Letter to Washington Post

Dear Editor, In "Israeli troops kill Palestinian man near Gaza border" [11/24/12], The Washington Post reports that "the shooting was the first flare-up of violence since the Egyptian-brokered truce ended eight days" of fighting. Apparently, in The Post's eyes the twelve rockets shot at Israel preceding this incident do not count as violence. By the way, the Palestinians rushed the fence in a provocative fashion attempting to cross over onto the Israeli side while ignoring warning shots - what did they expect, souvenirs?

Letter to NY Times

Dear Editor, If there were a faction in America or adjacent to America - grievance or no grievance - whose expressed goal was to destroy our country, what does The NY Times think our response would be? Let's also say that they didn't disguise this goal - even flaunted it by having it in their charter for all to see. If this faction then launched rockets at us, how would we react? What would any country do? We would do what we could to stop them. So why is Israel held to a different standard? Why is its every action held under a microscope? War was brought upon them. Proportionate force dictates that Israel must apply enough force to stop the rockets. If anything, Israel is not applying enough force. They are too cautious. But that is because they are held to a different standard than any other country. The question is why? Michael Berenhaus

Published in Washington Jewish Week

Flagrant distortion Flagrant distortion While a continuous assault of rocket attacks from Gaza has occurred all year, targeting more than 100,000 Israeli children in the entire southern part of their country, our local newspaper and the paper on record in the nation's capital, The Washington Post, remained silent until a Palestinian child became a casualty. Then there is a front-page, above-the-fold, sympathy-evoking picture in the Nov. 15 issue taken totally out of context showing the Palestinian casualty rather than all the traumatized, injured and dead Israeli children. There is no mention of the months of rocket attacks on Israel in the caption, and the accompanying article called Israel's response an "offensive" when it really was a defensive maneuver. The death of a child is tragic but tragic as well is the exploitation by the Post for the power that it evokes. For Jewish readers, it brings to mind the painful centuries-old anti-Semitic libel where Jews were labeled child killers. The picture was gratuitous and not representative of the conflict at all. The Post must stop going for the propaganda-driven "money shots" - it flies in the face of journalistic ethics. I implore Washington Jewish Week readers to write the Post to protest this flagrant distortion of the news. It stokes the flames of anti-Semitism affecting all of us. The email address is letters@washpost.com. MICHAEL BERENHAUS Potomac http://washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=31&ArticleID=18383&TM=54861.04

Letter to Washington Post

Dear Editor, One day, operation "Pillar of Defense" will be called the most humanitarian, precision-conducted campaign in military history. With over 1350 sites hit by the Israeli defense force, there have only been about 50 civilian deaths - and this in one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Further, some of these casualties were caused by Hamas' own rockets. (It is estimated that over 100 Hamas rockets aimed at Israel actually landed in Gaza.) Yet The Washington Post front page headline screams "Civilian toll up in Gaza fighting" (11/19/12). For this kind of warfare, with Hamas firing rockets from civilian neighborhoods adjacent to schools, hospitals, and mosques, the civilian toll was down, not up. Compare with Syria, where over 40,000 are dead. Before bombing, Israel sent out warning texts, tweets, emails, phone-calls and leaflets. Israel should be praised, not condemned.

Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Editors, While a continuous assault of rocket attacks from Gaza has occurred all year, targeting over 100,000 Israeli children in the entire southern part of their country, The Washington Post remained silent until a Palestinian child became a casualty. Then there is a front page above-the-fold sympathy-evoking picture taken totally out of context showing the Palestinian casualty rather than all the traumatized, injured, and dead Israeli children (11/15/12). There is no mention of the months of rocket attacks on Israel in the caption, and the accompanying article called Israel's response an "offensive" when it really was a defensive maneuver. The death of a child is tragic but tragic as well is the exploitation by the Post for the power that it evokes. For Jewish readers, it brings to mind the painful centuries-old anti-Semitic libel where Jews were labeled child killers. The picture was gratuitous and not representative of the conflict at all. The Washington Post must stop going for the propaganda-driven "money shots" - it flies in the face of journalistic ethics. Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Editor, In "Abbas: Talk could begin after UN vote" (11/13/12), The Washington Post states that "peace talks have stalled over Israel's refusal to first halt settlement construction." But is it Israel's refusal or the Palestinian's demand that their pre-condition be met that has stopped the negotiations? Many would say It is the latter, not the former. While Israel has offered time and again to sit down and negotiate, the Palestinians have laid out an ultimatum to Israel which they demand must be met prior to any negotiations. Yet the Post chooses - again - to blame Israel. Only an ingrained bias could continually blame Israel while ignoring or whitewashing the part played by its enemies. This is a bias so deep that the Washington Post apparently can't even see it.

Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Editor, Why does it seem that Israel is only in the news when it responds to attacks rather than when the attacks occur in the first place? (see "Israel shells Syrian artillery battery after 2nd mortar lands near Golan army post" (11/12/12) Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Editor, In "Israel closing its doors to illegal African Migrants" (11/3/12), Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights castigate Israel for blocking the entrance of illegal African migrants. These groups maintain that blocking their entrance puts the migrants at risk for "torture and abuse" from their home country and in Egypt through which they have traveled on their way to Israel. Why are Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights so conspicuously silent about the abuse and torture as it occurs and only speak out about it when the migrants arrive in Israel? Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Editor, I enjoyed the article "Yom Kippur presents quandary for rabbis", (9/26/12). It is an appropriate challenge that Rabbis do not mix politics with religion when discussing the existential threat that Israel faces with Iran. There is one point in this article which I believe merits further elaboration. When Iranian President Ahmadinejad discusses Israel, he refers to the country as "the occupying zionists". Nowhere does the Post say that Ahmadinejad won't even call Israel by name. Worse, the Post does not comment when he calls Israel "the occupying zionists"- Ahmadinejad is not referring to just the West Bank and Gaza; rather, he means all of Israel. He believes that all Israel should be Palestinian. Post readers should be made aware of this fact. The Washington Post is very good at clarification, but unless this disturbing distinction is fully explained, it is difficult to comprehend the menacing existential threat that Israel faces. Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Editor, In, "Romney told donors Palestinians don't want peace with Israel" (9/19/12), The Washington Post states that the PLO (the organization responsible for the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972) among other West Bank groups "recognized Israel in the early 1990s and continue to seek a two-state solution." Recognition apparently does not mean including Israel on Palestinian maps. So I am not sure where the recognition is. With respect to the assertion that the West Bank Palestinian factions are seeking a two-state solution, the Palestinians refuse to even sit down to negotiate with Israel without demanding pre-conditions being met. Would the Post then clarify as to how the Palestinians are seeking peace? Whether one is a supporter of Mitt Romney or not, his words make more sense than the interjections by The Washington Post reporters. Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Mr. King, I hope it isn't trite to start off by saying that I have disagreed with a number of your editorials. But your piece on anti-Semitism, I believe, deserves an award - it was exceptional! I have rarely read an editorial that was so heartfelt and moving. I have heard this reaction from others as well, admittedly mostly Jews. Your question/challenge, "what about the rest of the world?" ...referring to our American leaders stance on Israel was right on. May I take it in another direction? What about the rest of the Journalists? Few write about the blatant Jew-Hatred which is rampant, not just in Iran, but throughout the Arab world. Children are inculcated with demonizing Jews and calls to violence against them. Few have the courage to write about it. I am pleased to say that you are one of the brave! Sincerely, Michael Berenhaus, OD Owner, Bethesda Vision Care www.BethesdaVisionCare.com

Letter to Washington Post

Dear Editor, Why are there no cries of disproportionate force, disproportionate casualties, war crimes or Goldstone reports against Syria where close to 20,000 have been killed? Apparently, those rebukes are reserved only for Israel, a country that has been defending itself from existential threats for its entire 64 years of existence. Thumbing its nose at humanity, the Syrian regime is now dropping bombs on residential apartment buildings in Aleppo. (See “Syrian planes bomb Aleppo”, 7/25/12.) The double standard in the way in which Syria is treated in the press and by the world community compared with the attitude adopted against Israel is astounding. In the most recent wars in Gaza and Lebanon, Israel went to extreme measures to safeguard bystanders, confirmed by the low ratio of bystanders to combatants killed in action. In Syria, however, as reported by The Post, the bystanders are the targets. Still, media sources such as the Washington Post refuse to point out the disparity of treatment of Syria versus Israel or more bravely, take a stand.

Letter to Washington Post

Dear Editor, More than 99% of the Middle East is Muslim, yet Muslim countries refuse to give sanctuary to Muslim refugees from Sudan and Eritrea. So it is up to Israel to bear this burden as well as the criticism (See “Israel confronts a flood of African refugees”, 7/25/12). Meanwhile a free pass is given to Egypt, the nation in which these refugees spent days traversing to get to Israel. Why doesn't the Washington Post ask, instead, why these refugees don’t seek asylum in Egypt, saving days of travel, and settle in a fellow Muslim nation? Why doesn't the Post point out that they don’t go to Egypt because they would be shot, robbed, and raped, if indeed they were allowed to stay? At least in the Jewish state of Israel they will be safe. The nation that comprises less than1% of the Middle East can't be expected to take in all the world's refugees. Israel has welcomed millions from Russia, Ethiopia, and almost every Arab nation. Yet the Post criticizes Israel for not doing more. Why is that? Michael Berenhaus

Letter to NY Times

Dear Editor, The NY Times in their editorial "Wrong time for New Settlements" (7/11/12) slanders Israel stating that it "is determined to continue ruling 2.5 million Palestinians under an unequal system of laws and rights." Doesn't the Times know that the Palestinians in The West Bank are and have been ruled by the Palestinian Authority? And the Palestinians in Gaza are ruled by Hamas. Lastly, as you know, the vast majority of world organizations such as the UN single out Israel time and time again and scarcely make a peep when far greater transgressions have occurred elsewhere - (ex - genocide in Darfur, mass murders in Syria). How can you write about the views of UN-type bodies as impartial evidence when clearly their views are tainted? Please correct these errors.

Published in Washington Post

Too soon for 'democracy works' The June 25 front-page article “Islamist named winner in Egypt” referred to the Egyptian election as “one of the most concrete signs of democratic change.” One needs only to look next door, at the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip, to see that one election does not a democracy make — especially where an Islamist government is concerned. Not a single election has been held since the totalitarian Hamas took over Gaza in 2006. And Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, the group from which the winner of the Egyptian elections came. One thing is becoming more apparent regarding the Arab Spring: Democratically inspired revolutions are a far cry from democratically run countries. Michael Berenhaus, Potomac

Letter to the Associated Press

Dear Editor, In "Shadowy al-Qaida-linked group claims Israel attack"(6/19/12), Associated Press reporter Ibrahim Barzak concludes his article by saying that, "Israeli construction on lands the Palestinians claim for a future state is at the heart of the current peacemaking deadlock." That is correct - if you are taking the Palestinian side. But reporters are supposed to be neutral. That is a key principle in the Journalistic code of ethics. The more objective reason of why there is a peacemaking deadlock is because one side - the Palestinian side - refuses to sit down and negotiate. Thank you, Michael Berenhaus

Letter to Washington Post

Dear Editor, In "Netanyahu faulted in 2010 flotilla raid" (June 14, 2012), the Washington Post reporter called the nine Turks who lost their lives in the flotilla incident "activists." Excuse me, but these were not your parents' activists! There were no placards, no banners, and certainly no kumbaya singing. These "activists" were knife-toting crowbar-swinging mercenaries who 'greeted' Israeli soldiers trying to board the ship peacefully by attempts to murder them. Whether the outcome would have been different if different decisions had been made by the Israeli government is moot. Rewriting history is inexcusable. Michael Berenhaus

Letter to Washington Post

Dear Ombudsman, What has become apparent is that pictures like the Israeli soldiers pepper spraying the Palestinian (front page 3/31/12) have become the norm since Israel has a free press and is the only place in the region where such pictures can be taken. The result is a disproportionate negative coverage of a country (Israel) due to its virtue (free press) while a free pass is given to the worst human rights violaters of our time such as Syria (where over 9,000 people have been recently murdered) . All in the name of selling newspapers.

Letter to Washington Post

Dear Editor, While Syria shoots to kill its protesters and random bystanders to the tune of over 8,000 dead, Israel uses non-lethal techniques solely against those that protest, even those that are violent. (3/31/12, front page picture). The protest leaders say that their purpose is to dispute Israel's so-called discriminatory land practices, but most who follow events in the region (save the Washington Post) know that this is just an excuse in the campaign to topple Israel by delegitimizing it. The Palestinian Arabs and their neighbors have tried for 64 years to beat Israel; this is just another technique which the Post falls for once again hook, line, and sinker. What is particularly saddening about the damning picture is that in Israel, unlike in any other country in the Middle East, photographers have the freedom to take such photos. Meanwhile less damning photos or even the existence of journalists in many Arab countries has been met with murder as we have recently seen in Syria. So, therefore, newspapers like the Post spotlight Israel on the front page in a disproportionate way, garnering more anti-Israel sentiment aiding and abetting the Arabs/Palestinian Arabs in their fight against Israel, fought largely now in the media. Michael Berenhaus

Letter to Washington Post

Dear Editor, While deriding Ron Paul's "loose definition" of occupation (2/12/12) as applied to America's military presence in many countries, Washington Post author Glen Kessler says that "occupy" means "taking away a country's sovereignty". However in other articles, Mr. Kessler accuses Israel of "occupying" the West Bank. In fact, Israel took away no country's sovereignty; Israel won the territory from Jordan in a defensive war. And there certainly was never a Palestinian country in that area. Apparently Mr. Kessler uses one definition for Israel and another for us. The "occupation" accusation is repugnant and damning. It has been used as a rallying call for violence against Israel and Jews worldwide and helps to fan the flame of anti-Semitism that is rising at an alarming rate. Shouldn't the same definition apply to all? Michael Berenhaus

Letter to Associated Press

From: mberenhaus@comcast.net To: info@ap.org Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:07:26 AM Subject: Please make correction in "Official: Israel presents Mideast peace outline" by Daniel Estrin posted by AP 7 hours ago. Dear Editor, Daniel Estrin gives his opinion, in "Official: Israel presents Mideast peace outline" 1/10/12, that "the issue of settlement construction persists as the heart of the current impasse in peace efforts." His proof: "The Palestinians say they will not resume negotiations as long as Israel continues to build in its settlements in the West Bank ". But as the article says, Israel agreed to a 10 month moratorium on building. In the ninth month, the Palestinians finally agreed to talk knowing full well that such a contentious conflict could not be solved in one month. Further, the Palestinians have said lots of things and they have negotiated before without this pre-condition of settlement building. As a matter of fact, this was the first time that the pre-condition of a halt of settlement building was ever given by the Palestinians further showing that the settlements, which make up only 2% of the West Bank, are not the main issue. The settlements are merely a convenient excuse given by the Palestinians for not sitting down at the table. Articles should state facts, not inject opinions - especially biased opinions. Please correct this. Thank you, Michael Berenhaus Potomac, MD http://news.yahoo.com/official-israel-presents-mideast-peace-outline-210750959.html

Published in Washington Post

Missing pages from the Palestinian history book. ● In an effort to counter Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s claim that the Palestinians are an invented people, Maen Rashid Areikat said his home town of Jericho “goes as far back as 10,000 B.C., making it the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world.” But he neglected to say who inhabited it, given that there is no evidence, archaeological or otherwise, that it was inhabited by Palestinians. Would the vast majority of the Americans living in say, Sioux City, Iowa, have a right to claim that their ancestors have been in Sioux City for thousands of years? Hardly. Michael Berenhaus, Potomac