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
Sunday, January 29, 2006
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)