Letter to Australian newspaper

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 12:42 AM
To: 'letters@theage.com.au'Subject: letter to the editor

RE: No Peace in Israel-Palestine [Dec. 5, 2007].

Dear Editor,

With yet another day of rockets showering down on Israel (2000 Qassam rockets and mortars in 2007 alone), Michael Shalik and Antony Loewenstein remain perplexed as to why Israel feels the need to place blockades on Gaza. Would they criticize any other country for blocking supply routes of enemy combatants?

In 2005 Israel became the only country ever to give the Palestinians any territory making a huge gesture for peace in ceding Gaza. But of course this is not mentioned by Shalik and Loewestein. Nor do Israel critics ever bring up that in 1948, the Palestinians chose not to accept the state that they seem to want now in the hopes of taking over all of Israel through war. They lost Gaza in that war not to Israel but to Egypt, and the West Bank to Jordan. Israel won the land only after the Arab world brought war upon them once again in 1967, one of the greatest military victories of all time. And when it gave Gaza to the Palestinians - a test case, if you will – the Palestinians couldn’t even wait a day to launch their rockets against Israeli cities. Israel has shown remarkable restraint – more than any other country would in the same circumstance. They deserve more than what they get from the Shalik’s and Loewenstein’s of the world.

Michael Berenhaus

Letter to Toronto National Post

Dear Editor,

If Israeli Universities are “crucibles of racist logic” as noted by South African Salim Vally [Boycott urged of Israeli academics, Nov. 29, 2007], why are they the only Universities in the Middle East where Muslims, Christians, and Jews attend classes together? I would be interested in Mr. Vally’s response.

And what of this dreaded Israeli “oppression” of Palestinians we hear so much about. On Nov. 27, 2007, the UN (not Israel ’s greatest friend) released its annual global report card on living standards in 177 countries. The Palestinians rank of 106, put them ahead of Syria (108th), Egypt (112th), Morocco (126th), Pakistan (136th), Sudan (147th), or Yemen (153rd) in the Muslim world -- and a full 71 rungs above other countries across the world, which don't get nearly the same coverage.

Many media sources and academicians have so easily bought into what is clearly anti-Israel propaganda. A compelling question is why.

Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:46 PM
To: 'letters@washpost.com'Subject: letter to the editor

Dear Editor,

According to your editorial An Opening in Annapolis (Nov. 28, 2007), Israel’s policy of “blockading Gaza only gives Hamas an incentive to disrupt the [peace] process through terrorism.” Please!! Palestinian terrorist organizations don’t need an “incentive”; their expressed purpose of existence is to destroy the state of Israel. Blockade or no blockade – their attacks will continue, but the blockade does limit their ability to re-supply weaponry. Why does The Washington Post criticize Israel for acting as any country would in blocking supply routes of enemy combatants?

Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: letter to wash post

Dear Editor,

According to On the Road to Nowhere, Merchants Pay the Toll [10/22/07], Israel’s economic withdrawal and security barrier have caused the Palestinian economy to become “lifeless.” Yet the Palestinian economy is able to support over a thousand rockets fired from Gaza into Israel. In Israel tourism thrives; in Gaza terrorism thrives. Israel chose an industry which is much more profitable. The Palestinians chose an industry that alienates them from the world and hurts their economy.

Since Israel constructed the security barrier, Palestinian suicide bombings are down to almost zero, though the attempts continue. Countless lives have been saved. Yes, the barrier hasn’t been good for business in the Palestinian areas. But why blame Israel for Palestinian career choices?

Michael Berenhaus

Published in the Baltimore Sun

Friends,

They published it. I am somewhat surprised – even though they said they would it is by no means guaranteed – and it is pretty much word for word (though I didn’t call it a “right” of return). To my knowledge, many of these truths have rarely been published or uttered in the American media.

I am off to Israel for a few weeks for a charity bicycle race (for an Israeli children’s hospital) from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and meetings with journalists.

My best,

Michael


www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.23ooct23,0,1012018.story
Letters to the Editor
October 23, 2007

Arab intransigence caused 'catastrophe'

Instead of viewing the 1947 U.N. partition agreement as an opportunity for their first state, Palestinians coveted the other half - the lands granted to the Jews. So they, along with neighboring Arab states, attacked the Jewish part to try to win control of all the territory.

The Palestinians failed miserably. They lost everything, mostly to their land-grabbing Arab brethren: Egypt took Gaza, while Jordan took the West Bank.

But the fact that the Palestinians didn't accept their half of the U.N. partition is the cause of their "catastrophe," not the "founding of Israel" ("Winds of change in Holocaust Museum," Opinion • Commentary, Oct. 16).

For peace to ensue now, the Palestinian camp must stop this coveting of the Jewish side of the partition - Israel.

It must give up its claim to a right to return of Palestinians and their millions of offspring to Israel - which would give Palestinians control of the Jewish side of the territory because of their sheer numbers.

Never in history has the losing side of a conflict been so demanding with preconditions and claims in negotiations, especially when, given its aggression, that side should feel fortunate to be getting a second chance to get anything.

Michael Berenhaus
Potomac

Copyright © 2007, The Baltimore Sun

Published in the San Antonio Express-News

Why think Ahmadinejad is evil? Because he is

Columnist Mansour O. El-Kikhia blames Israel for America's hatred of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He asks why Ahmadinejad is characterized as “evil” by the U.S. media, saying “the answer is very simple. He refuses to recognize Israel.”

El-Kikhia doesn't mention that Ahmadinejad not only refuses to recognize Israel but wants to wipe it off the face of the Earth. Nor does he mention that Ahmadinejad's regime was implicated by a U.S. court in the killing of 241 American servicemen in 1983 — the largest single-day death toll to U.S. Marines since Iwo Jima.

Further, according to U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, Ahmadinejad's regime is involved in funding, training and supplying explosives to the Shiite insurgency in Iraq, which has caused the death of numerous American soldiers.

Americans have enough reasons of their own to despise the Iranian leader without invoking Israel.

— Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, Md.

The Washington Post concedes bias, considers publication of letter


Friends,

Washington Post ombudsman responds (and shows below it that she forwarded it to main news desk). The CC went to the letters-to-the-editor section and is being considered for publication (see bottom of email).

Michael




-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah C Howell [mailto:HowellDC@washpost.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: Whatcha think?

I think you make a good point. It should have been attributed. Or worded in
a different way. I have spoken to the editor on this.

Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman


From: Deborah C Howell
To: Mike Semel/news/TWP@WashPost
10/01/2007 07:36PM
Subject: Whatcha think?

Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
Forwarded by Deborah C Howell/visitors/news/TWP on 10/01/2007 07:35 PM


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: John M White
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 3:24 PM
We are in receipt of your letter to the editor and are considering it for publication.

Please respond to this email with the verifications.
Please provide us, if you haven't already, a day and evening phone number that we can contact you for any questions we may have.
We will need to edit the letter for style and/or space considerations.
The initial edited version is below, please let us know if you have any concerns regarding them.
Further editing may be needed as we approach deadline.
Thank you for the submission,
John
-------
Dear Editor,

The Sept. 29 Metro article stated that "Va. Muslim Activist Denies Urging Violence" that Esam Omeish "is a fierce critic of Israeli military force against Palestinian civilians in Lebanon.... " But there were no quotation marks around "Israeli military force against Palestinian civilians in Lebanon." It would seem that The Post would have been more accurate by prefacing that Omeish is a fierce critic in "what he believes is ... ." By not using this preface and by not using quotation marks, the Post indicating that the comment is what the Post believes as true. But where is this Israeli force in Lebanon going on against Palestinian civilians other than in the Palestinian narrative?
__________________
John M. White
The Washington Post
Editorial Department

Positive letter to Washington Post columnist


Friends,

This is a letter to and response from Jim Hoagland, a Washington Post op-ed writer who rarely has anything nice to say about Israel and routinely twists facts which implicate Israel. It is important to give them credit when they get it right.

Michael


________________________________________
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 2:27 PM
To: 'jimhoagland@washpost.com'
Subject: your article in today's paper

Dear Mr. Hoagland,

I read your op-ed this morning "A Small Outbreak of Mideast Hope" [Sept. 30, 2007]. I thought it was excellent - interesting and informative.

Regards,

Michael Berenhaus

Inaccurate Jerusalem Post article gets pulled after my email

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 2:59 AM
Subject: Jerusalem Post article gets pulled after my email

Friends,

Saturday there was an article posted on The Jerusalem Post website which I felt was in error. The article claimed that the Jerusalem Post had a video of a recent honor killing of a female adolescent in Gaza. After writing them concerned with the authenticity of the video, I got a response from the author (who happens to be half Palestinian/half Israeli-Arab) and the article was removed immediately. See below for correspondence.

Michael

________________________________________
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:18 PM
To: 'khaledat@zahav.net.il'
Subject: video

Hi Khaled,

We met in Washington DC a year or two ago when you spoke at a CAMERA luncheon. Regarding your article, the pictures that you have of the girl in the honor killing and the sequence of events remind me of a similar heart wrenching video that I have seen elsewhere on the web. Please verify for authenticity.

Michael
------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Khaled Abu Toameh
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:04 PM
To: Dr. Michael BerenhausSubject: Re: video

Thanks Michael,

we have fallen victim to a hoax. some guys in gaza sent us
the video claiming it was shot in gaza. there was a similar
case there recently..

thanks for your message.

khaled

Quoted in front page article in Wash. Jewish Week

http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=7702


The 'Israel lobby'?
Authors’ opportunity to speak belies

by Eric Fingerhut
Staff Writer

Listening to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt speak last week at Politics and Prose bookstore was a little like that Seinfeld episode in which George and Jerry keep telling everyone that "we're not gay - not that there's anything wrong with that."

Throughout their 45-minute talk and the lengthy question-and-answer period that followed, the two authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy charged that America's special relationship with Israel was detrimental to the country and could only be explained by the vast array of Jewish and pro-Israel organizations, members of the media, "neoconservatives" in the Bush administration and other Israel supporters that they say make up the powerful "Israel lobby."

They charged that "the lobby" was a primary reason that the U.S. went to war in Iraq, that "the lobby" is the only reason that the U.S. might be considering military action against Iran, that "the lobby's" backing of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians was a key factor in Osama bin Laden's hatred for the U.S. and the Sept. 11 attacks.

But, as if to head off criticism that they were targeting the Jewish community with their thesis, they would hasten to add that the "Israel lobby" was "certainly not a cabal or conspiracy that controls U.S. foreign policy," that "the lobby's" activities were "as American as apple pie" and that "the lobby is defined by [its] political agenda ... not ethnicity or religion."

But, then they would outline another area in which "the lobby" was inordinately influential.

"They spent the first third [of their appearance] talking more about what they were not saying rather than what they were saying," said Michael Berenhaus of Potomac, a pro-Israel activist who attended the talk.

About 400 people packed into the District bookstore on Wednesday of last week to hear Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, discuss their just-released volume in a room that became so warm that one listener fainted.

The crowd - which extended from the store's back wall, where the speakers sat, virtually to the front door - was one of the larger turnouts the store has seen for an author appearance in recent years, said Politics and Prose co-owner Carla Cohen. She said that, including the night of the authors' appearance, the store had sold 90 books in the week since its release, which she called a "huge" number.

The Politics and Prose appearance was the duo's only public talk thus far in Washington. Cohen said she had received five or so e-mails criticizing her decision to host the event, including from one woman who said she would never shop at the store again.

But Cohen said, "I just thought the subject deserved to be heard." Although she finds that "parts of the book go over the line in attributing power to Jews," she said that not hosting the event would have played into the authors' thesis that one "can't debate the subject."

Cohen said she had hired security for the event, but it was not necessary. The crowd, which appeared to be about two-thirds to three-quarters supportive of the authors, was fairly subdued, only rarely applauding the authors' statements. Questioners, a number of whom were critical, were polite, with no one accusing the authors of anti-Semitism, a charge the professors repeatedly claim faces anyone who speaks out against "the lobby."

For example, both Mearsheimer and Walt cited former President Jimmy Carter as a typical example of how "the lobby" treats its opponents. Mearsheimer said that while Carter faced "substantive" criticism over his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, he also was the victim of "ad hominem" attacks labeling him "anti-Semitic" - despite the fact, said Walt, that Carter had done more for Israel than "anyone on the planet."

The "smears" that Carter faced were an attempt to "marginalize" him and put his "career in jeopardy," said Mearsheimer.

Asked afterward, while signing books, whether it was unfair to say that Carter had been smeared by "the lobby" when the authors themselves acknowledged that much of the criticism he faced was substantive, Mearsheimer stuck to his guns. The charge of anti-Semitism came from prominent figures in "the lobby" such as Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham Foxman, Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz and The New Republic editor in chief Martin Peretz, Mearsheimer said.

He then noted with some amazement that Carter had even been accused of plagiarism - dismissing the possibility that there was any merit to Dennis Ross' complaint. The Mideast envoy had said that Carter used his maps without permission.

(Mearsheimer at first flatly responded, "No," with a chuckle and bemused look when asked if he would answer a question from WJW. A few seconds after a reporter asked, "Why not?" the author relented, saying, "What's your question?")

Mearsheimer and Walt also argued that the U.S. should not have the type of "special relationship" with Israel that they said exists now. Instead, the relationship should be based on American national interest, such as the alliance the U.S. has with Great Britain. The two said that the U.S. should press Israel to reach a settlement with the Palestinians, but didn't acknowledge the role the Palestinians must play in reaching such an agreement.

The authors also said that they agree with much of what groups like Americans for Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum are urging in the region.

Critics at last week's presentation found the authors' arguments problematic.

"I think their description of how 'the lobby' functions is wrong," said Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism director Rabbi David Saperstein. "The lack of primary [source] citations for some of the more controversial" statements in the book, such as "the lobby's" support for the Iraq war, was troubling, Saperstein said. (During their talk, for example, the authors cited as proof an editorial in the Forward newspaper for their claim that Jewish organizations enthusiastically backed the war.)

Although no such interviews are in the book's endnotes, Walt said in response to a question that the authors did speak to members of groups in "the lobby" while writing the book. But, he said, even if they had interviewed everyone in "the lobby," he didn't think the book would have been any different.

Saperstein, who is cited in the book, but said that he had not been interviewed, added that the "wide net" that the authors cast in defining the alleged lobby "leads to the ability to say anything is a result of [the lobby's] influence."

Berenhaus faulted the authors for making numerous assertions that serve to "demonize" Israel supporters based only on "anecdotal quotes and no data."

Among the many assertions throughout the evening that Berenhaus faulted was Walt's statement that while the U.S. should be "concerned" about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, there was no cause for alarm. "The Soviet Union [during the Cold War] was never able to blackmail" other countries with their nuclear weapons, said Walt, so he didn't understand why one would think that Iran would be able to if it acquired nukes.

"It's absurd for them to think that Iran would not use nuclear weapons" and to compare "the Iranians' behavior and temperament with the Soviets during the Cold War."

Berenhaus asked the authors whether they planned to do a book on the "Saudi lobby" and its influence on U.S. Middle East policy. Walt responded that the two did not believe such a lobby was all that influential, since Americans "don't need much of a lobby" to convince them of the vital need for oil.

There were plenty in attendance that found Walt and Mearsheimer's presentation important.

Charlene Gagon of Reston said she had come to the event because she had a positive reaction to the initial article Mearsheimer and Walt wrote about "the lobby" for the London Review of Books last year and believes that "the lobby" has had the effect of suppressing open debate on the issue by politicians and public figures.

"They opened up the discussion" about Israel and the Middle East, and "that's important for any kind [of] progress," she said. "It will create a better dialogue."

Gagon did say, though, that she had never felt personally suppressed in expressing her views on the subject. "In Reston, we have a very open discussion," she said.

Her friend, Patricia Broderick Globus, also of Reston, said she hoped the Mearsheimer-Walt book would spur an "open, honest discussion."

Citing the criticism Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) received for his 2003 remarks that the Iraq war would not have been possible without the support of the Jewish community, she said "it's been my experience" that the influence of "the lobby" prevents true debate.



Copyright 2007, Washington Jewish Week
11426 Rockville Pike Suite 236, Rockville, MD 20852
(301) 230-2222
Software © 1998-2007 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved

Letter to wash post jerusalem bureau chief

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 12:38 AM
Subject: letter to wash post jerusalem bureau chief


Nice piece – Israel Court Orders Rerouting of Barrier [Sept. 5, 2007]. Your article shows that the barrier can be moved – that it is not necessarily a permanent annexing as some are wont to describe it. The article points out that the Court ruling, to move the barrier, is a rare one – but nonetheless, it shows how Israel’s court system is unique to that part of the world – we would be hard-pressed to find another country in the Middle East that would do the same thing.

However I do want to take you to task on a particular point: in previous articles, you have referred to sections where Palestinians lived as “land which the Palestinians view as part of their future state.” I do not find fault in that verbiage. In this article, however, you say that “The barrier’s opponents say it is primarily an Israeli tool to annex Palestinian land in the absence of a peace agreement.” There were no quotes around ‘Palestinian land’ though it is not doubtful that that is what they would have said. By not having quotes, you are saying that the fait accompli of Bilin is that it will be part of a Palestinian state. Currently, since there has been no negotiated settlement and not even the Palestinians have declared their own state with Bilin in it, I don’t understand how you can call it Palestinian land. It may be land owned by Palestinians, but that doesn’t make the land in and of itself Palestinian. Palestinian Arabs (Israeli Arabs), owning land in Israel, don’t live on Palestinian land because they are Palestinian. Other reporters have been repeating this over and over again - which doesn’t make it true.

My best,

Michael

Letter to The Washington Post

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 12:00 AMTo: 'letters@washpost.com'; 'ombudsman@washpost.com'
cc: 'harrisd@ajc.org'; 'washington-dc@adl.org'; 'hierm@wiesenthal.net'; 'fingerhute@washingtonjewishweek.com'; (sbender@bnaibrith.org)'
Subject: Israel's "crisis of conscience"

Dear Editor,

Is Israel the only country having a “crisis of conscience” over the refugees from Darfur? [“A Crisis of Conscience Over Refugees in Israel” Aug. 25, 2007] If so, why? Do all the other countries of the world have no “crisis of conscience” over what’s going on? Wouldn’t that make a better story? Why is the world doing nothing about the genocide or even bothered by it? Why is the UN doing nothing? Israel, one of the smallest countries in the world, has given refuge to 500 Sudanese, yet Israel is singled out because they haven’t taken in more. Could The Washington Post coverage be more slanted?

Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 11:51 PM
To: 'letters@washpost.com'
Subject: letter to the editor

Dear Editor,

Laura Schoppa correctly states in her letter-to-the-editor [Aug. 18, 2007] that “to eradicate terrorism, we need to understand its roots.” But she is dead wrong when she says that “terrorist attacks often are acts of desperation committed by people who feel …wronged.” Where is the desperation of those that murdered 3,000 Americans on September 11? Where is the desperation of those that murdered 52 Brits and wounded 700 on 7/7/05? Where is the desperation of those that murdered 191 Spanish and wounded 2,050 in the 2004 Madrid train bombings? It is not desperation at all that caused these terrorist attacks but hate. And hate is the root cause which must be removed in order to eradicate terrorism. The inculcation of hate in Muslim youth and the glorification of martyrdom must be dealt with honestly and openly. Only then will terrorism be halted.

Michael Berenhaus

Letter to NY Times

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:20 AM
To: letters@nytimes.comSubject: letter to the editor

Dear Editor,

Israel is the only country that has to defend itself to the world community for setting up barriers to prevent suicide bombers from killing its civilians. ‘The barrier makes traveling inconvenient’- cry the critics. So Israel builds a separate road - of course separate [to avoid the flying bullets] - making traveling more convenient for those that send the suicide bombers. The result: Israel is framed as segregationist! ["A Segregated Road in an Already Divided Land Aug. 11, 2007]

Michael Berenhaus

Friends,

After my last letter and a phone call, The Washington Post made a correction to their backgrounder on Israel – located on their website [see below]. The accuracy of this site is critical since it is a source for students, congressmen, and others of influence. The correction, though insufficient, gets rid of the horrid opening sentence - that “Israel has been at war with Palestinians displaced by the creation of the Jewish state.” The replacement, in the second sentence also misses, but that will be addressed in a follow-up email.

It’s hard to get through a sentence in The Washington Post’s primer without seeing bias. Israel surely was not “one of the world’s most effective and well-armed militaries” in 1948 as the article states. According to Larry Collins and Dominque Lapierre, O Jerusalem!, (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1972), p.352 :
When Israel declared its independence on May 1948, the army did not have a single cannon or tank. It’s air force consisted of nine obsolete planes. Although the Haganah had 60,000 trained fighters, only 18,900 were fully mobilized, armed and prepared for war.
Hardly the hallmark of the “most effective and well-armed militaries.”

To be continued…

Michael





Corrected version:

BACKGROUND
Israel and the Mideast Conflict
By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff WriterMonday, July 17, 2006; 6:49 PM
Israel's conflict with the Palestinians dates back more than half a century. Thousands of Palestinians were displaced by the 1948 conflict sparked by the creation of the Jewish state. With one of the world's most effective and well-armed militaries, the Jewish state defeated Arab armies in 1948, 1967 and 1973. Israel also put down two Palestinian uprisings while continuing to settle territories once claimed by Arabs and to pursue peace negotiations with Palestinian leaders.
For the rest of the article, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701076.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original version:
BACKGROUND
Israel and the Mideast Conflict
By Jefferson Morleywashingtonpost.com Staff WriterMonday, July 17, 2006; 6:49 PM
Israel has been at war with Palestinians displaced by the creation of the Jewish state in 1948 for more than a half century. With one of the world's most effective and well-armed militaries, the Jewish state defeated Arab armies in 1948 and 1967. Israel also put down two Palestinian uprisings while continuing to settle territories once claimed by Arabs and to pursue peace negotiations with Palestinian leaders.
[the rest of the article is the same, see link above]
[though the date is from last year, it is continually posted and new information is added on]

Letter to Washington Post Jerusalem Bureau Chief followed by his response. In the letter, I referenced Shimon Peres’ debate with the moderator and the entire audience in Doha, Qatar. The link is at the end of my email to Scott Wilson– it is a must see for those interested in seeing, first hand, the art of debate when in hostile environs.

Michael

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 10:22 PM
To: 'Scott Wilson'Subject: your recent article

Hi Scott,

No real surprises from your piece “Touring Israel’s Barrier With Its Main Designer” [August 7, 2007]. You obviously put a lot of work into it. I appreciate your inclusion that the barrier is 95% fence, 5% wall – I would be interested in your thoughts on why almost every photograph of the barrier in The Washington Post shows it as a wall (including this piece).

One thought on your usage that the barrier “divides Arab from Jew”. Almost 20% of Israel is Arab. So it also divides Israeli Arabs from Arabs living in the West Bank – dividing Arabs from Arabs. Shimon Peres stated in a recent debate in Doha, Qatar*, that the barrier has been put in place where the suicide bombings are coming from.

Looking forward to your next article,

Michael

*http://clients.mediaondemand.net/thedohadebates/index.aspx?sessionid=19&bandwidth=hi



From: Scott Wilson
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 1:06 PM
To: Dr. Michael BerenhausSubject:
Re: your recent article

Hi Michael:

Thanks much for the note, and you raise a very good point about the pictures (which I don't see until after they run and even then just a glance when my clips come in my monthly packets from the paper.) I'll pass your valid concern along.

Best regards,
Scott

Letter to The Washington Post

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 8:52 AMTo: 'letters@washpost.com'
Subject: letter to the editor

Dear Editor,

Farrah Hassen [letters, Aug. 1, 2007] refers to a “dispute over the Golan Heights.” In 1967, after years of shelling Israeli farms and villages, Syria lost the Golan Heights in a war that they started. Where's the "dispute"?

Syria and other Arab countries fight limited liability wars: they start a war, lose, and then cry foul play when they don’t get back what they lost in the war that they precipitated. Sheer nonsense.

Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:37 AM
To: 'letters@washpost.com'Subject: letter to the editor

Dear Editor,

In ‘Why Do They Hate Us?’, Op-ed by Mohsin Hamid [July 22, 2007], the United States is blamed yet again for Fundamentalist Muslims hating us. Hamid claims that US support of Pakistani dictator Zia, already in power, against Soviet invaders next door in Afghanistan over two decades ago, is one reason why Pakistanis hate us.

Contrary to what Hamid says, just as no one can make someone love another person, so too can no one make someone hate another person. It is an individual choice. And how are these choices made? Largely, they are made from the knowledge we gain through our educational system – in Pakistan through madrassas or Mosques- the real source of the hatred. To remove this hatred, the Muslim world should accept responsibility for it – and stop pointing fingers at everyone else.

Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:37 AMTo: 'letters@washpost.com'
Subject: letter to the editor

Dear Editor,

In ‘Why Do They Hate Us?’, Op-ed by Mohsin Hamid [July 22, 2007], the United States is blamed yet again for Fundamentalist Muslims hating us. Hamid claims that US support of Pakistani dictator Zia, already in power, against Soviet invaders next door in Afghanistan over two decades ago, is one reason why Pakistanis hate us.

Contrary to what Hamid says, just as no one can make someone love another person, so too can no one make someone hate another person. It is an individual choice. And how are these choices made? Largely, they are made from the knowledge we gain through our educational system – in Pakistan through madrassas or Mosques- the real source of the hatred. To remove this hatred, the Muslim world should accept responsibility for it – and stop pointing fingers at everyone else.

Michael Berenhaus

This letter is a response to the description of Israel on The Washington Post’s website.

Michael

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 9:08 AM
To: washington post
Subject: Your piece on Washingtonpost.com


Dear Mr. Morley,

Thank you for your piece on Israel and the Middle East Conflict. Overall, I found it excellent, accurate, and filled with useful information. However there is one point, when you refer to “Palestinians displaced by the creation of the Jewish state”, that I think comes across as misleading. When David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, announced the creation of Israel on May 14, 1948, NO Palestinians became displaced. This would seem to prove that it was not the "creation" of the Jewish state that caused the refugee situation.

It was not until five neighboring Arab countries and the local Arabs started a war to eliminate Israel that some (not all) of the Palestinian Arabs fled. It was the Arab war – actually the fact that they lost the war – that caused the displacement. This may seem to you like a quibble about wording, but it is more than that; it is a matter of not blaming the wrong party.

I have a similar "quibble" in regard to your statement that “Israel has been at war with Palestinians…for more than half a century.” I think that you may really mean that the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab countries have been at war with Israel". The point is, again, it was not Israel that made war on the Palestinians; it was the other way around.

I hope you will take these as factual corrections that would improve an already excellent piece.

Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, Maryland

Published in The Washington Post

Anti-Israel at the U.N.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007; A14

Regarding Jackson Diehl's June 25 op-ed, "A Shadow on the Human Rights Movement":
As Mr. Diehl noted, the U.N. Human Rights Council can't even call Israel by its name while giving it the brunt of its condemnation. And who sits on this commission? For one: Sudan, the country that brought the world the genocide in Darfur.

But the differences between this human rights body and the United Nations' previous one are trivial. They both are a black eye for the United Nations and its foundational principle of equality for all nations.

It is fair to extrapolate from the record of this council and conclude that the rest of the United Nations is also agenda-driven in this way. Why else has there been no protest or inquiry?

MICHAEL BERENHAUS
Potomac

Letter to Washington Post Staff

Dear Washington Post Staff,

In Seven Palestinians Die In Israeli Strikes on Gaza - the World in Brief section, page A17 on July 1, 2007, the headline doesn’t seem to specify whether those killed were militants or civilians. The article, though, states that three of the Palestinians killed were “senior Islamic Jihad fighters” and another was “a rocket manufacturer for a wing of Fatah.” The other three were not identified but Israel did say the attacks were targeting those either involved in previous attacks against Israel or planning future attacks. All of this would seem to indicate the need for the usage of what The Post usually refers to as militants. So why didn’t The Washington Post call them Palestinian Militants in the headline rather than just Palestinians? Is it because they find that Palestinians and Militants are synonymous – that they feel the readers, once seeing Palestinians in the headline, will automatically surmise that they were militants?

Dialogue with Washington Post Jerusalem Bureau Chief




In Bonded in Resistance to the Barrier [June 8, 2007], The Washington Post brings to the forefront very real concerns of Arab and Jewish neighbors who have lived in peaceful co-existence and now will be severely inconvenienced by the construction of a security barrier between the two communities. But actions have consequences – the barrier is Israel’s defensive, non-violent approach to keeping Palestinian suicide bombers out. Palestinian bombings are now down over 90%. The barrier is being put up where the bombers are coming from – the West Bank. Holes in the barrier will only be exploited as has already been seen and must be closed for the system to remain effective.

In the article, The Washington Post chose to quote an individual who claims that “Israel’s policy here is like those of Nazi Germany under Hitler.” The comparison is so outlandish its unqualified use is surprising and unacceptable. Comparing Israel’s defensive non-violent action to Nazi genocide amounts to psychological warfare; there’s no need for The Post to serve as a megaphone. In reality – which journalism is to portray – the Arabs have tried to destroy Israel and her people in three major wars and continue to promote mass murder of the Jews in mosques, schools, newspapers, and on television and radio.

Further, The Washington Post states that “the Israeli government says the barrier is designed to prevent” Palestinian attacks [emphasis added]. The Post uses the technique of using someone else to say that Israel’s policy “is” like the Nazi’s, but then states that Israel “says” the barrier is to protect its civilians – the slant, whether intended or not, speaks for itself.

The Post says that Palestinians believe that “Israelis have designs on their land.” There is no quote around “their.” Is The Washington Post the final arbiter of whose land it is? The West Bank, previously occupied by the Jordanians, was won, not by the Palestinians, but by Israel – in a war brought upon Israel by Jordan. If The Post wanted to appear neutral, it would have said that Palestinians believe that Israelis have designs on land which they consider to be theirs. Final status is yet to be determined and will be based upon negotiations according to UN Security Council resolutions – not Washington Post reporters.

The Post is perpetuating an ahistorical narrative –equivalent to the Palestinian view – when objectivity should be what it aims for.

Letter to The Washington Post

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:31 PM
To: 'letters@washpost.com'Cc: 'fisherm@washpost.com'
Subject: letter to the editor

Dear Editor,

In A Selective Memory Of Simon Wiesenthal [June 8, 2007], Marc Fisher states that a documentary about famed Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal is “anything but evenhanded.” He wants evenhanded? Between what and what? The notion that one should be evenhanded about the work of Simon Wiesenthal and the Nazi war criminals that he chased hits an all-time low of political correctness.

Michael Berenhaus

Letter to local radio stations



In the coming weeks, Palestinian sympathizers will be approaching area radio stations to promote a rally to end what they call, "Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Lands." What the rally organizers won't tell you is that to them, "Palestinian lands" means not just the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel itself, as witness the maps used in West Bank and Gaza classrooms where the state of Israel is marked as "Occupied Palestine."

The organizers say that the rally is to protest, in their words, "the 40th anniversary of Israel's illegal military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip."

Israel, however, won the West Bank and East Jerusalem, not from the Palestinians - but from Jordan. Israel won Gaza, not from the Palestinians - but from Egypt. This new lie, which these organizers are trying to propagate, must be shown for what it is - baseless propaganda. Two years ago, in front of the international media, Israel extended its hand in peace to the Palestinians, giving them Gaza, deporting its own people and removing its soldiers. With this gesture, Israel became the only country ever to grant the Palestinians any territory - not the Egyptians, not the Jordanians, not the Lebanese, and not the Syrians. From that time to this day, Palestinians have responded by firing rockets into Israel, terrorizing Israeli citizens - their way of saying thank you. Israel has had no choice but to defend its citizens by going after the perpetrators who hide among civilians, while the Palestinians claim that they are the ones being victimized. Similarly, Israel builds a security barrier to defend its citizens from the terror of Palestinian suicide bombers, and Palestinians claim that they are the ones again being victimized. The barrier has worked, by the way. Suicide bombings are down 90%. If the Palestinians have something to protest, it is their own reckless leadership. They could have had their own state many times - as early as 1948. But they chose war - and lost. They can still choose peace - that option still exists. Israel wants nothing more than a negotiated settlement - to live in peace with her neighbors. It takes two, however, to form an agreement - and the Palestinian leadership hasn't had the wherewithal to make it happen.

This is what the protest should be about.

Michael Berenhaus

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 7:35 PM
To: wash post staff
Subject: Story turned upside-down

Dear Editors, Ombudsman,

In In Jordanian Camps, a Sense of Nihilism (Apr. 7, 2007), we read “…Gamal Abdel Nasser, then a burly Egyptian major (later Egypt’s president), held out for four months against Israeli troops in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.”

“Held out?” The fact is, it was an Israeli hodge-podge of soldiers, fighting for their lives and the lives of their families, who "held out" and repelled the invading Egyptian army. The Washington Post version turns the story upside-down, making it sound as if the Egyptians were rightly there – instead of invading the sovereign nation of Israel, which then, as today, only wants to live in peace with its neighbors.

Michael Berenhaus

Dialogue with Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 8:38 AM
Subject: letter to wash post with response
To: ombudsman
Subject: Correction Sought -Anthony Shadid's Driven by War to a No Man's Land in Jordan 04/04/2007 09:43AM

Dear Editors/ombudsman,

Please correct Anthony Shadid's Driven by War to a No Man's Land in Jordan,April 2, 2007. The "creation of Israel" was not the genesis of thePalestinian refugee problem; it was the war that the Palestinians and fiveArab countries started after its establishment. To prove this, just askyourself how many Palestinians would have been displaced had the Arab war ofaggression against the nascent Jewish state not occurred. Answer:ZERO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Deborah C Howell On Behalf Of OmbudsmanInternet DropBox
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: Correction Sought - Anthony Shadid's Driven by War to a NoMan's Land in Jordan

There was a war at the creation of the state -- the Israeliscall it the War of Independence -- and the Palestinian refugee problem wascreated. Different people look on it different ways. I don't think it needsa correction.

Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Howell,

No doubt Japanese and Americans looked at World War II in different ways, but it nevetheless began for these two countries when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, not when the US bombed Tokyo.

Opinions are what they are, but the facts remain as follows:
1. The Arabs -- Arab states and Pal. Arabs -- rejected the 1947 U.N.partition plan for British Mandatory Palestine. The Jews accepted partition.

2. The Arabs -- five armies from Arab League countries and forces of Palestinian Arabs -- attacked the new Jewish state.

3. During the fighting, which the Arabs eventually lost, many Arabs fled from what became Israel -- estimates at the time ranged from 472,000 (U.N.) to 650,000 (difference between last British and first Israeli census), of whom 50,000 returned under "family reunification" provisions. Many left to escape the fighting, some at the prompting of Arab governments, communications media. Some were expelled by Jewish forces. (Arab "refugees"were anyone who'd lived in what became Israel for a minimum of two years.)

4. In the late '40s and early '50s, the U.N. considered several resolutions proposing to deal with the refugee problem by either compensation or peaceful resettlement when practicable. The Arabs rejected these resolutions. No "right of return" was established.

5. More than 800,000 Jews fled Arab countries, nearly 600,000 settling in Israel. These refugees were, within a few years, absorbed as new citizens.

6. The Arabs insisted that, contrary to international usage for all other refugee groups, Palestinian Arab "refugees" would include descendants (so UNRWA was created).

7. Most Arab states refused to naturalize Pal. Arab refugees, who were largely Sunni Muslims of similar ethnic backgrounds.

So, "the creation of Israel" did not CAUSE the Arab refugee problem. Arab REJECTION of the '47 partition plan's "two-state solution" and insistence on going to war, CAUSED the problem. Arab rejection of either compensation or resettlement perpetuated the problem.
Thank you for your time

Letter to The NY Times

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 8:02 AM
To: letters@nytimes.comSubject: letter to the editor

Dear Editor,

If Palestinian Arabs sincerely want a state of their own, how come their major sticking point in negotiations is a “right” to live in another country?

Michael Berenhaus

Letter to Washington Times

Dear Editor,

In Karen Laub’s Palestinians Decry Israeli Court System [Mar. 28, 2007] - the country with the only real court system in the Middle East – Israel is taken to task by “Palestinians and human rights groups” for being “unfair” with “unduly harsh sentences.” In Gaza and the West Bank, meanwhile, Palestinians deemed guilty of collusion with Israel (no trial at all mind you) are executed and dragged through the streets by fellow Palestinians. Iraqi civilians are decapitated, Arab women are murdered in ‘honor’ killings, and Saudi Arabian thieves have their hands amputated, all without due process. Where are the so-called human rights groups when this occurs? Where is Karen Laub? Clearly vilifying and demonizing Israel while giving a free pass to a sea of Arab neighbors who are far worse.

Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 6:09 AM
To: letters@washpost.com
Subject: Omission of integral fact

Dear Editor,

According to the article Unity Cabinet Offered By Palestinian Premier [March 18, 2007], the platform of the new Palestinian “unity government” states that "’resistance is a legitimate right of the Palestinian people’ in opposing Israel’s occupation of territory captured in the 1967 Middle East war.” This phrasing implies - practically states - that the territory was captured from the Palestinians, who are now "resisting". However Israel captured the territory not from the Palestinians but from Egypt and Jordan. Why did the Post not mention this integral fact? How are your readers supposed to understand the conflict and evaluate the sincerity and veracity of Palestinian positions with such a glaring omission?

Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 8:56 AM
To: letters@washpost.comS
ubject: letter to the editor

Dear Editor,

Washington Post reporter Scott Wilson describes Israel's destruction of an Arab town, during its war of independence, without mentioning the context that it was during a war which started when 5 Arab armies invaded the nascent Jewish State [Israel Revisited Mar. 11, 2007]. Doing so is like describing America's involvement in WWII as the bombing of Tokyo - leaving out Pearl Harbor!

Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:16 PM
To: washington post
Subject: letter to the editor

Dear Editor,

The Washington Post on March 3, 2007 found it newsworthy (World in Brief) to report that the Israeli army is breaking international law if allegations are true that they once used Palestinian civilians as shields during a door-to-door search for terrorists. But the Post has not found it newsworthy to report that the continuing firing of rockets into Israeli neighborhoods - a fact, not an allegation - is a violation of international law. When these rockets are mentioned, they are always referred to as “largely ineffective” or “crude.”

Now consider the response to the allegation: According to the same article, “the Israeli army pledged to ‘pursue a thorough inquiry’ into the case,” while the Palestinian leadership has done nothing to stop, or even consider stopping, the unrelenting rocket fire. The Washington Post seems to be bent on making Israel appear to be the aggressor, even using anecdotal allegations that the Post feels outweigh the egregious continuous Palestinian bombing of Israel.

Michael Berenhaus

Letter to Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 5:03 PM
To: 'cohenr@washpost.com'
Subject: Rubbing AJC's nose in it

Dear Mr. Cohen,

The American Jewish Committee apologizes to you for including your name in a paper which lists those that aid anti-Semitism with their writings. Your response to the apology: rub the AJC’s nose in it. I think the AJC was taking the high road with you, it wasn’t returned. My take: when a prominent writer who is Jewish calls Israel an “honest mistake” in the paper on record in the Nation’s capital, it certainly adds fuel to the fire of those that espouse hatred of Israel and take it out on Jews throughout the world. So the AJC had no reason to apologize in my opinion – but they did and this is what they got!

In Cheapening a Fight Against Hatred [2/6/07]: Me thinks he doth protest too much. You seem to come across feeling guilty, you defend yourself too much, and you lash out – before against Israel as you said you did in anger – and now against the AJC. I may not know what you are thinking or feeling (as you say your readers don’t), but I know what you are writing. And that’s all that matters. Your response ended up being a temper tantrum which was only more damaging to those of the Jewish faith.

Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, MD

Letter to Washington Post Jerusalem Bureau Chief


From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 8:16 PM
To: 'Scott Wilson'
Subject: tomorrow's article

Hi Scott,

I am off on vacation tomorrow but felt the need to address the story Violence Erupts at Jerusalem Holy Site [2/9/7] and why it was presented the way it was. Were the Palestinians angry over the construction as you say or was it that the Palestinians were incited with lies about Israel attacking the Al Aksa mosque? Was there a disinformation campaign being waged in the preceding days? I have always been concerned with context and feel that more could have been done regarding that in this article – or in previous days. This is the same story, to me, that has happened many times before in history- recently in 2000.

You agreed when we first spoke that Lee Hockstader’s portrayal of Ariel Sharon’s walk to the Temple Mount, in Sept. of 2000, as the “trigger” of the recent intifada should have at least included that that was the Palestinian view where the Israeli view was that it was used as a pretext. But here you say that Ariel Sharon’s visit “set off the clashes.” I thought that it was acknowledged that Yassir Arafat planned the intifada (after he walked away from the May 2000 negotiations) and was just waiting for the right pretext. Even if you disagree with this, you took the opposite track.

Another point: You also seemed to agree, in a previous correspondence, that “seized” was not the best word in describing Israel’s win of the West Bank – it makes it sound as if Israel was the aggressor – when it was Jordan that attacked Israel. But I see it in the article.

I am sure the coverage continues to be challenging and wish you the strength and wisdom in this position. I will let you know when I am coming back to Israel – hope to be back in the Spring.

Regards and stay safe,

Michael

Letter to Washington Post Staff

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:13 AM
To: washington post staff
Subject: Apparent bias still evident at The Washington Post

Dear Chairman, Staff, Editors, and Ombudsman,

In Palestinians Under Pressure To Leave Iraq [Jan. 25, 2007], Washington Post reporter Joshua Partlow interviews a Palestinian Arab and states that his “parents took refuge in Iraq after the creation of Israel in 1948.” Contrary to this inference, the creation of Israel did not displace any Palestinian Arabs – though that claim is the foundation and basis of the Palestinian Arab narrative. After the founding of Israel, local Palestinian Arabs and neighboring Arab countries attacked the nascent Jewish state, hoping to destroy it, and lost. If this war hadn’t occurred, there would have been no Palestinian Arab refugee problem at all– proving that the creation of Israel was not the source of the displacement -it was the Arab attack and their subsequent loss that was the cause. If the Arabs would have won the war that they started, of course there would have also been no Arab refugee problem – but back to back Holocausts for the Jewish people.

The Washington Post has adamantly denied accusations of bias against Israel. This example seems all too clear: In this article, The Washington Post distorted the basis of the Palestinian Arab/Israeli conflict and took on the Palestinian Arab perspective - which happens to be a lie. Until The Washington Post makes a stronger attempt to eliminate this apparent bias, watchdog groups will continue to crop up that take The Post to task - and rightfully so.

Michael Berenhaus

Letter to Washington Post Ombudsman

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 4:16 PM
To: wash post ombudsman
Subject: correction sought

Dear Ms. Howell:

On page A21, in All Quiet on Israel’s Eastern Front? Not Quite.[Jan. 24, 2007], former President Bill Clinton is quoted as referring to “al-Quds” as the possible capital for a Palestinian state. The Washington Post defined “al Quds” in brackets as “East Jerusalem.” This is incorrect: Al-Quds means Jerusalem in Arabic – not East Jerusalem.

Of course President Clinton misspoke – it was East Jerusalem as capital that was on the negotiating table. Jerusalem is an absolute deal-breaker; East Jerusalem a possibility - assuming all Palestinian Arabs permanently forgo violence. In any case, the negotiations fell through as the offer was not accepted - or even countered - by Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat.

Please cite a correction and/or clarification for this.

Thank you,

Michael Berenhaus

Published in The Economist

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 11:10 AM
To: 'letters@economist.com'
Subject: letter to the editor

Dear Editor,

It’s The Little Things That Make An Occupation [The Economist, Jan. 18, 2007] describes checkpoints in The West Bank and the inconvenience they present for Palestinian Arabs. I went to Israel this past October and had to deal with humiliating checkpoints first-hand. I had to wait what seemed like hours - herded like cattle. And when I finally got to the checkpoint, I had to remove articles of clothing and was forced to throw away some personal possessions in order to proceed - even though there was no reason to suspect that I might be a terrorist. I am, of course, talking about security measures at Dulles International Airport in Washington DC en route to Israel. Yes, in America we must deal with checkpoints everyday at airports, and through no fault of our own.

The checkpoints in The West Bank, on the other hand, are there because of the Palestinian Arab practice of sending suicide bombers into Israel to murder and maim Israelis in schools, pizza shops, and discos. What do Palestinian Arabs expect – champagne and streamers? Actions have consequences; terrorism leads to checkpoints. And they work! Because of the check points and the security barrier, the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian Arab terrorists in 2006 was the lowest number in six years.

The restrictions placed on Palestinian Arabs are self-imposed. As long as the terror continues, so will the restrictions.

Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 8:15 AM
To: letters@washpost.com
Subject: letter to the editor

Dear Editor,

According to an item In The World in Brief (Jan. 11, 2006), the statement "’There will remain a state called Israel’” by [Hamas leader] Meshaal is "the clearest statement yet by the radical group on its attitude toward the Jewish state it previously said had no right to exist.”

Hamas “previously,” currently, and in the future (until proven otherwise) believes that Israel has no right to exist. No matter how they wrap their views, The Hamas charter still calls for the destruction of Israel – that hasn’t changed. Meshaal’s quote, which Hamas officials denied one hour after it was made, alters none of their goals or intentions.

Michael Berenhaus