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