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