Dear Editor,
"Thousands flock to Bethlehem" (12/26/10) describes Bethlehem as "the town where, according to biblical account, Jesus was born." Interestingly, "Young Russians in search of faith flock to Islam" (12/21/10) states that Islamic Prophet Ibrahim "intended to slit his son Ismail's throat but sacrificed a ram instead.” The event in Islam is reported as fact while Christianity is explained with a caveat. Would The Washington Post please explain this inconsistency to its readers?
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Letter to Washington Post
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: letters@washpost.com
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 10:49:53 AM
Subject: What Analysts?
Dear Editor,
In [U.S. tactics in Mideast talks criticized (Dec. 9, 2010)], the subheadline states, "Analysts say Obama should have stuck with calls for the settlement freeze," and the first paragraph says "The Obama administration's decision to stop seeking a new Israeli settlement freeze... has diminished prospects of achieving a peace accord... analysts said Wednesday". However, in the article, surprisingly, there was not a single analyst cited who concurred with these claims.
An Israeli political commentator Akiva Eldar for the Haaretz newspaper effectively said that the freeze made no sense. Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. peace negotiator, said that the freeze was "the wrong focus." The only other person quoted was not an analyst but chief negotiator for the Palestinians Saeb Erekat - of course he is going to say that it was the fault of the Obama administration. But I hope the Washington Post realizes that a negotiator for one side isn't an "analyst". So where are these analysts of whom The Washington Post speaks?
Michael Berenhaus
To: letters@washpost.com
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 10:49:53 AM
Subject: What Analysts?
Dear Editor,
In [U.S. tactics in Mideast talks criticized (Dec. 9, 2010)], the subheadline states, "Analysts say Obama should have stuck with calls for the settlement freeze," and the first paragraph says "The Obama administration's decision to stop seeking a new Israeli settlement freeze... has diminished prospects of achieving a peace accord... analysts said Wednesday". However, in the article, surprisingly, there was not a single analyst cited who concurred with these claims.
An Israeli political commentator Akiva Eldar for the Haaretz newspaper effectively said that the freeze made no sense. Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. peace negotiator, said that the freeze was "the wrong focus." The only other person quoted was not an analyst but chief negotiator for the Palestinians Saeb Erekat - of course he is going to say that it was the fault of the Obama administration. But I hope the Washington Post realizes that a negotiator for one side isn't an "analyst". So where are these analysts of whom The Washington Post speaks?
Michael Berenhaus
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Letter to Washington Post
From: Dr. Michael Berenhaus [mailto:mberenhaus@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 3:49 PM
To: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Subject: letter to wash post
Dear Editor,
In "Palestinian Authority counters Israeli offer on settlements" (10/14/10), The Washington Post refers to Israel's "1967 borders." This is an erroneous reference on the Post’s part - there weren't borders in 1967, only armistice lines. The Washington Post incessantly strives to carve out its own storyline with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Another instance: the Post refuses to grasp that Israel won the West Bank from the Jordanians (not the Palestinians) after being attacked. So the territory is arguably Israeli territory until the dispute of what to do with the land is resolved. In what any objective observer would deem odd, Israel has been attempting to give the lands to the Palestinians for what is now decades so they can form their own state but the Palestinians won't even sit down to negotiate for it. If Henny Youngman were alive and an Israeli citizen he would be saying, "take my land, please."
The Post continuously parrots the Palestinian narrative, that the growing Jewish settlements in the West Bank are somehow impeding the Palestinians as if physically blocking them from sitting down at the negotiating table. And if the Palestinians were so concerned about growing settlements, one would think that they would be running to the negotiating table, as more and more of their state would be shrinking - but it isn't the case. What percentage of the West Bank consists of Jewish settlements with all their so-called expansions? Less than 5%, but you would never find that information in the Washington Post. The Washington Post is guilty of disproportionate anti-Israel coverage consistently providing one-sided evidence from the Palestinian point of view on an almost daily basis. This imbalanced coverage has yielded dozens of articles condemning Jewish settlements but virtually no criticism of the Palestinians’ excuses, finger pointing, pre-conditions, threats, terrorism, corruption, internal hostilities, and general lack of motivation to build the Palestinian state that they ostensibly want so much. When will this biased coverage change?
Michael Berenhaus
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 3:49 PM
To: Dr. Michael Berenhaus
Subject: letter to wash post
Dear Editor,
In "Palestinian Authority counters Israeli offer on settlements" (10/14/10), The Washington Post refers to Israel's "1967 borders." This is an erroneous reference on the Post’s part - there weren't borders in 1967, only armistice lines. The Washington Post incessantly strives to carve out its own storyline with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Another instance: the Post refuses to grasp that Israel won the West Bank from the Jordanians (not the Palestinians) after being attacked. So the territory is arguably Israeli territory until the dispute of what to do with the land is resolved. In what any objective observer would deem odd, Israel has been attempting to give the lands to the Palestinians for what is now decades so they can form their own state but the Palestinians won't even sit down to negotiate for it. If Henny Youngman were alive and an Israeli citizen he would be saying, "take my land, please."
The Post continuously parrots the Palestinian narrative, that the growing Jewish settlements in the West Bank are somehow impeding the Palestinians as if physically blocking them from sitting down at the negotiating table. And if the Palestinians were so concerned about growing settlements, one would think that they would be running to the negotiating table, as more and more of their state would be shrinking - but it isn't the case. What percentage of the West Bank consists of Jewish settlements with all their so-called expansions? Less than 5%, but you would never find that information in the Washington Post. The Washington Post is guilty of disproportionate anti-Israel coverage consistently providing one-sided evidence from the Palestinian point of view on an almost daily basis. This imbalanced coverage has yielded dozens of articles condemning Jewish settlements but virtually no criticism of the Palestinians’ excuses, finger pointing, pre-conditions, threats, terrorism, corruption, internal hostilities, and general lack of motivation to build the Palestinian state that they ostensibly want so much. When will this biased coverage change?
Michael Berenhaus
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Letter to Washington Post
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: letters@washpost.com
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2010 8:10:56 AM
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor:
On Sunday, Oct.3, 2010, the Washington Post printed two pro-Palestinian letters, both patently false. In one, the writer claimed that the Jewish neighborhoods in the West Bank (which have taken on the pejorative term 'settlements') prevent the formation of a contiguous Palestinian state. That is not the case; rather, it is the unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to sit down, negotiate, and make hard decisions that prevents Palestinian statehood. The Palestinians could have had a state many times over had they genuinely wanted it. Peculiarly, while insisting on a Palestinian "right of return" to Israel, they insist that their country be Jew-free. Doesn't that raise some red flags about their true intentions?
Michael Berenhaus
To: letters@washpost.com
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2010 8:10:56 AM
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor:
On Sunday, Oct.3, 2010, the Washington Post printed two pro-Palestinian letters, both patently false. In one, the writer claimed that the Jewish neighborhoods in the West Bank (which have taken on the pejorative term 'settlements') prevent the formation of a contiguous Palestinian state. That is not the case; rather, it is the unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to sit down, negotiate, and make hard decisions that prevents Palestinian statehood. The Palestinians could have had a state many times over had they genuinely wanted it. Peculiarly, while insisting on a Palestinian "right of return" to Israel, they insist that their country be Jew-free. Doesn't that raise some red flags about their true intentions?
Michael Berenhaus
Monday, July 12, 2010
Letter to Washington Post
Dear Editor,
In the news digest (July 12, 2010), "Abbas: No point now in direct negotiations," Palestinian Authority President Abbas said he has "no incentive to resume direct talks" with Israel. How about a sovereign peaceful state for the Palestinian people? Isn't that enough of an incentive?
If Abbas really believed in a two-state solution he would show as much openness as Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has already agreed to direct talks. The truth is that Abbas wants something much different: to continue the Palestinian war of attrition until Israel is gone.
Michael Berenhaus
In the news digest (July 12, 2010), "Abbas: No point now in direct negotiations," Palestinian Authority President Abbas said he has "no incentive to resume direct talks" with Israel. How about a sovereign peaceful state for the Palestinian people? Isn't that enough of an incentive?
If Abbas really believed in a two-state solution he would show as much openness as Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has already agreed to direct talks. The truth is that Abbas wants something much different: to continue the Palestinian war of attrition until Israel is gone.
Michael Berenhaus
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Letter to Washington Post
Dear Editor,
Halfway through "Tensions build in East Jerusalem" (July 1, 2010), we learn that the Arab homes meant for demolition "were built without permits"! The story should have been about the Arabs’ attempt to cement control of parts of Jerusalem by building illegally. Instead, the Post chose to focus on the opposite viewpoint spouted by those with a contentious view toward Israel: the Palestinians, the UN, and the Obama Administration. They view this removal of illegally built Palestinian homes as the fault of Israel. Yet throughout the world, illegally built homes are removed without incident and no one says a word - until Israel does so. Ironically, the Palestinians maintain that it is an "Israeli ploy" to secure Israeli control of the area, when in fact they were the ones who grabbed it illegally – a specious move if ever there was one. Not surprisingly, the UN Secretary General Ban called Israel’s move "provocative" and "contrary to international law." The spokesperson for the US State Department, who is lock-step with the Arab point of view, said that the move was “the kind of action that undermines trust and potentially incites emotions and adds to the risk of violence.” Of course, the UN and the US State Department were nowhere to be found when the Palestinians were building these illegal dwellings in the first place – they just show up when Israel responds. Sounds like a reoccurring theme in that part of the world.
Michael Berenhaus
Halfway through "Tensions build in East Jerusalem" (July 1, 2010), we learn that the Arab homes meant for demolition "were built without permits"! The story should have been about the Arabs’ attempt to cement control of parts of Jerusalem by building illegally. Instead, the Post chose to focus on the opposite viewpoint spouted by those with a contentious view toward Israel: the Palestinians, the UN, and the Obama Administration. They view this removal of illegally built Palestinian homes as the fault of Israel. Yet throughout the world, illegally built homes are removed without incident and no one says a word - until Israel does so. Ironically, the Palestinians maintain that it is an "Israeli ploy" to secure Israeli control of the area, when in fact they were the ones who grabbed it illegally – a specious move if ever there was one. Not surprisingly, the UN Secretary General Ban called Israel’s move "provocative" and "contrary to international law." The spokesperson for the US State Department, who is lock-step with the Arab point of view, said that the move was “the kind of action that undermines trust and potentially incites emotions and adds to the risk of violence.” Of course, the UN and the US State Department were nowhere to be found when the Palestinians were building these illegal dwellings in the first place – they just show up when Israel responds. Sounds like a reoccurring theme in that part of the world.
Michael Berenhaus
Monday, June 14, 2010
Letter to Washington Post
Dear Editor,
Eric Carey ("How to break a Mideast logjam" 6/14/10) believes that removing 500,000 Jews from the West Bank and Jerusalem would be a "step in the direction of peace". How ethnic cleansing is a path to peace I will never understand. But there is a precedent - a test case that demolishes Mr. Carey's theory.
Israel actually removed all 8,500 Jews from Gaza in 2005. The result was catastrophic. Since the deportation, the Gazans launched thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel. Why would Israel fall for that again by doing the same in the West Bank?
Eric Carey ("How to break a Mideast logjam" 6/14/10) believes that removing 500,000 Jews from the West Bank and Jerusalem would be a "step in the direction of peace". How ethnic cleansing is a path to peace I will never understand. But there is a precedent - a test case that demolishes Mr. Carey's theory.
Israel actually removed all 8,500 Jews from Gaza in 2005. The result was catastrophic. Since the deportation, the Gazans launched thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel. Why would Israel fall for that again by doing the same in the West Bank?
Monday, June 7, 2010
Letter to NY Times
Dear Editor,
Isabel Kershner ("4 militants killed in Gaza", June 7, 2010) calls those that died in the fighting in the Gaza Flotilla "activists." These "activists" had knives, clubs, pipes, stun grenades, broken glass and metal bottles. They wore gas masks to prevent tear gas use and bullet-proof vests. There was no kumbaya singing and swaying with arms interlocked with this group. Video from the boat clearly shows seasoned veterans composed and initiating the attacks on the Israelis. Pardon me Isabel, but these were not your parent’s activists. They were combatants - mercenaries with paid compensation in their pockets. Please clarify this in future articles.
Michael Berenhaus
Isabel Kershner ("4 militants killed in Gaza", June 7, 2010) calls those that died in the fighting in the Gaza Flotilla "activists." These "activists" had knives, clubs, pipes, stun grenades, broken glass and metal bottles. They wore gas masks to prevent tear gas use and bullet-proof vests. There was no kumbaya singing and swaying with arms interlocked with this group. Video from the boat clearly shows seasoned veterans composed and initiating the attacks on the Israelis. Pardon me Isabel, but these were not your parent’s activists. They were combatants - mercenaries with paid compensation in their pockets. Please clarify this in future articles.
Michael Berenhaus
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Letter to Washington Post
Dear Editor,
Janine Zacharia puts a kibosh on the so-called humanitarian crisis claimed in Gaza in her June,3, 2010 Washington Post article. According to Zacharia, "if you walk down Gaza City's main thoroughfare - Salah al-Din Street - grocery stores are stocked wall-to-wall with everything from fresh Israeli yogurts and hummus to Cocoa puffs." Further she states, "Pharmacies look as well-supplied as a typical Rite Aid in the United States." Why have other journalists had such a hard time reporting this. The "crisis" canard has been passed from journalist to journalist like the game 'telephone' blasted throughout the world with the conditions of the Palestinians seeming worse and worse by the day. Apparently, nobody, save Zacharia, has bothered to take a look. But Zacharia, like the Starship Enterprise of Star Trek fame, 'has boldly gone where no one has gone before' - to see for herself the farce that has been perpetrated at the expense of Israel. Kudos to her.
Michael Berenhaus
Janine Zacharia puts a kibosh on the so-called humanitarian crisis claimed in Gaza in her June,3, 2010 Washington Post article. According to Zacharia, "if you walk down Gaza City's main thoroughfare - Salah al-Din Street - grocery stores are stocked wall-to-wall with everything from fresh Israeli yogurts and hummus to Cocoa puffs." Further she states, "Pharmacies look as well-supplied as a typical Rite Aid in the United States." Why have other journalists had such a hard time reporting this. The "crisis" canard has been passed from journalist to journalist like the game 'telephone' blasted throughout the world with the conditions of the Palestinians seeming worse and worse by the day. Apparently, nobody, save Zacharia, has bothered to take a look. But Zacharia, like the Starship Enterprise of Star Trek fame, 'has boldly gone where no one has gone before' - to see for herself the farce that has been perpetrated at the expense of Israel. Kudos to her.
Michael Berenhaus
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Letter to Washington Post
Dear Editor,
The Washington Post headline, "Netanyahu says he is ready for talks" [May 5, 2010], should have read, "Netanyahu still ready for talks." Since he became Prime Minister, Netanyahu has consistently expressed a willingness to negotiate with the Palestinians. Anytime, any place. The Post's headline implies that he wasn't ready before, thus continuing the newspaper's agenda of portraying Israel as intransigent.
The brief news item also said talks would begin "after the 22-member Arab League gave the Palestinians the green light for negotiations." Why do the Palestinians need a green light from the Arab League to negotiate peace? And did the Post ever consider that the party in control of the traffic light is the real source of intransigence?
Michael Berenhaus
The Washington Post headline, "Netanyahu says he is ready for talks" [May 5, 2010], should have read, "Netanyahu still ready for talks." Since he became Prime Minister, Netanyahu has consistently expressed a willingness to negotiate with the Palestinians. Anytime, any place. The Post's headline implies that he wasn't ready before, thus continuing the newspaper's agenda of portraying Israel as intransigent.
The brief news item also said talks would begin "after the 22-member Arab League gave the Palestinians the green light for negotiations." Why do the Palestinians need a green light from the Arab League to negotiate peace? And did the Post ever consider that the party in control of the traffic light is the real source of intransigence?
Michael Berenhaus
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Letter to Washington Post
Dear Editor,
The Washington Post article, "How Israel complicates efforts against Iran" [May 4, 2010] really moved me. It moved me to say how the author should be ashamed of himself for writing it. He knows full well that Israel must retain military superiority to survive in that violent region of the world, faced with Arab nations and terrorist groups who openly state their determination to eliminate what they call the Zionist entity.
Israel was created because other countries of the world could not be trusted to harbor their Jewish citizens safely - Jews were murdered, persecuted, and expelled for centuries. And in their hour of greatest need the countries of the world (including America) refused even to let Jews in. Jews learned that they cannot depend on the rest of the world for their safety; they must take care of themselves.
Israel has been a member of the "nuclear club" for 50 years, and is the member most in need of such a deterrent. Israel has long demonstrated its responsibility and determination to use it only in defense, and only as a last resort. To take away this weapon is to invite the destruction of the only Jewish nation in the world.
Michael Berenhaus
The Washington Post article, "How Israel complicates efforts against Iran" [May 4, 2010] really moved me. It moved me to say how the author should be ashamed of himself for writing it. He knows full well that Israel must retain military superiority to survive in that violent region of the world, faced with Arab nations and terrorist groups who openly state their determination to eliminate what they call the Zionist entity.
Israel was created because other countries of the world could not be trusted to harbor their Jewish citizens safely - Jews were murdered, persecuted, and expelled for centuries. And in their hour of greatest need the countries of the world (including America) refused even to let Jews in. Jews learned that they cannot depend on the rest of the world for their safety; they must take care of themselves.
Israel has been a member of the "nuclear club" for 50 years, and is the member most in need of such a deterrent. Israel has long demonstrated its responsibility and determination to use it only in defense, and only as a last resort. To take away this weapon is to invite the destruction of the only Jewish nation in the world.
Michael Berenhaus
Friday, April 23, 2010
Letter to Washington Post
Dear Editor,
In "U.S. envoy quietly resumes mission" (April 23, 2010) the Washington Post, in the spirit of even-handedness, states "how hard it has become to get Israelis and Palestinians to return to negotiations." But what about the spirit of truthfulness?
Israel has long been willing to meet for negotiations - anytime, anywhere. On the other hand, the Palestinians, after a long absence from agreeing to negotiate at all, reluctantly agreed to indirect talks through an intermediary - and even reneged on that at the last moment! Accuracy on this point is vital to an understanding of the conflict.
In "U.S. envoy quietly resumes mission" (April 23, 2010) the Washington Post, in the spirit of even-handedness, states "how hard it has become to get Israelis and Palestinians to return to negotiations." But what about the spirit of truthfulness?
Israel has long been willing to meet for negotiations - anytime, anywhere. On the other hand, the Palestinians, after a long absence from agreeing to negotiate at all, reluctantly agreed to indirect talks through an intermediary - and even reneged on that at the last moment! Accuracy on this point is vital to an understanding of the conflict.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Letter to NY Times
Dear Editor,
The Palestinians may "hope" for a state with the eastern part of Jerusalem as their capital but until they agree to sit down and negotiate with Israel, they can hope all they want, it won't be theirs [Mr. Obama and Israel 3/26/10]. And as far as the Times' assertion that the Palestinians are "justifiably worried" that Israeli projects "nibble away at the land available for their future state", if they were that worried, why not sit down and talk? When people are truly worried, they are moved to act. Not the Palestinians.
It does make sense when the Times says that the Obama administration "must also press Palestinians and Arab leaders just as forcefully." How about pressing the Palestinians in the most rudimentary way - to come to the negotiating table for starters?
Michael Berenhaus
The Palestinians may "hope" for a state with the eastern part of Jerusalem as their capital but until they agree to sit down and negotiate with Israel, they can hope all they want, it won't be theirs [Mr. Obama and Israel 3/26/10]. And as far as the Times' assertion that the Palestinians are "justifiably worried" that Israeli projects "nibble away at the land available for their future state", if they were that worried, why not sit down and talk? When people are truly worried, they are moved to act. Not the Palestinians.
It does make sense when the Times says that the Obama administration "must also press Palestinians and Arab leaders just as forcefully." How about pressing the Palestinians in the most rudimentary way - to come to the negotiating table for starters?
Michael Berenhaus
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Letter to Washington Post
Dear Editor,
Richard Cohen [“A square for a murderer “(3/16/10)] wrongly calls Israelis who used guerrilla warfare against British soldiers in their War of Independence terrorists. According to his definition, American guerrilla fighters battling British soldiers during the American War of Independence were also terrorists.
Regarding true terrorism and the Palestinian practice of naming schools, camps and most recently a square after terrorists like Dalal Mughrabi, who murdered 38 Israeli civilians - 13 of them children, Cohen gets this part right. As he says, "What confidence can Israelis have in a people and their leaders who honor the 1978 murder of innocents, particularly children?" Does Israel really want a country like this next to them?
Richard Cohen [“A square for a murderer “(3/16/10)] wrongly calls Israelis who used guerrilla warfare against British soldiers in their War of Independence terrorists. According to his definition, American guerrilla fighters battling British soldiers during the American War of Independence were also terrorists.
Regarding true terrorism and the Palestinian practice of naming schools, camps and most recently a square after terrorists like Dalal Mughrabi, who murdered 38 Israeli civilians - 13 of them children, Cohen gets this part right. As he says, "What confidence can Israelis have in a people and their leaders who honor the 1978 murder of innocents, particularly children?" Does Israel really want a country like this next to them?
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Letter to Washington Post
Dear Washington Post Staff,
In "Hezbollah rearms away from border" (January 23, 2010), why not mention what the rearming is all about? The only mention of Hezbollah's intent was to say that they vowed to "continue 'resistance' against Israel” with no further discussion on what that means. Touching the surface, the article only said that Hezbollah was "Islamist" and "backed by Iran." When Hezbollah says "resistance", which you aptly put in quotes, they are referring to their genocidal goals - to kill the Jews of Israel. Why not mention this specifically and perhaps delve into it? The Washington Post has been known for its investigative style reporting but, unfortunately, not when it comes to the racist ideology of Iran-backed Hezbollah.
In "Hezbollah rearms away from border" (January 23, 2010), why not mention what the rearming is all about? The only mention of Hezbollah's intent was to say that they vowed to "continue 'resistance' against Israel” with no further discussion on what that means. Touching the surface, the article only said that Hezbollah was "Islamist" and "backed by Iran." When Hezbollah says "resistance", which you aptly put in quotes, they are referring to their genocidal goals - to kill the Jews of Israel. Why not mention this specifically and perhaps delve into it? The Washington Post has been known for its investigative style reporting but, unfortunately, not when it comes to the racist ideology of Iran-backed Hezbollah.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Published in the Washington Post
Thursday, January 7, 2010
In the Jan. 1 news story "Israel backs U.S. on Iran sanctions," reporter Howard Schneider wrote that an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel is "considered unlikely because of Israel's nuclear deterrent capacity." Considered unlikely by whom? Without citing a source, this statement has no merit.
A nuclear attack by Iran on Israel is quite possible -- so possible that Israel can't take any chances. Iran's leaders have specifically threatened the destruction of Israel. The nuclear deterrent during the Cold War worked because mutually assured destruction meant something to each side, but members of the Iranian leadership have a jihadist mentality. Dying for a "holy" cause, such leaders believe, will give them a space in heaven. Look at the long list of suicide bombers dying in the name of jihad.
Iran is not likely to be deterred from using nuclear force because of Israel's might.
Michael Berenhaus, Potomac
In the Jan. 1 news story "Israel backs U.S. on Iran sanctions," reporter Howard Schneider wrote that an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel is "considered unlikely because of Israel's nuclear deterrent capacity." Considered unlikely by whom? Without citing a source, this statement has no merit.
A nuclear attack by Iran on Israel is quite possible -- so possible that Israel can't take any chances. Iran's leaders have specifically threatened the destruction of Israel. The nuclear deterrent during the Cold War worked because mutually assured destruction meant something to each side, but members of the Iranian leadership have a jihadist mentality. Dying for a "holy" cause, such leaders believe, will give them a space in heaven. Look at the long list of suicide bombers dying in the name of jihad.
Iran is not likely to be deterred from using nuclear force because of Israel's might.
Michael Berenhaus, Potomac
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)