In addition to writing and painting, I run a small website production company with a friend of mine from India. My agenda for Monday included the following three items:

a) Finish-up the launch of a trauma and bereavement counseling center, which provides free services in Israel and offers online assistance to the world at large;

b) Write a proposal for a humanitarian, non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to reducing death and injury through the use of explosive-detection dogs to counter terrorism; and

c) Help maintain a public service site, which facilitates in the raising of funds for the purchase of emergency communications, safety, medical and civil defense equipment for the communities in Yesha.

At 12:00 noon I needed to break-away from the world of terror and grief. I made myself a cup of coffee and pulled out the hard-copy of a commercial real estate site that I?ve been working on. While waiting for the scanner to warm-up, I checked-out Foxnews.com (months ago, it would have been CNN.com, but I found Fox to be far more balanced in their reporting).

The lead story on the homepage was, of course, the car bombing in Riyadh. Underneath that story was a link to ?Recent Terrorist Attacks Around the World?. G-d only knows what prompted me to click through to it.

My heart started racing even before my first sip of caffeine. A list, provided by the Associated Press, refers to 16 attacks in 13 countries from as far back as 1998 - and Israel isn?t mentioned.

I sent off a frantic email to a variety of media-monitoring groups and editors. Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, the opinion editor of Israelnn.com (Arutz-7), responded first. He noted that Russia (remember the Moscow theater taken over by Chechen terrorists? 120 died in a rescue attempt that saved another 700); and India (remember the Mumbai explosions that killed more than 50 in August?), failed to rate with the Associated Press, as well as dozens of other attacks in those countries.

I tried to imagine the reasoning behind this enormous blunder. Could it be that:

a) AP has a representative from Islamic Jihad working in its Mid-East Bureau?
b) AP prefers to have their news written by teenage interns?
c) it?s a subliminal attempt on the part of AP to eliminate or isolate Israel, India and Russia from the world community?
d) the AP writers didn?t have the time or the patience to enumerate the vast numbers of catastrophes?
e) the FOX webmaster simply didn't have server space to hold all of the disastrous data?
f) it?s gross negligence, incompetence and insensitivity on the part of both Fox and AP?

Up to date statistics aren?t hard to find, although they continue to grow. As of the end of September 2003 the three-year old figures looked like this: 867 Israelis dead, 5,878 wounded, 18,876 terrorist attacks.

Under the circumstances, AP and Fox could have at least given Israel a footnote.

Of course, the ?real? reason that AP didn?t include Israel, India or Russia in their stats could have something to to do with the following logic: In countries where there is a ?conflict? in the region, there are no good guys or bad guys, as everything is relative. One man?s murderer is another man?s martyr. And the press, after all, must remain objective. Classifying those attacks as terror becomes problematic for the media.

But I implore all news services to consider following:

There remains a very real possibility that, while the coffee is being poured at a posh cafe in Israel, a table of innocent journalists will be poring over the latest news reports and frantically typing on the latest laptops. As they?re splitting hairs, breaking their teeth and picking their brains over politically correct terminology like ?militants?, ?gunmen?, ?guerrillas?, ?insurgents?, ?rebels?, ?freedom fighters?, ?revolutionaries?, ?gang members?, etc. some well-dressed gentleman or lady of middle-eastern descent will suddenly scream ?Allahu akbar!? - followed by a loud Kaboom! After which, ZAKA volunteers will be scraping-up split hairs, broken teeth and picking through bits of laptops embedded in pieces of brains.

They say that there?s a moment of truth at the time of death - when one literally ?sees the light?. I imagine these former people of the press, while in transit to their final destination, being struck by a sudden bolt of lightening and thinking, ?Eureka! I?ve got it! This is terror and the word we?ve been searching for is terrorist!?

Only by then, it will be too late, as there are no pentiums, ISDN connections or even Canon EOS 1Ds with fish-eye lenses where they?ll be going. They?ll take their skills, talent, education and new-found truth to the grave. And that must be the definition of Hell. Hell must be the world of regrets - a place where souls hang out with the truth hanging above their heads, knowing full well that they?ve forfeited their chance of ever rectifying the situation.

Hell can also manifest itself in this world as a condition of knowing and yet being unable to express oneself. Or, being able to express the truth, but in a world where nobody cares to see or hear it. Or, being condemned to watch those with the power and tools to disseminate the truth use their devices and abilities to propagate lies. But here?s a bit of good news, Hell in this world of action is subject to change. G-d can be merciful and justice can prevail, but a lot depends on us and our efforts.

So I implore all journalists, writers and agents of the media to initiate change by choosing truth. If it?s against your political agenda to do it for Israel?s sake, then at least do it for your own sake.