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

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!

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