HHMI Newsgroup Archives
To: arutz-7@israelnationalnews.com, arutz-7b@israelnationalnews.com From: Arutz-7 Editor <feedback@israelnationalnews.com> Subject: Arutz-7 News: Sunday, Oct. 7, 2001
Arutz Sheva News Service <http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com> Sunday, Oct. 7, 2001 / Tishrei 20, 5762 ------------------------------------------------
TODAY'S HEADLINES: 1. ISRAEL REAPS SOME BENEFITS FROM DIPLOMATIC CRISIS 2. TEL AVIV UNIV SURVEY: 45.7% OPPOSE OSLO ACCORDS; 23.7% IN FAVOR
SPECIAL INSERT: "CAMERA" REPORT ON ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS IN MEDIA
1. ISRAEL REAPS SOME BENEFITS FROM DIPLOMATIC CRISIS Not only has the US-Israel crisis ended, but it appears to have produced positive results for Israel.
The U.S. apparently acceded to one of Sharon's main demands yesterday when the State Department published its bi-annual list of foreign terrorist organizations and included the Israel-based Arab terrorist organizations Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, as well as the Lebanese-based Hizbullah. These were blatantly absent from a list of 27 Bin Laden-associated organizations published by the White House two weeks ago. U.S. law bans American citizens from joining these groups or from transferring funds to them. Furthermore, banks are instructed to freeze the terrorist organizations' financial assets in the U.S., and persons connected to these groups can be denied admission to the United States.
Another achievement, according to senior Jerusalem officials, is that in the wake of Sharon's tough talk, the Administration exerted strong pressure on Arafat to stop his violence against Israel, threatening to "change its policy" towards the Palestinian Authority if the violence does not stop. On the other hand, the U.S. will not block Syria's election to the United Nations Security Council tomorrow.
Israel had been receiving hints of late that the U.S. was differentiating between Arab terrorism against Israel and other terrorism, and that it was placing pressure on Israel to react blandly to Arab terrorist attacks so as not to thwart efforts to build a broad anti-Bin Laden coalition. For instance, on September 27, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters, "Essentially, there are, on some planes, two different things. One is that there are violent people trying to destroy societies, ours, many others in the world. The world recognizes that, and we are going to stop those people. On the other hand, there are issues and violence and political issues that need to be resolved in the Middle East, Israelis and Palestinians."
In addition, the U.S. exerted tremendous pressure for a Peres-Arafat meeting - for which Israel was rewarded with repeated murderous violations of the ceasefire, as well as a statement by President Bush announcing support for a Palestinian Arab state. The heavy and costly Arab violence against Israel of the last few days has been viewed as a result of Arafat's "misunderstanding" of the true American position - and Sharon's remarks were designed to make clear that Israel would not stand for it.
2. TEL AVIV UNIV SURVEY: 45.7% OPPOSE OSLO ACCORDS; 23.7% IN FAVOR The Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University released its September survey of the Israeli public on issues of peace and negotiations with the PLO. When asked their opinion on the agreement that was signed in Oslo between Israel and the PLO, the sampling of adult Israelis answered as follows: Heavily in favor 7.1%; Considerably in favor 16.6%; In the middle 23.5%; Considerably opposed 12.5%; Heavily opposed 33.2%; Do not know/no opinion 7.1%.
The poll also posed the following question: "There are those in the world who differentiate between acts of terror of the type recently carried out in the United States and Palestinian terror, despite that in both cases innocent civilians were hurt. The claim is that the Palestinian terror is part of a struggle against the occupation and a war of national liberation while this is not the case in the kinds of acts of terror carried out in the US. Do you think that there is a moral basis for this differentiation? 82.9% No, since all intentional killing of innocent civilians is terror and morally unacceptable.
9.7% Yes, because from a moral standpoint there are goals, like national liberation, that justify even the international hurting of innocent civilians.
4.6% Other 2.8% Do not know
While 68% considered themselves supportive of the "peace process between Israel and the Arabs," over 71% opined that the Oslo accords will not bring about peace with the PLO in the coming years. The final question of the survey asked, "How would you term yourself today politically?" Left 10.8% Moderate left 12.3 (Total 23.1%) Center 24.4% Moderate right 25.6% Right 26.9% (Total 52.5%)
SPECIAL INSERT: "CAMERA" REPORT ON ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS IN MEDIA
When Terror is not "Terror" in media reports by Alex Safian Associate Director Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (http://www.camera.org)
Does abhorrence of terrorism depend on the nationality or religion of the victim? Are some lives less precious than others, so much so that the word terrorism would not apply to the murderous attacks on these victims? To, say, Israeli victims?
Repugnant as such distinctions might seem, they are apparently employed by some of the nation's leading media outlets, including the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and CNN. The Times, for example, on October 3rd covering the attack against an Israeli community in Gaza in which two young Israeli civilians were murdered by Palestinian invaders, managed to not even once refer to the attack or to the attackers using any form of the word "terror." This despite the fact that the "gunmen," as the Times repeatedly called them, fired AK-47's at every civilian they saw and hurled grenades into homes. And Hamas, the group responsible for the bloody attack, was delicately referred to as a "militant group," not a band of terrorists.
Not that the words terror or terrorist are banned at the Times -- on the contrary. On that very same October 3rd the Times used some form of the word "terror" in at least 93 stories (not counting paid obituaries). But in each case the reference was to the terrible attacks in the United States on September 11th in which thousands of innocent Americans were killed.
Was it the number of dead, rather than their religion or nationality, which explains the difference in the Times' usage? It seems not. The paper, for example, quite rightly used the word terror in reporting the attack against the USS Cole, even though the victims were relatively few in number, and neither the ship nor its crew were civilian targets. An editorial on October 13, 2000, for example, referred to "an apparent terrorist attack." On the same day a Times report informed readers that the Cole was refueling in Yemen "despite its history as a haven for terrorist groups," and added that "if confirmed as a terrorist attack, it would be the worst against American military forces since the bombing of an Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia..." Yet another Times story that day began "Despite the known risks of terrorism in Yemen ..." and went on to describe US refueling in that country, referring to Yemen as "a haven to international terrorist groups."
The next day, October 14th, saw more of the same. A Times story described the "worldwide hunt ... to track down the group responsible for what had every appearance of a terrorist attack ..." And so it continued for several weeks, the Times showing no hesitation to describe as a terror attack the bombing of a US warship thousands of miles from home. Yet attacks against Israelis -- in their homes and communities -- receive radically different treatment, the killers routinely termed "militants" or "activists," and the groups that train, equip and send them on their "missions" regularly referred to in a similarly antiseptic manner.
The point, of course, is not just that words influence thought, but that word choices are revealing of thoughts and biases, and that the nation's leading newspaper has decided that the killing of Jewish Israelis by Islamic-inspired murderers is somehow different than when very similar killers instead target Americans. One can only imagine that to the Times Israelis are somehow guilty, either of oppressing Palestinians, or perhaps of some more ancient sin, so the killers, therefore, are not to be called terrorists.
Of course, the Times is not alone in this regard. The Times-owned Boston Globe has followed exactly the same pattern, referring repeatedly to the bombing of the Cole, and of course to the recent attacks in America, as terrorism perpetrated by terrorists, while resisting such usage when the victims are Israelis. The attack on October 3rd, for example, was attributed by the Globe to "Palestinian attackers" and "gunmen," who were sent by the "military wing of the Islamic militant group Hamas." Certainly neither the Globe nor the Times has ever referred to any "military wing" of bin Laden's Al Qaeda group.
At CNN the same pattern is evident. Speaking on October 3rd, anchor Bill Hemmer explained that with "Israeli tanks rumbling into northern Gaza" the cease-fire seems to have "crumbled ... the toll there, eight Palestinians and two Israelis dead after the fighting." Of course, the Israelis didn't die in any "fighting" -- they were unarmed innocents cruelly executed by terrorist invaders. And if the cease-fire was in trouble, it was because of unprovoked Palestinian attacks, not Israeli retaliation.
The Mike Hanna report that followed only made matters worse, with the attackers described as "Palestinian gunmen" and the 18-year-old murdered woman described as an "Israeli soldier" as if she were an armed combatant. She was off-duty and strolling down a residential road with her boyfriend, who was also murdered.
Nowhere did CNN describe the murders or the murderers using any form of the word terror, despite the fact that most CNN reports these days are headlined "Target: Terrorism."
Now is the time for these institutions -- and any that follow similarly indefensible policies -- to cease discriminating between terror's victims. All deserve to be remembered as the innocent quarry of an identical scourge.
Hebrew News Editor: Ariel Kahane
*******************************************************
To: arutz-7@israelnationalnews.com, arutz-7b@israelnationalnews.com From: Arutz-7 Editor <feedback@israelnationalnews.com> Subject: Arutz-7 News: Monday, October 8, 2001
Arutz Sheva News Service <http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com> Monday, Oct. 8, 2001 / Tishrei 21, 5762 ------------------------------------------------
TODAY'S HEADLINES: 1. ISRAEL: WE'RE WITH THE U.S. IN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM 2. PALESTINIAN DEMONSTRATIONS FOR BIN LADEN 3. ARAB KNESSET MEMBERS CRITICIZE U.S. ATTACK 4. P.A. PAPER: HOW TO ATTACK JEWS
1. ISRAEL: WE'RE WITH THE U.S. IN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM An official statement released by Prime Minister Sharon's office last night stated the following:
"...Over the past three days, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has kept Prime Minister Ariel Sharon apprised as to the timing of the American offensive, and the appropriate coordination took place. President George W. Bush called Prime Minister Sharon this afternoon to update him on the offensive... Prime Minister Sharon offered President Bush, the American People and the forces in the field his best wishes, and offered any assistance that might be required in addition to the assistance already given.
"It is important to remember this evening that the war against terrorism was, and continues to be, the State of Israel's war. Israel has provided, and will continue to provide, assistance to the nations of the free world in any way they may require in the struggle against terrorism. Israel has provided, and will continue to provide, assistance, but Israel is not participating in the offensive.
"Israel has taken all the necessary steps to maintain the security of its citizens."
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said today that Israel would keep a "low profile" during the American offensive in Afghanistan. Foreign Minister Peres went a bit further, however. Speaking with CNN, Peres said that Israel would even make diplomatic concessions to the Palestinians in order to ensure the success of the international struggle against terrorism. Prime Minister Sharon said this past Thursday night, "I call on the Western democracies, and primarily the leader of the free world, the United States: Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938, when enlightened European democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for 'a convenient temporary solution.' Do not try to appease the Arabs at our expense - this is unacceptable to us. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terrorism."
2. PALESTINIAN DEMONSTRATIONS FOR BIN LADEN Hundreds of Palestinian students demonstrated in favor of Bin Laden and against the American attack on Afghanistan in Gaza today. The Palestinian Authority refused to allow photographers to film the demonstration, and PA police dispersed the demonstrators with tear gas. In Ramallah, PA officials prevented a British TV team from asking Ramallah civilians their opinions on the American attack. The PA itself has not yet issued an official declaration on the American offensive, and PA Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo said that the senior PA leadership was "studying" the situation. Privately, however, many PA seniors had strong words against the Americans attack, Ynet reported today.
3. ARAB KNESSET MEMBERS CRITICIZE U.S. ATTACK "The U.S. never proved Bin Laden's connection to the Sept. 11 attacks," says MK Abdel Malek Dahamshe, and his colleague Muhammad Kenaan agrees: "I would have expected the Arab nations to more forcefully condemn the attack... The U.S. simply decided that it wants to liquidate Islam and the Moslems." But first and foremost among the Arab MKs condemning the American attack was MK Muhammad Barakeh, who said today that the American attack is "an attempt to intervene in a foreign regime. It fans the flames of terrorism, hits innocent people. The U.S. wants to stabilize its power and the distribution of world wealth in an unjust manner."
The United States has closed its embassy in Damascus, Syria, as well as the school for diplomats' children in the city. A spokesman said that the move was taken for fear of a terrorist attack. A leading Syrian newspaper published an article blaming Israel for the increase in world terrorism.
4. P.A. PAPER: HOW TO ATTACK JEWS The Palestinian Authority's official newspaper, Al Hayat Al Jadida, published an article two days ago about a Fatah ceremony in Gaza where participants were given a demonstration of how to ambush and kill Israeli civilians. Palestinian Media Watch <<www.pmw.org>>, which monitors the Palestinian Authority media daily, distributed a copy of the article. A photograph accompanying the article shows two Arabs with weapons standing aside a man lying face down on the ground with his shirt half-filled with blood, with many other Arabs looking on.
******************************************************************
To: arutz-7@israelnationalnews.com, arutz-7b@israelnationalnews.com From: Arutz-7 Editor <feedback@israelnationalnews.com> Subject: Arutz-7 News: Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2001
Arutz Sheva News Service <http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com> Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2001 / Tishrei 23, 5762 ------------------------------------------------
TODAY'S HEADLINES: 1. P.A. POLICE KILL 6 PRO-BIN LADEN DEMONSTRATORS 2. U.S. PRESSURES ISRAEL TO LEAVE ABU SNEINEH 3. ISRAEL RESPONDS TO U.N. VOTE ON SYRIA 4. GOV'T SAYS NO TO ARAB RIGHT OF RETURN
1. P.A. POLICE KILL 6 PRO-BIN LADEN DEMONSTRATORS Grassroots Arab support for Bin Laden continues to cause problems for the Palestinian Authority, and in fact, PA police have reacted so forcefully that they killed six Palestinians in Gaza over the past two days - three in clashes on Monday, and three more yesterday.
Thousands of Palestinian students and others have demonstrated against the American offensive in Afghanistan since Monday, and large posters of Bin Laden were displayed at the funeral of a Hevron terrorist today. The PLO temporarily closed at least two colleges in Gaza in an attempt to halt the rallies, and, to prevent coverage of the pro-Bin Laden rallies from reaching the West, has also ordered all foreign journalists out of Gaza.
PLO officials turned to Israel with a request for riot-control equipment, but Prime Minister Sharon said that Israel would not supply any type of weapons to the PA. The Rabin-Peres governments transferred thousands of weapons to the PA in the early years of the Oslo Agreements.
Arutz-7 correspondent Haggai Huberman reports that Israel refuses to give riot-control equipment to the PA - for fear that the equipment will later be used against Israel. "In 1991," Huberman said, "during the Gulf War, the Supreme Court ruled that Israel must distribute gas masks not only to Israeli citizens but also to Palestinians. Then later, during violent Arab riots against Israel, they wore those very same masks when our soldiers used tear gas against them [thus enabling them to continue the attacks]. In addition, Israel has no interest in making it easier for Arafat to put down the support for Bin Laden, which would again make him appear to be the good guy in the international effort against Bin Laden. Officially, the PA refuses to take sides regarding the American offensive. But they keep trying to separate themselves from Bin Laden, and were not happy with his statement that he would not sit quietly until every Palestinian child can live quietly; they try to emphasize at every opportunity that while Bin Laden is a bona-fide terrorist, their struggle is a legitimate one."
Israel, for its part, does not distinguish between types of terrorism, and Prime Minister Sharon has said often that Arafat is Israel's Bin Laden.
2. U.S. PRESSURES ISRAEL TO LEAVE ABU SNEINEH The U.S. State Department is pressuring Israel to withdraw from the Abu Sneineh hills in Hevron, according to spokesman Richard Boucher. IDF forces now control this area, from where Arabs rained gunfire upon the Jewish neighborhoods below for the past few months. Ten-month-old Shalhevet Pass was murdered by such terrorist fire four months ago, and several others were wounded. No Palestinian bullets have been shot towards the Jewish homes since the IDF took over the area six days ago, and at least eight terrorists have been killed during this period. Despite this, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell called both Prime Minister Sharon and Foreign Minister Peres last night and requested/demanded that Israel leave the area. This was confirmed by State Department Richard Boucher today.
Powell also briefed Sharon on the American attack in Afghanistan, and the two spoke about the ongoing warfare in Israel. Sharon told Powell that the Palestinian terrorism has not stopped, and that Israel is taking all necessary measures to protect its citizens. Foreign Minister Peres' office released a statement saying that in the conversation with Peres, Powell spoke in favor of continued Israeli-PA negotiations. Peres told the American official that the PA appears to be taking steps to stop the violence, but that these are not yet sufficient.
3. ISRAEL RESPONDS TO U.N. VOTE ON SYRIA Following two days of official silence, Israel's Foreign Ministry has finally reacted to the decision by the United Nations to allow Syria to sit on the Security Council. A statement released by the Ministry this afternoon said that the choice is a "total distortion, a badge of shame for the United Nations and its institutions." Earlier, unnamed government sources have severely criticized the move, calling it "pure cynicism," "an absurdity," and "nonsensical."
An overwhelming majority of 160 out of 178 countries voted in a secret ballot on Monday to allow Syria to sit on the Council - despite the UN Charter's stipulation that countries should be included on the council based on their "contribution to international peace and security." Syria is the headquarters and financial backer for several Palestinian, Lebanese, and other terrorist groups, and has been designated by the U.S. as a state sponsor of terrorism. The United States did not oppose Syria's candidacy.
"It is really a sheer absurdity and nonsense to have Syria as a member of the Security Council," said Israeli Ambassador to the UN Yehuda Lancry.
The Security Council is composed of fifteen members, five of whom - the U.S., the U.K., China, France, and Russia - are permanent and have veto power. Syria, Mexico, Guinea, Bulgaria, and Cameroon will begin their two-year terms on Jan. 1, 2002, joining Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway and Singapore, which conclude their two-year terms on Dec. 31, 2002.
4. GOV'T SAYS NO TO ARAB RIGHT OF RETURN The security cabinet decided this morning not to allow the return of Arabs to two northern villages they abandoned over 50 years ago during the War of Independence. The ministers decided not to change a decision made by the Golda Meir government some 30 years ago regarding the villages Ikrit and Bir'am, explaining that to allow the return at this point would set a dangerous precedent regarding the Arabs' demand for the return of millions of refugees to Israel. The ministers thus adopted the recommendations of a committee headed by Cabinet Secretary Gideon Saar that investigated the matter in depth. The Saar Committee found that allowing the Arabs to re-settle the areas is liable to harm Israeli security and would give an official stamp of approval to an Arab "right of return."
Opposition leader MK Yossi Sarid (Meretz) said he would join those appealing the decision in the Supreme Court.
The situation of Ikrit and Bir'am is unique in that the residents were asked in November 1948 to temporarily leave their homes to enable the establishment of a security zone along the Lebanese border. The Arab residents contend that they were promised by the government that they would return - and in fact, the Rabin government decided to allot 12,000 dunams (approx. 3,000 acres) to 600 families of the two villages, thus overturning a decision by the Golda Meir government - also of Labor - not to allow the Arabs to return. Today, the lands to which the Arabs wish to return are owned and worked by the Jewish farmers of five northern communities, including Shomera, some 15 kilometers east of Rosh HaNikra on the Mediterranean coast and less than ten north of Ma'alot. A representative of Shomera explained to Arutz-7:
"The residents of Ikrit are not displaced persons. They actively fought against the Israel Defense Forces, and only when they realized that they would lose the battle and suffer heavy casualties, did they surrender unconditionally. I have a copy of the document of surrender written and signed by the village representatives... We have paid a heavy price of blood to live here. Children have been killed from enemy fire. In the [Rabin] government's attempt to correct an injustice, it is creating a bigger one."
Merom HaGalil Regional Council head Aharon Ma'atuk said that it was true that the government had made a promise to the Arabs, "but it seems that we are forgetting one issue, perhaps the most important matter of all: We are, little by little, losing our grip on the Jewish state... [In addition to the national and demographic blow], allowing these people to return to land currently worked by Jewish farmers would be very damaging. The economic situation of our residents is poor... The government [planned] to bring here an Arab population that has already become established in the larger cities, and bringing them here will create a large gap between the Jewish and Arab residents..." He said that the objections in Merom HaGalil transcend political boundaries, and that both right- and left-wingers are against allowing Arabs to return to the areas they left over 50 years ago.
**************************************************************
To: arutz-7@israelnationalnews.com, arutz-7b@israelnationalnews.com From: Arutz-7 Editor <feedback@israelnationalnews.com> Subject: Arutz-7 News: Thursday, Oct. 11, 2001
Arutz Sheva News Service <http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com> Thursday, Oct. 11, 2001 / Tishrei 24, 5762 ------------------------------------------------
TODAY'S HEADLINES:
1. POWELL TO ISRAEL: DON'T WORRY, THERE'S NOTHING TO BE AFRAID OF U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told NBC last night that Israelis need not fear an American attempt to "sell out their security," and that the U.S. sees Israel as its close friend. Powell was responding to a question as to whether the Bush Administration would pressure Sharon to agree to a Palestinian state and the division of Jerusalem. "Israel is the only democracy in the region," Powell said, "and we will always support its security." The State Department spokesman said that Sharon has already agreed to a Palestinian state, but that there is no plan to present the sides with a Jerusalem-dividing map. The Boston Globe reported yesterday that the Bush administration "is prepared in the next few weeks to publicly increase pressure" on Sharon to accept "not only a Palestinian state but a viable Palestinian homeland that includes a 'shared Jerusalem.'"
At the same time, it was reported that four Congressmen congratulated President Bush less than three weeks ago for his lack of pressure on Israel. U.S. Congressmen Jim Saxton, Anthony Weiner, Christopher Smith, and Robert Andrews wrote to Bush, "We would like to thank you and members of your administration for continuing your policy on allowing Israel to establish its own timetable regarding negotiations with Yassir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. Unfortunately," their letter continued, "past administrations have pressured Israel to enter negotiations with poor results. In the waning days of the Clinton Administration, former Prime Minister Barak made many far-reaching concessions on a number of controversial issues... Chairman Arafat rejected these concessions and left the negotiating table and the result has been an escalation of violence... Recent events dictate that each country is ultimately responsible for the safety of its citizens and must act accordingly..."
2. ETTINGER: U.S. DOESN'T NEED PLO STATE Does the U.S. need another terrorist state in the Mideast? Yoram Ettinger, Israel's former liaison to the U.S. Congress, asks this question in his weekly column today - The Jerusalem Cloakroom, published by the Ariel Center for Policy Research - and answers with a resounding No. "The PLO's track record," writes Ettinger, "suggests that a PLO state would have bolstered Saddam [ever] since 1990; aligned itself with Iran; doomed Jordan during the 1970 Syrian invasion; threatened Kuwait and other Persian Gulf Sheikhdoms; become the prime training ground for international terrorists; provided Russia and China with another Mideast platform; been the most corrupt and oppressive regime in the region; and utilized its initial territory as a springboard to establish a narco-terrorist state from Iraq to the Mediterranean." He also notes the pro-Bin Laden, pro-Saddam and anti-US rallies in PLO-controlled areas, reflecting the "eight years of brainwashing by the PLO via schools, mosques and media."
********************************************************************
Return to
Newsgroup Archives Main Page
Return to our Main Webpage
©2011
Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by
Web Design by JB.