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?

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

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!

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

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

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

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?

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

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?