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
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
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
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
Sunday, January 21, 2007
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
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
Monday, January 15, 2007
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
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)