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