Charles Samuel Commentary

Good Guys and Bad Guys

2005-11-24T21:25:00.000-05:00

A media expert once told me that newspapers hate "gray" matter.

If stories are too complex, and it is not as clear as black and white who the good guys are, and who the bad guys are, the reader will become lost within moments and turn the page. (By the way, before I lose you, the newspapers are the bad guys in this posting)

The papers think the readers can't handle gray matter.

We'll actually they think that their readers have none -- gray matter that is. And in fact they are probably right. These days people don't have time to read. They make snap decisions based on minimal information. That's the thesis of Malcolm Gladwell's book, Blink : The Power of Thinking Without Thinking

Gladwell says,"When you...read the first few sentences of a book, your mind takes about two seconds to jump to a series of conclusions. Well, "Blink" is a book about those two seconds, because I think those instant conclusions that we reach are really powerful and really important and, occasionally, really good."

Gladwell's book is a great read and makes a lot of sense. However when it comes to the print media, the conclusions that a reader can jump to in those two seconds can be really, really bad.

Sometimes the newspapers use those two seconds to manipulate the reader to jump to the biased conclusion of the editorial policy of the paper. Sometimes it's the bias of the editor, and frequently it can be the headline writer, or the guy who chooses the pictures who uses those two seconds to further his agenda.

Here's an amazing example from today's Globe and Mail. Take two seconds to look at the following and see what conclusions you come to.

What do you think happened? Based on the picture and the headline, who are the good guys, and who are the bad guys?

I sent a letter to the editor of the Globe. But before I share that with you, if you have more than two seconds, here's the full article.

Now here's my letter:

Sirs,

I am an avid reader of news related to the middle east. Your photo of Israeli soldiers pointing a gun at some Arab school girls with the title "Gunfire Erupts Over Paraglider" caught my attention.

It appeared to me that Israelis were shooting at innocent Arab girls in retaliation to an Arab terrorist infiltrating Israel via a hang glider. This wouldn't have been the first time that terrorists would have attempted to cross into Israel using this technique.

To my astonishment, the story was about an innocent Israeli civilian who accidentally entered Lebanon, and had to be rescued by the Israeli army before a group of Hezbollah terrorists could capture him.

Your story had nothing to do with Arab school girls.

Why did you print that photo with a totally unrelated story? It made me think that the Israeli soldiers were the "bad guys" in the headline, when in fact it was the Israeli soldiers who were the "good guys" rescuing a civilian from terrorists.

I wonder if they'll publish my letter. If you'd like to contact the Globe and Mail here's the contact info:

Letters to the Editor: letters@globeandmail.ca
Editor-in-Chief: Edward Greenspon egreenspon@globeandmail.ca

Thanks to Dov Smith at HonestReporting.ca for tipping me off on this. If you haven't signed up yet for honestreporting.com (international media monitoring) or honestreporting.ca (focus on Canadian media) do so today.

From your friend, the good guy (I hope),

Charles Samuel

LIKE SON, LIKE FATHER

2005-11-17T21:15:00.000-05:00

Today’s headline in Haaretz proclaims:

Sharon to decide this weekend whether he will quit the Likud

I don’t understand why the police aren’t the ones deciding if Sharon should quit the Likud or not.

Some advisors are telling Sharon to stay in the Likud so he can benefit from the campaign financing available to him from the government due to Likud’s 40 seats. (What happened to principles? Is it all about money?)

If he leaves the Likud to start up his own party then he’ll have to raise a lot of money for the election, but:

Sharon's fundraising ability is limited after his son, MK Omri Sharon, was convicted on Tuesday of raising funds illegally for his father.

It’s not clear if the reason why elder Sharon’s ability to fundraise is now 'limited' because his son is a crook and it harms the PM's reputation, or if his son won’t be available to help him from jail.

Anyway, it seems he learned well from his son Omri, because the PM has already raised some funds illegally…

"Mazuz issued a ruling that the Likud Party leadership election campaign has officially been underway since at least August 7, 2005. That would mean that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon might have violated the Political Party Law's campaign funding limit by attending a $10,000-a-plate dinner in his honor in New York last September. At the time, Sharon said he knew nothing about the money.

"We know of no money that was asked for or collected or spoken about at that dinner," the Prime Minister's Office declared in an official statement in the wake of the accusations.

Sure, he knew nothing about the money. And he knew nothing about the illegal millions his son Omri raised for him in the last election either.

Charles Samuel

"You make peace with your [vanquished] enemies"

2005-11-14T18:34:00.000-05:00

Right after Yitzchak Rabin signed the Olso Accords and shook hands with PLO Chairman Arafat in September of 1993, an opinion poll was taken in Israel. It showed showed that 53% of Israeli Jews supported the plan, while 44% opposed it.

In an attempt to explain why he had negotiated an agreement with the greatest murderers of Jews since the Nazis, Rabin said in a September 13 article in Time magazine, "They [Arafat and the PLO] are murderers, but you make peace with your enemies.... We have to take risks."

In the 12 years since the Oslo Accords were signed and the 10 years since Rabin's assassination this "axiom" of "you make peace with your enemies" has been hammered, unchallenged, by the defenders of Oslo into the minds Israelis and the rest of the world. This slogan has been used to justify giving guns to terrorists, handing land to them, and tolerating the relentless slaughter of thousands of innocent Jewish men, women and children.

And now today, Condoleezza Rice is in Jerusalem to force us into giving the PLO a deep water port, an airport, and a virtual unrestricted flow of terrorists through the border crossing with Egypt. This agreement will allow the PLO, Hamas and now Al Qaeda to smuggle heavy weapons into Gaza to be used against Israelis. Al Qaeda is universally condemmed in the West as a terrorist organization. Hamas according to Israel, Canada, the USA and most of the western world is listed as a terrorist organization. The PLO has still not convened the Palestine National Council to officially nullify the Palestinian National Covenant which calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Indeed, all three; Al Qaeda, Hamas and the PLO (a.k.a the PA - Palestinian Authority) are the enemies of Israel, and the enemies of America and the West.

Yet here comes Condi Rice demanding that we make "peace with our enemies" and allow Hamas to run in the PA elections. Yitzchak Rabin must be turning in his grave.

Where is Prime Minister Sharon's retort, "we'll consider allowing Hamas to run in the PA elections on the day you allow Al Qaeda to run in the Iraqi elections."?

Today we are haunted by Rabin's words, "you make peace with your enemies." Indeed, the Allies made peace with their enemies the Germans in WWII, but only after Nazi Germany was completed vanquished and forced into an unconditional surrender. General Eisenhower signed a peace agreement with his enemy the Japanese only after President Truman dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

General Eisenhower holds pens used to sign the
unconditional surrender document.
May 7, 1945 Rheims, France

With a murderous enemy bent on your genocidal destruction, you can only make peace by vanquishing him into unconditional surrender. Anything less is seen as a sign of weakness by the enemy and an opportunity to advance his agenda. This is the fatal flaw of Oslo; one missing word. By not forcing the PA into unconditional surrender on Israel's terms, Israel has suffered the worst terrorism in its history during the Oslo years.

This lesson is not a new one. In Chapter 14 of Genesis [parshat Lech Lecha] war is waged by "Amraphel king of Shinar [Iraq], Arioch king of Ellasar, Kedarlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations;" against "Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboim, and the king of Belah, which is Zoar." The battle was fought in the Valley of Siddim [Dead Sea] and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah are vanquished and flee. The victors "took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their provisions, and went their way. And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who lived in Sodom, and his goods, and departed."

In the ancient world, the victor takes all, and dictates the terms to the defeated.

When Avraham is informed that his nephew Lot has been taken captive, he sets out to do battle against Lot's captors and "defeats them." And Avraham "brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people." Avraham's victory is total.

Then a curious thing happens:

17. And the king of Sodom [the vanquished loser-cs] went out to meet him [Avraham] after his return from the slaughter of Kedorlaomer, and of the kings who were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king’s valley.

18. And Melchizedek king of Shalem brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God.

19. And he [Melchizedek] blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth;

20. And blessed be God the Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand. And he gave him a tenth of all. [Avraham's military victory was due to God - a lesson we should learn about modern Israeli wars-cs]
21. And the king of Sodom said to Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods for yourself. [chutzpah! the loser from the 'west bank' is trying to dictate terms!-According to the law of the ancient world and the Torah, the people and the goods ALREADY belong to Avraham by virtue of his victory. cs]

22. And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand to the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,

23. That I will not take from a thread to a sandal strap, and that I will not take any thing that is yours, lest you should say, 'I have made Abram rich;' [this is incredible. Avraham, and the rest of the world knows that the entire spoils belong to Avraham, but he is willing to give back everything just so there will not be a descration of G-d's name by Sodom implying that Avraham's victory and wealth had any attribution other than G-d.]

It's time Prime Minister Sharon opened up a chumash [Bible] and started explaining to Condileezza Rice and George Bush Who really won the wars against the Arab enemy over the last 100 years. Our job as the decendants of Avraham is to teach the world that the miracle on the mediterranean and the blessings we have as the State of Israel are due to "the Lord, the most high G-d, the possessor of heaven and earth."

Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto says, "the principle activity of man is to prevent evil from being able to rule and act in the world." When evil is vanquished, the default state is "peace."

May the Al-mighty allow us to make peace with our vanquished enemies.

With blessings for Peace,
Charles Samuel