From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:14 PM
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
Former President Carter repeats and enhances the canard that Israel is confiscating Palestinian Arab land in his new book. Which land is he referring to? The Palestinian Arabs have never had autonomy over any land – until Israel started giving them some following the Oslo accord. Then, earlier this year, Israel gave them more with Gaza. In short, it's the exact opposite of what Carter (and often The Washington Post) claims! Israel is giving the Palestinian Arabs land - land which they never had!
And how is Israel being repaid? With rockets that terrorize and suicide bombers that have killed or maimed thousands of innocent Israeli women and children in schools and shops. Former President Carter’s new book doesn’t belong on the NY Times best seller list – it belongs on the list of the three greatest slanders of the Jewish people along with Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Michael Berenhaus
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
The Washington Post’s Scott Wilson states that “Palestinians envision a future state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem” [Textbooks In Israel to Designate West Bank, Dec. 6, 2006]. Who are the Palestinians to whom he refers? Palestinians have never chosen the path of peace and reconciliation through territorial compromise. When offered the opportunity for a sovereign state, Palestinians have always chosen war to destroy Israel – territory has always been inconsequential compared to the desire to destroy the Jewish state. As early as 1948, Palestinians were offered this “envisioned” state. At that time, they not only declined the offer but rather attempted to conquer all of Israel in battle - along with seven neighboring Arab countries. As recently as May of 2000, Palestinians were offered almost all of the territory that The Washington Post claims they desire – through the mediation efforts of President Clinton – yet declined it outright and chose the path of violence through their intifida.
On June 9, 2006, in an article in The Washington Post, that same reporter stated that Hamas - the democratically elected totalitarian regime that leads the Palestinians - wants a future Palestinian state to "cover territory that now includes Israel". This has been the stated or implicit aspiration of the Palestinians since Israel’s inception. What motivates The Washington Post to conceal the aspirations of the Palestinians rather than state what the Palestinians themselves are not reluctant to declare?
The Washington Post’s Scott Wilson states that “Palestinians envision a future state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem” [Textbooks In Israel to Designate West Bank, Dec. 6, 2006]. Who are the Palestinians to whom he refers? Palestinians have never chosen the path of peace and reconciliation through territorial compromise. When offered the opportunity for a sovereign state, Palestinians have always chosen war to destroy Israel – territory has always been inconsequential compared to the desire to destroy the Jewish state. As early as 1948, Palestinians were offered this “envisioned” state. At that time, they not only declined the offer but rather attempted to conquer all of Israel in battle - along with seven neighboring Arab countries. As recently as May of 2000, Palestinians were offered almost all of the territory that The Washington Post claims they desire – through the mediation efforts of President Clinton – yet declined it outright and chose the path of violence through their intifida.
On June 9, 2006, in an article in The Washington Post, that same reporter stated that Hamas - the democratically elected totalitarian regime that leads the Palestinians - wants a future Palestinian state to "cover territory that now includes Israel". This has been the stated or implicit aspiration of the Palestinians since Israel’s inception. What motivates The Washington Post to conceal the aspirations of the Palestinians rather than state what the Palestinians themselves are not reluctant to declare?
Letter to The Detroit Free Press
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 10:29 PM
To: 'letters@freepress.com'
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
On Dec. 10, 2006, The Detroit Free Press printed several letters condemning Israel for allegedly “oppressing the Palestinian Arabs”. Up until the recent Intifada, started by the Palestinian Arabs, the Palestinian Arabs had near the highest standard of living of any non-oil producing Arab country. Palestinian Arabs send men, even women and children as young as 16, with bombs strapped to their waist to blow up themselves and untold Israeli men, women, and children in shopping malls, schools, and pizza shops – what are they expecting – for Israel to roll out a red carpet? A security barrier was put in place and its working - the suicide bombings have been largely reduced.
Actions have consequences. In effect, the Palestinian Arabs constructed the barrier – and it is up to them when it can be taken down.
Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 10:29 PM
To: 'letters@freepress.com'
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
On Dec. 10, 2006, The Detroit Free Press printed several letters condemning Israel for allegedly “oppressing the Palestinian Arabs”. Up until the recent Intifada, started by the Palestinian Arabs, the Palestinian Arabs had near the highest standard of living of any non-oil producing Arab country. Palestinian Arabs send men, even women and children as young as 16, with bombs strapped to their waist to blow up themselves and untold Israeli men, women, and children in shopping malls, schools, and pizza shops – what are they expecting – for Israel to roll out a red carpet? A security barrier was put in place and its working - the suicide bombings have been largely reduced.
Actions have consequences. In effect, the Palestinian Arabs constructed the barrier – and it is up to them when it can be taken down.
Michael Berenhaus
Friday, December 8, 2006
Letter to The Baltimore Sun
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 3:59 PM
To: 'letters@baltsun.com'
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
The Baltimore Sun's editorial Of Land And Peace [Dec. 4, 2006] misses on all counts. The Suns claims, which are very damning to Israel, are based on a report by the anti-settlement group which calls itself Peace Now. Peace Now has been on a steep decline since May of 2000 when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinian Arabs a state in all of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank (with an extra 3% in adjacent land for a total of 100%), and East Jerusalem as their capital. The Palestinians rejected the offer outright - didn't even counter it. With this, Peace Now and its hardline 'make concessions' policies were exposed as worthless. Now desperate, Peace Now issues its report. Its claim - some of the Israeli settlements are built on Palestinian land. The veracity of this report is questionable even to the Sun which qualifies the claims by saying "if true." Yes but 'if false,' the entire claim is just more slander against Israel and irresponsible journalism by The Sun.
Perhaps, instead of parroting a partisan advocacy group, the Sun could have done some investigative journalism to find out the truth on this matter. And isn't that what newspapers are supposed to do?
Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 3:59 PM
To: 'letters@baltsun.com'
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
The Baltimore Sun's editorial Of Land And Peace [Dec. 4, 2006] misses on all counts. The Suns claims, which are very damning to Israel, are based on a report by the anti-settlement group which calls itself Peace Now. Peace Now has been on a steep decline since May of 2000 when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinian Arabs a state in all of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank (with an extra 3% in adjacent land for a total of 100%), and East Jerusalem as their capital. The Palestinians rejected the offer outright - didn't even counter it. With this, Peace Now and its hardline 'make concessions' policies were exposed as worthless. Now desperate, Peace Now issues its report. Its claim - some of the Israeli settlements are built on Palestinian land. The veracity of this report is questionable even to the Sun which qualifies the claims by saying "if true." Yes but 'if false,' the entire claim is just more slander against Israel and irresponsible journalism by The Sun.
Perhaps, instead of parroting a partisan advocacy group, the Sun could have done some investigative journalism to find out the truth on this matter. And isn't that what newspapers are supposed to do?
Michael Berenhaus
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Letter to Washington Post Jerusalem Bureau Chief
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:52 PM
To: 'Scott Wilson'
Subject: One point on recent letter
Hi Scott,
I enjoyed reading your article Gaza Truce Won’t Be Widened to West Bank [Dec. 4, 2006]. It was very complete and largely fair but I wanted to bring up one point. You rightly point out that a Hamas spokesman said Israel had violated the truce, “although he did not specify how.” This indicates that there was no proof for this to be the case nor examples given.
But you ended the piece by saying that Islamic Jihad warned that the cease fire is on the edge of collapsing - because of Israeli violations. By not putting quotes around “Israeli violations” or calling the violations alleged, or saying “although the violations were not specified”, your article suggests it to be the truth – which I don’t believe was your intention. May I get your view on this?
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:52 PM
To: 'Scott Wilson'
Subject: One point on recent letter
Hi Scott,
I enjoyed reading your article Gaza Truce Won’t Be Widened to West Bank [Dec. 4, 2006]. It was very complete and largely fair but I wanted to bring up one point. You rightly point out that a Hamas spokesman said Israel had violated the truce, “although he did not specify how.” This indicates that there was no proof for this to be the case nor examples given.
But you ended the piece by saying that Islamic Jihad warned that the cease fire is on the edge of collapsing - because of Israeli violations. By not putting quotes around “Israeli violations” or calling the violations alleged, or saying “although the violations were not specified”, your article suggests it to be the truth – which I don’t believe was your intention. May I get your view on this?
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Letter to The Washington Post
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:26 AM
To: letters@washpost.com
Cc: 'ombudsman@washpost.com'
Dear Editor,
Michael Rizk, in Israel Attacked First [Nov. 25, 2006], claims “Israel initiated the attacks” in the Israel/Hezbollah war this summer. Not only did Hezbollah kidnap two Israeli soldiers as Rizk correctly points out, but they also killed an additional eight. The Hezbollah offensive also included rocket attacks against Northern Israel before Israeli troops fired back. How does this portray Israel as the initiator of the attacks?
Rizk further blames Israel for the “devastation” in Lebanon. Interestingly, Rizk does not mention - or assign blame - to any entity for the devastation that occurred in Northern Israel – the result of thousands of rockets launched against its civilian population. Any country that allows a terrorist entity like Hezbollah – which has become an integral and welcome segment of Lebanese society, and which is represented in the Lebanese Parliament - to launch attacks from their soil should expect the country that has been attacked to retaliate and defend its citizens.
Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:26 AM
To: letters@washpost.com
Cc: 'ombudsman@washpost.com'
Dear Editor,
Michael Rizk, in Israel Attacked First [Nov. 25, 2006], claims “Israel initiated the attacks” in the Israel/Hezbollah war this summer. Not only did Hezbollah kidnap two Israeli soldiers as Rizk correctly points out, but they also killed an additional eight. The Hezbollah offensive also included rocket attacks against Northern Israel before Israeli troops fired back. How does this portray Israel as the initiator of the attacks?
Rizk further blames Israel for the “devastation” in Lebanon. Interestingly, Rizk does not mention - or assign blame - to any entity for the devastation that occurred in Northern Israel – the result of thousands of rockets launched against its civilian population. Any country that allows a terrorist entity like Hezbollah – which has become an integral and welcome segment of Lebanese society, and which is represented in the Lebanese Parliament - to launch attacks from their soil should expect the country that has been attacked to retaliate and defend its citizens.
Michael Berenhaus
Sunday, November 5, 2006
Letter to The Washington Post followed by their response
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 11:41 AM
To: letters@washpost.com: 'ombudsman@washpost.com'
Subject: Washington Post title not neutral
Dear Editors,
On November 2nd , 2006, The Washington Post published an article and titled it “Israeli Troops Spark Clashes In Gaza Strip.” The article, however, states that “the raid was designed to root out stockpiles of crude Palestinian rockets…and the men who fire them into southern Israel.” This leads credence to the view that the Israeli raid was a defensive raid in response to Palestinian rocket attacks into Israel undertaken in an attempt to stop them from re-occurring. So what event really sparked the clash? The rocket attacks or the Israeli counter measures? That depends on which view is taken. The Israeli view is that the Palestinians firing rockets at civilians in Israel sparked the clash – after all, the Israelis do have a right to protect their citizens. The Palestinian view is that the Israeli troops sparked the clashes. The title that was given to this article indicates that the view taken by the The Washington Post appears to be equivalent to the Palestinian point of view. Moreover, is it fair to say that the one that hits back after being hit is the one that sparked the fight?
Sincerely,
Michael Berenhaus
-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah C Howell
On Behalf Of Ombudsman Internet DropBox
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 4:08 PM
To: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Subject: Re: Washington Post title not neutral
I got a number of complaints about that headline and have talked to the
editors about it.
Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 11:41 AM
To: letters@washpost.com: 'ombudsman@washpost.com'
Subject: Washington Post title not neutral
Dear Editors,
On November 2nd , 2006, The Washington Post published an article and titled it “Israeli Troops Spark Clashes In Gaza Strip.” The article, however, states that “the raid was designed to root out stockpiles of crude Palestinian rockets…and the men who fire them into southern Israel.” This leads credence to the view that the Israeli raid was a defensive raid in response to Palestinian rocket attacks into Israel undertaken in an attempt to stop them from re-occurring. So what event really sparked the clash? The rocket attacks or the Israeli counter measures? That depends on which view is taken. The Israeli view is that the Palestinians firing rockets at civilians in Israel sparked the clash – after all, the Israelis do have a right to protect their citizens. The Palestinian view is that the Israeli troops sparked the clashes. The title that was given to this article indicates that the view taken by the The Washington Post appears to be equivalent to the Palestinian point of view. Moreover, is it fair to say that the one that hits back after being hit is the one that sparked the fight?
Sincerely,
Michael Berenhaus
-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah C Howell
On Behalf Of Ombudsman Internet DropBox
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 4:08 PM
To: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Subject: Re: Washington Post title not neutral
I got a number of complaints about that headline and have talked to the
editors about it.
Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Letter to New York Times
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:11 AM
To: 'letters@nytimes.com'
Cc: 'foreign@nytimes.com'
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
When in human history has a country started a war, lost, and then dictated terms after the war is over? The Shabaa Farms area of Syria was lost to Israel forty years ago, and Syria and Hezbollah are still demanding that it be returned [See Lebanon’s Three-Sided Postwar Game: Who Gets Shabaa Farms? Sept.24, 2006]. What Arab countries need to understand is that there is a price for starting a war. If you lose, don't expect “take backs.”
Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:11 AM
To: 'letters@nytimes.com'
Cc: 'foreign@nytimes.com'
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
When in human history has a country started a war, lost, and then dictated terms after the war is over? The Shabaa Farms area of Syria was lost to Israel forty years ago, and Syria and Hezbollah are still demanding that it be returned [See Lebanon’s Three-Sided Postwar Game: Who Gets Shabaa Farms? Sept.24, 2006]. What Arab countries need to understand is that there is a price for starting a war. If you lose, don't expect “take backs.”
Michael Berenhaus
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Letter to The Washington Post
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 7:39 AM
To: letters@washpost.com
Subject: Diversionary Strike On a Rights Group (Aug. 30, 2006)
In a 49-page report, Human Rights Watch claims that Israel conducted two dozen “indiscriminate” attacks against Lebanese civilians and is therefore guilty of war crimes [Diversionary Strike On a Rights Group (Aug. 30, 2006)]. Hezbollah, on the other hand, conducted 4000 rocket attacks designed to kill and maim Israeli civilians. But no such charges of war crimes have been levied against Hezbollah.
During the fighting, Israel dropped leaflets, blared warnings from loudspeakers, and in some cases made personal phone calls calling on Lebanese civilians to leave areas of impending attacks. Israel has denied the Human Rights Watch charges of indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Hezbollah, meanwhile, loaded rockets laced with ball bearings and nails to cause maximal civilian casualties. They make no denials about targeting civilians.
In short, Human Rights Watch has singled out two dozen disputed attacks by Israel as war crimes without implicating the 4000 undisputed attacks by Hezbollah. Yet Kathleen Peratis, member of the board and key defender of Human Rights Watch, seems surprised that critics “have been ferocious.” Go figure.
To: letters@washpost.com
Subject: Diversionary Strike On a Rights Group (Aug. 30, 2006)
In a 49-page report, Human Rights Watch claims that Israel conducted two dozen “indiscriminate” attacks against Lebanese civilians and is therefore guilty of war crimes [Diversionary Strike On a Rights Group (Aug. 30, 2006)]. Hezbollah, on the other hand, conducted 4000 rocket attacks designed to kill and maim Israeli civilians. But no such charges of war crimes have been levied against Hezbollah.
During the fighting, Israel dropped leaflets, blared warnings from loudspeakers, and in some cases made personal phone calls calling on Lebanese civilians to leave areas of impending attacks. Israel has denied the Human Rights Watch charges of indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Hezbollah, meanwhile, loaded rockets laced with ball bearings and nails to cause maximal civilian casualties. They make no denials about targeting civilians.
In short, Human Rights Watch has singled out two dozen disputed attacks by Israel as war crimes without implicating the 4000 undisputed attacks by Hezbollah. Yet Kathleen Peratis, member of the board and key defender of Human Rights Watch, seems surprised that critics “have been ferocious.” Go figure.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Letter to The Washington Post
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 9:33 AM
To: 'letters@washpost.com'
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
Dennis Sandole (letters Aug. 25, 2006] asks what Israel (and the United States) has gained by “killing more than a thousand Lebanese, displacing nearly a million people, destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure and perhaps the Lebanese state itself…” Good question but he is blaming the wrong party. It was Hezbollah that caused the killing, the displacing, and the destruction of Lebanon and the Lebanese people by attacking Israel from their midst. This twisting of culpability has plagued Israel since its birth, as world opinion, the UN, and Amnesty International consistently blame Israel for merely defending itself. No other country has ever been so castigated for similar actions. This "piling-on-Israel" scenario is ironic, since it is done against the most discriminated people in the history of the world.
In one sense, Sandole is correct when he further blames Israel for the lack of stability in the region. It is true that as long as Israel continues to fight back against the surrounding Arab countries that continually try to annihilate her and refuse to recognize her right to exist, the region will never be stable. However this is more twisting of culpability. If this is indeed the case, though, I can only say - “long live instability in the Middle East.”
Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 9:33 AM
To: 'letters@washpost.com'
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
Dennis Sandole (letters Aug. 25, 2006] asks what Israel (and the United States) has gained by “killing more than a thousand Lebanese, displacing nearly a million people, destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure and perhaps the Lebanese state itself…” Good question but he is blaming the wrong party. It was Hezbollah that caused the killing, the displacing, and the destruction of Lebanon and the Lebanese people by attacking Israel from their midst. This twisting of culpability has plagued Israel since its birth, as world opinion, the UN, and Amnesty International consistently blame Israel for merely defending itself. No other country has ever been so castigated for similar actions. This "piling-on-Israel" scenario is ironic, since it is done against the most discriminated people in the history of the world.
In one sense, Sandole is correct when he further blames Israel for the lack of stability in the region. It is true that as long as Israel continues to fight back against the surrounding Arab countries that continually try to annihilate her and refuse to recognize her right to exist, the region will never be stable. However this is more twisting of culpability. If this is indeed the case, though, I can only say - “long live instability in the Middle East.”
Michael Berenhaus
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
David Ignatius says he is a "proponent” of terrorist TV (aka Al Jazeera), despite “its tendency to spin coverage.” [Al-Jazeera’s Tricky Balancing Act, Aug. 23, 2006]. “Tendency"? It’s more like their mission. Much of Al Jazeera's coverage revolves around blaming the US and Israel for all the ills of the Arab world. Any problem in the Arab world can find it’s origin in Israel or the United States on the fiction of Al Jazeera TV. What Ignatius doesn’t seem to get is that it is this coverage that contributes to the incitement of the Arab world against the West – the same incitement that caused the Sept 11 attack.
David Ignatius says he is a "proponent” of terrorist TV (aka Al Jazeera), despite “its tendency to spin coverage.” [Al-Jazeera’s Tricky Balancing Act, Aug. 23, 2006]. “Tendency"? It’s more like their mission. Much of Al Jazeera's coverage revolves around blaming the US and Israel for all the ills of the Arab world. Any problem in the Arab world can find it’s origin in Israel or the United States on the fiction of Al Jazeera TV. What Ignatius doesn’t seem to get is that it is this coverage that contributes to the incitement of the Arab world against the West – the same incitement that caused the Sept 11 attack.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Published in The Washington Post
The Failings of a Lebanese Leader
Wednesday, August 23, 2006; A14
In his Aug. 16 column, David Ignatius said, "The surprise hero of the conflict was Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora." Mr. Siniora was a "hero"?
When his country was being blown to smithereens, he chose to reject a cease-fire offer outright and then made new demands that had nothing to do with the conflict at hand. He applauded Hezbollah's efforts when it was launching rockets from civilian neighborhoods, which led to the deaths of many Lebanese and the destruction of Lebanese cities. If this is a hero in David Ignatius's world, who else is on his list -- Attila the Hun?
MICHAEL BERENHAUS
Potomac
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Friday, August 18, 2006
Letter to The Washington Post
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:35 AM
To: letters@baltsun.com
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
In a surprise move this past year, Israel unilaterally deported its own people from the Gaza Strip in the hopes of peace. What does it get in return – countless Kassam missile attacks and a tongue lashing from George Bisharat [See Unilateral action by Israel spawns violence in Gaza, (August 17, 2006)].
Once again, Israel is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. It’s damned if it keeps land, damned if it gives it away. And that is the strategy of pro-Arabist propaganda: Alienate the world against the one Jewish state (a state which makes up just 1/10th of one percent of the Middle East) and put it in a no win situation. That way, the Arabs can win politically what they have not been able to win through terrorism and war – that last fraction of land that they don’t have but want so badly - because it’s not theirs but the re-born homeland of the Jewish people.
Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:35 AM
To: letters@baltsun.com
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
In a surprise move this past year, Israel unilaterally deported its own people from the Gaza Strip in the hopes of peace. What does it get in return – countless Kassam missile attacks and a tongue lashing from George Bisharat [See Unilateral action by Israel spawns violence in Gaza, (August 17, 2006)].
Once again, Israel is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. It’s damned if it keeps land, damned if it gives it away. And that is the strategy of pro-Arabist propaganda: Alienate the world against the one Jewish state (a state which makes up just 1/10th of one percent of the Middle East) and put it in a no win situation. That way, the Arabs can win politically what they have not been able to win through terrorism and war – that last fraction of land that they don’t have but want so badly - because it’s not theirs but the re-born homeland of the Jewish people.
Michael Berenhaus
Monday, August 14, 2006
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
In Young Muslim Rage Takes Root in Britain [Aug. 13, 2006], the sub-headline reads, “Unemployment, Foreign Policy Fuel Extremism.” What about hatred taught at home or in the Mosques? It is well-known that Fundamentalist Mosques are havens for incitement to hate. You have repeated the verbiage and propaganda of the extremists: ‘It’s not our fault.. it’s society… it’s the policy.’
Unemployment doesn’t make someone a murderer, nor does policy. The hatred that makes people kill, while killing themselves in the process, occurs from brainwashing – and this is religion-based. It’s time for the world to hold these Muslim extremists accountable for their actions, instead of giving them an ‘out’ by letting them blame others. Accepting this ‘out’ gives them carte blanche to create havoc and murder throughout the world. And it’s articles like this that provide that cover. Let's say instead - no more!
In Young Muslim Rage Takes Root in Britain [Aug. 13, 2006], the sub-headline reads, “Unemployment, Foreign Policy Fuel Extremism.” What about hatred taught at home or in the Mosques? It is well-known that Fundamentalist Mosques are havens for incitement to hate. You have repeated the verbiage and propaganda of the extremists: ‘It’s not our fault.. it’s society… it’s the policy.’
Unemployment doesn’t make someone a murderer, nor does policy. The hatred that makes people kill, while killing themselves in the process, occurs from brainwashing – and this is religion-based. It’s time for the world to hold these Muslim extremists accountable for their actions, instead of giving them an ‘out’ by letting them blame others. Accepting this ‘out’ gives them carte blanche to create havoc and murder throughout the world. And it’s articles like this that provide that cover. Let's say instead - no more!
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Letter to The Washington Post
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 4:13 PM
To: letters@washpost.comCc: ombudsman@washpost.com
Subject: Aug 9, 2006 Prime Minister Fouad Siniora
Dear Editor,
For a country that Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, in his Op-Ed
[Aug. 9, 2006], claims has been "ravaged", "shattered", and is an
"environmental disaster", he sure comes up with a lot of demands before he
would consider accepting a cease-fire. If Siniora really represented the
welfare of the Lebanese people, and was not a puppet of Iran, he would
accept an unconditional cease-fire without a long list of demands.
Apparently, that is not the case.
To: letters@washpost.comCc: ombudsman@washpost.com
Subject: Aug 9, 2006 Prime Minister Fouad Siniora
Dear Editor,
For a country that Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, in his Op-Ed
[Aug. 9, 2006], claims has been "ravaged", "shattered", and is an
"environmental disaster", he sure comes up with a lot of demands before he
would consider accepting a cease-fire. If Siniora really represented the
welfare of the Lebanese people, and was not a puppet of Iran, he would
accept an unconditional cease-fire without a long list of demands.
Apparently, that is not the case.
Letter to The Washington Post
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 4:39 PM
To: 'letters@washpost.com'; 'ombudsman@washpost.com'
Subject: To the Editor
Dear Editor,
I am all for free speech, but free propaganda? Lebanon’s Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, in his Op-Ed [Aug. 9, 2006], starts by referring to the current war in his country as “Israel’s savage war on Lebanon and the Lebanese people.” He curiously omits any reference to Hezbollah’s kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, killing of eight others, and the firing of rockets into Israel – the reason the war started.
In a mis-direction play that would make a football coach proud, Siniora states his version of the “root cause of this war –Israeli occupation of Lebanese territories and its perennial threat to Lebanon’s security.” Really? No mention of Hezbollah’s raison d’etre – to destroy Israel?
To: 'letters@washpost.com'; 'ombudsman@washpost.com'
Subject: To the Editor
Dear Editor,
I am all for free speech, but free propaganda? Lebanon’s Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, in his Op-Ed [Aug. 9, 2006], starts by referring to the current war in his country as “Israel’s savage war on Lebanon and the Lebanese people.” He curiously omits any reference to Hezbollah’s kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, killing of eight others, and the firing of rockets into Israel – the reason the war started.
In a mis-direction play that would make a football coach proud, Siniora states his version of the “root cause of this war –Israeli occupation of Lebanese territories and its perennial threat to Lebanon’s security.” Really? No mention of Hezbollah’s raison d’etre – to destroy Israel?
Monday, August 7, 2006
Dialogue with Washington Post Ombudsman
Correspondence with Washington Post Ombudsman:
To:
cc: ombudsman
Subject: Lebanon 08/07/2006 10:25 AM
Dear Editor,
According to your news reports, Lebanon is suffering horribly from Israeli air-strikes, on the verge of humanitarian crises, desperate and pleading
for a cease-fire. They are finally offered that cease fire. Their
response: immediate rejection followed by a list of conditions. What does that suggest about the accuracy and completeness of your reporting?
-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah C Howell Ombudsman
Internet DropBox
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Lebanon
Just because Lebanon rejects a ceasefire doesn't mean that there isn't suffering.
Deborah
Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
To: 'Ombudsman
Subject: RE: Lebanon
08/07/2006 01:25 PM
Thanks for your response but why wouldn't they then accept an immediate
cease fire if it would immediately end suffering? Perhaps your staff
could investigate this.
-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah C Howell Ombudsman
Internet DropBox
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 4:30 PM
Subject: RE: Lebanon
Stay tuned. They are looking into it.
Deborah
Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
To:
cc: ombudsman
Subject: Lebanon 08/07/2006 10:25 AM
Dear Editor,
According to your news reports, Lebanon is suffering horribly from Israeli air-strikes, on the verge of humanitarian crises, desperate and pleading
for a cease-fire. They are finally offered that cease fire. Their
response: immediate rejection followed by a list of conditions. What does that suggest about the accuracy and completeness of your reporting?
-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah C Howell Ombudsman
Internet DropBox
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Lebanon
Just because Lebanon rejects a ceasefire doesn't mean that there isn't suffering.
Deborah
Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
To: 'Ombudsman
Subject: RE: Lebanon
08/07/2006 01:25 PM
Thanks for your response but why wouldn't they then accept an immediate
cease fire if it would immediately end suffering? Perhaps your staff
could investigate this.
-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah C Howell Ombudsman
Internet DropBox
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 4:30 PM
Subject: RE: Lebanon
Stay tuned. They are looking into it.
Deborah
Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
With all this hullabaloo by Eugene Robinson about Israel 's using “disproportionate” force ("It’s Disproportionate " op ed, July 25, 2006], how does he think wars are won? It is when they are proportionate that they go on forever. Only Israel gets criticism by winning a war and suffering fewer casualties. In order to minimize civilian casualties, Israel sends leaflets, makes phone calls, and blares loud speakers warning citizens to leave the area where Hezbollah terrorists hide among them. Robinson calls this humanistic approach “cleansing” and “collective punishment.” Meanwhile, Hezbollah shoots rockets targeting Israeli civilians – rockets laced with ball bearings and nails to create more civilian casualties - yet Robinson is silent.
With all this hullabaloo by Eugene Robinson about Israel 's using “disproportionate” force ("It’s Disproportionate " op ed, July 25, 2006], how does he think wars are won? It is when they are proportionate that they go on forever. Only Israel gets criticism by winning a war and suffering fewer casualties. In order to minimize civilian casualties, Israel sends leaflets, makes phone calls, and blares loud speakers warning citizens to leave the area where Hezbollah terrorists hide among them. Robinson calls this humanistic approach “cleansing” and “collective punishment.” Meanwhile, Hezbollah shoots rockets targeting Israeli civilians – rockets laced with ball bearings and nails to create more civilian casualties - yet Robinson is silent.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Letter to CNN
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 11:41 AM
Subject: letter to cnn
At 10:48am today, Saturday, your commentator incorrectly stated that Israel is trying to wipe Hezbollah off the map. Hezbollah isn't on the map. On the other hand, the Arabs having been trying to "wipe Israel off the map "(in their words) since its founding in 1948. Your reporter took Arab propaganda and twisted the story backwards. Please make a correction of this. Thank you. During this difficult time, it is so important to separate fact from propaganda. I encourage CNN to do their utmost to exercise accuracy and fairness.
Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 11:41 AM
Subject: letter to cnn
At 10:48am today, Saturday, your commentator incorrectly stated that Israel is trying to wipe Hezbollah off the map. Hezbollah isn't on the map. On the other hand, the Arabs having been trying to "wipe Israel off the map "(in their words) since its founding in 1948. Your reporter took Arab propaganda and twisted the story backwards. Please make a correction of this. Thank you. During this difficult time, it is so important to separate fact from propaganda. I encourage CNN to do their utmost to exercise accuracy and fairness.
Michael Berenhaus
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Letter to Rabbi Lerner of Tikkun Magazine
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 10:01 AMTo: 'RabbiLerner@tikkun.org'Subject: Your article "Israel has Crossed a Moral Bondary
Rabbi Lerner,
You buy Hamas’ “urging” for the Israeli soldier to be released, but you don’t buy Israel’s responses. Interesting.
You say that this is a “defining moment in our relationship with Israel.” Please speak for yourself. Israel would be better off without the relationship that you seem to have with her. For me, 1948 was a defining moment, and my support for Israel will never waiver. You, on the other hand, are regularly quoted in Arab publications to prove that even Jews who are Rabbi’s feel that Israel is amoral. Please consider the anti-Semitism that your words evoke.
Michael Berenhaus,
Potomac, MD
Rabbi Lerner,
You buy Hamas’ “urging” for the Israeli soldier to be released, but you don’t buy Israel’s responses. Interesting.
You say that this is a “defining moment in our relationship with Israel.” Please speak for yourself. Israel would be better off without the relationship that you seem to have with her. For me, 1948 was a defining moment, and my support for Israel will never waiver. You, on the other hand, are regularly quoted in Arab publications to prove that even Jews who are Rabbi’s feel that Israel is amoral. Please consider the anti-Semitism that your words evoke.
Michael Berenhaus,
Potomac, MD
Letter to The Washington Post
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 9:25 PM
To: letters@washpost.com; 'ombudsman@washpost.com'
Subject: letter
Dear Editor/ombudsman,
Since you had no problem publishing Palestinian Prime Minister Haniyeh’s editorial (July 11, 2006), I assume you would also print an unedited, un-countered editorial from Kim Jong Ill, Saddam Hussein, or Iranian President Ahmenijad. Hamas, on the state department’s list of terrorist organizations, commits terror as a means of access to the world’s stage. This time Hamas got a free ticket, thanks to The Washington Post. One of the goals of terrorism is to gain media attention for the purpose of gaining legitimacy for a cause, and The Post has now become a partner in this. Terrorism has caught on quickly since the 1970’s because, as an early founder of a Palestinian organization (the PFLP) said, it works. Your publication has reinforced that.
I have seen the Palestinian Prime Minister a number of times on on-air interviews. It seems pretty clear that he didn’t write that letter. It was just more of the same Palestinian propaganda spruced up by a fancy PR company. As the war is now mostly being fought in the court of public opinion, your paper serves as a Palestinian Arab mouthpiece. The Post – I don’t get it.
Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 9:25 PM
To: letters@washpost.com; 'ombudsman@washpost.com'
Subject: letter
Dear Editor/ombudsman,
Since you had no problem publishing Palestinian Prime Minister Haniyeh’s editorial (July 11, 2006), I assume you would also print an unedited, un-countered editorial from Kim Jong Ill, Saddam Hussein, or Iranian President Ahmenijad. Hamas, on the state department’s list of terrorist organizations, commits terror as a means of access to the world’s stage. This time Hamas got a free ticket, thanks to The Washington Post. One of the goals of terrorism is to gain media attention for the purpose of gaining legitimacy for a cause, and The Post has now become a partner in this. Terrorism has caught on quickly since the 1970’s because, as an early founder of a Palestinian organization (the PFLP) said, it works. Your publication has reinforced that.
I have seen the Palestinian Prime Minister a number of times on on-air interviews. It seems pretty clear that he didn’t write that letter. It was just more of the same Palestinian propaganda spruced up by a fancy PR company. As the war is now mostly being fought in the court of public opinion, your paper serves as a Palestinian Arab mouthpiece. The Post – I don’t get it.
Michael Berenhaus
Thursday, July 6, 2006
Published in The Baltimore Sun
Opinion > letters to the editor
Letters to the Editor
Originally published July 7, 2006
Rift in Middle East can't get any deeper
In "Deadlines and demands" (editorial, July 4), The Sun states that with the Israeli offensive, "the danger is that the two sides will be driven into ever more violent and irreconcilable differences."
The charter of Hamas already calls for the destruction of the state of Israel.
So how much more "irreconcilable" can the differences become?
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac
Letters to the Editor
Originally published July 7, 2006
Rift in Middle East can't get any deeper
In "Deadlines and demands" (editorial, July 4), The Sun states that with the Israeli offensive, "the danger is that the two sides will be driven into ever more violent and irreconcilable differences."
The charter of Hamas already calls for the destruction of the state of Israel.
So how much more "irreconcilable" can the differences become?
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac
Monday, June 19, 2006
Letter to The Washington Post
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 9:02 AM
To: letters@washpost.com
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
Let's see: The Palestinian leadership believes that Israel doesn’t have the right to exist and vows to destroy her. Yet Jim Hoagland (Olmert’s Risky Security Quest, June 18, 2006) criticizes Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Ohlmert for showing “little interest” in dealing with the Palestinians”. Go figure.
Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 9:02 AM
To: letters@washpost.com
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
Let's see: The Palestinian leadership believes that Israel doesn’t have the right to exist and vows to destroy her. Yet Jim Hoagland (Olmert’s Risky Security Quest, June 18, 2006) criticizes Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Ohlmert for showing “little interest” in dealing with the Palestinians”. Go figure.
Michael Berenhaus
Monday, June 5, 2006
Letter to NY Book Review
Dear Editor,
It’s okay for Arabs to live among Jews in Israel (20% of Israel is Arab), but it’s not okay for Jews to live among Arabs according to Gershom Gorenberg’s book The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967–1977 (review June 22, 2006). Gorenberg calls these few hundred thousand Jews living among Arabs the source of an Israeli empire. Even though Arabs now make up 99 percent of the Middle East, it is ironically the ones that control the remaining 1% which are accused of empire building. Israel won the disputed territories only after repeated genocidal attacks by its Arab neighbors. And this is empire building? The reviewer calls this book “brilliant.”
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, MD
(http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19105)
It’s okay for Arabs to live among Jews in Israel (20% of Israel is Arab), but it’s not okay for Jews to live among Arabs according to Gershom Gorenberg’s book The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967–1977 (review June 22, 2006). Gorenberg calls these few hundred thousand Jews living among Arabs the source of an Israeli empire. Even though Arabs now make up 99 percent of the Middle East, it is ironically the ones that control the remaining 1% which are accused of empire building. Israel won the disputed territories only after repeated genocidal attacks by its Arab neighbors. And this is empire building? The reviewer calls this book “brilliant.”
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, MD
(http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19105)
Thursday, June 1, 2006
Letter to The Washington Post
The Post called saying that they are considering this one for publication, too. It is not a guarantee that it will be published, but be on the look out – most likely on Saturday.
Dear Editor,
In the editorial, Israel’s Realignment [May 26, 2006], the Washington Post states that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert intends to keep Jerusalem intact “even though a previous Israeli government recognized that a peace settlement will require divided sovereignty in the city.” The previous Israeli government that the Post refers to, Ehud Barak’s government, did indeed offer to divide Jerusalem during negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs –but that doesn’t make it “required.” As history tells us, the Palestinian Arabs declined the deal making it null and void – so apparently, that wasn’t the ‘requirement’ that the Palestinian Arabs were looking for.
Dear Editor,
In the editorial, Israel’s Realignment [May 26, 2006], the Washington Post states that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert intends to keep Jerusalem intact “even though a previous Israeli government recognized that a peace settlement will require divided sovereignty in the city.” The previous Israeli government that the Post refers to, Ehud Barak’s government, did indeed offer to divide Jerusalem during negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs –but that doesn’t make it “required.” As history tells us, the Palestinian Arabs declined the deal making it null and void – so apparently, that wasn’t the ‘requirement’ that the Palestinian Arabs were looking for.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Dialogue with Washington Post Ombudsman
-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah C Howell [mailto:HowellDC@washpost.com]
On Behalf Of Ombudsman Internet DropBox
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 2:05 PM
To: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Cc: Scott Wilson
Subject: Re: I was asked to raise this point with you from a Washington Post reporter
Dr. Berenhaus, I've gotten a number of complaints about that picture caption and am following up on that. I haven't gotten complaints about the headline and will go back and look at it. Deborah
To:
From:
Subject: I was asked to raise this point with you from a Washington Post reporter
05/28/2006 01:17PM
Scott Wilson, Jerusalem reporter, offered that I should run this by you:
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Wilson
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 9:04 AM
To: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Subject: Re: recent news
Michael:
You raise some interesting points that, as someone who doesn't see the physical paper everyday, I was unaware of. I appreciate your very careful reading of the work from here, and a fair sense of balance. If I were you, I would send the note you sent me to Deborah Howell, our ombudsman, who takes these things very seriously. You'll get a response, I'm sure.
Take care
Scott
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 8:07 PM
To: Scott Wilson
Subject: recent news
Scott,
I enjoyed your article in yesterday’s paper (May 25). Titles, as in yesterday’s “Israeli Troops Kill 4 Palestinians,” I am aware are not written by you but by the editors. By reading the title, I would have never guessed that the Palestinians died “after” they attacked the Israeli troops with “gunfire and a hail of stones” as reported in your article. I would have been led to believe the opposite, that the Israelis were the attackers. So what seems to have occurred in the title is a reversal in who was responsible for the attack. Even if it is said that the Israeli troop’s mission was provocative, ‘Four Palestinians Die in Clashes with Israelis’ would not have seemed to distort who the aggressor was. Another point was that the Israelis were called “Troops” and the Palestinians were not even called “militants” – making it seem as if Israel opened fire on 4 Palestinians walking down the street minding their own business. On the front page, they just called them “people.”
Speaking of the front page, the caption below the front page picture of Israeli Prime Minister Ohlmert seemed to show sarcasm or cynicism toward the Israelis: “On a day in which Israeli soldiers killed four people in Ramallah, he [Ohlmert] urged Palestinians to accept peace-talk terms. Stories, A21.” I am not sure what to say to you regarding the apparent undercurrent of The Washington Post’s editor’s in just one day’s coverage. There were no lies in what was written but words were used to tell what seemed to be a different story than what happened. I have written to the Post about this before and have gotten very few responses. I have gotten very few responses. Do you have any suggestions on how I can proceed on this?
Michael
From: Deborah C Howell [mailto:HowellDC@washpost.com]
On Behalf Of Ombudsman Internet DropBox
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 2:05 PM
To: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Cc: Scott Wilson
Subject: Re: I was asked to raise this point with you from a Washington Post reporter
Dr. Berenhaus, I've gotten a number of complaints about that picture caption and am following up on that. I haven't gotten complaints about the headline and will go back and look at it. Deborah
To:
From:
Subject: I was asked to raise this point with you from a Washington Post reporter
05/28/2006 01:17PM
Scott Wilson, Jerusalem reporter, offered that I should run this by you:
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Wilson
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 9:04 AM
To: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Subject: Re: recent news
Michael:
You raise some interesting points that, as someone who doesn't see the physical paper everyday, I was unaware of. I appreciate your very careful reading of the work from here, and a fair sense of balance. If I were you, I would send the note you sent me to Deborah Howell, our ombudsman, who takes these things very seriously. You'll get a response, I'm sure.
Take care
Scott
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 8:07 PM
To: Scott Wilson
Subject: recent news
Scott,
I enjoyed your article in yesterday’s paper (May 25). Titles, as in yesterday’s “Israeli Troops Kill 4 Palestinians,” I am aware are not written by you but by the editors. By reading the title, I would have never guessed that the Palestinians died “after” they attacked the Israeli troops with “gunfire and a hail of stones” as reported in your article. I would have been led to believe the opposite, that the Israelis were the attackers. So what seems to have occurred in the title is a reversal in who was responsible for the attack. Even if it is said that the Israeli troop’s mission was provocative, ‘Four Palestinians Die in Clashes with Israelis’ would not have seemed to distort who the aggressor was. Another point was that the Israelis were called “Troops” and the Palestinians were not even called “militants” – making it seem as if Israel opened fire on 4 Palestinians walking down the street minding their own business. On the front page, they just called them “people.”
Speaking of the front page, the caption below the front page picture of Israeli Prime Minister Ohlmert seemed to show sarcasm or cynicism toward the Israelis: “On a day in which Israeli soldiers killed four people in Ramallah, he [Ohlmert] urged Palestinians to accept peace-talk terms. Stories, A21.” I am not sure what to say to you regarding the apparent undercurrent of The Washington Post’s editor’s in just one day’s coverage. There were no lies in what was written but words were used to tell what seemed to be a different story than what happened. I have written to the Post about this before and have gotten very few responses. I have gotten very few responses. Do you have any suggestions on how I can proceed on this?
Michael
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Letter to The Washington Post
Just got word that this will be published in Saturday’s edition…
Dear Editor,
Andy Shallal shows remarkable ‘memory loss’ in his attack on Israel (Letters, May 13, 2006). Like most Palestinian supporters, he ‘forgets’ that the Palestinian Arabs were offered the West Bank in the UN Partition agreement of 1947, but declined the offer. Hoping to win it all, they and their Arab neighbors attacked the nascent Jewish state of Israel and lost - forfeiting their claim. Ironically, the land that would have been theirs was mostly taken, not by Israel, but by their land grabbing brethren, Egypt and Jordan. It wasn't until 1967 that Israel won the territories. Shallal even errs in arithmetic, claiming that June 1967-May 2006 is "more" than 40 years. By ignoring these facts and making such mistakes, he reveals the true Israel-bashing agenda of his “Arab-Jewish dialogue group”. I suggest that telling the truth would be a better “starting point for finding common ground.”
Dear Editor,
Andy Shallal shows remarkable ‘memory loss’ in his attack on Israel (Letters, May 13, 2006). Like most Palestinian supporters, he ‘forgets’ that the Palestinian Arabs were offered the West Bank in the UN Partition agreement of 1947, but declined the offer. Hoping to win it all, they and their Arab neighbors attacked the nascent Jewish state of Israel and lost - forfeiting their claim. Ironically, the land that would have been theirs was mostly taken, not by Israel, but by their land grabbing brethren, Egypt and Jordan. It wasn't until 1967 that Israel won the territories. Shallal even errs in arithmetic, claiming that June 1967-May 2006 is "more" than 40 years. By ignoring these facts and making such mistakes, he reveals the true Israel-bashing agenda of his “Arab-Jewish dialogue group”. I suggest that telling the truth would be a better “starting point for finding common ground.”
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Response to James Zogby on Huffington Post
May 16, 2006
James Zogby, Palestinian propagandist, misses from the word go. If the conditions of the Palestinians are so bad economically, how can they still afford to fire rockets at Israel on a regular basis? Where is the money coming from for the TNT that was captured just yesterday by Israel off of their coast? Where are they getting the explosives that they are using to send suicide bombers into Israel? Yes, thousands of Palestinians have lost their jobs in Israel. Why? Not because Israel is so "oppressive." It's because actions have consequences. Palestinians have lost the privilege of working in Israel because of the genocidal policy of their government as implemented by their citizens. Why would Israel want to help those that want to kill them - they made that mistake once by arming their future murderers as a result of Oslo. It would seem, even at this late juncture, that the so-called impoverished Palestinians would become more interested in building up their own economy, instead of maintaining and expanding their murder and terror industry. But that is not the case. They, along with Zogby, would rather blame everyone else for their predicament when they are fully and unequivocally responsible. And finally world opinion is holding them accountable. Their condition will improve but that will require that they first take responsibility for their actions, and stop blaming everyone else. Choosing a different industry to develop, other than the terrorism business, would certainly be a step in the right direction.
James Zogby, Palestinian propagandist, misses from the word go. If the conditions of the Palestinians are so bad economically, how can they still afford to fire rockets at Israel on a regular basis? Where is the money coming from for the TNT that was captured just yesterday by Israel off of their coast? Where are they getting the explosives that they are using to send suicide bombers into Israel? Yes, thousands of Palestinians have lost their jobs in Israel. Why? Not because Israel is so "oppressive." It's because actions have consequences. Palestinians have lost the privilege of working in Israel because of the genocidal policy of their government as implemented by their citizens. Why would Israel want to help those that want to kill them - they made that mistake once by arming their future murderers as a result of Oslo. It would seem, even at this late juncture, that the so-called impoverished Palestinians would become more interested in building up their own economy, instead of maintaining and expanding their murder and terror industry. But that is not the case. They, along with Zogby, would rather blame everyone else for their predicament when they are fully and unequivocally responsible. And finally world opinion is holding them accountable. Their condition will improve but that will require that they first take responsibility for their actions, and stop blaming everyone else. Choosing a different industry to develop, other than the terrorism business, would certainly be a step in the right direction.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Letter to New York Times
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:43 AM
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
According to West Bank Pullout Gets a Nod From Bush [May 24, 2005] , Israel plans to continue the transferring and removal of its own people from land that they won after being attacked numerous times from that land. And the Palestinian Arabs call this a “land grab?” It is a ‘land give!’ Until the Palestinian Arabs see this as an opportunity to create their own country, instead of the end of their desire for a ‘Greater Palestine,’ their calls for nationhood will remain insincere.
Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:43 AM
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
According to West Bank Pullout Gets a Nod From Bush [May 24, 2005] , Israel plans to continue the transferring and removal of its own people from land that they won after being attacked numerous times from that land. And the Palestinian Arabs call this a “land grab?” It is a ‘land give!’ Until the Palestinian Arabs see this as an opportunity to create their own country, instead of the end of their desire for a ‘Greater Palestine,’ their calls for nationhood will remain insincere.
Michael Berenhaus
Friday, April 21, 2006
Dialogue with Washington Post Reporter
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'Glenn Kessler'
Subject: RE: Question on your article
Dear Mr. Kessler,
Thank you for your response. It seems to me that using "disputed" territories doesn't slant the news either way, but calling it "Palestinian territories" does. As you know, the 1948 Jordanian conquest and occupation, in violation of the U.N.'s partition plan, didn't give the Arabs of Judea and Samaria -- renamed the West Bank by Jordan -- any greater rights to the land than those of the Jews, whose right to "close settlement" on the land was recognized by the British Mandate for Palestine. The land certainly wasn’t called “Palestinian territory” while under Jordanian control (between 1948 and 1967).
If the choice of usage was based on demographics, and not legal status, as the e-mail seems to convey, wouldn't calling the land "the largely Palestinian-populated West Bank, the sovereignty of which is yet to be determined" be more accurate?
As far as “your reading of the sovereignty issue” -- it's not my reading, it's the historical and legal fact. If The Washington Post has another interpretation of the record, which would refute my reading, I would appreciate learning of it.
Thanks and have a nice weekend,
Michael Berenhaus
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Glenn Kessler Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:53 PM
To: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Subject: Re: Question on your article
I had missed your earlier note. The territories are overwhelmingly populated by Palestinians, so calling them the Palestinian territories is an apt decription-- even if it's not necessarily consistent with your reading of the sovereignty issue.
Sincerely,
Glenn Kessler
---------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dr. Michael Berenhaus"
To:
Subject: Question on your article
April 19, 2006
Dear Mr. Kessler,
As I have not received a reply from my previous letter, I am writing you again just in case you didn’t receive it. My question was, “When did the area that you reference in the first sentence of (US to Redirect Aid for Palestinians [April 7, 2006]) become “Palestinian territories?
I didn't intend to be argumentative but understand that, under international law including U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, keystone of Arab-Israeli diplomacy, the remaining '67 lands are disputed territories, not "Palestinian territories" (or Israeli, Jordanian or any other potential claimant's), whose status remains to be decided according to negotiations per Resolutions 242, 338, and later accepted diplomatic proposals such as the '"road map."
At the moment, then the West Bank is not under any sovereignty, including that of the Palestinian Arabs.
I await your answer.
Regards,
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, MD
-------------------------------------------
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 11:54 PM
To: 'kesslerg@washpost.com'
Subject: Question on your article: U.S. to Redirect Aid for Palestinians
Dear Mr. Kessler,
Thank you for your informative article, US to Redirect Aid for Palestinians [April 7, 2006]. When did the area that you reference in the first sentence become “Palestinian territories?”
Thanks,
Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'Glenn Kessler'
Subject: RE: Question on your article
Dear Mr. Kessler,
Thank you for your response. It seems to me that using "disputed" territories doesn't slant the news either way, but calling it "Palestinian territories" does. As you know, the 1948 Jordanian conquest and occupation, in violation of the U.N.'s partition plan, didn't give the Arabs of Judea and Samaria -- renamed the West Bank by Jordan -- any greater rights to the land than those of the Jews, whose right to "close settlement" on the land was recognized by the British Mandate for Palestine. The land certainly wasn’t called “Palestinian territory” while under Jordanian control (between 1948 and 1967).
If the choice of usage was based on demographics, and not legal status, as the e-mail seems to convey, wouldn't calling the land "the largely Palestinian-populated West Bank, the sovereignty of which is yet to be determined" be more accurate?
As far as “your reading of the sovereignty issue” -- it's not my reading, it's the historical and legal fact. If The Washington Post has another interpretation of the record, which would refute my reading, I would appreciate learning of it.
Thanks and have a nice weekend,
Michael Berenhaus
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Glenn Kessler Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:53 PM
To: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Subject: Re: Question on your article
I had missed your earlier note. The territories are overwhelmingly populated by Palestinians, so calling them the Palestinian territories is an apt decription-- even if it's not necessarily consistent with your reading of the sovereignty issue.
Sincerely,
Glenn Kessler
---------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dr. Michael Berenhaus"
To:
Subject: Question on your article
April 19, 2006
Dear Mr. Kessler,
As I have not received a reply from my previous letter, I am writing you again just in case you didn’t receive it. My question was, “When did the area that you reference in the first sentence of (US to Redirect Aid for Palestinians [April 7, 2006]) become “Palestinian territories?
I didn't intend to be argumentative but understand that, under international law including U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, keystone of Arab-Israeli diplomacy, the remaining '67 lands are disputed territories, not "Palestinian territories" (or Israeli, Jordanian or any other potential claimant's), whose status remains to be decided according to negotiations per Resolutions 242, 338, and later accepted diplomatic proposals such as the '"road map."
At the moment, then the West Bank is not under any sovereignty, including that of the Palestinian Arabs.
I await your answer.
Regards,
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, MD
-------------------------------------------
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 11:54 PM
To: 'kesslerg@washpost.com'
Subject: Question on your article: U.S. to Redirect Aid for Palestinians
Dear Mr. Kessler,
Thank you for your informative article, US to Redirect Aid for Palestinians [April 7, 2006]. When did the area that you reference in the first sentence become “Palestinian territories?”
Thanks,
Michael Berenhaus
Saturday, April 8, 2006
Letter to Reuters
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 12:05 AM
To: 'editor@reuters.com'
Subject: letter to Foreign Editor
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the article "Hamas denies ready for two-state solution" [April 7, 2006]; it clears up some common misconceptions. By saying that supporting a two-state solution, Hamas would “risk losing its constituency,” their Deputy Prime Minister Naser al-Shaer reaffirms that Hamas was voted in for its policy of a one-state solution – an Arab state in place of a Jewish state - not because of its so-called humanitarian work, as has been reported elsewhere. This statement by the Deputy Prime Minister, straight from the horse’s mouth, drop kicks that theory. If Hamas had been voted in "for humanitarian reasons", they would be happy to accept a two state solution, recognize Israel, and denounce violence so that humanitarian monies would start rolling in. It is clear: Hamas was voted in for its proclaimed goal to wipe Israel off the map and replace it with a Muslim country. Those who don't see this - the Hamas apologists - don’t have a leg to stand on.
Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 12:05 AM
To: 'editor@reuters.com'
Subject: letter to Foreign Editor
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the article "Hamas denies ready for two-state solution" [April 7, 2006]; it clears up some common misconceptions. By saying that supporting a two-state solution, Hamas would “risk losing its constituency,” their Deputy Prime Minister Naser al-Shaer reaffirms that Hamas was voted in for its policy of a one-state solution – an Arab state in place of a Jewish state - not because of its so-called humanitarian work, as has been reported elsewhere. This statement by the Deputy Prime Minister, straight from the horse’s mouth, drop kicks that theory. If Hamas had been voted in "for humanitarian reasons", they would be happy to accept a two state solution, recognize Israel, and denounce violence so that humanitarian monies would start rolling in. It is clear: Hamas was voted in for its proclaimed goal to wipe Israel off the map and replace it with a Muslim country. Those who don't see this - the Hamas apologists - don’t have a leg to stand on.
Michael Berenhaus
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Letter to The Washington Post
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:04 AM
To: 'letters@washpost.com'
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
Former President Jimmy Carter [Don’t Punish the Palestinians Feb. 20, 2006] states that Israel’s actions against Hamas will “incite” violence. How can a group, which is committed to the destruction of Israel, which has carried out hundreds of attacks that killed 300 Israelis and wounded over 2000 be incited any further? What could they do that would be any worse than the genocide they plan and hope to carry out? Carter’s philosophy of appeasement to those that espouse mass murder defies both history and logic.
Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:04 AM
To: 'letters@washpost.com'
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
Former President Jimmy Carter [Don’t Punish the Palestinians Feb. 20, 2006] states that Israel’s actions against Hamas will “incite” violence. How can a group, which is committed to the destruction of Israel, which has carried out hundreds of attacks that killed 300 Israelis and wounded over 2000 be incited any further? What could they do that would be any worse than the genocide they plan and hope to carry out? Carter’s philosophy of appeasement to those that espouse mass murder defies both history and logic.
Michael Berenhaus
Friday, February 17, 2006
Letter to Associated Press
I called and wrote to the Associated Press regarding this distortion. No response yet.
Michael
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 9:03 AM
To: 'info@ap.org'Cc: 'feedback@ap.org'
Subject: Correction sought
Dear Editor,
Josef Federman in Israel Threatens Tough Economic Sanctions [Feb 17, 2006 4:21am], states that “The Palestinians claim both areas [Gaza and the West Bank], separated by Israeli territory, for a future state.” But the voted-in party, Hamas, claim is for an Islamic state in area which includes Israel. The Hamas charter is about doing away with Israel. This is the reason why Israel has put the sanctions in place. Please correct this – it is not clear.
Thanks,
Michael Berenhaus
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060217/D8FQPB7G7.html
Michael
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 9:03 AM
To: 'info@ap.org'Cc: 'feedback@ap.org'
Subject: Correction sought
Dear Editor,
Josef Federman in Israel Threatens Tough Economic Sanctions [Feb 17, 2006 4:21am], states that “The Palestinians claim both areas [Gaza and the West Bank], separated by Israeli territory, for a future state.” But the voted-in party, Hamas, claim is for an Islamic state in area which includes Israel. The Hamas charter is about doing away with Israel. This is the reason why Israel has put the sanctions in place. Please correct this – it is not clear.
Thanks,
Michael Berenhaus
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060217/D8FQPB7G7.html
Saturday, February 4, 2006
Published in The Baltimore Sun
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.hamas04feb04,1,4295705.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
Obfuscating the threat Hamas clearly expresses
February 4, 2006
In its recent coverage of the Middle East, and particularly in "Hamas aims for political might" (Jan. 22), The Sun seems to be deflecting the raison d'etre of the Hamas movement.
Comments in that article include, "Hamas' intentions have become murkier in the weeks leading to ... elections."
Murkier? The Sun's neighbor down Interstate 95, The Washington Post, seems to be getting a different, clearer picture.
Its Jan. 29 article "Some Palestinians See End of Secular Dream," for instance, refers to Hamas as "an organization committed to establishing an Islamic state across territory that includes Israel."
I would hope that The Sun would also see Hamas' intentions as pretty clear.
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac
Thursday, February 2, 2006
Dialogue with Washington Post
Dear Editor,
By publishing an editorial by Hamas deputy political chief Mousa Abu Marzook [What Hamas Is Seeking Jan. 31, 2006], the Washington Post has given a forum and sanction to an internationally-recognized terrorist organization allowing them to spout their propaganda. Hamas’ goal is to gain world opinion – the place where battles are currently being fought. Their words become legitimized by the coverage giving them the opportunity to win the war of ideas despite their lies and fabrications. Giving them editorial space is no different than sending them weapons and bullets – only it is more powerful. By supplying this coverage, the Post is aiding and abetting those that espouse terrorism giving them the ammunition for free. Would the Post allow Osama Bin Laden, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, or the former Taliban leaders to spread their propagandist lies in an editorial?
------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONSE FROM THE OMBUDSMAN:
From: Deborah C Howell
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: What Hamas is Seeking
I don't have purview over the editorial pages, but I will pass this on. I think their thinking is that it's better to know what Hamas says than not to know and that printing it is not agreeing with it. Deborah
--------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONSE FROM THE EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR:
The ombudsman forwarded your letter to me (the editorial page editor).
Thank you for writing.
I certainly considered the arguments you make before publishing this piece.
Our job is to present a broad range of opinion relevant to the day's news.
Hamas perpetrates terrorism; it also is now the elected majority party of a Palestinian parliament. U.S. and other officials are in the process of deciding what policy to take toward this new government, and many experts are debating the same question. In that context, the party's platforms and intentions seem to be more than newsworthy. I agree we should publish responsible analyses of Hamas, but in my view the words of the actors themselves also can inform the ongoing debate.
Publication does not equal endorsement.
Again, I appreciate your reading the paper, and taking the time to write.
Best,
Fred Hiatt
By publishing an editorial by Hamas deputy political chief Mousa Abu Marzook [What Hamas Is Seeking Jan. 31, 2006], the Washington Post has given a forum and sanction to an internationally-recognized terrorist organization allowing them to spout their propaganda. Hamas’ goal is to gain world opinion – the place where battles are currently being fought. Their words become legitimized by the coverage giving them the opportunity to win the war of ideas despite their lies and fabrications. Giving them editorial space is no different than sending them weapons and bullets – only it is more powerful. By supplying this coverage, the Post is aiding and abetting those that espouse terrorism giving them the ammunition for free. Would the Post allow Osama Bin Laden, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, or the former Taliban leaders to spread their propagandist lies in an editorial?
------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONSE FROM THE OMBUDSMAN:
From: Deborah C Howell
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: What Hamas is Seeking
I don't have purview over the editorial pages, but I will pass this on. I think their thinking is that it's better to know what Hamas says than not to know and that printing it is not agreeing with it. Deborah
--------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONSE FROM THE EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR:
The ombudsman forwarded your letter to me (the editorial page editor).
Thank you for writing.
I certainly considered the arguments you make before publishing this piece.
Our job is to present a broad range of opinion relevant to the day's news.
Hamas perpetrates terrorism; it also is now the elected majority party of a Palestinian parliament. U.S. and other officials are in the process of deciding what policy to take toward this new government, and many experts are debating the same question. In that context, the party's platforms and intentions seem to be more than newsworthy. I agree we should publish responsible analyses of Hamas, but in my view the words of the actors themselves also can inform the ongoing debate.
Publication does not equal endorsement.
Again, I appreciate your reading the paper, and taking the time to write.
Best,
Fred Hiatt
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Letter to New York Times
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:32 PM
To: letters@nytimes.com
Cc: public@nytimes.com
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
The New York Times, in an effort to show some hope that Hamas will change its terror policy, lists the PLO as evidence of an organization that “was born in terrorism” and has since changed [In The Mideast, A Giant Step Back, Jan. 27, 2006]. The only thing that ever changed about the PLO is how newspapers like The New York Times covered them. The PLO never gave up terror, never removed the goal of the destruction of Israel from its charter, and never stopped inciting its youth to hate Jews.
The New York Times states that “Hamas has a choice between governing and terror.” Untrue. They could do exactly what their predecessor did – do both. If the world was gullible enough to accept this ploy in the first place, why wouldn’t they fall for it again?
Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:32 PM
To: letters@nytimes.com
Cc: public@nytimes.com
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
The New York Times, in an effort to show some hope that Hamas will change its terror policy, lists the PLO as evidence of an organization that “was born in terrorism” and has since changed [In The Mideast, A Giant Step Back, Jan. 27, 2006]. The only thing that ever changed about the PLO is how newspapers like The New York Times covered them. The PLO never gave up terror, never removed the goal of the destruction of Israel from its charter, and never stopped inciting its youth to hate Jews.
The New York Times states that “Hamas has a choice between governing and terror.” Untrue. They could do exactly what their predecessor did – do both. If the world was gullible enough to accept this ploy in the first place, why wouldn’t they fall for it again?
Michael Berenhaus
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Published in The Washington Jewish Week
The news has been bleak for followers of the Jewish faith. On just one page of The Washington Post last week, two stories of Jew-hatred appeared. In Russia, eight Jews were stabbed at a synagogue in Moscow by a knife wielding man yelling “I will kill Jews.” In London, the most prominent radical Islamic cleric in Britain said it was a “religious duty to kill” Jews. In the meantime, the President of Iran is threatening to “wipe Israel off the map.” In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez made the outrageous accusation that descendants of those that killed Christ own more than half of the world’s riches. And then of course there are the Arab states, which have been trying to destroy Israel for the past 58 years in four wars, spewing Jew hatred to their masses.
At a recent annual UN meeting a map was displayed omitting the state of Israel. John Bolton, US Ambassador to the UN, wrote in the NY Sun that, “It was entirely inappropriate for this map to be used. It can be misconstrued to suggest that the United Nations tacitly supports the abolition of the state of Israel. Given that we now have a world leader pursuing nuclear weapons who is calling for the state of Israel to be ‘wiped off the map,” the issue has even greater salience.”
More and more of the world want Jews dead – this view emanates from all corners of the earth. No other group has ever been singled out like this. These times are trying yet I am amazed at the complacency of our faith through all this. What are we waiting for? Where are our protests? We need to be proactive – not reactive. Haven’t we learned?
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, MD
At a recent annual UN meeting a map was displayed omitting the state of Israel. John Bolton, US Ambassador to the UN, wrote in the NY Sun that, “It was entirely inappropriate for this map to be used. It can be misconstrued to suggest that the United Nations tacitly supports the abolition of the state of Israel. Given that we now have a world leader pursuing nuclear weapons who is calling for the state of Israel to be ‘wiped off the map,” the issue has even greater salience.”
More and more of the world want Jews dead – this view emanates from all corners of the earth. No other group has ever been singled out like this. These times are trying yet I am amazed at the complacency of our faith through all this. What are we waiting for? Where are our protests? We need to be proactive – not reactive. Haven’t we learned?
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, MD
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Letter to Saudi Arabian News
Subject: Your article: "Palestinians Won’t Miss Sharon
Dear Mr. Curtiss,
In your article, you mentioned that in 2002, Arab league members offered Israel a deal that would leave them with "78% of Historic Palestine." But aren't you aware that 78% of Historic Palestine was given to Jordan in 1921; so did you mean 78% of the remaining 22%? If so, that would be 17%. I would appreciate a clarification or correction on this.
Thanks,
Michael Berenhaus
Dear Mr. Curtiss,
In your article, you mentioned that in 2002, Arab league members offered Israel a deal that would leave them with "78% of Historic Palestine." But aren't you aware that 78% of Historic Palestine was given to Jordan in 1921; so did you mean 78% of the remaining 22%? If so, that would be 17%. I would appreciate a clarification or correction on this.
Thanks,
Michael Berenhaus
Letter to The Washington Post
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 5:20 PM
To: jimhoagland@washpost.com
Subject: Your recent Op-Ed piece
Dear Mr. Hoagland,
I was with you until the second-to-last paragraph in Is the Road Map’s Moment Gone? [Jan. 12, 2006]. When you refer to “centuries of occupation of the Palestinians by Turks, Arabs and Israelis,” I wonder which history books you are sourcing. Palestinians didn’t even see themselves as being a different nationality until the last century. My guess is that you are referring to Arabs who lived on those lands, but to call them Palestinians is to re-write history. In addition, you forgot to mention the British on your list of so-called occupiers. You might consider reading Time Immemorial by Joan Peters for a full history.
By the way, how can Palestinians be occupied by “Arabs” if they are Arabs? I know you didn’t mean that they were occupying themselves. Perhaps you would have been better off saying “Arab states” (Jordan and Egypt). The phrase was not clear for the average reader and inferred that Palestinians are different than Arabs – which of course is false.
You comment that “it must be said that four months is a short time to fix the consequences” of all these so-called occupiers. Why do you feel the need to make excuses for the Palestinians? They’re not even making excuses for themselves– just blaming others – and this is more likely the source of their problems and also the reason why the cure is not anywhere in sight.
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, MD
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 5:20 PM
To: jimhoagland@washpost.com
Subject: Your recent Op-Ed piece
Dear Mr. Hoagland,
I was with you until the second-to-last paragraph in Is the Road Map’s Moment Gone? [Jan. 12, 2006]. When you refer to “centuries of occupation of the Palestinians by Turks, Arabs and Israelis,” I wonder which history books you are sourcing. Palestinians didn’t even see themselves as being a different nationality until the last century. My guess is that you are referring to Arabs who lived on those lands, but to call them Palestinians is to re-write history. In addition, you forgot to mention the British on your list of so-called occupiers. You might consider reading Time Immemorial by Joan Peters for a full history.
By the way, how can Palestinians be occupied by “Arabs” if they are Arabs? I know you didn’t mean that they were occupying themselves. Perhaps you would have been better off saying “Arab states” (Jordan and Egypt). The phrase was not clear for the average reader and inferred that Palestinians are different than Arabs – which of course is false.
You comment that “it must be said that four months is a short time to fix the consequences” of all these so-called occupiers. Why do you feel the need to make excuses for the Palestinians? They’re not even making excuses for themselves– just blaming others – and this is more likely the source of their problems and also the reason why the cure is not anywhere in sight.
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, MD
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)