Dear Associated Press:

Your reporting continues to be extremely biased with regard to the escalating conflict in the Middle East. Let us take this simple example:

BEGIN QUOTE JERUSALEM (AP) -- In rapid succession Tuesday, a Palestinian man opened fire on a crowded Tel Aviv nightclub, a suicide bomber blew himself up on an Israeli bus, gunmen ambushed Israeli motorists in the West Bank and a mysterious blast went off in the Gaza Strip. Five Israelis and three Palestinians were killed in the attacks.

In response, Israel intensified air strikes, firing missiles at half a dozen targets in the West Bank and Gaza Strip late Monday and early Tuesday -- including three of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's government compounds. Arafat was a few yards away from one of the areas hit, but was not harmed. END QUOTE

Here are some observations on this that I would appreciate your answer to.

It always amazes me that you fail to give the reasons for the Palestinian attacks (which somehow always pop out of the blue and are never "in response" or even "in retaliation" to earlier Israeli attacks). Yet it seems that Israeli "actions" are always "in response." In this case, what happened Monday seems to have been ignored to emphasize the "attacks" by the Palestinians Tuesday. Why were the Israeli "actions" on Monday (including killing several Palestinian civilians) not considered "attacks" for which these actions by Palestinians on Tuesday are a response? I understand that Israeli officials tell you that these are responses but so do the Palestinian militants. Why is the word of Israeli officials taken for face value and accepted as fact while you dismiss the words of Palestinians, Israeli army refusenicks, and essentially all human rights organizations?

Why do you consistently use the word "targets" for Palestinian places attacked and never for hitting Israeli targets (checkpoints, settlements etc.). Why is hitting a Palestinian refugee camp, schools, ambulances, and police stations simply hitting "targets"?

Why do you say "including three of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's government compounds." Why not use the same language on Israeli "targets": i.e. "Palestinian resistance fighters hit targets including two of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government checkpoints and one of his governments military training compounds in a Zionist settlement/colony in the occupied areas"? Why this fixation on Arafat but not Sharon?

Incorrect language and biased reporting is further compounded by absence of key facts and information. Why is their no reference to the "occupation" "Israeli occupation forces" or any allusion to what this "fighting" is about.

Why this false symmetry drawn between Israel and the Palestinians? Is there a symmetry between an occupying army which used every available weapons, except its nuclear arsenal (Israeli army used tanks, F-16s, helicopters, gunships etc.) to subdue a largely defenseless and occupied people (Palestinian weapons consist of few light guns, home-made explosives, and rocks).

In a week in which 80 Palestinians were killed and over 200 injured (including three medics), in which dozens of homes and schools were shelled, in which Palestinians are kept in 220 little ghettos without work, school etc while settlers have a free reign of the occupied areas, I find the AP's parroting of Israeli propaganda as disturbing.

Finally could AP please report on what Human Rights Organizations are saying on these issues? Below is todays release from Amnesty International. Perhaps your editors can do a story on this and other reports.

I look forward to your answers.

Mazin Qumsiyeh, Ph.D.
Co-facilitator, Media Committee