Dear Editor,
Saeb Erekat, representative of the Palestinian Authority, is quoted in The Washington Post article World Leaders Condemn Iranian’s Call to Wipe Israel ‘Off the Map’ {Oct. 28, 2005] saying that “we [the Palestinian Authority] do not accept the statements of the President of Iran.” Contrary to this comment, the Palestinian Authority still allows Iran to reward the families of Palestinians who murder Israelis, which effectively does just that – wipes Israel ‘off the Map’ - albeit several Jews at a time.
The Washington Post fails to consider the context of those they have quoted. In so doing, the article serves more as Palestinian propaganda than news.
Michael Berenhaus
Monday, October 31, 2005
Friday, October 7, 2005
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
Israeli play attendee Tova Na'aman, in Gaza Debate Whets Israeli Appetite for Theater [10/2/05], is asked for her documents before entering a current Israeli play, to simulate an Israeli checkpoint. She says that she had “never been at a checkpoint before” and that the experience “was unpleasant.” Never been to a checkpoint? How about every time she goes to an Israeli shopping mall, airport, restaurant, grocery store, museum, sporting event, bus station, etc.? Most people would consider being frisked, having to spread your arms and legs, having someone dig through your bags as "going through a checkpoint." This is life in today's Israel, made necessary because of Palestinian suicide bombers.
The play also mocked Israel’s separation barrier, which has reduced Palestinian suicide bombings by 90% and saved countless Israelis from being killed or maimed for life. Why mock something that saves lives? If the playwrights were interested in making valid and significant points to help alleviate the conflict, they might have pointed out that there would be no need for security barriers or checkpoints if Palestinians would just teach their children that if you have a grievance, you don’t strap explosives to your body, loaded with nuts, bolts, and nails laced in rat poison, to blow up children playing in school yards, dancing in discos, or eating pizza at a restaurant. You sit down and discuss it like civilized human beings.
Israeli play attendee Tova Na'aman, in Gaza Debate Whets Israeli Appetite for Theater [10/2/05], is asked for her documents before entering a current Israeli play, to simulate an Israeli checkpoint. She says that she had “never been at a checkpoint before” and that the experience “was unpleasant.” Never been to a checkpoint? How about every time she goes to an Israeli shopping mall, airport, restaurant, grocery store, museum, sporting event, bus station, etc.? Most people would consider being frisked, having to spread your arms and legs, having someone dig through your bags as "going through a checkpoint." This is life in today's Israel, made necessary because of Palestinian suicide bombers.
The play also mocked Israel’s separation barrier, which has reduced Palestinian suicide bombings by 90% and saved countless Israelis from being killed or maimed for life. Why mock something that saves lives? If the playwrights were interested in making valid and significant points to help alleviate the conflict, they might have pointed out that there would be no need for security barriers or checkpoints if Palestinians would just teach their children that if you have a grievance, you don’t strap explosives to your body, loaded with nuts, bolts, and nails laced in rat poison, to blow up children playing in school yards, dancing in discos, or eating pizza at a restaurant. You sit down and discuss it like civilized human beings.
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
Glenn Kessler, in Talking Points Aside, Bush Stance on Palestinian State Is Not a First [Oct. 5, 2005], interviews Shibley Telhami, a so-called Middle East expert. Kessler states, “Telhami…agrees that Bush formally made creating a Palestinian state the goal of U.S. policy, largely to appeal to the Muslim world at a time when the United States attacked Afghanistan.” Why would the US need to appeal to the Muslim world after attacking Afghanistan? It is the Muslim world that should be appealing to the United States after September 11. The United States merely went after those that attacked her and those that supported the attackers– no excuse needed whatsoever. And Telhami is what The Washington Post calls an “expert?”
Moreover, Telhami seems to have the remarkable ability to be able to get into the head of the President of the United States knowing why he does what he does. Remind me not to play Texas Hold ‘em poker against him. And Washington Post reporter Kessler paraphrases him like what he is saying is fact when it is very possible, even conceivable, that he is just spouting propaganda. To be more objective, it would seem that a reporter should make it very clear that those he quotes are just stating opinion – not fact
Glenn Kessler, in Talking Points Aside, Bush Stance on Palestinian State Is Not a First [Oct. 5, 2005], interviews Shibley Telhami, a so-called Middle East expert. Kessler states, “Telhami…agrees that Bush formally made creating a Palestinian state the goal of U.S. policy, largely to appeal to the Muslim world at a time when the United States attacked Afghanistan.” Why would the US need to appeal to the Muslim world after attacking Afghanistan? It is the Muslim world that should be appealing to the United States after September 11. The United States merely went after those that attacked her and those that supported the attackers– no excuse needed whatsoever. And Telhami is what The Washington Post calls an “expert?”
Moreover, Telhami seems to have the remarkable ability to be able to get into the head of the President of the United States knowing why he does what he does. Remind me not to play Texas Hold ‘em poker against him. And Washington Post reporter Kessler paraphrases him like what he is saying is fact when it is very possible, even conceivable, that he is just spouting propaganda. To be more objective, it would seem that a reporter should make it very clear that those he quotes are just stating opinion – not fact
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)