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?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)