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
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
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
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
Saturday, September 8, 2007
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
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)