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
Friday, February 27, 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)