InDepth

The Monitor likes Bernard Goldberg, it really does. And the Monitor despises the smugly insular media types who've been lambasting the former CBS News correspondent for his bestselling (#1 on this week's New York Times list) expose of the liberal bias that pervades the nation's news media.

For several weeks now the Monitor has put off writing a review of Bias, the blockbuster book by former CBS newsman Bernard Goldberg. As the number one non-fiction best-seller in the country, Bias has been praised and panned, in print and on the air, so many times over that there seemed to be nothing new the monitor could add.

Bill Maher isn't exactly the Monitor's cup of tea. The host of ABC's "Politically Incorrect" is smarmy more often than smart, his jokes run the gamut from the juvenile to the jejune, and, contrary to what one might think from the name of his show, he's actually quite politically correct on a number of social and political issues.

America's pundits and editorialists have for the most part been supportive of Israel's side of the story in the capture of the weapons-laden Katrine-A. Several examples of that support are offered below (the Monitor thanks Zionist Organization of America National President Morton Klein for the compilation), but first, a splash of frigid water from Reuters correspondent Jon Immanuel.

As was remarked upon here last week, The New York Times has for the past eight years been what can best be described as maddeningly ambivalent, when it hasn't been fighting mad, about Rudy Giuliani.

The New York Times has always had a difficult time understanding, let alone embracing, Rudolph Giuliani. From his first mayoral race - the losing effort against David Dinkins in 1989 - through his victory four years later and the wildly successful two terms in office that followed, Giuliani was treated by the Times with varying degrees of skepticism, condescension, moral outrage and, on occasion, admiration that might charitably have been described as grudging had it not been delivered with the obligatory qualifiers and negative asides the paper reserves these days for George W. Bush.

Every year at this time the conservative Media Research Center compiles the most outrageously biased and stupefyingly dumb remarks made by media people during the previous 12 months. Even the quickest perusal of these gems should forever still any doubts about the media's inherent liberal bias and stupefying shallowness.

It is no secret that there were many people who were very unhappy when The Jewish Press endorsed George W. Bush for President. Indeed, as far as we can tell we were the only Anglo-Jewish publication to do so. We received countless letters from irate readers and organizational types who were aghast that we would fail to support Al Gore who after all chose a member of the Jewish faith ? and an ostensibly Orthodox one at that ? as his running mate.

It is no small thing that the civilized world is rallying to Israel's side in its vigorous efforts to stamp out the Palestinian attacks. In the face of a no-nonsense President Bush, it seems that Arafat is no longer persuading anyone with his empty promises. And despite the protests of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, it appears that Arafat will finally be compelled to call a halt to the terrorism.

One of the burning issues being debated across America is the issue of school tuition vouchers. Many are advocating school choice as a means of allowing parents the opportunity to shop around for the best education for their children. Others, particularly those who send their children to religious day schools, are supporting vouchers as a constitutional means of securing funds for the secular portion of their children's education. That is, they seek the amount allocated by government for the education of all children. To be sure, there is ample room for debate on whether it is good law and whether it is, in any event, good policy.

We are appalled at the possibility that two leaders of the Jewish Defense League may have been involved in a plot to bomb a mosque and the office of a Congressman of Lebanese descent. Yet such are the charges against JDL Chairman Irv Rubin and member Earl Krugel. They are accused in a federal complaint of planning to bomb the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, California and the office of freshman California Rep. Darrell Issa.

Readers might find the following items from the Monitor's mailbag to be of some interest. (The Monitor responds privately to all e-mails and letters, but every now and then selects a few for public viewing.)

A continuing refrain one hears these days is that Israel should not go too far in its war on terrorism and drive Arafat and the Palestinian Authority from power. Thus, while there is finally acknowledgement around the world ? even by the European Union! ? that Israel's efforts against the Palestinian suicide bombers are of a piece with the U.S.'s and the world's war on Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, fear of what would follow Arafat & Co. has accorded this terrorist entity some redeeming value. But we are not buying.

After September 11, many expressed amazement at the relative ease with which illegal aliens from Arab countries were apparently able to lose themselves in American society. This in no small measure contributed to the horrific events of that day. But a startling story in this past Monday's New York Times documents that there was doubtless another related dimension as well. According to a The Times piece entitled, "After A Long, Slow Climb to Respectability, a Muslim Charity Experiences a Rapid Fall," the US was not only duped into providing a home for terrorists, it also served as a cash cow for terrorists.

It is altogether fitting and proper that New York State's Governor George Pataki, New York City's Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Mayor-Elect Michael Bloomberg chose Chanuka for their solidarity visit to Israel. Chanuka symbolizes Divine deliverance and the triumph of good over evil, themes that have particular resonance now that both the United States and Israel are waging war against terrorism. Indeed, the presence of these three politicians in Israel at this time sharply underscores the parallel challenges presented by the events of September 11 and the more than year-long Intifada. Coming as well, in the context of President Bush's no-nonsense support for Israel's anti-terrorist efforts, it is an indication that American appreciation of Israel's plight is not only broad, but deep as well.

The linchpin of the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt ? and the basis for Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula ? was that the Sinai would be demilitarized, and a natural "no-man's land" of sorts would be created between the two countries. However, a proposed U.S. missile deal with Egypt threatens to negate this vital element of the military balance that has obtained for more than two decades.

If you thought the Monitor was finished with ABC World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings last week, you don't know the Monitor or Peter Jennings. Throughout his career, starting with his years as a Beirut-based correspondent in the late 1960's and early 70's, Jennings has evinced a sharp pro-Palestinian bias - one that goes well beyond the ritualistic bromides mouthed by garden variety journalists who strive with all their might to attain the proper level of political correctness.

The recent developments in U.S. Mideast policy are nothing short of stunning. Over the past few days, in unusually blunt and unequivocal language, President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have left no doubt that they have had it with Yassir Arafat's duplicity regarding the violence directed at Israel. And in Tuesday's order freezing the financial assets of organizations allegedly linked to Hamas, there is also no doubt left that the day is past when we will prevaricate regarding funding for Palestinian terrorists. Yet, while most are viewing these welcome actions in terms of support for Israel ? and it certainly is that ? we also believe that they are key to our continuing war against terror.

When President Bush, in the company of Treasury Secretary O'Neill and Attorney General Ashcroft, announced publicly on December 4 that the United States would be seizing the assets of the Holy Land Foundation of Richardson, Texas, because its money was being used to support the Hamas terror organization, the President was endorsing the lawsuit brought in May 2000 against the Holy Land Foundation by the parents of David Boim, a 17-year-old yeshiva student who was killed in a drive-by shooting by Hamas terrorists in May 1996.

"Peter Jennings, Palestinian sympathizer first, journalist second?" is how the conservative Media Research Center (MRC) put it in its CyberAlert of Dec. 4. "Israel," the alert went on, "was the victim of a murderous terrorist attack by a terrorist group, Hamas, which claimed credit.

As we went to press on Tuesday, we learned that the New York State Court of Appeals has ruled that a rabbi cannot be sued for having disclosed confidential information that a congregant gives him in a counselling session if the rabbi believes that religious law requires the disclosure.

As we said here last week, the Bush Administration seems to be making its case for a Phase II military effort against Iraq. Indeed, at a Rose Garden ceremony this past Monday for two recently released aid workers in Afghanistan who had been held captive by the Taliban, President Bush was asked what message he had for Iraq. He said as follows:

Well, my message is that if you harbor a terrorist, you're a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you develop weapons of mass destruction that you want to [use to] terrorize the world, you'll be held accountable.

As part of its anti-terror program, the United States State Department routinely offers rewards for information leading to the capture of murderers of Americans around the world. However, there continues to be one general exception to the rule ? Americans killed by Palestinian terrorists.

More looniness to report this week from our friends on the left, who since Sept. 11 have put to rest the notion that their habitual opposition to virtually any U.S. military action would dissipate the moment the country came under actual attack from a foreign enemy.

We refer our readers to the Jerusalem Post editorial appearing below on the topic of Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech on the Middle East. But we also offer the following:

There is certainly ample basis for both the positive and negative comments on Secretary Powell's speech. On the negative side of the ledger were his support for a Palestinian state, the dispatch of "special envoys" reminiscent of the Clinton "pressure" years, the use of the term "occupation" when referring to Israel's control over Yehuda and Shomron, and his condemnation of the "settlements."

There is growing evidence that now that success in Afghanistan is within reach, the President is serious about pursuing the war against terrorism to other venues. One senses an almost palpable effort to prepare the world community for the so-called Phase II. It will be recalled that Mr. Bush declared soon after September 11th that targeting Osama bin Laden and his Taliban protectors would be Phase I, and that neutralizing the terror network around the world would constitute Phase II. And it is fast emerging that Iraq will be the first step.

Last week in these pages, we noted the significance of the upcoming World Zionist Congress elections. As we said, the Congress determines the policies and budgetary allocations of the Jewish Agency in Israel which is the central agency administering the distribution of the bulk of the hundreds of millions of dollars raised by the UJA-Federation system worldwide. However, the erosion of Orthodox representation in the Congress over the years has resulted in a substantial diminution of support for Orthodox institutions and a definite non-Orthodox tilt in positions on issues that are fundamental to the character of the Jewish people.

It's been raining rumor and myth since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. And though most of the so-called urban legends that now abound on the Internet and even make an appearance or two in mainstream news outlets are easily dispelled by their very outlandishness, there are some that just won't go away.

Although "it's not over 'til it's over," the reports out of Afghanistan of the continuing collapse of the Taliban hold on the country are certainly welcome signs of the effectiveness of the President's anti-terrorism policy. To be sure, Osama bin Laden is still at large. But it cannot be lost on any of the nations of the world that if they provide safe harbor to terrorists, this is the kind of power that can be unleashed against them to, in President Bush's words, "cough them up."

In the light of the ostensibly single-minded war against terrorism, it is becoming increasingly difficult for defenders of Yasir Arafat to explain away his continuing embrace ? if not worse ? of terrorism emanating from within areas under his control. Further, the various Arab states that are nominally allied with the United States such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are having a devil of a time justifying their continued support of Arafat despite his recalcitrance, and also their urging pressure on Israel to make concessions to the Palestinian as the price of their participation in the anti-terror coalition.