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

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.”

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.

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