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
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
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
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
Monday, July 9, 2007
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
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
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
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
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
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)