From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 9:46:37 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Disguising Palestinian advocate as neutral party - clear example of purposeful bias against Israel
12/1/09
Dear Mr. Foxman,
"In U.S. praises Netanyahu plan" [Nov. 26, 2009], The Washington Post rightly states that the Israeli plan to prod the peace process with a settlement halt has been "hailed" by the Obama administration as "significant". The Post then presents the Palestinian view, the Israeli view, followed by quotes from Geoffrey Aronson of the Foundation for Middle East Peace - as if he were a neutral party. The Washington Post quotes Aronson, saying that the caveats of the Israeli plan made it "virtually meaningless." What the Post did not say was that Aronson has a Pro-Palestinian lean. For example, Aronson, in the UK Guardian described Israel's actions in the recent Gaza war as an "assault"[1] . He further stated to the VOA that he feels that Israel has "pursued a policy aiming at the physical destruction of these people”[2] (referring to the Palestinians). Clearly this is not the phrasing of a disinterested party in the conflict. A simple Google search yields more than a dozen articles further depicting Aronson's Pro-Palestinian slant.
The Washington Post has failed to identify Geoffrey Aronson as a Palestinian advocate and instead has proffered his view as that of a neutral party. In so doing, the Post is knowingly leading the reader to a particular view violating journalistic ethics and exhibiting purposeful bias.
Sincerely,
Michael Berenhaus
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/17/gaza-israelandthepalestinians
[2] http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-a-2003-05-01-17-Interview-66317667.html?textmode=1
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Letter to Washington Post
Dear Editor,
According to The Washington Post, mass murderer Maj. Nidal M Hasan's "anger was building" [Unassuming on the surface, but roiling within - Nov. 7, 2009] intimating a possible motive. Is The Washington Post in the reporting business or the mind-reading business? According to other reports, however, Hasan was resolute and determined. The same Post article states that two days before the shooting, Hasan "calmly" walked around his complex giving away his possessions.
Major Hasan went on his rampage dressed in classical Muslim religious attire. He shouted "Allah Ahkbar" (God is great in Arabic) when he began firing. He had been chastised by his superiors for proselytizing Islam to his patients years earlier. Even the Post recognized that Hasan had posted internet comments in praise of suicide bombings – the surest sign that he had adopted the terrorist ideology. This was a clear case of a premeditated terror attack from a radical Islamist. Why does the Post refuse to accept the evidence?
According to The Washington Post, mass murderer Maj. Nidal M Hasan's "anger was building" [Unassuming on the surface, but roiling within - Nov. 7, 2009] intimating a possible motive. Is The Washington Post in the reporting business or the mind-reading business? According to other reports, however, Hasan was resolute and determined. The same Post article states that two days before the shooting, Hasan "calmly" walked around his complex giving away his possessions.
Major Hasan went on his rampage dressed in classical Muslim religious attire. He shouted "Allah Ahkbar" (God is great in Arabic) when he began firing. He had been chastised by his superiors for proselytizing Islam to his patients years earlier. Even the Post recognized that Hasan had posted internet comments in praise of suicide bombings – the surest sign that he had adopted the terrorist ideology. This was a clear case of a premeditated terror attack from a radical Islamist. Why does the Post refuse to accept the evidence?
Monday, July 27, 2009
Letter to The Associated Press
Letter to the Associated Press
Dear Editor,
Please correct. The article "Israel on Iran: Anything it takes to stop nukes" (Jul 27, 2009) mentioned "the expansion of Jewish settlements on Arab land." I assume you mean in the West Bank. Presently, the West Bank is not Arab land or Arab territory. Saying it is does not make it so but it does confuse the reader. Should Israel and the Palestinians come to terms and create a Palestinian state in the West Bank, then your words would be correct. Using the term "Arab land" is premature as the area is still in dispute.
Thank you,
Michael Berenhaus
Dear Editor,
Please correct. The article "Israel on Iran: Anything it takes to stop nukes" (Jul 27, 2009) mentioned "the expansion of Jewish settlements on Arab land." I assume you mean in the West Bank. Presently, the West Bank is not Arab land or Arab territory. Saying it is does not make it so but it does confuse the reader. Should Israel and the Palestinians come to terms and create a Palestinian state in the West Bank, then your words would be correct. Using the term "Arab land" is premature as the area is still in dispute.
Thank you,
Michael Berenhaus
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Letter To Washington Post
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2009 2:13:59 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Abbas's Waiting Game - observation and question
Dear Mr. Diehl,
In your editorial, "Abbas's Waiting Game (May 29, 2009), you state that you and Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt sat down and met with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas during his recent visit to Washington DC. During the interview, Abbas astounded, coming clean, and in your words "acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97% of the West Bank - though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert 'accepted the principle' of the 'right of return' of Palestinian refugees - something no previous Israeli prime minister had done - and offered to resettle thousands in Israel." You continued "Abbas turned it down. 'The gaps were wide', he said."
Mr. Diehl, I am curious to know, did you happen to ask him what was wide about the so-called gaps between Olmert's deal and what Abbas had in mind? What could possibly be in the wide gap in which Abbas refers? Aside from the gap of the tiny 3%, the only other gap in that area is the one between the West Bank and the Mediterranean. And of course we know that that gap is called Israel. How much clearer does he have to make it?
As for the Jewish settlements, they make up less than 2% of the West Bank. How is that such a huge problem? The new Palestinian state would be 98% Arab land, 2% Jewish. Big deal! The road system that the Palestinians squawk about can be administered any way they like, it would be their country after all. The Jewish areas in the West Bank are not an impediment to the peace process despite what the endless articles about them in your newspaper dictate. They do serve to give the Palestinians a convenient excuse for not making peace.
No one gets 100% of what they want in a negotiation. But Abbas practically did, and yet he called the gaps wide. Clearly, the Palestinians don't want peace. We all just need to stop making believe that they do.
Michael Berenhaus
Subject: Abbas's Waiting Game - observation and question
Dear Mr. Diehl,
In your editorial, "Abbas's Waiting Game (May 29, 2009), you state that you and Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt sat down and met with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas during his recent visit to Washington DC. During the interview, Abbas astounded, coming clean, and in your words "acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97% of the West Bank - though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert 'accepted the principle' of the 'right of return' of Palestinian refugees - something no previous Israeli prime minister had done - and offered to resettle thousands in Israel." You continued "Abbas turned it down. 'The gaps were wide', he said."
Mr. Diehl, I am curious to know, did you happen to ask him what was wide about the so-called gaps between Olmert's deal and what Abbas had in mind? What could possibly be in the wide gap in which Abbas refers? Aside from the gap of the tiny 3%, the only other gap in that area is the one between the West Bank and the Mediterranean. And of course we know that that gap is called Israel. How much clearer does he have to make it?
As for the Jewish settlements, they make up less than 2% of the West Bank. How is that such a huge problem? The new Palestinian state would be 98% Arab land, 2% Jewish. Big deal! The road system that the Palestinians squawk about can be administered any way they like, it would be their country after all. The Jewish areas in the West Bank are not an impediment to the peace process despite what the endless articles about them in your newspaper dictate. They do serve to give the Palestinians a convenient excuse for not making peace.
No one gets 100% of what they want in a negotiation. But Abbas practically did, and yet he called the gaps wide. Clearly, the Palestinians don't want peace. We all just need to stop making believe that they do.
Michael Berenhaus
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Letter To Washington Post
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2009 2:20:38 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
Why is it so difficult for Philip Farah [Free for All 6/6/9] to believe that Mahmoud Abbas would turn down a peace offer that would have given the Palestinians 97% of the land that they supposedly want? Abbas's Fatah organization was founded before Israel had one inch of the West Bank (pre-1967) - it was created to destroy Israel. The other main Palestinian faction, Hamas, has a charter that openly calls for the destruction of Israel. When the conflict is viewed from this context, it becomes clear why 97% is not satisfactory when it is 200% (including Israel) that is desired. Even in accepting 100%, the Palestinians would have to concede that the conflict is over, and it will never be over for them until they have all of Israel.
Michael Berenhaus
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
Why is it so difficult for Philip Farah [Free for All 6/6/9] to believe that Mahmoud Abbas would turn down a peace offer that would have given the Palestinians 97% of the land that they supposedly want? Abbas's Fatah organization was founded before Israel had one inch of the West Bank (pre-1967) - it was created to destroy Israel. The other main Palestinian faction, Hamas, has a charter that openly calls for the destruction of Israel. When the conflict is viewed from this context, it becomes clear why 97% is not satisfactory when it is 200% (including Israel) that is desired. Even in accepting 100%, the Palestinians would have to concede that the conflict is over, and it will never be over for them until they have all of Israel.
Michael Berenhaus
Friday, May 15, 2009
Letter To Washington Post
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 1:10:19 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: More evidence Washington Post coverage one-sided
Dear Washington Post staff,
Your front page (May 12, 2009) carried a "smoking gun" showing the Post's underlying bias in Arab-Israeli coverage. In the "Inside" summary section on A1, we read that the Pope "urges Israelis to settle their differences with the Palestinians". But the actual statement, as presented in the full article, was that the Pope "urged Israel and the Palestinians to settle their differences." He did not point his finger only at one side. But the Post's front page summary did.
Sincerely,
Michael Berenhaus
Subject: More evidence Washington Post coverage one-sided
Dear Washington Post staff,
Your front page (May 12, 2009) carried a "smoking gun" showing the Post's underlying bias in Arab-Israeli coverage. In the "Inside" summary section on A1, we read that the Pope "urges Israelis to settle their differences with the Palestinians". But the actual statement, as presented in the full article, was that the Pope "urged Israel and the Palestinians to settle their differences." He did not point his finger only at one side. But the Post's front page summary did.
Sincerely,
Michael Berenhaus
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Letter To Washington Post
Dear Editor,
Gregory Eow and Brian Simpson [Israel Must Give Up the West Bank Settlements, April 11, 2009] must have missed the part of their West Bank tour which explained that Israel won the West Bank –not from the Palestinians, but from Jordan in the Six Day War of 1967 after being attacked. Since then, Jordan relinquished any interest in regaining the West Bank. Saying it is Palestinian land or for Palestinians doesn't make it so. An agreement needs to be reached.
More importantly, Israelis living in the West Bank present no more difficulty to the creation of a Palestinian state than did Arabs living in Israel prevent Israel from becoming viable. As a test case to see if removing Jews will lead to peace, consider Gaza: The Jews were removed by Israel and the rockets still are being fired.
For there to be peace, the Palestinians need to accept just slightly less than the 100% of everything they want - and who gets everything they want in negotiations anyway? Certainly not those that sided with the losing side of a war.
Gregory Eow and Brian Simpson [Israel Must Give Up the West Bank Settlements, April 11, 2009] must have missed the part of their West Bank tour which explained that Israel won the West Bank –not from the Palestinians, but from Jordan in the Six Day War of 1967 after being attacked. Since then, Jordan relinquished any interest in regaining the West Bank. Saying it is Palestinian land or for Palestinians doesn't make it so. An agreement needs to be reached.
More importantly, Israelis living in the West Bank present no more difficulty to the creation of a Palestinian state than did Arabs living in Israel prevent Israel from becoming viable. As a test case to see if removing Jews will lead to peace, consider Gaza: The Jews were removed by Israel and the rockets still are being fired.
For there to be peace, the Palestinians need to accept just slightly less than the 100% of everything they want - and who gets everything they want in negotiations anyway? Certainly not those that sided with the losing side of a war.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
In "From Captive To Suicide Bomber" (Feb. 22, 2009), the story of a released Taliban fighter who goes on to blow himself up murdering 13 Iraqi soldiers, The Washington Post asks "Did Guantanamo propel him to do it?" No, it was his release that did it.
The idea that it is something that we do that makes Fundamentalist Muslims hate us and want to kill us is a futile and naive approach to understanding the current world-wide war that exists against the West. Terrorist attacks like September 11, 2001 were not caused by an aggrieved people, and looking inward is not going to help us figure out why this war is going on, nor in defeating our opponents. We must come to the realization that it is the brainwashing - the inculcation of a venomous hatred of the West and Western values - in full throttle in parts of the Muslim world - that is the root cause of what is going on today.
Michael Berenhaus
In "From Captive To Suicide Bomber" (Feb. 22, 2009), the story of a released Taliban fighter who goes on to blow himself up murdering 13 Iraqi soldiers, The Washington Post asks "Did Guantanamo propel him to do it?" No, it was his release that did it.
The idea that it is something that we do that makes Fundamentalist Muslims hate us and want to kill us is a futile and naive approach to understanding the current world-wide war that exists against the West. Terrorist attacks like September 11, 2001 were not caused by an aggrieved people, and looking inward is not going to help us figure out why this war is going on, nor in defeating our opponents. We must come to the realization that it is the brainwashing - the inculcation of a venomous hatred of the West and Western values - in full throttle in parts of the Muslim world - that is the root cause of what is going on today.
Michael Berenhaus
Friday, February 27, 2009
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
Richard Cohen blames Israel for the last remaining refugees of the WWII era asking "why else all those Palestinian refugees?", other than because of Israel. ["Whose Israel Shall It Be?" (Feb. 24, 2009)]. With all the tens of millions of refugees from the WWII era that Cohen cites – the Turks, Greeks, Germans, Poles, Pakistanis, Indians, his question is fitting but his answer leaves out a more compelling question to those who wonder, with all the others settled decades ago, why are the Palestinian Arabs the only refugees who still exist?
Palestinian refugees live in camps in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza. Unlike the more than one million Jews who were displaced during that same period and resettled, which Cohen conveniently leaves out, the Palestinians were kept in refugee camps by Arab leaders to serve as a political tool in the Arab war against Israel. Even now, with Gaza under Palestinian control, why not let the Palestinians settle the land? Because it is the image of the squalor, and its impact on world opinion, that is their most effective tool in their war against Israel. Richard Cohen buys right into it.
The real answer to Cohen's question, "Why else all those Palestinian refugees [today]" is because Arab leaders have not been willing to resettle them.
Michael Berenhaus
Richard Cohen blames Israel for the last remaining refugees of the WWII era asking "why else all those Palestinian refugees?", other than because of Israel. ["Whose Israel Shall It Be?" (Feb. 24, 2009)]. With all the tens of millions of refugees from the WWII era that Cohen cites – the Turks, Greeks, Germans, Poles, Pakistanis, Indians, his question is fitting but his answer leaves out a more compelling question to those who wonder, with all the others settled decades ago, why are the Palestinian Arabs the only refugees who still exist?
Palestinian refugees live in camps in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza. Unlike the more than one million Jews who were displaced during that same period and resettled, which Cohen conveniently leaves out, the Palestinians were kept in refugee camps by Arab leaders to serve as a political tool in the Arab war against Israel. Even now, with Gaza under Palestinian control, why not let the Palestinians settle the land? Because it is the image of the squalor, and its impact on world opinion, that is their most effective tool in their war against Israel. Richard Cohen buys right into it.
The real answer to Cohen's question, "Why else all those Palestinian refugees [today]" is because Arab leaders have not been willing to resettle them.
Michael Berenhaus
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Letter to Seattle Times
Dear Editor,
The Op-Ed “Baird’s View Is Really What He Sees” (Feb. 25, 2009) describes Congressman Baird’s thoughts of his visit to see the after-effects of war in Gaza. Author Danny Westneat fails to report that what Congressman Baird saw was orchestrated and controlled by the Hamas leadership which let him into Gaza. So to Baird, seeing is believing – what he is fed.
Baird is perplexed about Israel’s choice for targets: “How can you justify crushing an ambulance?”, Baird is quoted as saying. He apparently isn’t aware that ambulances are a favorite mode of transportation for Hamas Militants. Baird is also probably not aware that the Hamas command bunker is located under Gaza’s largest hospital – but that, most likely, wasn’t part of his tour. Is Congressman Baird similarly perplexed by Hamas’ tactics that include shooting from the vicinity of schools, hiding ammunition in Mosques, or shooting from the top of populated apartment buildings? Or is he only perplexed when Israel shoots back?
Congressman Baird would be better off focusing on his position as Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, rather than jumping into a very complicated conflict in a complicated part of the world.
Michael Berenhaus
The Op-Ed “Baird’s View Is Really What He Sees” (Feb. 25, 2009) describes Congressman Baird’s thoughts of his visit to see the after-effects of war in Gaza. Author Danny Westneat fails to report that what Congressman Baird saw was orchestrated and controlled by the Hamas leadership which let him into Gaza. So to Baird, seeing is believing – what he is fed.
Baird is perplexed about Israel’s choice for targets: “How can you justify crushing an ambulance?”, Baird is quoted as saying. He apparently isn’t aware that ambulances are a favorite mode of transportation for Hamas Militants. Baird is also probably not aware that the Hamas command bunker is located under Gaza’s largest hospital – but that, most likely, wasn’t part of his tour. Is Congressman Baird similarly perplexed by Hamas’ tactics that include shooting from the vicinity of schools, hiding ammunition in Mosques, or shooting from the top of populated apartment buildings? Or is he only perplexed when Israel shoots back?
Congressman Baird would be better off focusing on his position as Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, rather than jumping into a very complicated conflict in a complicated part of the world.
Michael Berenhaus
Monday, February 23, 2009
Letter to The Washington Post
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: letters@washpost.com
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 1:39:49 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
Fareed Zakaria, in Israel's Arabs Within, (Feb. 16, 2009), joins other 'pundits' in claiming that Israel discriminates against Israeli Arabs, even though they are probably the best treated minority in the Middle East. They have full voting rights, freedom of religion, free press, free speech – obviously, more rights than in any Arab country in the Middle East - despite the fact that they supported Israel's adversary Hezbollah in Israel's recent war in the north. They are lucky they don't live in Kuwait. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Kuwaitis expelled 300,000 Palestinians who sided with Saddam's Iraq.
Zakaria says that "the 1.3 million Arab Israelis are descendants of roughly 160,000 Arabs who stayed in the lands that became Israel in 1948." Increasing in size nearly ten-fold doesn't reek of the discrimination against minority groups that is common in that part of the world. Compare this to the more than 800,000 Jews in Arab countries in 1948 who were almost all kicked out. Only a fraction exists today, but this story is never told.
A double standard is often used in describing Israel's so-called mistreatment of its Arab minority. When taken into context, it becomes clear how well Arabs are treated, despite their consistent support of those that wish to bring Israel harm. Ironically, mistreatment of minorities is common place throughout the Arab lands of the Middle East, yet little is written about it. Why is that?
Michael Berenhaus
To: letters@washpost.com
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 1:39:49 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
Fareed Zakaria, in Israel's Arabs Within, (Feb. 16, 2009), joins other 'pundits' in claiming that Israel discriminates against Israeli Arabs, even though they are probably the best treated minority in the Middle East. They have full voting rights, freedom of religion, free press, free speech – obviously, more rights than in any Arab country in the Middle East - despite the fact that they supported Israel's adversary Hezbollah in Israel's recent war in the north. They are lucky they don't live in Kuwait. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Kuwaitis expelled 300,000 Palestinians who sided with Saddam's Iraq.
Zakaria says that "the 1.3 million Arab Israelis are descendants of roughly 160,000 Arabs who stayed in the lands that became Israel in 1948." Increasing in size nearly ten-fold doesn't reek of the discrimination against minority groups that is common in that part of the world. Compare this to the more than 800,000 Jews in Arab countries in 1948 who were almost all kicked out. Only a fraction exists today, but this story is never told.
A double standard is often used in describing Israel's so-called mistreatment of its Arab minority. When taken into context, it becomes clear how well Arabs are treated, despite their consistent support of those that wish to bring Israel harm. Ironically, mistreatment of minorities is common place throughout the Arab lands of the Middle East, yet little is written about it. Why is that?
Michael Berenhaus
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
In "Israel's Arabs Within", [Feb. 16, 2009], the author quotes an Israeli Arab, Azmi Bishara, saying that "the state came here and was enforced on the ruins of my nation." But which nation is that? The one in her mind? Before Israel, the land was British. Before being British, the land was the Ottoman Empire for 400 years. This fallacious rhetoric has no place even in an op-ed piece, especially when it is meant to revise history - to promote a cause. The Washington Post would better serve its readers by editing such statements out, or else it is complicit in propagating propaganda.
In "Israel's Arabs Within", [Feb. 16, 2009], the author quotes an Israeli Arab, Azmi Bishara, saying that "the state came here and was enforced on the ruins of my nation." But which nation is that? The one in her mind? Before Israel, the land was British. Before being British, the land was the Ottoman Empire for 400 years. This fallacious rhetoric has no place even in an op-ed piece, especially when it is meant to revise history - to promote a cause. The Washington Post would better serve its readers by editing such statements out, or else it is complicit in propagating propaganda.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Letter to The Washington Post
February 4, 2009
Foreign DeskCorrections
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20071
Dear Editor,
On the Jan. 7, 2009, front page, The Washington Post published an article entitled "Israel Hits U.N. -Run School in Gaza." The article, illustrated with a photograph, stated that Israel "fired mortar shells at a UN run school where Palestinians sought refuge from the fighting, killing at least 40 people, many of them civilians, Palestinian medical officials said." John Ging, head of the UN Relief and Works Agency was quoted as saying "'we are completely devastated. There is nowhere safe in Gaza.'"
But according to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, "UN backtracks on claim that IDF strike hit Gaza school" Feb. 4, 2009, "The United Nations has reversed its stance on one of the most contentious and bloody incidents of the recent Israel Defense Forces operation in Gaza, saying that an IDF mortar strike that killed 43 people on January 6 did not hit a United Nations Relief and Works Agency school after all."
I await a correction in The Washington Post regarding this story. I am surprised that The Post felt the story warranted front page coverage in the first place, given repeated instances through the years of Palestinian exaggeration and/or fabrication of similar events. The much-ballyhooed "Jenin massacre" and claims that Israel somehow killed Yasser Arafat, for example. I am even more surprised the necessary correction in this case has not been published yet.
It seems that The Post is quick to trust an anti-democratic regime in which those who dissent are often killed or maimed for speaking out against those in power. This has been documented on numerous occasions regarding the Hamas leaders in Gaza.
Sincerely,
Michael Berenhaus
Foreign DeskCorrections
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20071
Dear Editor,
On the Jan. 7, 2009, front page, The Washington Post published an article entitled "Israel Hits U.N. -Run School in Gaza." The article, illustrated with a photograph, stated that Israel "fired mortar shells at a UN run school where Palestinians sought refuge from the fighting, killing at least 40 people, many of them civilians, Palestinian medical officials said." John Ging, head of the UN Relief and Works Agency was quoted as saying "'we are completely devastated. There is nowhere safe in Gaza.'"
But according to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, "UN backtracks on claim that IDF strike hit Gaza school" Feb. 4, 2009, "The United Nations has reversed its stance on one of the most contentious and bloody incidents of the recent Israel Defense Forces operation in Gaza, saying that an IDF mortar strike that killed 43 people on January 6 did not hit a United Nations Relief and Works Agency school after all."
I await a correction in The Washington Post regarding this story. I am surprised that The Post felt the story warranted front page coverage in the first place, given repeated instances through the years of Palestinian exaggeration and/or fabrication of similar events. The much-ballyhooed "Jenin massacre" and claims that Israel somehow killed Yasser Arafat, for example. I am even more surprised the necessary correction in this case has not been published yet.
It seems that The Post is quick to trust an anti-democratic regime in which those who dissent are often killed or maimed for speaking out against those in power. This has been documented on numerous occasions regarding the Hamas leaders in Gaza.
Sincerely,
Michael Berenhaus
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
In “Israelis Announce Cease-Fire In Gaza” (January 18, 2009), the Washington Post states, as if it were fact, that “Palestinians envision establishing a state in the two territories [Gaza and The West Bank].” But which Palestinians are The Washington Post referring to? Not the ones in Gaza. In Gaza, the political party/recognized terrorist organization Hamas, elected by the people, is pursuing the destruction of the state of Israel – it doesn't deny this. Not the ones in the West Bank, where the “moderate” Fatah has the same goal but uses more finesse: gain land in the first phase which they can use as a base to destroy Israel in the second phase.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded before the West Bank and Gaza Strip were in Israel’s possession, that is, before 1967, when Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank. What was the goal of these Palestinians, to liberate Gaza and the West Bank from Egypt and Jordan? No, to 'liberate' Israel ! Their terrorist attacks were not against Egypt and Jordan, but Israel. The Palestinians have consistently shown that their goal is to "liberate" Israel from the Jews, not merely to establish a state in the two territories as The Washington Post insists. Why else would they, under “moderate” Fatah leadership, have rejected agreements that would have given them upwards of 95% of those territories?
In “Israelis Announce Cease-Fire In Gaza” (January 18, 2009), the Washington Post states, as if it were fact, that “Palestinians envision establishing a state in the two territories [Gaza and The West Bank].” But which Palestinians are The Washington Post referring to? Not the ones in Gaza. In Gaza, the political party/recognized terrorist organization Hamas, elected by the people, is pursuing the destruction of the state of Israel – it doesn't deny this. Not the ones in the West Bank, where the “moderate” Fatah has the same goal but uses more finesse: gain land in the first phase which they can use as a base to destroy Israel in the second phase.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded before the West Bank and Gaza Strip were in Israel’s possession, that is, before 1967, when Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank. What was the goal of these Palestinians, to liberate Gaza and the West Bank from Egypt and Jordan? No, to 'liberate' Israel ! Their terrorist attacks were not against Egypt and Jordan, but Israel. The Palestinians have consistently shown that their goal is to "liberate" Israel from the Jews, not merely to establish a state in the two territories as The Washington Post insists. Why else would they, under “moderate” Fatah leadership, have rejected agreements that would have given them upwards of 95% of those territories?
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Wash Post responds with begrudging concession
The Wash. Post response follows letter.
Subject: Evidence of one-sidedness fairly conclusive in comparison to NY Times, LA Times
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:01:04 +0000
Dear Washington Post Staff,
Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler writes, in "At Confirmation Hearing, Clinton Talks of Engagement With Iran" - (Jan. 14, 2009) that “[Clinton] was not drawn into specific questions about how the incoming administration might handle Israel's invasion." The following analysis of this statement will hopefully make it clearer to The Washington Post why many readers view the reporting as one-sided against Israel: A Pro-Israel view would have led to "how the incoming administration would handle the incessant rocket fire from Gaza into Israel." A neutral view would have been "how the incoming administration might handle the Gaza conflict." A Pro-Palestinian view would be "how the incoming administration would handle Israel's invasion" - which is exactly how The Washington Post put it.
Below are how other major newspapers put it; unlike the Post, none appeared to take sides:
NY Times: "addressing the spiraling violence in Gaza" http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/us/politics/14state.html?ref=todayspaper
LA Times: "Addressing the war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip" http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-clinton-confirmation14-2009 jan14,0,7495323.story
I appreciate you looking into this.
Sincerely, Michael Berenhaus
From: Glenn Kessler
To: mberenhaus@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Evidence of one-sidedness fairly conclusive in comparison to NY Times, LA Times Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:04:27 +0000
Thanks for your note. Israel has invaded Gaza, which is a factual point, and I don't see much difference between that and the LAT language. No bias was intended or implied but you raise a fair point and in retrospect it would have been better to perhaps have added "in response to Hamas rockets" or something like that. I appreciate all input from readers, as it keeps me on my toes.
Sincerely,
Glenn Kessler
Subject: Evidence of one-sidedness fairly conclusive in comparison to NY Times, LA Times
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:01:04 +0000
Dear Washington Post Staff,
Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler writes, in "At Confirmation Hearing, Clinton Talks of Engagement With Iran" - (Jan. 14, 2009) that “[Clinton] was not drawn into specific questions about how the incoming administration might handle Israel's invasion." The following analysis of this statement will hopefully make it clearer to The Washington Post why many readers view the reporting as one-sided against Israel: A Pro-Israel view would have led to "how the incoming administration would handle the incessant rocket fire from Gaza into Israel." A neutral view would have been "how the incoming administration might handle the Gaza conflict." A Pro-Palestinian view would be "how the incoming administration would handle Israel's invasion" - which is exactly how The Washington Post put it.
Below are how other major newspapers put it; unlike the Post, none appeared to take sides:
NY Times: "addressing the spiraling violence in Gaza" http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/us/politics/14state.html?ref=todayspaper
LA Times: "Addressing the war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip" http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-clinton-confirmation14-2009 jan14,0,7495323.story
I appreciate you looking into this.
Sincerely, Michael Berenhaus
From: Glenn Kessler
To: mberenhaus@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Evidence of one-sidedness fairly conclusive in comparison to NY Times, LA Times Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:04:27 +0000
Thanks for your note. Israel has invaded Gaza, which is a factual point, and I don't see much difference between that and the LAT language. No bias was intended or implied but you raise a fair point and in retrospect it would have been better to perhaps have added "in response to Hamas rockets" or something like that. I appreciate all input from readers, as it keeps me on my toes.
Sincerely,
Glenn Kessler
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
Your newspaper’s front page lead-in on January, 11, 2009 states that "In the Israeli media, images of Palestinian suffering are relatively scarce." Maybe so - compared to Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, Al Manar, and The Washington Post. But scarce from those same media sources has been the shelling of Israeli cities over the past eight years. The coverage was practically non-existent!
Your newspaper’s front page lead-in on January, 11, 2009 states that "In the Israeli media, images of Palestinian suffering are relatively scarce." Maybe so - compared to Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, Al Manar, and The Washington Post. But scarce from those same media sources has been the shelling of Israeli cities over the past eight years. The coverage was practically non-existent!
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Washington Post Staff,
Truths don't emanate from totalitarian regimes. Propaganda does. We know this from China. We know this from Cuba, and we know this from the Former Soviet Union. So why on earth does The Washington Post give such credence to what comes out of Hamas-controlled Gaza? Witnesses rarely speak out against Hamas for fear of reprisals. Those that dissent are labeled collaborators and often shot. Crucifixion is now legal in Gaza. And Hamas is well-known for exaggerating casualties and claiming massacres that are unfounded. In "100 Survivors Rescued in Gaza From Ruins Blocked by Israelis" (Jan. 10, 2009), The Washington Post had another front page story about civilian casualties in the war in Gaza accepting word for word the horrid accounts of Palestinians caught in a war zone between the Hamas militants who hide behind them and Israeli soldiers. The Washington Post has barely missed a day carrying such stories.
At least in this article, The Washington Post mentioned that one of the "accounts could not be independently corroborated," and in another account, that the witness "could not be reached to independently confirm her account". Yet another, the ambulance driver for the Red Cross Khaled Abuzaid said "rescue workers found 16 bodies" however other Red Cross officials had said that 12 bodies were found. Why publish these stories if there is so much doubt to their veracity?
100,000 Iraqi civilians died in America’s war in Iraq over the past six years but there was nothing comparable to this ‘play-by-play’ of personalized stories so continuously and unremittingly written about as Palestinian civilians whose casualties are a fraction of that number. With all the conflicts in the world, past and present, why is Israel singled out and damned time after time in The Washington Post?
Michael Berenhaus
Truths don't emanate from totalitarian regimes. Propaganda does. We know this from China. We know this from Cuba, and we know this from the Former Soviet Union. So why on earth does The Washington Post give such credence to what comes out of Hamas-controlled Gaza? Witnesses rarely speak out against Hamas for fear of reprisals. Those that dissent are labeled collaborators and often shot. Crucifixion is now legal in Gaza. And Hamas is well-known for exaggerating casualties and claiming massacres that are unfounded. In "100 Survivors Rescued in Gaza From Ruins Blocked by Israelis" (Jan. 10, 2009), The Washington Post had another front page story about civilian casualties in the war in Gaza accepting word for word the horrid accounts of Palestinians caught in a war zone between the Hamas militants who hide behind them and Israeli soldiers. The Washington Post has barely missed a day carrying such stories.
At least in this article, The Washington Post mentioned that one of the "accounts could not be independently corroborated," and in another account, that the witness "could not be reached to independently confirm her account". Yet another, the ambulance driver for the Red Cross Khaled Abuzaid said "rescue workers found 16 bodies" however other Red Cross officials had said that 12 bodies were found. Why publish these stories if there is so much doubt to their veracity?
100,000 Iraqi civilians died in America’s war in Iraq over the past six years but there was nothing comparable to this ‘play-by-play’ of personalized stories so continuously and unremittingly written about as Palestinian civilians whose casualties are a fraction of that number. With all the conflicts in the world, past and present, why is Israel singled out and damned time after time in The Washington Post?
Michael Berenhaus
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Letter to New York Times
Dear Editor,
It would be too lengthy to cite all the insidious distortions in Rashid Khalidi's article, "What You Don't Know About Gaza" (Jan. 8, 2009). But Khalidi sets his own trap. He states, in describing Israel's blockade of goods, that it began in 2006 - when Hamas took over. But the Gazans have been firing rockets at Israel since 2000. So even according to Khalidi, Israel's embargo occurred after years of being hit by rockets and it was a non-violent response at that. The Gazans started it, proven by Khalidi, and every country in the world has a right to defend itself -even Israel. The Gazans were fortunate that Israel tried non-violent means for years. But the hundreds of rockets fired on Israel in one week, after Hamas ended the cease-fire, were too much for even Israel to take.
Michael Berenhaus
It would be too lengthy to cite all the insidious distortions in Rashid Khalidi's article, "What You Don't Know About Gaza" (Jan. 8, 2009). But Khalidi sets his own trap. He states, in describing Israel's blockade of goods, that it began in 2006 - when Hamas took over. But the Gazans have been firing rockets at Israel since 2000. So even according to Khalidi, Israel's embargo occurred after years of being hit by rockets and it was a non-violent response at that. The Gazans started it, proven by Khalidi, and every country in the world has a right to defend itself -even Israel. The Gazans were fortunate that Israel tried non-violent means for years. But the hundreds of rockets fired on Israel in one week, after Hamas ended the cease-fire, were too much for even Israel to take.
Michael Berenhaus
Friday, January 9, 2009
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
In "Israel Hits U.N.-Run School in Gaza" [January 7, 2009], the article correctly states that Hamas is “an enemy that does not wear uniforms or operate from bases but instead mingles with the population.” So why doesn’t the UN protest this obvious war crime? Or is it only a war crime when Israel responds? In this war, unfortunately, it is the bystanders behind whom Hamas fires mortars, rockets, and missiles that become unwilling accomplices, as a shield against Israeli retaliation - and then become victims when Israel fights back. It is not Israel’s fault; it is solely the fault of Hamas. How did Hamas get into power? They were voted in by those same bystanders. Ironic! I guess that’s how the elected thank their constituents in that part of the world.
Michael Berenhaus
In "Israel Hits U.N.-Run School in Gaza" [January 7, 2009], the article correctly states that Hamas is “an enemy that does not wear uniforms or operate from bases but instead mingles with the population.” So why doesn’t the UN protest this obvious war crime? Or is it only a war crime when Israel responds? In this war, unfortunately, it is the bystanders behind whom Hamas fires mortars, rockets, and missiles that become unwilling accomplices, as a shield against Israeli retaliation - and then become victims when Israel fights back. It is not Israel’s fault; it is solely the fault of Hamas. How did Hamas get into power? They were voted in by those same bystanders. Ironic! I guess that’s how the elected thank their constituents in that part of the world.
Michael Berenhaus
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Dear Editor,
When does political correctness go too far? The article France Wary of Strife Spreading From Gaza (Jan. 7, 2009) refers to "increased tensions between Muslims and Jews in France", how the French Interior Minister took steps to "ease tensions among Jewish and Muslim groups", and how leaders of the Jewish and Muslim communities are calling on "French Jews and Muslims to express their opinions peacefully." Two instances of this so-called "tension" are cited: "a firebomb attack on a synagogue", and "looting and street clashes Saturday between Muslim youths and police". When tension goes one way, it isn't tension - it is directed violence by one group against others. Why can't The Washington Post mention what seems to be unmentionable - that Muslims are the ones committing these violent acts in France?
When does political correctness go too far? The article France Wary of Strife Spreading From Gaza (Jan. 7, 2009) refers to "increased tensions between Muslims and Jews in France", how the French Interior Minister took steps to "ease tensions among Jewish and Muslim groups", and how leaders of the Jewish and Muslim communities are calling on "French Jews and Muslims to express their opinions peacefully." Two instances of this so-called "tension" are cited: "a firebomb attack on a synagogue", and "looting and street clashes Saturday between Muslim youths and police". When tension goes one way, it isn't tension - it is directed violence by one group against others. Why can't The Washington Post mention what seems to be unmentionable - that Muslims are the ones committing these violent acts in France?
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Letter to CNN
Subject: Bias at CNN Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:23:25 +0000
Ben Wedeman, at 5:16pm EST, said that the Palestinian rockets give Israel an "excuse" to attack the Palestinians. That is a biased statement against Israel. It gives them a reason, not an excuse. Wedeman’s comment biases your viewers to see Israel as the aggressor, not that they are defending themselves.
Please be careful in that the propaganda war that Wedeman also spoke of; he himself is guilty of participating in - against Israel.
Michael Berenhaus
Ben Wedeman, at 5:16pm EST, said that the Palestinian rockets give Israel an "excuse" to attack the Palestinians. That is a biased statement against Israel. It gives them a reason, not an excuse. Wedeman’s comment biases your viewers to see Israel as the aggressor, not that they are defending themselves.
Please be careful in that the propaganda war that Wedeman also spoke of; he himself is guilty of participating in - against Israel.
Michael Berenhaus
Monday, January 5, 2009
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
Susan Kerin (Free for All Jan.3, 2008) feels that The Washington Post should not differentiate between the massacre of Mumbai citizens and casualties of Hamas soldiers and their bystander accomplices that they hide among. The difference between Mumbai and the war in Gaza is that the Hamas soldiers, protected by their human shields, have fired thousands of rockets, missiles, and mortars at Israel before Israel retaliated. The Mumbai citizens massacred were out on a stroll, having dinner in restaurants, or at their hotels. Is it so hard to see the difference?
Susan Kerin (Free for All Jan.3, 2008) feels that The Washington Post should not differentiate between the massacre of Mumbai citizens and casualties of Hamas soldiers and their bystander accomplices that they hide among. The difference between Mumbai and the war in Gaza is that the Hamas soldiers, protected by their human shields, have fired thousands of rockets, missiles, and mortars at Israel before Israel retaliated. The Mumbai citizens massacred were out on a stroll, having dinner in restaurants, or at their hotels. Is it so hard to see the difference?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)