FEWP

FIGHT EXTREMISM WITH PEACE

Letters

These are letters which have been sent to a variety of organizations to help stem the tide of extremist views throughout the world.

Letter sent to World Health Organization

In searching health statistics regarding the Middle East, I was surprised to see the omission of Israel from the countries listed there.  I finally found statistics for Israel located in the European Region, right there among all of the European countries.  Is this a joke?  Or is it merely another of the useless conventions of the United Nations in confronting evil?  Is it necessary to appease racism in the Middle East by pretending Israel, a country itself created by the U.N. in 1948, is located in Europe, not the Middle East? What about Articles 44, et seq. of the WHO Constitution regarding establishment of WHO regions?  Don't you feel ridiculous?  You should.  I wrote to you about this in 2003.  It has been 3 years, and I still did not receive a reply.  Care to respond this time?

No response since 12.12.2006

Letter sent to MediaMonitors.net

At first I was interested in a site which proposed to deal with the "truth".  However, I was quite shocked to find that your site is merely a "front" for pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab causes (to wit, the list of "charities" on your site), packaged as a supposed objective news source.  While your banners proclaim a search for the "truth", there is no evidence of the "truth" anywhere in your publication.  It is simply more anti-American, anti-Israel racist rhetoric.  As proof of your one-sided and subjective content, I sent along the following to your site as a letter.  However, it was rejected each time on the purported grounds that I used a "prohibited" word, while of course the word itself was not identified.  Since there are no words which are generally prohibited in civilized speech, I began to wonder just which word caused the conflict.  Perhaps it is the word "Jew", perhaps it is the combination of words "innocent Israeli". 

Your view is poisoned, and your mission, if it began as one to seek the truth has been perverted to hatred and racism once again.  There are very few Jews in the world (even in Israel) who wake each morning with hatred and enmity in their hearts for anyone or anything.  Very few.  Why are there tens of millions of fundamentalist Islamic adherents who wake each day eager with anticipation of hatred for anything and everything having to do with Jews and Israel?  There are well over one billion Muslims, and fewer than 20 million Jews in the world.  Is the Muslim world truly contending that a handful of Jews are somehow oppressing them by clinging to a strip of land the size of a raisin they inhabited on and off for 5,000 years?  After 5,000 years, one would think we have evolved. 

Jews generally wish to be left alone, to worship and live.  Unfortunately, all I have heard from the Muslim world (since the voice of moderate Islam has been drowned out by the cacophony of extremists bent on the destruction of Israel and all Jews, much like Hitler was) is a desire to kill anyone who thinks differently.  The message, loud and clear, is believe like me, or die (it is the message not just to the West or to Jews, it is the message to all Muslims too - any doubt you have may be resolved by reading the messages of Bin Laden and his minions).  Is that the message you want to project?  It is the only message that is coming out.  If you believe that killing innocent people all over the world is sending a different message, you are wrong.  It merely hardens hearts, and resolve.  Here is the "offensive" letter.  Maybe you can identify the "offensive" word for me so I can understand your philosophy better.

"I read with interest your proclaimed "independence", but found instead that your site is a one-sided anti-West, anti-Israel platform, dripping with sympathy for causes your contributors support, and revulsion for those it considers enemies.  The overwhelming majority of reporting in the Middle-East comes from indigenous reporters bathed in historic hatred of Israel and Jews (often in fact raised as children on the rhetoric of racism and hatred).  In this way, each report of a murder of innocent Israeli citizens (including Arab Israelis) is accompanied by a "justification" - a wall, an Israeli military operation, an attempt to capture Islamic Jihad or Hamas operatives -- there is no objective discussion about the nightmare, horror and immorality of murder, no matter the cause.  As long as you continue to "monitor" the news and publish your poisoned view, we shall seek the truth, and publish it too."

No response since 10.4.2003

Once again, a story about deaths of Jews in Israel is accompanied by a picture of Palestinian "victims".  When Jews are killed, the picture is usually of a Palestinian child, or a picture of an Israeli soldier and Palestinians, anything to detract from the horror of rampant Palestinian murder of Jewish citizens, women, children (as in this case).  Where are the pictures of the aftermath of this murder on Rosh Hashanah?  Why is the picture of a Palestinian man dousing a burning car?  The implication is somehow the burning car leads inexorably to the murder of Jews.  Once again, your slant is not subtle, but relentless.

I was searching for information concerning statistics on Israel in relation to the other nations in its geographical region, and found that for some reason, Israel, unlike any other country in the world, has actually been moved by WHO to Europe.  Is this a mistake in web design, or some internal geographical anomaly, or some political decision to render the "Middle East" region homogeneous by deleting any reference to where Israel actually is located? Or did Israel in fact move to Europe?  The anomaly of course throws the statistical information presented into chaos.  Thus, in trying to compare regional statistics, Israel is compared to Switzerland and Norway, not Iraq or Lebanon.  Is there some political reason for this?  Perhaps you can enlighten me.  Thank you.

CNN continues to distinguish itself as a singularly anti-American "news" network.  With a broadcasting team boasting an international coterie of reporters with a decidedly and pronounced anti-American bias, there has been 24 hour-a-day reports fanning the flames of hatred against the U.S. and Great Britain throughout the world.  The anti-Coalition slant in reporting is headed by Anchor Jim Clancy, sarcastic, presumptuous, pompous and opinionated, and supported by none other than historically anti-U.S. Government Christiane Amanpour, who will stop asking questions only when she has managed to yank some iota of anti-Coalition negativity from her subject (there are times of course when she is unable to shake some knowledgeable sources who will not go along with her leading questions or pseudo-opinion rephrasing style of interrogation).  The slant is at times unmistakable, and at other times frightfully subtle.  While the reporters question coalition military officers and personnel to get an "objective" view, questions are nevertheless pursued unless and until an acceptably negative response can be obtained.  Most of the questions are not objectively stated, but rather hostile and cross-examinational.  No reporter asks how the war is going.  The question is always phrased as "aren't you disappointed in the progress so far?", or "hasn't the resistance of the Iraqis been far more than you ever expected?"  In other words, every question is loaded to obtain a negative impression of the Coalition military effort, the planning, the conduct of the war, the bombing, and any other aspect of the war.  Of course, there is no cross-examination of the Iraqi Information Minister.  Those laughably and ruthlessly false reports are carried almost in full, without the same criticism leveled by "analysts" whenever a Coalition briefing occurs. 

 

The other favorite pastime of these "journalists" is to quote each other as "critics" or "analysts", or when at a loss for support of such negative statements, "sources have said that".  There is actually no other support for those positions except the reporters themselves.  Instead of reporting the news, they feel obliged to create it out themselves.  Their own points of view become the news.  Peter Arnett tried that, and became a casualty of his own arrogance.  It is time for Americans to wake up to the fact that outside the U.S., CNN is waging a long-standing campaign to pander to the middle-east viewing public, in essence, giving them what they want to hear -- substantially anti-Western and Arab-sympathetic reporting.  At times, CNN reporting rivals Al Jazeera television for its anti-American slant.  Iraq reports are given play without contest. Every statement by every Coalition participant is pulled apart, attacked, discredited or dismissed.  The pattern is nothing less than disgusting.  Having helped to fan the flames of hatred of all things American throughout the Arab world with its one-sided analysis, it is time for CNN to be the target of widespread American boycott.  Turn it off.  Turn it off and never turn it back on.  Boycott the Atlanta Braves. Give no support to Ted Turner or to anything he owns, is associated with or encourages.

The Medina Division is massed in an attempt to block an expected onslaught in northern Iraq, where Iraqi troops have been entrenched, CNN's Jane Arraf reported.

"Chemical Ali," Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's cousin who commands Iraqi forces in the south. "He was spotted but he hasn't been caught," a military source familiar with operation told CNN.

The going is slow for coalition forces trying to chip away at Iraqi resistance Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said Monday that coalition forces are being "defeated on all fronts and are retreating in the face of strong strikes" carried out by a popular resistance.

Republican Guard fighters holed up in Hillah, apparently trying to bait U.S. forces into urban combat.

An Iraqi official said Iraqi troops destroyed more than a dozen tanks and armored vehicles, shot down four Apache helicopter gunships and killed 43 U.S. and British "mercenaries" in fighting in southern Iraq.

Iraqi TV showed a video of Saddam and his two sons Monday -- a tape the state-run network said was new.

British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon said around 8,000 POWs are currently being held by the coalition, many of whom surrendered. He also said that Britain is not likely to increase the number of its troops beyond the 45,000 that are now there.

An unnamed senior U.S. Central Command official said coalition casualties so far, though regrettable, have been minimal. But once forces move into Baghdad, the situation could become very serious.

A British military official said Iraqi paramilitary forces Monday were "indiscriminately" firing mortars in Basra, where U.S. and British forces are involved in a battle for control.

NBC announced Monday that both NBC and National Geographic severed their relationships with veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett.

The Iraqis are "massed", "attempting to block", an "expected" onslaught - subtly implying the Iraqis are strong and prepared for it;

 

Chemical Ali has been "spotted" but not caught - implying he is somehow wiley, and his pursuers incompetent;

 

Iraqi troops are "holed up" "baiting" U.S. troops, implying strength and guile in the defenders, and guilelessness on the part of the U.S. troops;

 

Iraqis "destroyed" tanks and armored vehicles, "shot down" Apache helicopter gunships and "killed" troops;

 

Iraqi paramilitary forces were firing mortars in Basra, battling "for control";

the going is "slow" for coalition forces trying to "chip away" at Iraqi resistance,

 

the Coaltion forces are being defeated on all fronts and are retreating in the face of strong strikes" carried out by a "popular resistance", implying the Coalition is not welcome to free Iraqis from under the boot of Saddam;

 

Britain is not likely to increase the number of its troops beyond the 45,000 that are now there, subtly implying the U.S. and Britain are not equally committed to the war.

I read David Rohde's article written with a dateline of 9/11 ("Taliban leaders have US in sights") with a mixture of revulsion and disgust, and wondered "what's his point?"  He gave away his personal opinion with the unnecessary adjective, popular with opponents of anything American, "resurgent" Taliban.  Apparently a small rocket and isolated resistance is considered "resurgence".  The author, using "deja vu", compares the current "threat" to the battle against the Soviet Union - perhaps Mr. Rohde forgot that in all the years fighting the Soviet Union, the Taliban were in power and control throughout their country - and today, after a scant battle that pulverized the Taliban, the fragmented remnants of the Taliban are hiding amongst the ruins of their hatred and fanatacism.  I suppose if you have been hiding in a dark cave like some dust drenched rat for two years, perhaps running for your life between the boulders on some 13,000 foot mountainside in the hot sun from an American and Afghan patrol can be called "resurgent".  It is amazing to me that reporters write this stuff with almost gleeful gloating, quick to show any "resistance" to U.S. efforts to eliminate the worst scourge in human civilization since Nazis goosestepped through Paris.  Mr. Rohde probably struggled to get his story, and at great risk to himself, for which he earns admiration from colleagues, who appreciate his ordeal.  But what is the point?  Do I want to hear the views of some sick Taliban fanatic (sick because even aid workers who are in Afghanistan to help uplift the Afghani people are deemed "spies" and marked for death), do I even want one of my countrymen to give that Talibani a voice to the world, so their "struggle" can be broadcast to the sympathies of others who share the radical Islamic view "believe like me or die"?  No.  Mr. Rohde has sadly and unwittingly served their purpose (unless it was intentional, in which case I place him with Al-Jazeerah as mouthpieces for the enemy).  On 9/13 I don't want to read about imaginary "resurgent" Taliban, or meaningless and dated tapes of Bin Laden.  I would rather Mr. Rohde spent his time asking American soldiers how they felt about risking their lives to free and protect people who are taught Jews have horns, and women cannot attend school.

I clicked through from your story on September 24, 2003 on the statement by Hamas that it will not agree to a truce with Israel to a "slideshow" entitled "Mideast Conflict".  There were 310 photos collected there.  The first 40 photos were exclusively what anyone would view as "pro-Palestinian" photos, highlighting the "human interest" of the Palestinians, portraying "poor Palestinian children" or Palestinian women, mostly juxtaposed against Israeli soldiers.  The silent message demonizes Israel, and portrays Palestinians as poor, struggling victims of oppression.  After struggling through the first 40 photos there was finally a picture relating to Israel, but merely a photo of Sharon.  The overwhelming majority of pictures of Israelis showed them as happy and carefree (such as attending the birthday of Shimon Peres).  The photos of Palestinian children were shots of wounded or juxtaposed against soldiers. Where are the photos of dead and bloody Jewish children? Where are the pictures of burning Israeli public buses, and buildings.  One picture shows a dead Palestinian man with the caption he was killed "crawling" towards a Jewish settlement, but did not indicate his suspected suicide attack.  When a Palestinian 16 year old was killed in gun battle, he is described as the "gunmen's helper", supposedly highlighting some "innocence". 

 

To be sure, the Mideast situation is grim and dismal.  However, never have I observed such a one-sided presentation of purported "news" by any organization.  Each day, Reuters and AP are responsible for generating scores of indigenous reporters' statements of what can only be termed their own personal opinions masquerading as news, always with the gratuitous picture of a Palestinian child.  It is horrifying to see the brainwashing.  It reminds me of Germany.  There, the Jews had to say, "are we not human?  When we are pricked, do we not bleed?"  Israel is demonized, over and over again every day by the press.  That hatred, close to anti-Semitism in its roots and effect, has itself created the almost fanatical hatred of Israel worldwide.  The press is powerful.  A corrupt press has evil intentions.

"Putting a man with such extremist views in a critical policy-making position sends entirely the wrong message to a Muslim world that is already skeptical about America's motives and intentions."

"The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy...They get others to fight and die for them."

 

"They survived 2,000 years of pogroms not by hitting back but by thinking,"

 

"They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others."

 

"1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews,"

 

"In today's world, we wield a lot of political, economic and financial clout, enough to make up for our weaknesses in military terms.  Enough to achieve a final victory".