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

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

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