Letter to The Washington Post
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: letter to wash post
Dear Editor,
According to On the Road to Nowhere, Merchants Pay the Toll [10/22/07], Israel’s economic withdrawal and security barrier have caused the Palestinian economy to become “lifeless.” Yet the Palestinian economy is able to support over a thousand rockets fired from Gaza into Israel. In Israel tourism thrives; in Gaza terrorism thrives. Israel chose an industry which is much more profitable. The Palestinians chose an industry that alienates them from the world and hurts their economy.
Since Israel constructed the security barrier, Palestinian suicide bombings are down to almost zero, though the attempts continue. Countless lives have been saved. Yes, the barrier hasn’t been good for business in the Palestinian areas. But why blame Israel for Palestinian career choices?
Michael Berenhaus
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Published in the Baltimore Sun
Friends,
They published it. I am somewhat surprised – even though they said they would it is by no means guaranteed – and it is pretty much word for word (though I didn’t call it a “right” of return). To my knowledge, many of these truths have rarely been published or uttered in the American media.
I am off to Israel for a few weeks for a charity bicycle race (for an Israeli children’s hospital) from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and meetings with journalists.
My best,
Michael
www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.23ooct23,0,1012018.story
Letters to the Editor
October 23, 2007
Arab intransigence caused 'catastrophe'
Instead of viewing the 1947 U.N. partition agreement as an opportunity for their first state, Palestinians coveted the other half - the lands granted to the Jews. So they, along with neighboring Arab states, attacked the Jewish part to try to win control of all the territory.
The Palestinians failed miserably. They lost everything, mostly to their land-grabbing Arab brethren: Egypt took Gaza, while Jordan took the West Bank.
But the fact that the Palestinians didn't accept their half of the U.N. partition is the cause of their "catastrophe," not the "founding of Israel" ("Winds of change in Holocaust Museum," Opinion • Commentary, Oct. 16).
For peace to ensue now, the Palestinian camp must stop this coveting of the Jewish side of the partition - Israel.
It must give up its claim to a right to return of Palestinians and their millions of offspring to Israel - which would give Palestinians control of the Jewish side of the territory because of their sheer numbers.
Never in history has the losing side of a conflict been so demanding with preconditions and claims in negotiations, especially when, given its aggression, that side should feel fortunate to be getting a second chance to get anything.
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac
Copyright © 2007, The Baltimore Sun
Friends,
They published it. I am somewhat surprised – even though they said they would it is by no means guaranteed – and it is pretty much word for word (though I didn’t call it a “right” of return). To my knowledge, many of these truths have rarely been published or uttered in the American media.
I am off to Israel for a few weeks for a charity bicycle race (for an Israeli children’s hospital) from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and meetings with journalists.
My best,
Michael
www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.23ooct23,0,1012018.story
Letters to the Editor
October 23, 2007
Arab intransigence caused 'catastrophe'
Instead of viewing the 1947 U.N. partition agreement as an opportunity for their first state, Palestinians coveted the other half - the lands granted to the Jews. So they, along with neighboring Arab states, attacked the Jewish part to try to win control of all the territory.
The Palestinians failed miserably. They lost everything, mostly to their land-grabbing Arab brethren: Egypt took Gaza, while Jordan took the West Bank.
But the fact that the Palestinians didn't accept their half of the U.N. partition is the cause of their "catastrophe," not the "founding of Israel" ("Winds of change in Holocaust Museum," Opinion • Commentary, Oct. 16).
For peace to ensue now, the Palestinian camp must stop this coveting of the Jewish side of the partition - Israel.
It must give up its claim to a right to return of Palestinians and their millions of offspring to Israel - which would give Palestinians control of the Jewish side of the territory because of their sheer numbers.
Never in history has the losing side of a conflict been so demanding with preconditions and claims in negotiations, especially when, given its aggression, that side should feel fortunate to be getting a second chance to get anything.
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac
Copyright © 2007, The Baltimore Sun
Friday, October 12, 2007
Published in the San Antonio Express-News
Why think Ahmadinejad is evil? Because he is
Columnist Mansour O. El-Kikhia blames Israel for America's hatred of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He asks why Ahmadinejad is characterized as “evil” by the U.S. media, saying “the answer is very simple. He refuses to recognize Israel.”
El-Kikhia doesn't mention that Ahmadinejad not only refuses to recognize Israel but wants to wipe it off the face of the Earth. Nor does he mention that Ahmadinejad's regime was implicated by a U.S. court in the killing of 241 American servicemen in 1983 — the largest single-day death toll to U.S. Marines since Iwo Jima.
Further, according to U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, Ahmadinejad's regime is involved in funding, training and supplying explosives to the Shiite insurgency in Iraq, which has caused the death of numerous American soldiers.
Americans have enough reasons of their own to despise the Iranian leader without invoking Israel.
— Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, Md.
Why think Ahmadinejad is evil? Because he is
Columnist Mansour O. El-Kikhia blames Israel for America's hatred of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He asks why Ahmadinejad is characterized as “evil” by the U.S. media, saying “the answer is very simple. He refuses to recognize Israel.”
El-Kikhia doesn't mention that Ahmadinejad not only refuses to recognize Israel but wants to wipe it off the face of the Earth. Nor does he mention that Ahmadinejad's regime was implicated by a U.S. court in the killing of 241 American servicemen in 1983 — the largest single-day death toll to U.S. Marines since Iwo Jima.
Further, according to U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, Ahmadinejad's regime is involved in funding, training and supplying explosives to the Shiite insurgency in Iraq, which has caused the death of numerous American soldiers.
Americans have enough reasons of their own to despise the Iranian leader without invoking Israel.
— Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, Md.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The Washington Post concedes bias, considers publication of letter
Friends,
Washington Post ombudsman responds (and shows below it that she forwarded it to main news desk). The CC went to the letters-to-the-editor section and is being considered for publication (see bottom of email).
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah C Howell [mailto:HowellDC@washpost.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: Whatcha think?
I think you make a good point. It should have been attributed. Or worded in
a different way. I have spoken to the editor on this.
Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
From: Deborah C Howell
To: Mike Semel/news/TWP@WashPost
10/01/2007 07:36PM
Subject: Whatcha think?
Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
Forwarded by Deborah C Howell/visitors/news/TWP on 10/01/2007 07:35 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: John M White
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 3:24 PM
We are in receipt of your letter to the editor and are considering it for publication.
Please respond to this email with the verifications.
Please provide us, if you haven't already, a day and evening phone number that we can contact you for any questions we may have.
We will need to edit the letter for style and/or space considerations.
The initial edited version is below, please let us know if you have any concerns regarding them.
Further editing may be needed as we approach deadline.
Thank you for the submission,
John
-------
Dear Editor,
The Sept. 29 Metro article stated that "Va. Muslim Activist Denies Urging Violence" that Esam Omeish "is a fierce critic of Israeli military force against Palestinian civilians in Lebanon.... " But there were no quotation marks around "Israeli military force against Palestinian civilians in Lebanon." It would seem that The Post would have been more accurate by prefacing that Omeish is a fierce critic in "what he believes is ... ." By not using this preface and by not using quotation marks, the Post indicating that the comment is what the Post believes as true. But where is this Israeli force in Lebanon going on against Palestinian civilians other than in the Palestinian narrative?
__________________
John M. White
The Washington Post
Editorial Department
Friends,
Washington Post ombudsman responds (and shows below it that she forwarded it to main news desk). The CC went to the letters-to-the-editor section and is being considered for publication (see bottom of email).
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah C Howell [mailto:HowellDC@washpost.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: Whatcha think?
I think you make a good point. It should have been attributed. Or worded in
a different way. I have spoken to the editor on this.
Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
From: Deborah C Howell
To: Mike Semel/news/TWP@WashPost
10/01/2007 07:36PM
Subject: Whatcha think?
Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
Forwarded by Deborah C Howell/visitors/news/TWP on 10/01/2007 07:35 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: John M White
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 3:24 PM
We are in receipt of your letter to the editor and are considering it for publication.
Please respond to this email with the verifications.
Please provide us, if you haven't already, a day and evening phone number that we can contact you for any questions we may have.
We will need to edit the letter for style and/or space considerations.
The initial edited version is below, please let us know if you have any concerns regarding them.
Further editing may be needed as we approach deadline.
Thank you for the submission,
John
-------
Dear Editor,
The Sept. 29 Metro article stated that "Va. Muslim Activist Denies Urging Violence" that Esam Omeish "is a fierce critic of Israeli military force against Palestinian civilians in Lebanon.... " But there were no quotation marks around "Israeli military force against Palestinian civilians in Lebanon." It would seem that The Post would have been more accurate by prefacing that Omeish is a fierce critic in "what he believes is ... ." By not using this preface and by not using quotation marks, the Post indicating that the comment is what the Post believes as true. But where is this Israeli force in Lebanon going on against Palestinian civilians other than in the Palestinian narrative?
__________________
John M. White
The Washington Post
Editorial Department
Monday, October 1, 2007
Positive letter to Washington Post columnist
Friends,
This is a letter to and response from Jim Hoagland, a Washington Post op-ed writer who rarely has anything nice to say about Israel and routinely twists facts which implicate Israel. It is important to give them credit when they get it right.
Michael
________________________________________
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 2:27 PM
To: 'jimhoagland@washpost.com'
Subject: your article in today's paper
Dear Mr. Hoagland,
I read your op-ed this morning "A Small Outbreak of Mideast Hope" [Sept. 30, 2007]. I thought it was excellent - interesting and informative.
Regards,
Michael Berenhaus
Friends,
This is a letter to and response from Jim Hoagland, a Washington Post op-ed writer who rarely has anything nice to say about Israel and routinely twists facts which implicate Israel. It is important to give them credit when they get it right.
Michael
________________________________________
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 2:27 PM
To: 'jimhoagland@washpost.com'
Subject: your article in today's paper
Dear Mr. Hoagland,
I read your op-ed this morning "A Small Outbreak of Mideast Hope" [Sept. 30, 2007]. I thought it was excellent - interesting and informative.
Regards,
Michael Berenhaus
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)