a position of strength to Israel's ongoing efforts to eradicate terrorism on and within its borders. In the current political environment, you have little to lose and a lot to gain by aligning with America. With all the anti-Americanism across the globe and all the protests and demonstrations, we are looking for allies that share our commitment to security and an end to terrorism and are prepared to say so. Israel is a just such an ally.

THE NEXT STEP

The fact that Israel has remained relatively silent for the three months preceding the war and for the three weeks of the war was absolutely the correct strategy - and according to all the polling done, it worked. But as the military conflict comes to a close, it is now time for Israel to lay out its own "road map" for the future which includes unqualified support for America and unqualified commitment to an ongoing war against terrorism.

Perceptions of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are being almost entirely colored and often overshadowed by the continuing action in Iraq. Partisan differences still exist (the political Left remains your problem) and complaints about Israeli heavy-handedness still exist. Advocates of Israel have about two weeks to get their message in order before world attention turns to the so-called "road map" and how best to "solve" the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Developing that message is the purpose of this memo.

Author's note: This is not a policy document. This document is strictly a communications manual. As with every memo we provide, we have used the same scientific methodology to isolate specific words, phrases, themes and messages that will resonate with at least 70% of the American audience. There will certainly be some people, particularly those on the political left, who will oppose whatever words you use, but the language that follows will help you secure support from a large majority of Americans. These recommendations are based on two "dial test" sessions in Chicago and Los Angeles conducted during the first ten days of the Iraqi war for the Wexner Foundation.


ESSENTIAL CONCLUSIONS

This document is rather long because it is impossible to communicate all that is needed in simple one-sentence sound-bites. Yes, we have provided those on the pages that follow, but we have taken the space to explain why the language is so important and the context in which it needs to be used. If you only read two pages, these are the key conclusions:


1) Iraq colors all. Saddam is your best defense, even if he is dead. The worldview Americans is entirely dominated by developments in Iraq. This is a unique opportunity for Israelis to deliver a message of support and unity at a time of great international anxiety and opposition from some of our European "allies." For a year - a SOLID YEAR - you should be invoking the name of Saddam Hussein and how Israel was always behind American efforts to rid the world of this ruthless dictator and liberate their people. Saddam will remain a powerful symbol of terror to Americans for a long time to come. A pro-Israeli expression of solidarity with the American people in their successful effort to remove Saddam will be appreciated.


2) Stick to your message but don't say it the same way twice. We have seen this in the past but never so starkly as today. Americans are paying very close attention to international developments and are particularly sensitive to any kind of apparent dogma or canned presentations. If they hear you repeating the exact same words over and over again, they will come to distrust your message. If your speakers can't find different ways to express similar principles, keep them off the air.


3) It DOES NOT HELP when you compliment President Bush. When you want to identify with and align yourself with America, just say it. Don't use George Bush as a synonym for the United States. Even with the destruction of the Hussein regime and all the positive reactions from the Iraqi people, there still remains about 20% of America that opposes the Iraqi war, and they are overwhelmingly Democrat. That leaves about half the Democrats who support the war even if they don't support George Bush. You antagonize the latter half unnecessarily every time you compliment the President. Don't do it.


4) Conveying sensitivity and a sense of values is a must. Most of the best-performing sound bites mention children, families, and democratic values. Don't just say that Israel is morally aligned with the U.S. Show it in your language. The children component is particularly important. It is essential that you talk about "the day, not long from now, when Palestinian children and Israeli children will play side-by-side as their parents watch approvingly."
5) "SECURITY" sells. Security has become the key fundamental principle for all Americans. Security is the context by which you should explain Israeli need for loan guarantees and military aid, as well as why Israel can't just give up land. The settlements are our Achilles heel, and the best response (which is still quite weak) is the need for security that this buffer creates.


6) The language in this document will work, but it will work best when it is accompanied with passion and compassion. Too many supporters of Israel speak out of anger or shout when faced with opposition. Listeners are more likely to accept your arguments if they like how you express them. They will bless these words but they will truly accept them if and only if they accept you.


7) Find yourself a good female spokesperson. In all our testing, women are found to be more credible than men. And if the woman has children, that's even better.


8) Link Iraqi liberation with the plight of the Palestinian people. It is likely that the most effective argument(s) you have right now are those that link the right of the Iraqi people to live in freedom with the right of the Palestinian people to be governed by those who truly represent them. If you express your concern for the plight of the Palestinian people and how it is unfair, unjust and immoral that they should be forced to accept leaders who steal and kill in their name, you will be building credibility for your support of the average Palestinian while undermining the credibility of their leadership.


9) A little humility goes a long way. You saw this with your own eyes. You need to talk continually about your understanding of "the plight of the Palestinians" and a commitment to helping them. Yes, this IS a double standard (no one expects anything pro-Israeli from the Palestinians) but that's just the way things are. Humility is a bitter pill to swallow, but it will inoculate you against critiques that you have not done enough for peace. Admit mistakes, but then show how Israel is the partner always working for peace.


10) Of course rhetorical questions work, don't they? Ask a question to which there is only one answer is hard to lose. It is essential that your communication be laced with rhetorical questions, which is how Jews talk anyway.


11) Mahmoud Abbas is still a question mark. Leave him that way. You stand much more to lose by attacking him now. But similarly, he is not worthy of praise. Talk about your hopes for the future, but lay out the principles you expect him to uphold: an end to violence, a recognition of Israel, reform of his own government, etc.

THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT WORDS: SADDAM HUSSEIN (STILL)

This document is about language, so let me be blunt. "Saddam Hussein" are the two words that tie Israel to America and are most likely to deliver support in Congress. They also just happen to be two of the most hated words in the English language right now.

Without being repetitive, Americans fundamentally believe that a democracy has a right to protect its people and its boarders. Unfortunately, as a democracy, we tend to dwell on our failures (Vietnam, Watergate, etc.) more than our successes. It is essential for the long-term support of a strong military and a commitment to national security that we remind people again and again...and again that there are times when it is necessary to take preventative action and that military intervention is better than appeasement.

A WARNING

There are some who would say that Saddam Hussein is already old news. They don't understand history. They don't understand communication. They don't understand how to integrate and leverage history and communication for the benefit of Israel. The day we allow Saddam to take his eventual place in the trash heap of history is the day we loose our strongest weapon in the linguistic defense of Israel.

References to the successful outcome of the war with Iraq benefit Israel. While Americans don't want to increase foreign aid in a time of significant budgetary deficits and painful spending cuts, there is one and only one argument that will work for continuing Israeli aid (in four easy steps):

THE ISRAELI AID MESSAGE TREE

(1) As a democracy, Israel has the right and the responsibility to defend its borders and protect its people.

(2) Prevention works. Even with the collapse of Saddam's regime, terrorist threats remain throughout our region.

(3) Israel is America's one and only true ally in the region. In these particularly unstable and dangerous times, Israel should not be forced to go it alone.

(4) With America's financial assistance, Israel can defend its borders, protect its people, and provide invaluable assistance to the American effort in the war against terrorism.

This is important. All the arguments about Israel being a democracy, letting Arabs vote and serve in government, protecting religious freedom, etc., won't deliver the public support you need to secure the loan guarantees and the military aid Israel needs. All the language we have written in past memos will not work when it comes to U.S. tax dollars. You need a national security angle - one that clearly links the interests of both Israel and America:


WORDS THAT WORK:
SELLING ISRAEL AID (I)

"It was Israel who risked their pilots and planes in taking out Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactors and thus thwarted his quest for nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

It was Israel who provided much of the intelligence that helped America defeat Iraq back in 1991.

It was Israel alone among Middle Eastern nations that supported America's successful effort to remove Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of Iraq.

We stood without you against the Saddam regime from beginning to end. Israel has been a key regional asset and military ally of the United States for more than 50 years. That relationship must continue, even and especially in the post-Saddam era. It is a partnership of democracies devoted to the war against terrorism and the fight for freedom."


As we have seen, the news cycle during and immediately following a war is is not a matter of idle curiosity, it is compulsory viewing. Even more than in Israel, where conflict has tragically been almost commonplace, war means a new and real threat to personal and familial security in America. And Saddam Hussein, dead or alive, still embodies that threat.

Americans have been thinking and talking about the war on terror for almost a year and a half now, and they have come to conclude that Saddam Hussein is a sponsor of world terror and is a particular threat to the democracies of the world. New and shocking revelations about the brutality of his regime are discovered daily, which only reinforces American support of military action. But the fact that Hussein was a direct threat to Israel is especially important. Israel opposed his cruel ambitions for decades - a decade longer than the U.S. Remind audiences that Israel and America have common values, but then stress that we also share common enemies.

But deterrence is only half the message. You really do need to emphasize your historic willingness to compromise and sacrifice on behalf of America. This may not play well among some Israeli politicians but it will certainly play extremely well in the States.


WORDS THAT WORK

"During the Gulf War, Iraq attacked Israel with Scud missiles 39 times. Israel stood by each time, not knowing if the next missile contained biological and chemical weapons. Israel chose restraint instead of war, because it was what the U.S. asked. It was Israel's way to support our ally, America, and its troops during the Persian Gulf War. We put supporting American priorities higher than our own. But now, with our national security at stake, we need America's financial help."


RESPONDING TO PALESTINIAN PRESSURE

While the Chicago and Los Angeles sessions yielded significant new language and several new communication "principles," most of our previous observations hold true. Too many in the Jewish community are too linguistically hostile at a time when the other 97% of America wants a resolution to the conflict. In particular, you cannot just issue recriminations, however justified, against the Palestinian Authority and expect American elites to be suddenly convinced of your righteousness. All the evidence and common sense can be on your side, but the hostility and negativity will be rejected as biased and one-sided.

Here's a specific example:


WORDS THAT DON'T WORK

"There is no moral equivalency. On one side you have duly elected and appointed Israeli officials from a democracy that has been operating for more than half a century. On the other side you have corrupt Palestinian officials who have lied, cheated and stolen from their people. Israel will not negotiate until they have someone to negotiate with."


While the statement above is perfectly accurate and justified, it will not work. Individually, the words are good, the facts are accurate and the message is correct. But this communication effort fails miserably because it is regarded as a complete rejection of negotiations and peace. Listeners see it as accusatory and contentious - exactly what they don't want to hear and will not accept. We have a better approach, one that says virtually the same thing but in a more effective way:


WORDS THAT DO WORK

"Whatever the root causes of the Palestinian-Israeli crisis, there are certain tragic cultural facts and differences that stand in the way of peace negotiations between the people of Israel and the Palestinians. No Israeli child has ever strapped a bomb to his back and gone off to kill civilian Palestinians, and yet the Palestinian leadership does too little to dispel the notion among its more extreme citizens that killing Israelis with a suicide bomb is the surest route to heaven. How can Israel deal with a population of parents that stand aside or even encourage their children to become martyrs?"

Yes, this is harsher and more explicit than the previous paragraph, but it works for several reasons:

(1) The human touch. Mentioning parents and children humanizes and personalizes the terror that Israel has to face every day.

(2) The rhetorical question. Even pro-Palestinians have a tough time answering that final question. It's time for Israeli spokespeople to ask a lot more unanswerable rhetorical questions as part of their communication effort.

(3) Acknowledging a cultural difference between Israelis and Palestinians is stating the obvious - and good for your case. Even those Americans that have sympathies for the Palestinian struggle have an easier time relating to the Israelis because of the similarities between America and Israel in culture, tradition and values.

With this in mind, we have identified four specific spokesperson themes and emotions that appeal to American opinion influencers when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and whatever negotiations may or will take place:


OPTIMISTIC

"I am hopeful that with the end of this war, the peoples of the Middle East will celebrate life and freedom. I am hopeful that the scenes of Iraqis throwing off the yoke of tyranny and fear will serve as a model for all peoples of the region. Yes, I do have hope that by reaching out to the stars, we can bring something good back to earth."

RESPECTFUL

"What we are hoping for is that the Palestinian people recognize the leadership they have right now has unfortunately a very different agenda than the agenda of the real Palestinian people...We do not have the right to tell the Palestinians who to elect to represent them but we hope they will choose leaders that will listen and truly care about them. "

THE HUMAN ELEMENT

"It's very difficult for us. We know that going into these Palestinian cities creates hardships and dilemmas for the Palestinians. But it is even more difficult to look our own children in the face knowing that that there are people in these cities planning to commit terrorist acts and not go in there and try to stop them before they kill."

DEDICATED TO DEMOCRACY

"We all know the importance of bringing genuine democracy and human rights to all nations and to uproot the ideology of terrorism. That is what we have tried to do, and we will keep on trying."


We have tested about 75-minutes of new language in Chicago and Los Angeles. Much of it was ineffective ... or worse. However, we did uncover some messages that do move opinion elites from neutral to positive. Of all the language that deals with the Palestinians directly, here's what works the best:



PALESTINIAN SOUND-BITES THAT WORK


Advocates of Israel will do well if they adopt the language that follows:

"The Palestinians deserve better leadership and they deserve a better society-with functioning institutions, democracy, and the rule of law."


"We are hoping to find a Palestinian leadership that really does reflect the best interest for the Palestinian people."


"As a matter of principle, Israel will sit down, negotiate and compromise with those that wish all the peoples of the Middle East to live together in peaceful coexistence. Egypt made peace with Israel. Jordan made peace with Israel. And both agreements still live on today."


"We know what it is to live our lives with the daily threat of terrorism. We know what it's like to send our children off to school one day and bury them the next. For us, terrorism isn't something we read about in the newspaper. It's something we see with our own eyes far too often."


"We don't want to sign a meaningless agreement that isn't worth the paper it is printed on. We want something real. If there is to be a just, fair and lasting peace, we need a partner who rejects violence and who values life more than death."


"As a matter of principle, the world should not force Israel to concede to those who publicly deny our right to exist or call for our annihilation."


"Right now, today, there are still terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs that the Palestinian Authority has either been unable or unwilling to curb-and Israelis continue to die because of it."


"Just as the American government pledges to secure for you life, liberty, and the chance to pursue happiness, so must Israel's government guarantee that we will be secure and free."



DEMOCRACY: CONNECTING IRAQ AND THE PALESTINIANS

"My earnest hope is that with regime change in Iraq, democracy may finally take firm root in the Middle East. If the Palestinian people and the people of other Middle Eastern nations are able to see the brilliant example of a successful Arabic democracy, I am confident the tide will turn.

Obviously it is wrong to assume that overwhelming American support for regime change in Iraq is fully transferable to changing the Palestinian leadership. Americans view them as separate issues - at least right now. That being said, your support for the American efforts to liberate the people of Iraq can and should be tied to our mutual interest in guaranteeing freedom for the Palestinian people.

Americans want democracy to flourish in the Middle East. There is genuine hope that the Iraqi people will establish a representative government with genuine freedoms. In that vein, remind people that the Iraqi people need not look any further than their Israeli neighbors for an example of such a government.

Democracy loves company. So far, one of Israel's most effective messages has been that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It's time to take that message one step further. Emphatically state that while you are proud of Israel's democracy, you would much rather be the FIRST democracy in the Middle East than the ONLY democracy in the Middle East. Consider the following communication ladder that draws the attention first to Iraq and only then to the Palestinians.

(1) Democracy matters. Never in the history of the world has a democratic government engaged in war with another democracy.

(2) Democracy in Iraq matters. Iraq's transition to democracy is an essential first step towards a stable Middle East.

(3) Democracy can bring peace. True regional peace will come only when governments truly represent the interests of their people and guarantee their freedom and security.

(4) It's time for true democracy for the Palestinian people. They deserve no less.

This may seem simplistic but the message works when delivered this way and in this order. Americans sincerely hope that Iraq - a former adversary - can become a partner in peace once a representative government is installed. Insofar as they yearn for freedom and deserve representative leadership, the Palestinian people are no different. This is exactly what Israel has asked of the Palestinian Authority for so long: to establish a legitimate government that will become a partner in peace.



TALKING ABOUT HOPE & THE FUTURE: FOUR KEY SENTENCES

(1) We hope that we can once again achieve peace with an Arab neighbor.

(2) We hope that terror will no longer be the only thing that separates Palestinians from having their own state and Israelis from living in peace.

(3) We hope that the Palestinian people will no longer languish under a leadership that refuses to be a partner for peace.

(4) We hope that we can negotiate a fair agreement with a democratic government that is committed to the rule of law.


As zealous as Americans are about their own democracy, they quite often have to be reminded why they defend it so fiercely. This reminder becomes your obligation when associating Israel's democratic values with those of America.

Using the word "democracy" without giving examples of what makes this system of government so essential is like saying you want "peace" without giving evidence that you've made honest strides toward achieving it. Americans want proof that you know what these nice-sounding words mean.

When linking our common bond of democracy, use specific examples of why we hope that more nations establish the freedoms democracy guarantees.

* Women are treated as equals

* The press operates freely

* All religions are respected

* The people chose who represents them in free elections

* Democracies do not make war on each other

Finally, make the argument that if these freedoms are so dear to Israelis and Americans, they are just as dearly missed by the Palestinian people. All people yearn to live free, and their current leadership denies them that right.

THE ROADMAP: A BALANCED APPROACH

[Author's note: We include this section because the President's speech did so well in both Chicago and Los Angeles and because this topic will be at the core of Jewish and Israeli communication efforts in the coming months. We warn readers that a great deal of additional research is needed to offer a guarantee that the words and messages included here are the best available.]

As the post-war dust settles over the Iraqi desert, the focus has already begun to shift to the Israel-Palestinian peace process and President Bush's so-called "roadmap" to peace. The good news is that the American people firmly believe that if the Palestinians want to demonstrate sincere commitment to peace, they must abide by the tenants of the President's soon-to-be-released roadmap. The not-as-good news is that they expect exactly same from Israel and they demand it immediately.

In both Chicago and Los Angeles, and among virtually all respondents regardless of political party, Americans responded quite favorably to the language from President Bush for two reasons: "a balanced approach" and "shared responsibilities." Keep those terms in mind and use them whenever possible.


WORDS THAT WORK: A BALANCED APPROACH

"I see a day when two states, Israel and Palestine, will live side by side in peace and security. I call upon all parties in the Middle East to abandon old hatreds and to meet their responsibilities for peace

The Palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful and democratic state that abandons forever the use of terror. 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...

We believe that all people in the Middle East -- Arab and Israeli alike -- deserve to live in dignity, under free and honest governments. We believe that people who live in freedom are more likely to reject bitterness, blind hatred and terror; and are far more likely to turn their energy toward reconciliation, reform and development."

- President George W. Bush


COMPLICATING THE ROADMAP: MAHMOUD ABBAS (ABU MAZEN)

To some extent, your job as proponents of Israel has been easy. Under the Arafat regime, it's not difficult to convince the American public of the corruption of the current Palestinian leadership. While many sympathize with the plight of the Palestinian people, there is no love lost for Yassir Arafat. Arafat is a terrorist; they know that. Better still, he looks the part.

The emergence of Mahmoud Abbas as the new Palestinian Prime Minister comes exactly at the wrong time. His ascent to power seems legitimate. He is a fresh face, and a clean-shaven one at that. He speaks well and dresses in Western garb. He may even genuinely want peace.

Just as President Bush had begun to make headway in drawing attention on the need for a reformed Palestinian leadership, the Palestinians throw us this curveball. What will the world make of Abbas? Is he the new leadership for which Israel has pleaded for years? Or is he an Arafat in sheep's clothing?

Given the haze surrounding this new figure, it is imperative that you NOT immediately launch criticisms on Abbas. This is critical for three reasons:

(1) Overt negativity. If it turns out that Abbas legitimately wants peace and that he represents the true interests of the Palestinian people, then the attacks you launch today will turn the tide of public opinion against ISRAEL tomorrow. You will undermine all of your credibility as the willing partner for peace if you shoot down the first true peace partner the Palestinians have offered. (We don't expect this scenario but it is possible.)

(2) The unknown factor. Abbas is a relative unknown in the international community. Look at his emergence as if it were part of a political campaign. He is not a candidate to sit at the negotiating table until he proves his worthiness. While uncertainty makes your communication strategies complicated, it should not necessarily change your priorities. The more you talk about him, the more he is going to be talked about, which leads to the next point...

(3) Patiently Await a Peace Partner. Abbas may be a leader who wants peace, but it is incumbent upon him to prove that he is the willing and serious partner Israel needs to pursue peace together. Whether or not he has been elected or appointed to this position, he still needs to demonstrate tangibly that he wants peace. Your goal remains a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Once the Palestinians have shown their house is in order, you will be ready and willing to find an agreement. And if they don't, they, not Israel, will be blamed.

NOTE: This is not to say that Abbas should be given a free ride in the press. It is only to say that criticisms must be confined to what he does to thwart the peace process as a leader of the Palestinian people. Allow him the chance to succeed. A brief exercise in game theory may better illustrate this point. What happens if...



You immediately attack Abbas, and he turns out to be a genuine and effective partner in peace?

Israel loses credibility as the party that wants peace above all else. He gains popularity among an international community that already doubts your rhetoric and "heavy-handed" actions, and wins over those Americans who sympathize with the Palestinian people but support you because they distrusted previously corrupt Palestinian leadership. This is the worst result possible.

You immediately attack Abbas, and he turns out to be an Arafat in sheep's clothing?

What has Israel truly gained? You may have stripped his faux wool months before he would have done it himself, but you risked backlash. In the end, it would have been better off to publicly remain committed to peace while letting the Palestinian leadership implode on the public relations front - a strategy that has worked effectively thus far.

You wait on Abbas to define himself, and he turns out to be a genuine and effective partner in peace?

The roadmap is instituted and there is a peaceful resolution to decades of conflict by this time next year. This is the best result possible.

You wait on Abbas to define himself, and he turns out to be an Arafat in sheep's clothing?

Let him keep the faux wool; you'll reap the benefits of this communications gold mine. All your old messages of needing a genuine partner for peace will ring even truer, and the next time, the new leader cannot be justifiably appointed by Arafat.


So when people ask for opinions or reactions to Abbas, put it in terms of a "scouting report" with the following two facts:

(1) He was appointed to his current position by Arafat, which is suspect.

(2) He has denied the Holocaust, which is confounding at best and offensive at worst.

If he is an Arafat in Western clothing, it will not take long to identify him as such. The American people will know it by the actions he takes and the demands he makes. That is an incrimination that, if true, he will do to himself.

Is it a concern that he is a Holocaust denier? Absolutely. Will that fact convince Americans that he cannot represent the Palestinian people in an honest bid for peace? Hardly. Americans don't want to hear about the Holocaust anymore, and they particularly don't want to hear it from the Jewish community.

Nevertheless, you need more substance on Abbas before you can tell the American people you question his devotion to peace.


Americans believe that peace has to start somewhere other than Arafat. If Abbas is presented as that alternative, they quickly identify him as a symbol of "hope." His emergence as Prime Minister (a very Western, democratic-friendly title) is all Americans will need to believe that the peace process should be underway. They will expect you to follow suit and take a seat at the negotiating table. Finally, most believe that the United States can and should serve as an honest broker between these two parties. In their eyes, these are all the ingredients needed to begin the peace process.

It is essential that you use positive language when asked about Abbas. However, that does not mean you must compliment Abbas himself. While knocking him down now does little to help your long-term goals, building him up is also counterproductive. Therefore you must remain positive about the peace process and indifferent about Abbas until he defines his role. Above all else, reaffirm your position that first terrorism stops, and then negotiations begin.


WORDS THAT WORK

"Yes, we hope that this potential change in leadership signals a new opportunity for peace in our region. Israel has long sought a partner who wants peace as dearly as we do. But Israel reaffirms that before any peace talks can begin, terror must end. We cannot negotiate with any leadership that allows its people to murder our civilians."


Mix this message in with one of compassion for the Palestinian people. Many Americans sympathize with their plight. So should you. Americans want to hear it. A statement that the Palestinian people deserve better should follow every recrimination of a Palestinian leader or terrorist.

WORDS THAT WORK

"We know the Palestinian people deserve better. We want for them what we have in Israel: freedom to say what they want, believe what they want, and live in equality. They also should have the right to choose who speaks on their behalf. The Palestinian people deserve and want leaders who will work for peace and not for terrorism. We know that terrorism causes hardships for everyone involved. That is why we are committed to working for peace as soon as we have a willing partner."




THE VALUE OF RHETORICAL QUESTIONS

An effective communication technique to continue to apply pressure to the Palestinian leadership without looking like you are ignoring Israel's responsibilities is to pose rhetorical questions. These questions will lead to only one answer, of course: peace cannot be achieved until real reforms are in place, and that the terror must stop first.


RHETORICAL QUESTIONS TO ASK OPPONENTS OF ISRAEL

"How can the current Palestinian leadership honestly say it will pursue peace when the same leaders rejected an offer to create a Palestinian state two and a half years ago?"

"How can Yassir Arafat, whom Forbes Magazine says is worth more than three hundred million dollars, claim to be a leader who understands and represents an impoverished people when he has become rich at their expense?"

"Is it too much to ask that the Palestinian leadership not sponsor terrorists? Are we unreasonable to insist that they stop killing our innocent children before we jeopardize our security and make concessions for peace?"

"How can we make peace with a leader that does not believe in or allow free and honest elections?"

"Why do Palestinian schools have pictures of suicide bombers hanging up in the hallways of their schools or celebrate them as martyrs? Why do they name sports teams in the West Bank after suicide bombers? How can we make peace with the Palestinian people when their leaders instill a culture of terror against our people?"

"How can the Palestinian people end their impoverishment if their leaders continue to steal precious resources from them, which are then used to support terror?"

Why has Yassir Arafat been in power for so long, and yet made so little progress towards a peaceful resolution? If he were truly committed to peace, would he not have made a sincere effort to achieve it by now?

When will the Palestinian people themselves have a voice at the peace table?


The answer of every rhetorical question is the same: peace will come when the current Palestinian leadership is truly reformed and the terror tactics have ceased.


CONCLUSION: A LITTLE HUMILITY, PLEASE

Presenting a fair evaluation of your past allows you to present a hopeful - and believable - vision of your future.

You have your work cut out for you. As you emerge from one delicate public relations situation - war with Iraq - you enter an even dicier situation - cooperating on "the road map" with an unknown counterpart, Mahmoud Abbas. Fortunately the former may provide you some breathing room and cover for the latter.

The essential conclusion is to remain focused on your communication priorities from this point forward. Terror ends first. A willing peace partner emerges second. The roadmap is executed last. And throughout it all, you exhibit humility and reaffirm that the Palestinian people deserve better.

This memo has identified language that effectively articulates why - and how - the Palestinian leadership must change. Critiquing the other side is the always the easiest part of public communication, but it is only half of effective language.

Opinion elites in America will not find repeated criticisms of the Palestinian leadership credible unless they are coupled with a similar onus on the Israeli government to accommodate for peace and acknowledge past transgressions. Assertions that Israel enjoys a blameless history are soundly rejected. This will not be received well by everyone but it is essential for your spokespeople to acknowledge it Israel has made some mistakes. Not only does this build credibility but it also allows the spokesperson to then explain and assert Israel's history of taking strides for peace.

Here is how this message is best developed:

ACKNOWLEDGING THE PAST, BOTH GOOD AND BAD

(1) We know that the history of our conflict has been marked by frustration and mistrust by both Israelis and Palestinians, and Israel is willing to accept some of the blame for what has happened in the past

(2) However, throughout our history we have demonstrated that we value peace above all else. In our hope for peace we overcame differences and found agreement with our Arab neighbors Egypt and Jordan.

(3) We remain committed to peace. We offered the Palestinian people a state of their own that included over 97% of the West Bank. Their leadership rejected this proposal, showing once again that we do not have a partner for peace so long as the current Palestinian Authority remains the voice of the Palestinian people. It's time for a change - not just for us but for our Palestinian cousins as well.

A synopsis of the Wexler Analysis.

To strengthen the Israeli state, Israel's apologists must:

1) Give 100% support to George Bush's policies, but never compliment Bush directly. Instead, pander to brain-dead American patriotism and hope the good-will thereby generated rubs off onto the Israeli settler state.

2) When in doubt, pretend to care about the plight of the Palestineans. Lament bad Palestinean leadership five times daily.

3) Exhibit something that might be interpreted as humility.

4) Pose rhetorical questions that have only one possible answer.

5) If possible, have a woman enunciate Israel's propaganda talking points; preferably one with children.

6) Lie about Israel's "peace proposals."