Dear Editor,
According to The Washington Post "Israel might have avoided this fight...by relaxing the economic blockade" [Israel Strikes Dec. 28, 2008]. But the facts don't support this. Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians in August of 2005. Almost immediately, the Palestinians turned the Gaza Strip into a launching pad for rockets and mortars firing them into Israel, cease-fire or no cease-fire, incessantly. The embargo began as a non-violent means to curtail the rocket fire. Therefore, unless The Washington Post has some evidence toward the contrary, they owe their readers a retraction of the atrocious claim that relaxing the embargo would have had any positive impact at all.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Monday, December 29, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
To: letters@washpost.com
Subject: Turk Al-Faisal "Peace for the Mideast" - Dec. 26, 2008
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:19:33 +0000
Dear Editor,
Turk Al-Faisal, in "Peace for the Mideast", Dec. 26, 2008, states that for the Palestinians, Israel's founding is "the day the dream of an independent, Arab-Palestinian state was shattered." I am not sure how The Washington Post, even in an editorial, could allow such outrageous fiction to occur in their newspaper. The Palestinians were offered a state in the UN Partition agreement of 1947, which would not have been impeded by Israel’s founding. However, the Palestinians chose to go for it all - in an attempt to destroy the Jewish state - and lost. The Palestinians, ultimately, have shattered their own dreams. They have been offered a state many times since then but refused to accept it unless it was on their terms. Until they stop blaming the side that they tried to exterminate, and look inward and accept that no one, especially the losers of wars, gets everything they want in negotiations; their future goal of a state will continue to be a dream.
Subject: Turk Al-Faisal "Peace for the Mideast" - Dec. 26, 2008
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:19:33 +0000
Dear Editor,
Turk Al-Faisal, in "Peace for the Mideast", Dec. 26, 2008, states that for the Palestinians, Israel's founding is "the day the dream of an independent, Arab-Palestinian state was shattered." I am not sure how The Washington Post, even in an editorial, could allow such outrageous fiction to occur in their newspaper. The Palestinians were offered a state in the UN Partition agreement of 1947, which would not have been impeded by Israel’s founding. However, the Palestinians chose to go for it all - in an attempt to destroy the Jewish state - and lost. The Palestinians, ultimately, have shattered their own dreams. They have been offered a state many times since then but refused to accept it unless it was on their terms. Until they stop blaming the side that they tried to exterminate, and look inward and accept that no one, especially the losers of wars, gets everything they want in negotiations; their future goal of a state will continue to be a dream.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: ombudsman@washpost.com
Subject: Objective pursuits Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 04:21:19 +0000
Dear Editor/Ombudsman/Staff,
According to The Washington Post (Israeli Candidates Vow To Bring Down Hamas, Dec. 22, 2008), "the cease-fire had been eroding since early November, when a deadly Israeli raid prompted Palestinians to step up attacks." The Palestinians didn't need any prompting - they had been doing quite nicely on their own initiative having bombarded Israel before then on an almost daily basis, cease-fire or no cease-fire, with thousands of mortars and rockets - their way of saying thank you for being handed the Gaza Strip by Israel in 2005.
With Washington Post coverage, it is always Israel that "triggers" or "prompts" Palestinian violence. This is so in-line with Palestinian propaganda and the Post has become a purveyor of it. In this case, if the Post wanted to attempt a modicum of neutrality, it could have said "in what the Palestinians said prompted them to step up their attacks." But being neutral, apparently, is not what the Post is out to accomplish.
Michael Berenhaus
To: ombudsman@washpost.com
Subject: Objective pursuits Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 04:21:19 +0000
Dear Editor/Ombudsman/Staff,
According to The Washington Post (Israeli Candidates Vow To Bring Down Hamas, Dec. 22, 2008), "the cease-fire had been eroding since early November, when a deadly Israeli raid prompted Palestinians to step up attacks." The Palestinians didn't need any prompting - they had been doing quite nicely on their own initiative having bombarded Israel before then on an almost daily basis, cease-fire or no cease-fire, with thousands of mortars and rockets - their way of saying thank you for being handed the Gaza Strip by Israel in 2005.
With Washington Post coverage, it is always Israel that "triggers" or "prompts" Palestinian violence. This is so in-line with Palestinian propaganda and the Post has become a purveyor of it. In this case, if the Post wanted to attempt a modicum of neutrality, it could have said "in what the Palestinians said prompted them to step up their attacks." But being neutral, apparently, is not what the Post is out to accomplish.
Michael Berenhaus
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net To: letters@washpost.com Cc: ombudsman@washpost.com Subject: letter to the editor Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:48:19 +0000
Dear Editor,
Linda Gradstein, in In Gaza, No Cash for Holiday - [Dec. 8, 2008], shares yet another human interest story on Hamas-controlled Gaza - source of now over 10,000 rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli citizens in the past eight years. In this one, as attacks on Israel increase and Hamas prepared to end its six-month truce, she speaks of Ali Hussein, who, with some of his salary, buys sweets for his four sons. Sweets are given to Gazan children typically to commemorate special events. This was most notably captured on film when 3,000 Americans were incinerated on Sept. 11, 2001 - sweets were everywhere. Gazan children also receive sweets when Israeli men, women and children are murdered by suicide bombers in pizza shops, hotels, and night clubs.
With all the rocket and mortar fire directed at them, the article reports that Israel still allows Gazans by the thousands into Israel for hospitalizations, to visit their family, and to go to holy sites. Contrast this to when Arabs had control of Jewish sites in the Old City of Jerusalem for 19 years. Israelis never fired a rocket or mortar but were denied access to their holy sites for the 19 years and every Old City synagogue was destroyed.
Michael Berenhaus
Dear Editor,
Linda Gradstein, in In Gaza, No Cash for Holiday - [Dec. 8, 2008], shares yet another human interest story on Hamas-controlled Gaza - source of now over 10,000 rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli citizens in the past eight years. In this one, as attacks on Israel increase and Hamas prepared to end its six-month truce, she speaks of Ali Hussein, who, with some of his salary, buys sweets for his four sons. Sweets are given to Gazan children typically to commemorate special events. This was most notably captured on film when 3,000 Americans were incinerated on Sept. 11, 2001 - sweets were everywhere. Gazan children also receive sweets when Israeli men, women and children are murdered by suicide bombers in pizza shops, hotels, and night clubs.
With all the rocket and mortar fire directed at them, the article reports that Israel still allows Gazans by the thousands into Israel for hospitalizations, to visit their family, and to go to holy sites. Contrast this to when Arabs had control of Jewish sites in the Old City of Jerusalem for 19 years. Israelis never fired a rocket or mortar but were denied access to their holy sites for the 19 years and every Old City synagogue was destroyed.
Michael Berenhaus
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
With all the reporting on how the Palestinians so dearly want a state of their own, how ironic that, when fences are starting to be built, they scurry to live in the state of Israel [Israeli Wall Fuels Migration Dec. 10, 2008]. What the article omitted was the easy access of Palestinians buying houses in the Jewish areas of Jerusalem. If it was the other way around, the Palestinians selling to Jews in Arab areas would be threatened by death for the alleged offense.
With all the reporting on how the Palestinians so dearly want a state of their own, how ironic that, when fences are starting to be built, they scurry to live in the state of Israel [Israeli Wall Fuels Migration Dec. 10, 2008]. What the article omitted was the easy access of Palestinians buying houses in the Jewish areas of Jerusalem. If it was the other way around, the Palestinians selling to Jews in Arab areas would be threatened by death for the alleged offense.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
Subject: Middle East Priorities for Jan. 21, (Nov. 21, 2008)
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 7:24:55 AM
Dear Editor,
One definition of delusion is repeating an action over and over and expecting a different outcome. Brent Scrowcroft (national security advisor to Presidents Ford and Bush 1) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (national security advisor to President Carter) typify why America has been so unsuccessful in its attempts at prodding peace between the Palestinians and Israelis [MiddleEast Priorities for Jan. 21, (Nov. 21, 2008)]. The U.S. has already promoted the formula that Scowcroft and Brzezinski propose, and the Palestinians rejected even better terms without making a counter-offer, in July 2000 and January 2001. The Palestinians are not interested in a non-militarized state - in theory a great idea. In agreements in the past, they have been able to finagle the inclusion of weapons and training in the deal, so what makes this duo think they would reverse this strategy? The authors deal with Israel's security concerns by proposing to deploy a peace keeping force between Israel and the Palestinians. We see how well this has worked in Lebanon - Hezbollah is stronger than ever in the face of these international troops. The author's coup de grace for security forIsrael is to "train Palestinian troops to become effective." But Palestinian troops are Israel's biggest worry, and "effective" ones even more so. And how would these troops fit in with the goal of a non-militarized Palestinian state?
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 7:24:55 AM
Dear Editor,
One definition of delusion is repeating an action over and over and expecting a different outcome. Brent Scrowcroft (national security advisor to Presidents Ford and Bush 1) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (national security advisor to President Carter) typify why America has been so unsuccessful in its attempts at prodding peace between the Palestinians and Israelis [MiddleEast Priorities for Jan. 21, (Nov. 21, 2008)]. The U.S. has already promoted the formula that Scowcroft and Brzezinski propose, and the Palestinians rejected even better terms without making a counter-offer, in July 2000 and January 2001. The Palestinians are not interested in a non-militarized state - in theory a great idea. In agreements in the past, they have been able to finagle the inclusion of weapons and training in the deal, so what makes this duo think they would reverse this strategy? The authors deal with Israel's security concerns by proposing to deploy a peace keeping force between Israel and the Palestinians. We see how well this has worked in Lebanon - Hezbollah is stronger than ever in the face of these international troops. The author's coup de grace for security forIsrael is to "train Palestinian troops to become effective." But Palestinian troops are Israel's biggest worry, and "effective" ones even more so. And how would these troops fit in with the goal of a non-militarized Palestinian state?
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Published in The Washington Post
Published in The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/19/AR2008111903749.html
Just the News
Thursday, November 20, 2008; Page A22
In her Nov. 15 ombudsman column, "Remedying the Bias Perception," Deborah Howell stated: "Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like to change the world."
But it is this desire to influence that many readers find objectionable and that runs counter to journalistic ethics.
To remain objective and to be viewed as such, newspapers should hire those who, whatever their political leanings, like to report the news, not slant it.
MICHAEL BERENHAUS
Potomac
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/19/AR2008111903749.html
Just the News
Thursday, November 20, 2008; Page A22
In her Nov. 15 ombudsman column, "Remedying the Bias Perception," Deborah Howell stated: "Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like to change the world."
But it is this desire to influence that many readers find objectionable and that runs counter to journalistic ethics.
To remain objective and to be viewed as such, newspapers should hire those who, whatever their political leanings, like to report the news, not slant it.
MICHAEL BERENHAUS
Potomac
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editors and Staff,
The modus operandi of any group with a cause is to get attention. The Palestinians take it a step farther by routinely putting their own at risk to gain this attention. They tried sending protest boats into Gaza. When no one noticed or seemed to care, they create a crisis by launching missiles into Israel. Of course any country needs to respond to an attack, and they got their desired attention. You would think that after years of such shenanigans, the media would catch on to it, but no - apparently it makes too good copy, so they replay it over and over, especially in a slow news cycle.
In As Israel-Hamas Clashes Continue, Gazans Face Crisis (Nov. 15, 2008), there is a photo (almost 1/4 of a page) of a Palestinian child crying - as if the crying was due to Israel’s embargo (the caption even doesn't state this) - but the inference is unmistakable. What a cynical use of a child as a prop!
And why does The Post feel the need to say it was the "military wing" of Hamas that launched the Soviet-style Grad missiles? Of course it was the military wing! What does the Post think - that readers will think it was the administrative branch doing the attacks?
Deflecting blame for the attacks by saying a "wing" was the culprit is dishonest. It was Hamas that did it. They control the entire area. Their mission, their cause, is the destruction of Israel.
If the Washington Post would really like to help the Palestinian people avoid self-inflicted crises, they would refrain from giving them coverage that encourages them to manufacture crises to obtain world sympathy. Doesn’t the Post understand that it is this coverage that encourages Hamas to launch their rockets?
The modus operandi of any group with a cause is to get attention. The Palestinians take it a step farther by routinely putting their own at risk to gain this attention. They tried sending protest boats into Gaza. When no one noticed or seemed to care, they create a crisis by launching missiles into Israel. Of course any country needs to respond to an attack, and they got their desired attention. You would think that after years of such shenanigans, the media would catch on to it, but no - apparently it makes too good copy, so they replay it over and over, especially in a slow news cycle.
In As Israel-Hamas Clashes Continue, Gazans Face Crisis (Nov. 15, 2008), there is a photo (almost 1/4 of a page) of a Palestinian child crying - as if the crying was due to Israel’s embargo (the caption even doesn't state this) - but the inference is unmistakable. What a cynical use of a child as a prop!
And why does The Post feel the need to say it was the "military wing" of Hamas that launched the Soviet-style Grad missiles? Of course it was the military wing! What does the Post think - that readers will think it was the administrative branch doing the attacks?
Deflecting blame for the attacks by saying a "wing" was the culprit is dishonest. It was Hamas that did it. They control the entire area. Their mission, their cause, is the destruction of Israel.
If the Washington Post would really like to help the Palestinian people avoid self-inflicted crises, they would refrain from giving them coverage that encourages them to manufacture crises to obtain world sympathy. Doesn’t the Post understand that it is this coverage that encourages Hamas to launch their rockets?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: ombudsman@washpost.com
CC: letters@washpost.com
Subject: Arab Lands?
Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 11:40:07 AM
Dear Editor, Why does The Washington Post insist on calling the West Bank - "Arab lands"? [Old Saudi Peace Plan Considered, Barak Says Oct. 20, 2008]. The Turks (who are not Arabs) controlled the region from 1517 to 1917. The British (who are not Arabs) controlled the region from 1917 to 1948. From 1948 to 1967, the West Bank territory was illegally occupied by Jordan. Israel won it after being attacked by Jordan in the Six Day war in 1967 and it has been in their control ever since. It is no coincidence that the West Bank was known for thousands of years as Judea and Samaria. And if you want to go back even further: Abraham, the first Jew, and patriarch to the major religions was buried in the West Bank - no one disputes this. The territory is not "Arab land", and saying it is does not make it so. Please reconsider this usage since I know you cherish your objectivity. Call it "disputed" territory.
Thank you,
Michael Berenhaus
--------------------------------------------------
Note: Abraham was buried in Canaan – but I wanted to simplify for the letter.
Michael
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: ombudsman@washpost.com
CC: letters@washpost.com
Subject: Arab Lands?
Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 11:40:07 AM
Dear Editor, Why does The Washington Post insist on calling the West Bank - "Arab lands"? [Old Saudi Peace Plan Considered, Barak Says Oct. 20, 2008]. The Turks (who are not Arabs) controlled the region from 1517 to 1917. The British (who are not Arabs) controlled the region from 1917 to 1948. From 1948 to 1967, the West Bank territory was illegally occupied by Jordan. Israel won it after being attacked by Jordan in the Six Day war in 1967 and it has been in their control ever since. It is no coincidence that the West Bank was known for thousands of years as Judea and Samaria. And if you want to go back even further: Abraham, the first Jew, and patriarch to the major religions was buried in the West Bank - no one disputes this. The territory is not "Arab land", and saying it is does not make it so. Please reconsider this usage since I know you cherish your objectivity. Call it "disputed" territory.
Thank you,
Michael Berenhaus
--------------------------------------------------
Note: Abraham was buried in Canaan – but I wanted to simplify for the letter.
Michael
Friday, October 3, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: letters@washpost.com
Subject: letter to the editor
Date: Friday, October 03, 2008 1:53:24 AM
Dear Editor,
What more needs to be said about an op-ed written by an author who wrote a book about Israel, a country the size of New Jersey, and called it "The Accidental Empire"? Yes Gershom Gorenberg [Failure Written in West Bank Stone Sept. 30, 2008] has an agenda - given a platform for his view for the fourth time in less than three years in the Post – and he has been wrong each time. Israel won the West Bank - not from the Palestinians – but from an occupying power Jordan. In Gorenberg calling Israel an occupier, can he answer how can one occupy an occupier?
Jordan had been launching devastating attacks against Israel for years culminating in a massive attack which failed miserably during the Six Day War of 1967. Israel merely took the land from which they had been continuously attacked - is that such a crime? And as the holder of the land, it is Israel’s right to do with it as it chooses. It chose to give a majority of it to the Palestinian inhabitants of the area. No credit was given to Israel for this – only endless condemnation by the likes of the UN, the European Union, and Pro-Arabists like Gorenberg – all with anti-Israel pasts – for it not being enough.
The Palestinians, bear in mind, were on the side of Jordan during the war – the losers. They have made more demands as losers of a war than ever recorded. And with each passing day, they deserve to get less and less – perhaps it will spur them on to do something that they sorely need to do if they hope to have a state of their own – compromise – and be grateful that they are getting anything.
Michael Berenhaus
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: letters@washpost.com
Subject: letter to the editor
Date: Friday, October 03, 2008 1:53:24 AM
Dear Editor,
What more needs to be said about an op-ed written by an author who wrote a book about Israel, a country the size of New Jersey, and called it "The Accidental Empire"? Yes Gershom Gorenberg [Failure Written in West Bank Stone Sept. 30, 2008] has an agenda - given a platform for his view for the fourth time in less than three years in the Post – and he has been wrong each time. Israel won the West Bank - not from the Palestinians – but from an occupying power Jordan. In Gorenberg calling Israel an occupier, can he answer how can one occupy an occupier?
Jordan had been launching devastating attacks against Israel for years culminating in a massive attack which failed miserably during the Six Day War of 1967. Israel merely took the land from which they had been continuously attacked - is that such a crime? And as the holder of the land, it is Israel’s right to do with it as it chooses. It chose to give a majority of it to the Palestinian inhabitants of the area. No credit was given to Israel for this – only endless condemnation by the likes of the UN, the European Union, and Pro-Arabists like Gorenberg – all with anti-Israel pasts – for it not being enough.
The Palestinians, bear in mind, were on the side of Jordan during the war – the losers. They have made more demands as losers of a war than ever recorded. And with each passing day, they deserve to get less and less – perhaps it will spur them on to do something that they sorely need to do if they hope to have a state of their own – compromise – and be grateful that they are getting anything.
Michael Berenhaus
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post followed by a response from the Ombudsman
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: letters@washpost.com Cc: ombudsman@washpost.com, kesslerg@washpost.com
Subject: Excellent article by Glenn Kessler
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:47:06 +0000
Dear Editor,
Kudos to Glenn Kessler in “Arab Aid to Palestinians Often Doesn't Fulfill Pledges” (July 27, 2008) for exposing the Arab nations’ hypocritical and apocryphal criticism of the United States and West for not helping out the Palestinian people. Kessler accurately reports that "European governments, the World Bank and the US have provided more than three times as much money as the Arab countries this year" to the Palestinians.
Arab nations invoke the Palestinians’ plight as a pretext against America, Israel and the West. They do not do this out of love for the Palestinians, whom they’ve short-changed, and often suppressed or abandoned. In fact, Arab regimes’ antipathy towards America, Israel and the West is due more to their opposition to democracy and religious pluralism.
Kessler, in an otherwise informative article, felt the need to include a news media ‘go to’ guy on Middle East affairs, Prof. Shibley Telhami - a frequent apologist for Arab nations. Telhami states that the reason the Arabs have not met their pledges to the Palestinians is because there "is frustration that nothing is happening in the peace process, and so they would be throwing good money after bad." But what does having peace or not having peace have to do with whether to give aid to the Palestinians or not? It certainly didn't stop many other countries from supporting them, even when Palestinian terrorism continues to be one of the main reasons “nothing is happening in the peace process.” Telhami's consistent defense of Arabs, as exemplified in his absurd agenda-driven claim, disqualifies him from being an honest broker when it comes to the Middle East conflict. In the future, the Washington Post would better serve its readers by finding a more objective source to consult.
Michael Berenhaus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ombudsman Internet DropBox ombudsman@washpost.com
To: mberenhaus@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Excellent article by Glenn Kessler
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:44:05 +0000
Thanks. I may use this in my internal memo to the staff this week.
Deborah Howell Washington Post Ombudsman
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: letters@washpost.com Cc: ombudsman@washpost.com, kesslerg@washpost.com
Subject: Excellent article by Glenn Kessler
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:47:06 +0000
Dear Editor,
Kudos to Glenn Kessler in “Arab Aid to Palestinians Often Doesn't Fulfill Pledges” (July 27, 2008) for exposing the Arab nations’ hypocritical and apocryphal criticism of the United States and West for not helping out the Palestinian people. Kessler accurately reports that "European governments, the World Bank and the US have provided more than three times as much money as the Arab countries this year" to the Palestinians.
Arab nations invoke the Palestinians’ plight as a pretext against America, Israel and the West. They do not do this out of love for the Palestinians, whom they’ve short-changed, and often suppressed or abandoned. In fact, Arab regimes’ antipathy towards America, Israel and the West is due more to their opposition to democracy and religious pluralism.
Kessler, in an otherwise informative article, felt the need to include a news media ‘go to’ guy on Middle East affairs, Prof. Shibley Telhami - a frequent apologist for Arab nations. Telhami states that the reason the Arabs have not met their pledges to the Palestinians is because there "is frustration that nothing is happening in the peace process, and so they would be throwing good money after bad." But what does having peace or not having peace have to do with whether to give aid to the Palestinians or not? It certainly didn't stop many other countries from supporting them, even when Palestinian terrorism continues to be one of the main reasons “nothing is happening in the peace process.” Telhami's consistent defense of Arabs, as exemplified in his absurd agenda-driven claim, disqualifies him from being an honest broker when it comes to the Middle East conflict. In the future, the Washington Post would better serve its readers by finding a more objective source to consult.
Michael Berenhaus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ombudsman Internet DropBox ombudsman@washpost.com
To: mberenhaus@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Excellent article by Glenn Kessler
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:44:05 +0000
Thanks. I may use this in my internal memo to the staff this week.
Deborah Howell Washington Post Ombudsman
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:09 AM
Subject: letter to wash post
Dear Ombudsman,
In "Obama Ends Mideast Swing With Vow to Back Israel, Peace Talks" (July 24, 2008), The Washington Post stated that Palestinians fired rockets from Gaza into Israel "typically after Israeli military operations." The facts are the other way around: Israeli operations occur to stop rocket firing and terrorism.
Since Hamas took over Gaza, rockets have been fired whether there have been Israeli military operations or not. The reason can be found explicitly in Hamas' charter - to destroy Israel. Israel's explicit goal, like any other country, is to protect its citizens.
The Washington Post mixed up cause and effect. Unless you have references or statistics to support your claim, a correction is in order.
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:09 AM
Subject: letter to wash post
Dear Ombudsman,
In "Obama Ends Mideast Swing With Vow to Back Israel, Peace Talks" (July 24, 2008), The Washington Post stated that Palestinians fired rockets from Gaza into Israel "typically after Israeli military operations." The facts are the other way around: Israeli operations occur to stop rocket firing and terrorism.
Since Hamas took over Gaza, rockets have been fired whether there have been Israeli military operations or not. The reason can be found explicitly in Hamas' charter - to destroy Israel. Israel's explicit goal, like any other country, is to protect its citizens.
The Washington Post mixed up cause and effect. Unless you have references or statistics to support your claim, a correction is in order.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post Israeli correspondent
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: witteg@washpost.com
Subject: excellent, informative piece that you wrote
Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:30:20 AM
Dear Mr. Witte,
Excellent, informative piece that you wrote - (In Gaza and Israel, a Wary Quiet - June 20, 2008). I hope that the cease fire will be sustained and beneficial to both sides.
Something slipped through in the article that you may want to consider making a clarification. In the second paragraph of the piece, it refers to the modus operandi of Hamas as "two decades of battling of the Israeli occupation." Later in the article, it describes that Hamas "was founded in the mid-1980's as an armed Islamist movement dedicated to the destruction of Israel." Clearly, it can't be both. The first sentence would seem better by saying 'two decades of battling Israel.' Just thought that you would want to make the piece the best that it could be...and it was very good.
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, MD
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: witteg@washpost.com
Subject: excellent, informative piece that you wrote
Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:30:20 AM
Dear Mr. Witte,
Excellent, informative piece that you wrote - (In Gaza and Israel, a Wary Quiet - June 20, 2008). I hope that the cease fire will be sustained and beneficial to both sides.
Something slipped through in the article that you may want to consider making a clarification. In the second paragraph of the piece, it refers to the modus operandi of Hamas as "two decades of battling of the Israeli occupation." Later in the article, it describes that Hamas "was founded in the mid-1980's as an armed Islamist movement dedicated to the destruction of Israel." Clearly, it can't be both. The first sentence would seem better by saying 'two decades of battling Israel.' Just thought that you would want to make the piece the best that it could be...and it was very good.
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, MD
Friday, June 20, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: letters@washpost.com
CC: ombudsman@washpost.com
Subject: Glossing over pertinent details of a story
Date: Friday, June 20, 2008 10:56:56 AM
Dear Editor/Ombudsman,
The Washington Post states that "Israel responded with a siege" after Hamas took power a year ago. ("As Israel Siege Strangles Gaza Strip, Hamas, Smugglers Profit off Tunnels", June 18, 2008). It wasn't the fact that Hamas took power that caused the siege but what came with it: thousands of mortars and rockets collectively punishing and terrorizing Israeli citizens.
Bear in mind, Israel went as far as ethnically cleansing its own people from the Gaza Strip in 2005 in the hope of peace. The only thing that it has gotten in return is a dramatic increase in Arab terrorist attacks, including rockets and infiltrations, into Israel. Ironically the world condemns Israel, not Hamas, when it responds, glossing over what Hamas has done. This Washington Post article contributed to that glossing over.
Michael Berenhaus
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: letters@washpost.com
CC: ombudsman@washpost.com
Subject: Glossing over pertinent details of a story
Date: Friday, June 20, 2008 10:56:56 AM
Dear Editor/Ombudsman,
The Washington Post states that "Israel responded with a siege" after Hamas took power a year ago. ("As Israel Siege Strangles Gaza Strip, Hamas, Smugglers Profit off Tunnels", June 18, 2008). It wasn't the fact that Hamas took power that caused the siege but what came with it: thousands of mortars and rockets collectively punishing and terrorizing Israeli citizens.
Bear in mind, Israel went as far as ethnically cleansing its own people from the Gaza Strip in 2005 in the hope of peace. The only thing that it has gotten in return is a dramatic increase in Arab terrorist attacks, including rockets and infiltrations, into Israel. Ironically the world condemns Israel, not Hamas, when it responds, glossing over what Hamas has done. This Washington Post article contributed to that glossing over.
Michael Berenhaus
Monday, May 19, 2008
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 9:23 AM
Subject: letter to wash post reporter
Dear Mr. Abramowitz,
I am writing in reference to your piece on May 16, 2008 - "Bush's Comments In Israel Fuel Anger". Why is Israel the only country in the world whose Independence Day celebration is presented by TheWashington Post by highlighting the view of the side that tried to wipe it out? On the same day as your piece, Charles Krauthammer wrote an op-ed piece "The Miracle, at 60". His piece was stuffed with facts about Israel and he provided facts that newspapers consistently leave out - often facts that they seem to avoid. He told the story of Israel's founding and he put it in context.
How can you explain the Palestinian situation without remarking how they were offered a state in the UN partition agreement of 1947 and instead began a genocidal war against the Jews in attempt to win everything and this is what caused their plight? For that matter, how come The Washington Post doesn't highlight how there was an equal if not greater number of Jews from Arab countries who were forced to leave - out of nothing that they had done - but were resettled decades ago in Israel while the Arab countries purposely leave the Palestinians living in squalor in their refugee camps for political reasons? Krauthammer wrote an objective piece. His would have been better placed where yours was - in the news section- while yours would have been better placed among the editorials.
Sincerely,
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, MD
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 9:23 AM
Subject: letter to wash post reporter
Dear Mr. Abramowitz,
I am writing in reference to your piece on May 16, 2008 - "Bush's Comments In Israel Fuel Anger". Why is Israel the only country in the world whose Independence Day celebration is presented by TheWashington Post by highlighting the view of the side that tried to wipe it out? On the same day as your piece, Charles Krauthammer wrote an op-ed piece "The Miracle, at 60". His piece was stuffed with facts about Israel and he provided facts that newspapers consistently leave out - often facts that they seem to avoid. He told the story of Israel's founding and he put it in context.
How can you explain the Palestinian situation without remarking how they were offered a state in the UN partition agreement of 1947 and instead began a genocidal war against the Jews in attempt to win everything and this is what caused their plight? For that matter, how come The Washington Post doesn't highlight how there was an equal if not greater number of Jews from Arab countries who were forced to leave - out of nothing that they had done - but were resettled decades ago in Israel while the Arab countries purposely leave the Palestinians living in squalor in their refugee camps for political reasons? Krauthammer wrote an objective piece. His would have been better placed where yours was - in the news section- while yours would have been better placed among the editorials.
Sincerely,
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, MD
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
“Palestinian Quilt Presents a Different Viewpoint” ([Metro section], May 18) refers to a "large map of Palestine" and "the right of return to Palestine." Where is the "Palestine" of which the article speaks? When Palestinian Arabs use the word Palestine they are referring to the land where Israel is because they do not recognize Israel's right to exist. They routinely call Israel Palestine, as is plainly seen in their maps and textbooks in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I am just surprised that The Washington Post parroted their view -- especially without clarification.
If a clarification is not made, then it appears to make the statement that The Washington Post itself, simply functioning as a stenographer rather than reporting in context, is rejecting the legitimacy of Israel. Please address this.
Dear Editor,
“Palestinian Quilt Presents a Different Viewpoint” ([Metro section], May 18) refers to a "large map of Palestine" and "the right of return to Palestine." Where is the "Palestine" of which the article speaks? When Palestinian Arabs use the word Palestine they are referring to the land where Israel is because they do not recognize Israel's right to exist. They routinely call Israel Palestine, as is plainly seen in their maps and textbooks in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I am just surprised that The Washington Post parroted their view -- especially without clarification.
If a clarification is not made, then it appears to make the statement that The Washington Post itself, simply functioning as a stenographer rather than reporting in context, is rejecting the legitimacy of Israel. Please address this.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Small Victory at the Associated Press
Friends,
The Associated Press missed badly on a point implicating the creation of Israel in 1948 for the displacement of Palestinians. As you know, AP is picked up by newspapers throughout the country and the world. After two emails and a somewhat tense phone call with a member of their world news department, the story was changed. Below is one of the letters followed by the change.
Michael
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: info@ap.org
Subject: Clarification requested
Date: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:52:43 PM
Dear Editor,
Contrary to the article by Jennifer Loven, "Bush envisions Middle East free of oppression" (May 16, 2008), there were no Palestinians displaced following the creation of the Jewish state in 1948. The Palestinians were displaced only after they started a genocidal war against Israel - and lost. This is the history. What has been reported is just Palestinian propaganda that has made its way as alleged fact into mainstream media sources like AP.
Please clarify/correct.
Sincerely,
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, MD
The quote:
"Bush made no acknowledgment of the hardship Palestinians suffered when hundreds of thousands were displaced or otherwise left following the creation of the Jewish state in 1948, a counterpoint to Israel's two weeks of jubilant celebrations." - Bush envisions Middle East free of oppression (May 16, 2008)
New quote: “He did not mention the Palestinians' plight” - Bush urges Mideast leaders to advance democracy (May 18, 2008)
Friends,
The Associated Press missed badly on a point implicating the creation of Israel in 1948 for the displacement of Palestinians. As you know, AP is picked up by newspapers throughout the country and the world. After two emails and a somewhat tense phone call with a member of their world news department, the story was changed. Below is one of the letters followed by the change.
Michael
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: info@ap.org
Subject: Clarification requested
Date: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:52:43 PM
Dear Editor,
Contrary to the article by Jennifer Loven, "Bush envisions Middle East free of oppression" (May 16, 2008), there were no Palestinians displaced following the creation of the Jewish state in 1948. The Palestinians were displaced only after they started a genocidal war against Israel - and lost. This is the history. What has been reported is just Palestinian propaganda that has made its way as alleged fact into mainstream media sources like AP.
Please clarify/correct.
Sincerely,
Michael Berenhaus
Potomac, MD
The quote:
"Bush made no acknowledgment of the hardship Palestinians suffered when hundreds of thousands were displaced or otherwise left following the creation of the Jewish state in 1948, a counterpoint to Israel's two weeks of jubilant celebrations." - Bush envisions Middle East free of oppression (May 16, 2008)
New quote: “He did not mention the Palestinians' plight” - Bush urges Mideast leaders to advance democracy (May 18, 2008)
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:05 AM
Subject: letter to wash post
Dear Editor,
While Israel sends truckloads of food into Gaza, Hamas fires thousands of rockets at Israel. Hamas targets civilians, uses their own civilians as human shields, and hides weapons in schools - scrapping all semblances to abiding by International Law while chalking up war crime after war crime. Israel goes to great lengths in combat to avoid civilian casualties, often incurring more casualties because of it.
Yet there are countless editorials debating whether Israel abides by International Law, e.g., "The Myth of Occupied Gaza" (op. ed., May10, 2008), while Hamas breaks International Law constantly and consistently, without world rebuke, making discussions of International Law useless. Instead, the debate should be on how no world legal body makes Hamas accountable for their actions. Also in debate should be whether, after breaking numerous rules of warfare, Hamas' cries of foul play should even be considered when Israel fights back.
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:05 AM
Subject: letter to wash post
Dear Editor,
While Israel sends truckloads of food into Gaza, Hamas fires thousands of rockets at Israel. Hamas targets civilians, uses their own civilians as human shields, and hides weapons in schools - scrapping all semblances to abiding by International Law while chalking up war crime after war crime. Israel goes to great lengths in combat to avoid civilian casualties, often incurring more casualties because of it.
Yet there are countless editorials debating whether Israel abides by International Law, e.g., "The Myth of Occupied Gaza" (op. ed., May10, 2008), while Hamas breaks International Law constantly and consistently, without world rebuke, making discussions of International Law useless. Instead, the debate should be on how no world legal body makes Hamas accountable for their actions. Also in debate should be whether, after breaking numerous rules of warfare, Hamas' cries of foul play should even be considered when Israel fights back.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
While Israel sends truckloads of food into Gaza, Hamas fires thousands of rockets at Israel. Hamas targets civilians, uses their own civilians as human shields, and hides weapons in schools - scrapping all semblances to abiding by International Law while chalking up war crime after war crime. Israel goes to great lengths in combat to avoid civilian casualties, often incurring more casualties because of it.
Yet there are countless editorials debating whether Israel abides by International Law, e.g., "The Myth of Occupied Gaza" (op. ed., May10, 2008), while Hamas breaks International Law constantly and consistently, without world rebuke, making discussions of International Law useless. Instead, the debate should be on how no world legal body makes Hamas accountable for their actions. Also in debate should be whether, after breaking numerous rules of warfare, Hamas' cries of foul play should even be considered when Israel fights back.
Dear Editor,
While Israel sends truckloads of food into Gaza, Hamas fires thousands of rockets at Israel. Hamas targets civilians, uses their own civilians as human shields, and hides weapons in schools - scrapping all semblances to abiding by International Law while chalking up war crime after war crime. Israel goes to great lengths in combat to avoid civilian casualties, often incurring more casualties because of it.
Yet there are countless editorials debating whether Israel abides by International Law, e.g., "The Myth of Occupied Gaza" (op. ed., May10, 2008), while Hamas breaks International Law constantly and consistently, without world rebuke, making discussions of International Law useless. Instead, the debate should be on how no world legal body makes Hamas accountable for their actions. Also in debate should be whether, after breaking numerous rules of warfare, Hamas' cries of foul play should even be considered when Israel fights back.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 5:04 PM
To: 'letters@washpost.com'
Subject: coverage on Israel's anniversary
Dear Editor,
Why is Israel the only country in the world whose Independence Day celebration is explained by The Washington Post by highlighting the view of the side that tried to wipe it out? (Israel's 60th Anniversary - Born at The Dawn of a New State - May 8, 2008) Contrary to your coverage, Israel's 60th anniversary is not about the Palestinian Arabs, whose plight was and is largely self-inflicted. The news about Israel at 60 is of the Jewish state's remarkable successes, in spite of the Arab-Islamic siege. Too bad you missed it.
Michael Berenhaus
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 5:04 PM
To: 'letters@washpost.com'
Subject: coverage on Israel's anniversary
Dear Editor,
Why is Israel the only country in the world whose Independence Day celebration is explained by The Washington Post by highlighting the view of the side that tried to wipe it out? (Israel's 60th Anniversary - Born at The Dawn of a New State - May 8, 2008) Contrary to your coverage, Israel's 60th anniversary is not about the Palestinian Arabs, whose plight was and is largely self-inflicted. The news about Israel at 60 is of the Jewish state's remarkable successes, in spite of the Arab-Islamic siege. Too bad you missed it.
Michael Berenhaus
Letter to NY Times
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 5:19 PM
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor, Why is Israel the only country in the world whose Independence Day celebration is explained by The NY Times by highlighting the view of the side that tried to wipe it out?
Michael Berenhaus
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 5:19 PM
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor, Why is Israel the only country in the world whose Independence Day celebration is explained by The NY Times by highlighting the view of the side that tried to wipe it out?
Michael Berenhaus
Friday, May 2, 2008
Published in Washington Jewish Week
Friday, May 02, 2008
Not about settlements
M.J. Rosenberg ("Settlements the key to Mideast peace," WJW, April 17) is "amazed" that there is a single person who believes that "West Bank settlements are not at the root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
For Rosenberg, history apparently begins in 1967. Before then, there were no settlements, and yet the Arabs brought war upon Israel.
Currently, there are no settlements in the Gaza Strip and the rockets keep flying. Israel's total withdrawal from southern Lebanon, where it had no settlements, hardly prevented Hezbollah from launching thousands of rockets at Israeli cities and towns in the 2006 war, targets it called "settlements."
Of course, to Hezbollah, as well as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Resistance Committees in the Gaza Strip, Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, etc., Jewish towns and villages in the West Bank and the Galilee; Netanya; Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv; and the Jewish neighborhoods of Western Jerusalem are all "settlements," too.
Rosenberg, editor of Near East Report in the early 1980s, knew this then and wasn't afraid to say so.
His belief now that "Jews should be able to live in the West Bank exactly as Arabs live in Israel" -- just not in settlements -- is equally strange. How long does he think these Jews would survive?
The difference between acceptance, in safety, by Israel's Jewish majority of Arab Israeli villages and towns and the Palestinian Arab insistence that the West Bank be judenrein illustrates the underlying bigotry that fuels the conflict.
The real "root" of Palestinian hostility, as it has been since the Arab massacres of Jews in the 1920s, is the fact that Palestinian Arabs, especially the Muslim majority, don't want even a single Jew living among them, certainly not as equals.
MICHAEL BERENHAUS
Potomac
Friday, May 02, 2008
Not about settlements
M.J. Rosenberg ("Settlements the key to Mideast peace," WJW, April 17) is "amazed" that there is a single person who believes that "West Bank settlements are not at the root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
For Rosenberg, history apparently begins in 1967. Before then, there were no settlements, and yet the Arabs brought war upon Israel.
Currently, there are no settlements in the Gaza Strip and the rockets keep flying. Israel's total withdrawal from southern Lebanon, where it had no settlements, hardly prevented Hezbollah from launching thousands of rockets at Israeli cities and towns in the 2006 war, targets it called "settlements."
Of course, to Hezbollah, as well as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Resistance Committees in the Gaza Strip, Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, etc., Jewish towns and villages in the West Bank and the Galilee; Netanya; Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv; and the Jewish neighborhoods of Western Jerusalem are all "settlements," too.
Rosenberg, editor of Near East Report in the early 1980s, knew this then and wasn't afraid to say so.
His belief now that "Jews should be able to live in the West Bank exactly as Arabs live in Israel" -- just not in settlements -- is equally strange. How long does he think these Jews would survive?
The difference between acceptance, in safety, by Israel's Jewish majority of Arab Israeli villages and towns and the Palestinian Arab insistence that the West Bank be judenrein illustrates the underlying bigotry that fuels the conflict.
The real "root" of Palestinian hostility, as it has been since the Arab massacres of Jews in the 1920s, is the fact that Palestinian Arabs, especially the Muslim majority, don't want even a single Jew living among them, certainly not as equals.
MICHAEL BERENHAUS
Potomac
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:40 AMTo: 'letters@washpost.com'
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
Martha Baine (Free for all March 15, 2008) complains that the lack of equal mention in The Washington Post of Israel's military strike which killed 5 Gazans, which garnered no coverage, and the story of the Palestinian "gunman" who murdered eight youths, which received front page coverage, is indication of coverage that is not balanced. Ms. Baine doesn't mention that the 5 Gazans who were killed were not ordinary noncombatants but terrorists shooting rockets at Israeli civilians, a recognized war crime. Is it that Ms. Baine can't tell the difference between students killed while going to school and the killing of terrorists who seek to murder Jewish women and children by firing rockets indiscriminately? Or is it that she feels that these are legally and morally equivalent?
The Washington Post chose to publish Baine's letter as balance to Yaffa Klugerman, who criticized the Post for saying that the murder of eight Jewish students "was reminiscent of a 1994 attack by Baruch Goldstein, a Jew who shot a group of Palestinians at prayer." The Goldstein murders were an aberration for Israeli/Jewish society. The seminary massacre was in keeping with 'normal' Palestinian practice, as seen in the hundreds of attacks (and thousands of aborted attempts) since the start of the Oslo "peace process" in '93, that have murdered more than 1,100 Israelis and wounded, often grievously, thousands more. There is no comparison.
The Post placement of Baine's propaganda piece relying on the glaring omission of the identity of the Gazans killed shows that false balance is a poor substitute for accuracy.
Michael Berenhaus
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:40 AMTo: 'letters@washpost.com'
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
Martha Baine (Free for all March 15, 2008) complains that the lack of equal mention in The Washington Post of Israel's military strike which killed 5 Gazans, which garnered no coverage, and the story of the Palestinian "gunman" who murdered eight youths, which received front page coverage, is indication of coverage that is not balanced. Ms. Baine doesn't mention that the 5 Gazans who were killed were not ordinary noncombatants but terrorists shooting rockets at Israeli civilians, a recognized war crime. Is it that Ms. Baine can't tell the difference between students killed while going to school and the killing of terrorists who seek to murder Jewish women and children by firing rockets indiscriminately? Or is it that she feels that these are legally and morally equivalent?
The Washington Post chose to publish Baine's letter as balance to Yaffa Klugerman, who criticized the Post for saying that the murder of eight Jewish students "was reminiscent of a 1994 attack by Baruch Goldstein, a Jew who shot a group of Palestinians at prayer." The Goldstein murders were an aberration for Israeli/Jewish society. The seminary massacre was in keeping with 'normal' Palestinian practice, as seen in the hundreds of attacks (and thousands of aborted attempts) since the start of the Oslo "peace process" in '93, that have murdered more than 1,100 Israelis and wounded, often grievously, thousands more. There is no comparison.
The Post placement of Baine's propaganda piece relying on the glaring omission of the identity of the Gazans killed shows that false balance is a poor substitute for accuracy.
Michael Berenhaus
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 4:15 PM
To: 'letters@washpost.com'; 'ombudsman@washpost.com'Cc: 'witteg@washpost.com'
Subject: Correction Requested
Dear Editor/Ombudsman,
"Gunmen Kills Eight at Seminary in Jerusalem” (March 7, 2008) refers to "Israel's seizure of Palestinian territories in 1967." But Israel won the West Bank from Jordan. Please correct this.
And "Israel's seizure?" Israel won it only after being attacked (by Jordan).
Thank you,
Michael Berenhaus
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 4:15 PM
To: 'letters@washpost.com'; 'ombudsman@washpost.com'Cc: 'witteg@washpost.com'
Subject: Correction Requested
Dear Editor/Ombudsman,
"Gunmen Kills Eight at Seminary in Jerusalem” (March 7, 2008) refers to "Israel's seizure of Palestinian territories in 1967." But Israel won the West Bank from Jordan. Please correct this.
And "Israel's seizure?" Israel won it only after being attacked (by Jordan).
Thank you,
Michael Berenhaus
Friday, March 7, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 4:49 PM
To: letters@washpost.com; ombudsman@washpost.com
Subject: West Bank Barriers Keep Rising Despite Promises of Relief (March 6, 2008)
Dear Washington Post Staff:
How many articles can The Washington Post publish from the view of Arabs (Israeli or Palestinian) while next to nothing on the Israeli side? The Washington Post parrots the UN, Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas criticizing Israel for their so-called disproportionate force, in the form of articles and news. This is the company that you are keeping. It is the Post that is using disproportionate coverage – giving one-sided reports. And now another piece – “West Bank Barriers Keep Rising Despite Promises of Relief” (March 6, 2008) on the same day that Israel suffers a terrorist attack – maiming and murdering children. The Post is wrong in their reporting: wrong, unfair, and inaccurate.
I would welcome a change. I only wish that you would realize that there is no justification for Palestinian violence over border disputes and politics. Israel has every right to defend itself: when it tries non-violence, the Post writes critical articles; when it uses force – it is portrayed as disproportionate. The Post has Israel boxed in – where does this come from?
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 4:49 PM
To: letters@washpost.com; ombudsman@washpost.com
Subject: West Bank Barriers Keep Rising Despite Promises of Relief (March 6, 2008)
Dear Washington Post Staff:
How many articles can The Washington Post publish from the view of Arabs (Israeli or Palestinian) while next to nothing on the Israeli side? The Washington Post parrots the UN, Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas criticizing Israel for their so-called disproportionate force, in the form of articles and news. This is the company that you are keeping. It is the Post that is using disproportionate coverage – giving one-sided reports. And now another piece – “West Bank Barriers Keep Rising Despite Promises of Relief” (March 6, 2008) on the same day that Israel suffers a terrorist attack – maiming and murdering children. The Post is wrong in their reporting: wrong, unfair, and inaccurate.
I would welcome a change. I only wish that you would realize that there is no justification for Palestinian violence over border disputes and politics. Israel has every right to defend itself: when it tries non-violence, the Post writes critical articles; when it uses force – it is portrayed as disproportionate. The Post has Israel boxed in – where does this come from?
Letter to my email list
Friends,
On the same day that The Washington Post printed another in their continuous series of profiles of Palestinians inconvenienced by Israel’s defensive barrier, Israel suffered a major attack on its civilians ( 8 dead, many maimed in Jerusalem attack)- proof of why the security barrier is so necessary.
I have written quite a few letters as you know but what would really be helpful is if we all wrote letters, even short ones, showing outrage at the Post’s anti-Israel bias as exhibited by out-of-context articles – the same day of the horrendous murders and maiming of Israeli youth. The Post needs to hear from more voices - the cause for Israel is truly a fight of public and world opinion as is disseminated in newspapers and other news sources. When they hear from the same voices over and over it is easy to filter us out. There are several hundred people on this email list – we all need to write a letter – have your friends write one, too. I would be glad to help.
Main strategies:
-be concise
-be clear
-be cordial (despite how hard it might be)
They need to be held accountable for their bias. They are complicit in shaping world opinion.
Regards,
Michael
Friends,
On the same day that The Washington Post printed another in their continuous series of profiles of Palestinians inconvenienced by Israel’s defensive barrier, Israel suffered a major attack on its civilians ( 8 dead, many maimed in Jerusalem attack)- proof of why the security barrier is so necessary.
I have written quite a few letters as you know but what would really be helpful is if we all wrote letters, even short ones, showing outrage at the Post’s anti-Israel bias as exhibited by out-of-context articles – the same day of the horrendous murders and maiming of Israeli youth. The Post needs to hear from more voices - the cause for Israel is truly a fight of public and world opinion as is disseminated in newspapers and other news sources. When they hear from the same voices over and over it is easy to filter us out. There are several hundred people on this email list – we all need to write a letter – have your friends write one, too. I would be glad to help.
Main strategies:
-be concise
-be clear
-be cordial (despite how hard it might be)
They need to be held accountable for their bias. They are complicit in shaping world opinion.
Regards,
Michael
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 9:46 AM
To: 'letters@washpost.com'Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
In “Palestinian President Suspends Peace Talks” (March 3, 2008), the President of the European Union criticized Israel for its use of military force against the Palestinians. Where was he when the rockets were going the other way?
Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 9:46 AM
To: 'letters@washpost.com'Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
In “Palestinian President Suspends Peace Talks” (March 3, 2008), the President of the European Union criticized Israel for its use of military force against the Palestinians. Where was he when the rockets were going the other way?
Michael Berenhaus
Friday, February 29, 2008
Letter to The Washingto Post
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 5:29 PM
To: letters@washpost.com
Subject: Strikes Destroy Ministry in Gaza, Kill 10 Palestinians" (Feb. 28, 2008)
Dear Editor,
In "Strikes Destroy Ministry in Gaza, Kill 10 Palestinians" (Feb. 28, 2008), The Washington Post says that “the Hamas charter calls for the creation of an Islamic state across territory that now includes Israel” (in other words, Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel), yet later in the same sentence the Post follows with “although” Hamas’ “military focus” is to end Israel’s territorial win of Arab land in the Six-Day war. The Washington Post splits hairs to make Hamas’ intentions seem more honorable.
So is Hamas’ military focus to destroy Israel or just take land Israel won in the Six Day war? If it is only the latter, why is Hamas attacking Sderot and Ashkelon - cities in Israel? Not to mention that Israel already vacated Gaza – the land that Hamas controls.
Hamas’ "military focus" is clearly described in their charter and has been confirmed many times by Hamas spokesmen – they are out to destroy Israel – and to imply otherwise is to mislead your readers. Why would the Post obfuscate such an obvious truth?
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 5:29 PM
To: letters@washpost.com
Subject: Strikes Destroy Ministry in Gaza, Kill 10 Palestinians" (Feb. 28, 2008)
Dear Editor,
In "Strikes Destroy Ministry in Gaza, Kill 10 Palestinians" (Feb. 28, 2008), The Washington Post says that “the Hamas charter calls for the creation of an Islamic state across territory that now includes Israel” (in other words, Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel), yet later in the same sentence the Post follows with “although” Hamas’ “military focus” is to end Israel’s territorial win of Arab land in the Six-Day war. The Washington Post splits hairs to make Hamas’ intentions seem more honorable.
So is Hamas’ military focus to destroy Israel or just take land Israel won in the Six Day war? If it is only the latter, why is Hamas attacking Sderot and Ashkelon - cities in Israel? Not to mention that Israel already vacated Gaza – the land that Hamas controls.
Hamas’ "military focus" is clearly described in their charter and has been confirmed many times by Hamas spokesmen – they are out to destroy Israel – and to imply otherwise is to mislead your readers. Why would the Post obfuscate such an obvious truth?
Friday, January 25, 2008
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 9:08 AM
To: ombudsman@washpost.com; letters@washpost.com
Subject: Breach in Gaza - January 24, 2008
Dear Washington Post staff,
The editorial “Breach in Gaza” was excellent. The refreshing editorial included a point that “Hamas took advantage of the blockade first by arranging for sympathetic Arab Media to document the ‘humanitarian crisis’…” has had little to no coverage in the media. But why single out the “Arab media” for being duped into being sympathetic toward this so-called humanitarian crisis. Why not examine the home of this very editorial – The Washington Post itself? Most memorable was Scott Wilson’s front page article on Dec. 15, 2007 “Sealed Off by Israel, Gaza Reduced to Beggary”. In this supposedly front-page worthy article, Wilson blames Israel for the lack of hearing aids for the children of Gaza –its always the children mind you – by writing prose that include “The few [hearing-aids] that are left are losing power, turning voices into echoes in the ears of Hala Abu Saif’s 20 first-grade students.” Why doesn’t Wilson probe to find out why the Palestinians can sneak katyusha rockets through their tunnels, but not hearing-aid batteries “the size of a button?” The Post is known for their investigative nature. Why none here? It seems that the writers are looking for a Pulitzer rather than the truth. Buried at the end of the story, Wilson reports that the Israeli liaison to the Red Cross would “make sure hearing-aid batteries would be allowed through the crossings” – hardly an act of malicious behavior.
Does The Washington Post editorial staff read its own paper?
To: ombudsman@washpost.com; letters@washpost.com
Subject: Breach in Gaza - January 24, 2008
Dear Washington Post staff,
The editorial “Breach in Gaza” was excellent. The refreshing editorial included a point that “Hamas took advantage of the blockade first by arranging for sympathetic Arab Media to document the ‘humanitarian crisis’…” has had little to no coverage in the media. But why single out the “Arab media” for being duped into being sympathetic toward this so-called humanitarian crisis. Why not examine the home of this very editorial – The Washington Post itself? Most memorable was Scott Wilson’s front page article on Dec. 15, 2007 “Sealed Off by Israel, Gaza Reduced to Beggary”. In this supposedly front-page worthy article, Wilson blames Israel for the lack of hearing aids for the children of Gaza –its always the children mind you – by writing prose that include “The few [hearing-aids] that are left are losing power, turning voices into echoes in the ears of Hala Abu Saif’s 20 first-grade students.” Why doesn’t Wilson probe to find out why the Palestinians can sneak katyusha rockets through their tunnels, but not hearing-aid batteries “the size of a button?” The Post is known for their investigative nature. Why none here? It seems that the writers are looking for a Pulitzer rather than the truth. Buried at the end of the story, Wilson reports that the Israeli liaison to the Red Cross would “make sure hearing-aid batteries would be allowed through the crossings” – hardly an act of malicious behavior.
Does The Washington Post editorial staff read its own paper?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Published in the Washington Jewish Week
Excellent piece
Thank you for your excellent piece "All the news that's unfit" (WJW, Jan. 3) about the local media watchdog group, Eye On The Post, and its work exposing the anti-Israel bias in The Washington Post.
One example of this bias was a recent Washington Post piece that blamed Israel for Palestinian children not getting hearing aid batteries - it made front-page news. If the Palestinians can sneak Katyusha rockets through their tunnels, wouldn't the Post think that they could bring in batteries the size of a button?
MICHAEL BERENHAUS
Potomac
Excellent piece
Thank you for your excellent piece "All the news that's unfit" (WJW, Jan. 3) about the local media watchdog group, Eye On The Post, and its work exposing the anti-Israel bias in The Washington Post.
One example of this bias was a recent Washington Post piece that blamed Israel for Palestinian children not getting hearing aid batteries - it made front-page news. If the Palestinians can sneak Katyusha rockets through their tunnels, wouldn't the Post think that they could bring in batteries the size of a button?
MICHAEL BERENHAUS
Potomac
Monday, January 14, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 7:59 AM
To: letters@washpost.comCc: ombudsman@washpost.com; finerj@washpost.com
Subject: West Banks Jewish 'Outposts' Dig In, Jan. 13, 2008
Dear Editor,
The Washington Post invokes “international law” as the reason why Jews should not be able to live in the West Bank [West Banks Jewish ‘Outposts’ Dig In, Jan. 13, 2008]. What kind of international law insists that a region must be judenrein (free of Jews)? After being cleansed from the West Bank by Arabs in the 1948 War of Independence, Jews are finally able to return to their ancient homeland, the place where the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the Jewish religion lived and were buried – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sara, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah. Besides, if it’s okay for Arabs to live among Jews in Israel, why isn’t it okay for Jews to live among Arabs?
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 7:59 AM
To: letters@washpost.comCc: ombudsman@washpost.com; finerj@washpost.com
Subject: West Banks Jewish 'Outposts' Dig In, Jan. 13, 2008
Dear Editor,
The Washington Post invokes “international law” as the reason why Jews should not be able to live in the West Bank [West Banks Jewish ‘Outposts’ Dig In, Jan. 13, 2008]. What kind of international law insists that a region must be judenrein (free of Jews)? After being cleansed from the West Bank by Arabs in the 1948 War of Independence, Jews are finally able to return to their ancient homeland, the place where the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the Jewish religion lived and were buried – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sara, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah. Besides, if it’s okay for Arabs to live among Jews in Israel, why isn’t it okay for Jews to live among Arabs?
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
The Palestinians apparently have enough money to lob rockets and mortars onto Israeli towns on an almost daily basis yet The Washington Post reports that they can’t afford to supply hearing aid batteries for their hearing-impaired children [Sealed Off by Israel, Gaza Reduced to Beggary – Dec. 15, 2007]. Given The Washington Post’s investigative style of reporting, wouldn't you want to find out why this is the case? And why blame Israel for the way Palestinians prioritize their spending habits?
Dear Editor,
The Palestinians apparently have enough money to lob rockets and mortars onto Israeli towns on an almost daily basis yet The Washington Post reports that they can’t afford to supply hearing aid batteries for their hearing-impaired children [Sealed Off by Israel, Gaza Reduced to Beggary – Dec. 15, 2007]. Given The Washington Post’s investigative style of reporting, wouldn't you want to find out why this is the case? And why blame Israel for the way Palestinians prioritize their spending habits?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)