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