Sunday, December 11, 2011
Letter to ABC
My response to ABC:
In "Fact Checking the Debate in Iowa", about Palestinians being an invented people; if Palestinians were "relatively unified", why, in 1947 was the Jewish newspaper called the Palestine Post, the Jewish symphony called the Palestine Symphony Orchestra. The Arab groups had no such names; and that is because, by and large, they didn't view themselves as a separate entity from the entire Arab world. It seems the unnamed scholars that you cited were agenda-driven.
-----------------------------------------------------
My response on their "comments" below the article:
Fact-check 6. These fact-checkers need fact-checkers. Israel doesn't retaliate against the rockets - it responds to them. And if rockets were landing in America from Mexico, killing few; wouldn't America respond? The writer seems to negate the rocket attacks by explaining away that the Israeli response has caused more casualties. What nonsense!
------------------------------------------------------
The article:
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-checking-debate-iowa-024602587.html
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Letter to Washington Post
Dear Editor,
Elaine Rose's complaint about anti-Israel bias in the article "Palestinian 'Freedom Riders' arrested on bus to Jerusalem" (11/21/11) is right on. When she asks, "Who can forget murderous suicide bombings of buses in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv?", the obvious answer is the editors of The Washington Post who printed the article.
The Post is consistent in its attacks on Israel while exuding sympathy for Palestinian terrorists. A recent front-page article ("In Gaza, former prisoners pampered in luxury hotel", 10/24/11) told about released Palestinians "prisoners", now living in a luxury Gaza hotel, who are having difficulty adjusting to their high-end beds. Couldn't The Post at least delve into the specifics of why Yahya Dabassa Ibrahim, the main prisoner featured in the article, was incarcerated in the first place? If the Post had, it would have seen that he was not just any prisoner - the guy was a mass murderer who helped orchestrate the Cafe Moment bombing in 2002! Eleven people were killed and 54 injured, many of them seriously.
Does The Washington Post really believe that the Palestinian cause justifies suicide bombings and that Israel is not entitled to defend itself? Why else would the Post print an article whitewashing the release of the murderers of Israeli civilians and another that mocks Israel's security precautions?
Michael Berenhaus
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Letter to Washington Post
Dear Editor,
In "UNESCO votes to admit Palestine; U.S. pulls funding" (11/1/11), Colum Lynch writes about "a surge of cross-border violence" between Palestinian Gazans and Israel - as if there was some sort of equivalence in the attacks. The fact is that Gazans fired rockets at Israeli civilians while Israel responded by attacking the shooters of the rockets. There was no equivalence.
But Lynch doesn't stop at this. He implies, again incorrectly, that Israel initiated the cross-border violence, saying that the Gaza Militants fired rockets into Israel "after" an Israeli drone attack left two Palestinians dead. He fails to mention that the two Palestinians were engaged in the act of launching rockets at Israel when Israel attacked them.
In short, the author draws equivalence when there is none and omits pertinent information that would allow readers to have a proper understanding of the events. This is deliberate slanting of the news. After reading this kind of "reporting" in The Washington Post day in and day out, there seems to be no other conclusion than that the Post has it in for Israel. Why is that?
In "UNESCO votes to admit Palestine; U.S. pulls funding" (11/1/11), Colum Lynch writes about "a surge of cross-border violence" between Palestinian Gazans and Israel - as if there was some sort of equivalence in the attacks. The fact is that Gazans fired rockets at Israeli civilians while Israel responded by attacking the shooters of the rockets. There was no equivalence.
But Lynch doesn't stop at this. He implies, again incorrectly, that Israel initiated the cross-border violence, saying that the Gaza Militants fired rockets into Israel "after" an Israeli drone attack left two Palestinians dead. He fails to mention that the two Palestinians were engaged in the act of launching rockets at Israel when Israel attacked them.
In short, the author draws equivalence when there is none and omits pertinent information that would allow readers to have a proper understanding of the events. This is deliberate slanting of the news. After reading this kind of "reporting" in The Washington Post day in and day out, there seems to be no other conclusion than that the Post has it in for Israel. Why is that?
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Letter to Washington Post
Dear Editor,
David Ignatius says that former Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's plan "may be the best formula we’ll ever get" for peace [The Mideast deal that could have been, 10/26/11]. He also paraphrased Condoleezza Rice as saying that after receiving Olmert's offer, Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas "balked and asked to consult his experts first." Ignatius leaves out that Abbas never got back to Olmert - and never made a counter offer.
Moreover, after Olmert’s offer, Washington Post Editorial page editor Fred Hiatt personally interviewed Abbas (see "Abbas's Waiting Game" (May 29, 2009)) who finally responded saying about the Olmert plan- "the gaps were wide." That is because there is no "best formula" for the Palestinians other than the destruction of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian state - why else would they walk away from such unprecedented, complete concessions? And that is what the Palestinians are holding out for and that is why they went to the UN to achieve a state without negotiations.
Lastly, Ignatius says that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu "outfoxed" President Obama when Obama demanded a settlement freeze. But Netanyahu agreed to the 10-month settlement freeze, something no other Israeli Prime Minister has ever done. It was the Palestinian Prime Minister who waited until the last month of the freeze to sit down and negotiate, cementing the failure of a deal. More proof of the Palestinians' ultimate goal - their own state in the place of Israel.
Michael Berenhaus
David Ignatius says that former Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's plan "may be the best formula we’ll ever get" for peace [The Mideast deal that could have been, 10/26/11]. He also paraphrased Condoleezza Rice as saying that after receiving Olmert's offer, Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas "balked and asked to consult his experts first." Ignatius leaves out that Abbas never got back to Olmert - and never made a counter offer.
Moreover, after Olmert’s offer, Washington Post Editorial page editor Fred Hiatt personally interviewed Abbas (see "Abbas's Waiting Game" (May 29, 2009)) who finally responded saying about the Olmert plan- "the gaps were wide." That is because there is no "best formula" for the Palestinians other than the destruction of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian state - why else would they walk away from such unprecedented, complete concessions? And that is what the Palestinians are holding out for and that is why they went to the UN to achieve a state without negotiations.
Lastly, Ignatius says that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu "outfoxed" President Obama when Obama demanded a settlement freeze. But Netanyahu agreed to the 10-month settlement freeze, something no other Israeli Prime Minister has ever done. It was the Palestinian Prime Minister who waited until the last month of the freeze to sit down and negotiate, cementing the failure of a deal. More proof of the Palestinians' ultimate goal - their own state in the place of Israel.
Michael Berenhaus
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Letter to Danish Newspaper
Dear Editor,
Kristen Grossen, in her editorial Kvinder i Dialog (25. 10. 2011), states as if fact that "the IDF and the Israeli Police every year kidnap nearly 700 Palestinian children, who sometimes are no more than 8 years old." These claims are preposterous and reminiscent of the oldest libel against Jews - the harming of gentile children. This libel began over a thousand years ago in England and is being brought back to life today in Kristeligt Dagblad. How can the newspaper tolerate this? The libel, in its day, incited massacres against Jews that reached horrific proportions.
Kristen Grossen supplies no proof of her claims precisely because there is none. She owes the Jewish community a sincere apology and should make reparations for her slander.
Michael Berenhaus
Kristen Grossen, in her editorial Kvinder i Dialog (25. 10. 2011), states as if fact that "the IDF and the Israeli Police every year kidnap nearly 700 Palestinian children, who sometimes are no more than 8 years old." These claims are preposterous and reminiscent of the oldest libel against Jews - the harming of gentile children. This libel began over a thousand years ago in England and is being brought back to life today in Kristeligt Dagblad. How can the newspaper tolerate this? The libel, in its day, incited massacres against Jews that reached horrific proportions.
Kristen Grossen supplies no proof of her claims precisely because there is none. She owes the Jewish community a sincere apology and should make reparations for her slander.
Michael Berenhaus
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Letter to Washington Post
Dear Editor,
At The Washington Post, it is best to read from the back forward. In the
back - the opinion pages - you get the reporting; in the front news section
you get opinion. Example: On Friday, 9/30/11, Charles Krauthammer stated
on the second to last page of section A (which we will now call page two)
that the 10 month building freeze by Israel had the Palestinians
"boycotting the talks for nine months, showing up in the 10th, then walking
out when the freeze expired” showing clearly that the fault was on the
Palestinian side.
However, in the so-called news section (toward the front of the paper, now
called the back) reporter Joel Greenberg states that "A 10-month Israeli
moratorium on new construction in settlements expired last September,
leading the Palestinians to break off negotiations". By omitting the
9-month Palestinian boycott and only mentioning what happened in the 10th
month, Greenberg clearly switches the blame to Israel. One view is fact -
the "opinion" piece, and one is biased - the "news" piece. Only at The
Washington Post!
Michael Berenhaus
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Letter to Washington Post
Dear Editors,
In "Plan for Mideast talks gets mixed reception" (9/26/11), The Washington Post states that a proposal "to renew peace negotiations has received guarded Israeli approval and a cool reception from the Palestinians." Why mince words? The Israelis agreed and the Palestinians did not. Why not say it?
According to the article, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said: "We will go with it". Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman said, "we should accept it." This seems pretty clear.
But according to the article, the Palestinians said that preconditions must be met first. "We will not accept [negotiations] until legitimacy is the foundation, and they cease settlement activity". This is not a cool reception, this is rejection.
A more accurate statement would be "The proposal was accepted by Israel but not by the Palestinians." You may think the difference is too subtle to matter, but portraying the conflict in an objective manner is important. World opinion is riding on it, and your news reporting gives much of the world their impression of the issue.
Sincerely,
Michael Berenhaus
In "Plan for Mideast talks gets mixed reception" (9/26/11), The Washington Post states that a proposal "to renew peace negotiations has received guarded Israeli approval and a cool reception from the Palestinians." Why mince words? The Israelis agreed and the Palestinians did not. Why not say it?
According to the article, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said: "We will go with it". Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman said, "we should accept it." This seems pretty clear.
But according to the article, the Palestinians said that preconditions must be met first. "We will not accept [negotiations] until legitimacy is the foundation, and they cease settlement activity". This is not a cool reception, this is rejection.
A more accurate statement would be "The proposal was accepted by Israel but not by the Palestinians." You may think the difference is too subtle to matter, but portraying the conflict in an objective manner is important. World opinion is riding on it, and your news reporting gives much of the world their impression of the issue.
Sincerely,
Michael Berenhaus
Monday, September 12, 2011
Letter to Associated Press causes correction.
The Associated Press (whose articles are published in hundreds if not thousands of newspapers/publications) changed their story after I emailed them. This shows the impact that we can have as world opinion weighs heavily on the conflicts in the Middle East. I encourage everyone to participate by letting your voice be heard.
In the AP 8:30am edition earlier this week, the AP had a piece called "Turkey says Flotilla raid was 'cause for war'". In it, they had the tendentious statement that "a rift between former allies Israel and Turkey has deepened over Israel's refusal to apologize for the attack that killed nine activists on board a Turkish ship".
Here was my letter to them:
Dear Editors,
The "rift" as you call it between Israel and Turkey is not because of Israel's "refusal" to make an apology for the Flotilla incident but because of Turkey's demand for one. Please correct this.
Michael Berenhaus
In a later version, the line was removed!
In the AP 8:30am edition earlier this week, the AP had a piece called "Turkey says Flotilla raid was 'cause for war'". In it, they had the tendentious statement that "a rift between former allies Israel and Turkey has deepened over Israel's refusal to apologize for the attack that killed nine activists on board a Turkish ship".
Here was my letter to them:
Dear Editors,
The "rift" as you call it between Israel and Turkey is not because of Israel's "refusal" to make an apology for the Flotilla incident but because of Turkey's demand for one. Please correct this.
Michael Berenhaus
In a later version, the line was removed!
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Letter to Radio Canada
Dear Editor,
I can explain and justify all day long that Washington DC is the Capital of the great Sioux Nation, but that won't make it so. The facts on the ground prove otherwise and calling it any differently is sheer folly. Same for calling Jerusalem a city in Palestine.
You owe an apology to the state of Israel for the slight of calling its Capital a city in a non-existent country. When should we expect this?
Sincerely,
Michael Berenhaus
Friday, August 26, 2011
Letter to Washington Post
Dear Editor,
David Korn, former State Department director in the Carter Administration, in his letter-to-the-editor (8/24/11) states that "expansion of the settlements" are the "main obstacle to negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority." He provides no evidence for this. That is because there is no evidence. Even with "expansion", Jewish towns make up less than 5% of the West Bank and 0% of Gaza. If Palestine did become a reality, they could and probably would kick out all the Jews anyway - that's what happened before in every other Arab country, with no one saying a word.
It is only the Palestinians who see these settlements as an excuse not to negotiate, and Mr. Korn has fallen for their propaganda "hook, line and sinker". The question is: What is really preventing the Palestinians from sitting down with Israel, when they have nothing to lose and everything to gain?
Michael Berenhaus
Letter to NY Times
Dear Editors,
Regarding Casualties on Both Sides as Israel and Gaza Trade Fire (8/21/11), Israel’s response in Gaza was retaliation for the recent attack that killed eight Israelis, aimed specifically at the attackers. Therefore, Israel bears no responsibility in “igniting cross-border exchanges” as the Times put it. The "igniting” was done by Palestinians, and 100% of the blame belongs to them.
Ironically, just three days earlier the NY Times reported that “Turkish warplanes attacked 60 targets in the mountains and border areas of northern Iraq early Thursday in a pursuit of Kurdish separatist rebels suspected of responsibility a day earlier for a deadly quadruple bombing on a military convoy in southeast Turkey." In this case the Times made it clear that the Turks retaliated and didn't blame them for “igniting", or helping to ignite, anything.
In the NY Times, other countries are not blamed for retaliating, only Israel. What is the source of this double standard and when will it stop?
Michael Berenhaus
Regarding Casualties on Both Sides as Israel and Gaza Trade Fire (8/21/11), Israel’s response in Gaza was retaliation for the recent attack that killed eight Israelis, aimed specifically at the attackers. Therefore, Israel bears no responsibility in “igniting cross-border exchanges” as the Times put it. The "igniting” was done by Palestinians, and 100% of the blame belongs to them.
Ironically, just three days earlier the NY Times reported that “Turkish warplanes attacked 60 targets in the mountains and border areas of northern Iraq early Thursday in a pursuit of Kurdish separatist rebels suspected of responsibility a day earlier for a deadly quadruple bombing on a military convoy in southeast Turkey." In this case the Times made it clear that the Turks retaliated and didn't blame them for “igniting", or helping to ignite, anything.
In the NY Times, other countries are not blamed for retaliating, only Israel. What is the source of this double standard and when will it stop?
Michael Berenhaus
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
In “Israel announces new construction in West Bank”(8/16/11), the Post refers to the West Bank as “occupied land,” as if Israel had illegally invaded another country. In fact, the West Bank is not a country. It was invaded by Jordan in 1948, held for 19 years, and then abandoned. Since then, neither the Palestinian nor Jewish residents of the West Bank have turned the territory into a country. The Post tacitly admits this point when saying the Palestinians want the land for a "future" state. To avoid further bias against Israel, the Post should stop calling the West Bank "occupied land." A more accurate term would be "non-sovereign or disputed land."
In “Israel announces new construction in West Bank”(8/16/11), the Post refers to the West Bank as “occupied land,” as if Israel had illegally invaded another country. In fact, the West Bank is not a country. It was invaded by Jordan in 1948, held for 19 years, and then abandoned. Since then, neither the Palestinian nor Jewish residents of the West Bank have turned the territory into a country. The Post tacitly admits this point when saying the Palestinians want the land for a "future" state. To avoid further bias against Israel, the Post should stop calling the West Bank "occupied land." A more accurate term would be "non-sovereign or disputed land."
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
David Korn, former State Department director in the Carter Administration, in his letter-to-the-editor (8/24/11) states that "expansion of the settlements" are the "main obstacle to negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority." He provides no evidence for this. That is because there is no evidence. Even with "expansion", Jewish towns make up less than 5% of the West Bank and 0% of Gaza. If Palestine did become a reality, they could and probably would kick out all the Jews anyway - that's what happened before in every other Arab country, with no one saying a word.
It is only the Palestinians who see these settlements as an excuse not to negotiate, and Mr. Korn has fallen for their propaganda "hook, line and sinker". The question is: What is really preventing the Palestinians from sitting down with Israel, when they have nothing to lose and everything to gain?
Michael Berenhaus
David Korn, former State Department director in the Carter Administration, in his letter-to-the-editor (8/24/11) states that "expansion of the settlements" are the "main obstacle to negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority." He provides no evidence for this. That is because there is no evidence. Even with "expansion", Jewish towns make up less than 5% of the West Bank and 0% of Gaza. If Palestine did become a reality, they could and probably would kick out all the Jews anyway - that's what happened before in every other Arab country, with no one saying a word.
It is only the Palestinians who see these settlements as an excuse not to negotiate, and Mr. Korn has fallen for their propaganda "hook, line and sinker". The question is: What is really preventing the Palestinians from sitting down with Israel, when they have nothing to lose and everything to gain?
Michael Berenhaus
Monday, August 22, 2011
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
In “Israel announces new construction in West Bank” (8/16/11), The Washington Post continues to propagate the hysteria about new homes being built in Jewish towns (also known by the pejorative term ‘settlements’) in the West Bank. Despite the fact that these new homes do not add one square inch to the overall size of the towns, they are blamed for gobbling up territory that the Palestinians desire for a state of their own making it impossible, in their words, for the Palestinians to negotiate. Yet if Palestine did become a reality, they could and probably would kick out all the Jews anyway - that's what happened before in every other Arab country , with no one saying a word. So why do they refuse to sit down and negotiate now?
Michael Berenhaus
In “Israel announces new construction in West Bank” (8/16/11), The Washington Post continues to propagate the hysteria about new homes being built in Jewish towns (also known by the pejorative term ‘settlements’) in the West Bank. Despite the fact that these new homes do not add one square inch to the overall size of the towns, they are blamed for gobbling up territory that the Palestinians desire for a state of their own making it impossible, in their words, for the Palestinians to negotiate. Yet if Palestine did become a reality, they could and probably would kick out all the Jews anyway - that's what happened before in every other Arab country , with no one saying a word. So why do they refuse to sit down and negotiate now?
Michael Berenhaus
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Published in NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/opinion/on-anti-semitism-and-the-mideast.html?_r=1&ref=letters
To the Editor:
Roger Cohen says Jews should know better: “The lesson is clear: Jews, with their history, cannot become the systematic oppressors of another people.” His reference to the plight of the Palestinians is offensive: blaming Israel. He should know better!
In 1993, Israel gave the Palestinians a chance to have their own country with the Oslo Accords. The Palestinians responded with suicide bombings and terror. Israel followed with offers in 2000 and 2008. Palestinians walked away without a counteroffer.
Since Israel won the West Bank from Jordan, the Palestinians’ life expectancy has increased, their infant mortality has been reduced, and their economy has prospered. If any fingers need to be pointed, they should be at the Palestinian leadership.
MICHAEL BERENHAUS
Potomac, Md., Aug. 21, 2011
To the Editor:
Roger Cohen says Jews should know better: “The lesson is clear: Jews, with their history, cannot become the systematic oppressors of another people.” His reference to the plight of the Palestinians is offensive: blaming Israel. He should know better!
In 1993, Israel gave the Palestinians a chance to have their own country with the Oslo Accords. The Palestinians responded with suicide bombings and terror. Israel followed with offers in 2000 and 2008. Palestinians walked away without a counteroffer.
Since Israel won the West Bank from Jordan, the Palestinians’ life expectancy has increased, their infant mortality has been reduced, and their economy has prospered. If any fingers need to be pointed, they should be at the Palestinian leadership.
MICHAEL BERENHAUS
Potomac, Md., Aug. 21, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
Turki Al -Faisal (Why Palestinians need the U.N. - 6/12/11) states that Saudi Arabia took President Obama's call for Arab countries to embrace democracy and provide freedom to their people "seriously". To the Saudis apparently, partaking in the Arab Spring means buying off their citizens with cold cash in an attempt to keep them fat and happy. Money is spewing with direct reimbursement checks doubling a fund that helps citizens buy homes, start businesses, and get married. These acts, which are nothing more than bribery, are no indication of heeding Obama's words "seriously" for greater freedom and democracy. It certainly does not give any credence to the Saudi's being authorities on human rights nor the right to judge Israel on Israel's human rights record, as Al-Faisal does in this editorial. One only needs to see that women have not been allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia since 1991 to see how archaic their human rights are - and that is just the beginning. Israel, on the other hand, is a country where Arabs have greater freedom of speech, greater freedom of press, and greater freedom of religion than in any Arab country!
Al-Faisal, who is the Saudi chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research & Islamic Studies in Riyadh, cannot and should not be taken seriously. His threats that "there will be disastrous consequences for the U.S.-Saudi relations if the United States vetoes U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state" are veiled threats and out-of-line for a so-called ally.
Even as Al-Faisal made these claims, reports show that the Palestinian attempt for a unity government is already crumbling before it is ever formed making it impossible for them to declare a state. It would be more appropriate for the Saudis and their researchers to look within their own country and their dismal human rights record rather than the typical distraction that they use of finger-pointing at Israel. It fools no one.
Turki Al -Faisal (Why Palestinians need the U.N. - 6/12/11) states that Saudi Arabia took President Obama's call for Arab countries to embrace democracy and provide freedom to their people "seriously". To the Saudis apparently, partaking in the Arab Spring means buying off their citizens with cold cash in an attempt to keep them fat and happy. Money is spewing with direct reimbursement checks doubling a fund that helps citizens buy homes, start businesses, and get married. These acts, which are nothing more than bribery, are no indication of heeding Obama's words "seriously" for greater freedom and democracy. It certainly does not give any credence to the Saudi's being authorities on human rights nor the right to judge Israel on Israel's human rights record, as Al-Faisal does in this editorial. One only needs to see that women have not been allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia since 1991 to see how archaic their human rights are - and that is just the beginning. Israel, on the other hand, is a country where Arabs have greater freedom of speech, greater freedom of press, and greater freedom of religion than in any Arab country!
Al-Faisal, who is the Saudi chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research & Islamic Studies in Riyadh, cannot and should not be taken seriously. His threats that "there will be disastrous consequences for the U.S.-Saudi relations if the United States vetoes U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state" are veiled threats and out-of-line for a so-called ally.
Even as Al-Faisal made these claims, reports show that the Palestinian attempt for a unity government is already crumbling before it is ever formed making it impossible for them to declare a state. It would be more appropriate for the Saudis and their researchers to look within their own country and their dismal human rights record rather than the typical distraction that they use of finger-pointing at Israel. It fools no one.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Published in The Washington Post
Friends,
In this letter, which the Post surprisingly published, their inaccuracies are exposed by using a piece in another section – of their newspaper!
Michael
A Mideast war of words in The Post
How can The Post's opinion pages be so laced with fact and the fact pages (the reporting) so laced with opinion?
In the May 16 front-page story "Clashes erupt at Israel's borders", Joel Greenberg presented the Syrian protest on Israel's border as "an unprecedented escalation of the annual demonstrations on the anniversary of the establishment of Israel in 1948".
Even the headline was mendacious: Clashes don't erupt; they are orchestrated, and that's how the headline should have read: "Clashes orchestrated at Israel's borders."
That was clearly how the Post's editorial board saw it on the May 17 editorial page ["Israel's border bloodshed"]. The first sentence got it exactly right: "The Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad on Sunday made a desperate attempt to distract attention from its continuing, bloody assault on its own people."
It noted, "Hundreds of Palestinians were bused from refugee camps" and "no one can reach the heavily militarized Syrian front with Israel without the consent and cooperation of the Assad regime."
Why was it necessary, in The Post to read the editorial page to get the facts?
Michael Berenhaus, Potomac
In this letter, which the Post surprisingly published, their inaccuracies are exposed by using a piece in another section – of their newspaper!
Michael
A Mideast war of words in The Post
How can The Post's opinion pages be so laced with fact and the fact pages (the reporting) so laced with opinion?
In the May 16 front-page story "Clashes erupt at Israel's borders", Joel Greenberg presented the Syrian protest on Israel's border as "an unprecedented escalation of the annual demonstrations on the anniversary of the establishment of Israel in 1948".
Even the headline was mendacious: Clashes don't erupt; they are orchestrated, and that's how the headline should have read: "Clashes orchestrated at Israel's borders."
That was clearly how the Post's editorial board saw it on the May 17 editorial page ["Israel's border bloodshed"]. The first sentence got it exactly right: "The Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad on Sunday made a desperate attempt to distract attention from its continuing, bloody assault on its own people."
It noted, "Hundreds of Palestinians were bused from refugee camps" and "no one can reach the heavily militarized Syrian front with Israel without the consent and cooperation of the Assad regime."
Why was it necessary, in The Post to read the editorial page to get the facts?
Michael Berenhaus, Potomac
Monday, May 16, 2011
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
It wasn't the creation of Israel that led to the displacement of Palestinians in 1948 - it was the Palestinians’ denial of it (Palestinian dies after clash in E. Jerusalem, 5/15/11). The Palestinians rejected Israel's creation and started a war along with neighboring Arab countries meant "to drive the Jews into the sea." They lost. The Palestinians mourn this loss annually in a day they call the "Nakba" or catastrophe. Interestingly, Israel has been criticized for not honoring this day. Is Israel supposed to be supportive of the Palestinian holiday meant to mark the defeat of those that attempted to commit back-to-back Holocausts to the Jewish people? Moreover, what does this show about the Palestinians’ sincerity for a 2-state solution when they are still mourning the loss of a one-state solution - all Palestinian?
Michael Berenhaus
It wasn't the creation of Israel that led to the displacement of Palestinians in 1948 - it was the Palestinians’ denial of it (Palestinian dies after clash in E. Jerusalem, 5/15/11). The Palestinians rejected Israel's creation and started a war along with neighboring Arab countries meant "to drive the Jews into the sea." They lost. The Palestinians mourn this loss annually in a day they call the "Nakba" or catastrophe. Interestingly, Israel has been criticized for not honoring this day. Is Israel supposed to be supportive of the Palestinian holiday meant to mark the defeat of those that attempted to commit back-to-back Holocausts to the Jewish people? Moreover, what does this show about the Palestinians’ sincerity for a 2-state solution when they are still mourning the loss of a one-state solution - all Palestinian?
Michael Berenhaus
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Letter to The Washington Post
From: mberenhaus@comcast.net
To: letters@washpost.com
Cc: ombudsman@washpost.com
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2011 3:00:22 PM
Subject: It wasn't Israel's creation that caused the Palestinian refugee problem, but the genocidal war that the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors started...
Dear Editor,
The article "Palestinians Mourn Israeli Mentor" (4/5/11) blames "Israel's creation" for the fact that Mer Khamis' "father’s relatives became refugees in Lebanon." But it wasn't Israel's proclamation of Independence that caused the Arab refugee problem. If there had been no war that followed, there would have been no refugees. There is no rational causal link. It was the genocidal war launched by the local Palestinian Arabs and the neighboring Arab countries against the nascent Jewish state that caused the refugee problem. If they had won, instead of a Palestinian refugee problem there would have been a Jewish massacre to such an extent, it would have caused back-to-back Holocausts for the Jewish people. As the Secretary-General of the Arab League said at the time, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."
The Washington Post continually turns around the origin of the Palestinian refugee issue, putting the onus on Israel or "Israel's creation". With that, whether knowingly or unknowingly, they are complicit in the international delegitimizing of Israel and the resultant anti-Semitism that is running rampant throughout the world.
Michael Berenhaus
To: letters@washpost.com
Cc: ombudsman@washpost.com
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2011 3:00:22 PM
Subject: It wasn't Israel's creation that caused the Palestinian refugee problem, but the genocidal war that the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors started...
Dear Editor,
The article "Palestinians Mourn Israeli Mentor" (4/5/11) blames "Israel's creation" for the fact that Mer Khamis' "father’s relatives became refugees in Lebanon." But it wasn't Israel's proclamation of Independence that caused the Arab refugee problem. If there had been no war that followed, there would have been no refugees. There is no rational causal link. It was the genocidal war launched by the local Palestinian Arabs and the neighboring Arab countries against the nascent Jewish state that caused the refugee problem. If they had won, instead of a Palestinian refugee problem there would have been a Jewish massacre to such an extent, it would have caused back-to-back Holocausts for the Jewish people. As the Secretary-General of the Arab League said at the time, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."
The Washington Post continually turns around the origin of the Palestinian refugee issue, putting the onus on Israel or "Israel's creation". With that, whether knowingly or unknowingly, they are complicit in the international delegitimizing of Israel and the resultant anti-Semitism that is running rampant throughout the world.
Michael Berenhaus
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Letter to The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
Palestinians react angrily to al-Jazeera's 'Palestine Papers' (1/25/11) states that Palestinians were willing to exchange core Palestinian positions for "little from Israel, analysts said Monday." But The Washington Post didn’t say who the "analysts" were? Why keep their names a secret?
Perhaps one of them is Ed Abington who said "what's most damaging in the newly released documents is the way Palestinian negotiators are "seen as conceding more and more" while getting "absolutely nothing from Israeli negotiators." The Post describes Abington as "a former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem and longtime American diplomat, but doesn’t mention that after he left this post he was hired as political counsel to the Palestinian Authority. Clearly he is not a disinterested party, though that it is how he was presented in the article.
As to the Post's “analysis”, Israel has offered on more than one occasion approximately 95% of the West Bank plus 5% of other lands to get to almost 100% of what the Palestinians want. What side of a negotiation, especially the losing side in war, can hope for more? Would the Kurds, the Chechens, or numerous other minority groups who want a country of their own view the Palestinian position as getting “little?” I think not.
Michael Berenhaus
Palestinians react angrily to al-Jazeera's 'Palestine Papers' (1/25/11) states that Palestinians were willing to exchange core Palestinian positions for "little from Israel, analysts said Monday." But The Washington Post didn’t say who the "analysts" were? Why keep their names a secret?
Perhaps one of them is Ed Abington who said "what's most damaging in the newly released documents is the way Palestinian negotiators are "seen as conceding more and more" while getting "absolutely nothing from Israeli negotiators." The Post describes Abington as "a former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem and longtime American diplomat, but doesn’t mention that after he left this post he was hired as political counsel to the Palestinian Authority. Clearly he is not a disinterested party, though that it is how he was presented in the article.
As to the Post's “analysis”, Israel has offered on more than one occasion approximately 95% of the West Bank plus 5% of other lands to get to almost 100% of what the Palestinians want. What side of a negotiation, especially the losing side in war, can hope for more? Would the Kurds, the Chechens, or numerous other minority groups who want a country of their own view the Palestinian position as getting “little?” I think not.
Michael Berenhaus
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)