Letter to The Washington Post

Re: "Israel says it won’t forcibly deport illegal African migrants, but it wants them to leave" (12/21/13) Dear Editor, Instead of a front page article about Syrian children receiving life saving medical care from their sworn enemy Israel, The Washington Post published yet another critical piece on how Israel responds to illegal African immigrants, actually extremely compassionate compared with its neighbors. Curiously, there has yet to be a Post story on why the African immigrants don't stop in Egypt, which is closer, and that is because they are robbed, raped, or murdered there. Further, in Egypt there is no freedom of Press, so Post reporters wouldn't be able to write such a piece and live to tell about it. Ironically, in Israel, the only nation in the region with freedom of the press, journalists exploit this freedom to find fault with the country. So Israel, which has taken in millions of Jewish refugees, many of whom with no place to go otherwise, is vilified for not taking in Muslim or Christian refugees. Israel, a country that makes up .1% of the Middle East shoulders the blame for what the 99.9% of the Middle East should be doing, courtesy of The Washington Post. Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Editor, In "Iran questions you were embarrassed to ask" (12/1/13), The Washington Post should be embarrassed with its answers. The Post whitewashes the existential threat posed by Iran on Israel by saying that "the dislike is mutual." There is nothing mutual here. I haven't heard Israel saying that Iran should be wiped off the map. The equivalence drawn is abhorrent! The Washington Post even defends Iran's motivations saying that Iran is "so insistent" on a nuclear program because there is a "huge symbolic importance for Iran, allowing it to affirm, to itself and to the world, that it is an advanced and sovereign nation." The Simon Wiesenthal Center sees Iran's motivations another way: "If Iran's only goal was to develop a nuclear ability for civilians use, as it claims, then it has no need for centrifuges and heavy water - these are only needed to create a nuclear weapon. There are 19 countries in the world from Canada to Indonesia that produce nuclear energy for civilian use without enrichment, centrifuges and heavy water." Lastly, The Washington Post says that "setting off a nuclear bomb in Israel would guarantee the Iranian regime's immediate and total destruction." My question to the Post is, by whose hand? The United States, under the current administration, has backed away from many a confrontation and in regards to Iran, they just arguably took a position of strength and turned it into a position of weakness, just to make a deal. Not exactly the sign of a side that would respond decisively in a military fashion. Michael Berenhaus cc: Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Simon Wiesenthal Center

Published in Washington Jewish Week

http://digital.washingtonjewishweek.com/i/221928/17 Dear Editor, DCJCC artistic director Ari Roth defends his recent selection of "The Admission", a fictional play which everyone agrees depicts Israel in a very unfavorable light, to be shown at the DCJCC [ "Controversy at Theater J." (11/21/13)]. Mr. Roth states, with respect to Israel, that "Art can be the gateway to a mature engagement with the country and with each other as we celebrate and grapple with its founding." And that is the essence of Ari Roth’s thesis: to project his personal grappling of the founding of Israel in his selection of plays. And this is who the DCJCC has chosen to curate? He further states that Art "has the potential to make us more humane..." which further illustrates his problem with Israel. If we need to be "more humane" about Israel, then he implies that we are less humane in our current thinking about Israel. If there ever was an anti-Israel artistic director, Ari Roth wins the prize. It is a fact that Mr. Roth has turned down at least one play by a well-regarded playwright who had his plays performed throughout America. The play, "A Tiny Piece of Land", happens to be Pro-Israel. If Mr. Roth is so bent on airing his problems with Israel, perhaps he should work at a Palestinian Community Center. Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Editor, What should have been titled, "Israel thwarts terror attack," was instead titled "Israel bombs tunnel in Gaza" (11/2/13). In doing so, The Washington Post reverses culpability, portraying the aggressor as the victim and disregarding the significance of Israel's achievement. The Post did mention that Egypt has also been destroying tunnels, but these tunnels were smuggling goods. To the contrary, this was not the purpose of the tunnel that Israel destroyed. The purpose, as evidenced by the tunnel’s endpoint - a civilian community - was clearly meant for terror and/or kidnapping, as Hamas is wont to do. The Post also states that "Israel and Hamas are bitter enemies." In reality, Hamas is at war with Israel, not the other way around, nor is it mutual. Hamas has launched thousands of rockets and mortars in an attempt to destroy Israel, whereas Israel just wants to live in peace. Is it that difficult to get this story right? Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Editor, In "High above Nazareth, an Israeli mayor wants to keep his city Jewish 'now and forever'"(9/20/13), The Washington Post publishes a story about a Jewish mayor who also happens to be a bigot. In the report, The Post inverts reality by publishing the exception rather than the rule by finding such a mayor from some obscure town in Israel. In actuality, Israel has greater rights for minorities than any other country in the Middle East has. Arabs, for example, have greater freedom of speech, freedom of press, and even freedom of religion in Israel than they do in any Arab nation. Of course it would be difficult for the Post to do a similar story interviewing Jews in an Arab country who are discriminated against and that is because there are nearly none left. And those who are left value their lives. Speaking out against the majority, unlike in Israel, puts them at serious risk of death. And don't even attempt to become a citizen of Saudi Arabia if you are Jewish or Christian; that is illegal. So when it comes to Israel, The Washington Post publishes the exception. When it comes to the rule, in Arab nations, The Washington Post is silent. Michael Berenhaus

Washington Post responds to previous letter with "Clarification"

WASHINGTON POST RESPONDS! ...in a wimpy way true to their modus operandi. On page A2, my recent letter received a published "Clarification". In typical Wash Post fashion, it wasn't much of a clarification. They missed the point - the caption contradicted the story and blamed the origins of the Holocaust on a Jew! "A photo caption with an August 11 Outlook review of Jonathan Kirsch's book "The Short, Strange Life of Herschel Grynszpan, a Jewish teenager who killed a Nazi diplomat in 1938, as sparking the Nazi rampage against Jews known as Kristallnacht. One sentence in the review included similar wording. As the review made clear, while historians disagree about how much of Kristallnacht was spontaneous and how much was planned, the author believes that the killing was seized on by Adolf Hitler and his regime as a pretext for the pogrom."

Response to letter from 8/13/13

Hi Michael, Well put and right on target. History again takes a beating at the Post. As someone who with his family endured Kristalnacht, I’m especially grateful to you for making the Post aware of what really sparked the Holocaust. Shabbat Shalom. Leo

Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Washington Post Staff, In "The boy who struck back at the Nazis" (8/11/13), The Washington Post B ook Review includes a picture of Nazis marching during a funeral procession with the caption describing the event: "The Nazi attache was killed by a Jewish teenager in the German Embassy in Paris, sparking Kristallnacht, a wave of murder, rape and arson targeting Jews in German territories." By saying that the action of a Jew caused Kristallnacht - the horrid attack by Germans against the Jews of central Europe - The Washington Post commits bigotry of the highest order. Make no mistake, it was the Germans who, using the killing of the attache as a convenient pretext, sparked Kristallnacht by killing hundreds of Jews, destroying 1300 synagogues and 7,500 Jewish businesses, and rounding up 30,000 Jewish men sending them to concentration camps. It was their idea, they planned it, and they executed it! Blaming a Jew for being the spark - the beginnings of the Holocaust - deserves an immediate correction and apology to those of the Jewish faith for the outrageous claim. Michael Berenhaus

Published in "American Thinker"

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/wapo_picture_tells_the_story_its_text_wont_touch.html

Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Editors, In "Mideast peace talks set to begin" (7/29/13), The Washington Post published a picture that inadvertently exposes the real intentions of the Palestinians, as opposed to their ostensible willingness to negotiate with Israel. In the lower left hand picture on the second page of the article (see attached - second photo is close-up), a Palestinian woman clutches a photo of her soon-to-be-released prisoner son. In a less conspicuous part of the picture just to the left of the photo, the woman clutches another photo that shows all of Israel with a Palestinian flag running through it. What is typically reported by The Washington Post and most news organizations, not to mention the European Union and the United States, is that the Palestinians are looking for a homeland in Gaza, the West Bank, and the eastern part of Jerusalem. The picture published in the Post portrays a far different reality, one that is right out in the open for all to see, yet no one cares to acknowledge. The Palestinians are neither interested in nor prepared to accept a state in Gaza, the West Bank, and the eastern part of Jerusalem - they want the entire area including Israel. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. What more proof does the world need to see to recognize the true motivations of the Palestinian movement? Michael Berenhaus

Letter to Miami Herald

Dear Editor, In "Israel to vote on freeing Palestinian prisoners" (7/27/13), The Miami Herald states that "Israelis tend to view the prisoners as cold-blooded terrorists." According to the article, one such prisoner - "Omar Masoud and three accomplices broke into a European aid office in Gaza City, grabbed a young Israeli lawyer working there and stabbed him to death." Wouldn't most people, not just Israelis, "tend to view" such acts as those of "cold-blooded terrorists?" Michael Berenhaus

Letter to Washington Post

Dear Ms. Weymouth, When interviewing Israeli Finance Minister and centrist party leader Yair Lapid ["Lally Weymouth interviews Israeli Finance Minister Yair Lapid," June 23, 2013)], you premised a question on an assertion made by you that "nobody in the outside world believes” in the sincerity of Israeli Prime Minister and right-wing party leader Benjamin Netanyahu with respect to his call for a two-state solution. Can you cite a source for that assertion? In a world filled with brutal tyrants (now and in the past), have you ever before asserted to a senior government official that “nobody believes” his leader? And how would you expect Mr. Lapid to respond? Most people are aware that, for the purpose of trying to restart negotiations, Prime Minister Netanyahu was the first Israeli Prime Minister ever to halt settlement growth. Is there anything about this action that would lead you to believe otherwise than corroborating Netanyahu's desire for a two-state solution? In the past, you have echoed the Palestinian narrative that the Jewish settlements are the problem. Jewish settlements make up less than 5% of the West Bank, and there are no settlements in Gaza. Yet the rockets from Gaza continue to hit Israel. How do you reconcile that? I would also like to know why you have not addressed the rhinoceros in the corner – the absence of credible leadership on the Palestinian side with whom Israel can negotiate. The Palestinians have neither agreed on a single government nor acquiesced to rule of law under democratic government. Under these circumstances, what traction would an agreement have? At best, the interview lacks objectivity. I look forward to more accurate and fair portrayals of the conflict in the future. Sincerely, Michael Berenhaus http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lally-weymouth-interviews-israeli-finance-minister-yair-lapid/2013/06/20/4144efd8-d917-11e2-9df4-895344c13c30_story.html

Published in The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/egypt-has-never-been-a-democracy/2013/07/10/57c13b1e-e7da-11e2-818e-aa29e855f3ab_story.html Letter to the Editor Egypt has never been a democracy Wednesday, July 10, 5:33 PM The July 5 editorial “A response to Egypt” carried the secondary headline “The United States must withhold aid until the military restores democracy.” But how can Egypt’s military “restore” something that was never there? Apparently unbeknown to The Post, Egypt has never had a democracy. Democratically elected and democratically run governments are clearly not the same thing. One merely needs to look next door to Gaza to see how an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood operates. Hamas was democratically elected in its one and only election seven years ago, and there is no semblance of a democracy there. The election was plainly the vehicle for installing a totalitarian regime, which continues to this day. Former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi showed no signs of heading toward democracy. In his brief tenure, he replaced the heads of TV stations, fired leaders in the military and jailed dissenters, all in what seemed to be an effort to thwart future elections and democracy. If the military now chooses to “initiate” a democracy, it would be the ideal outcome and something that the world waits to see. Michael Berenhaus, Potomac

Letter to Washington Post

Dear Editors, At 4:00pm on May 14, 1948, David Ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister, recited the Declaration of Independence which marked the creation of the State of Israel. At that time, there was no Palestinian refugee issue. Yet according to The Washington Post, in "No respite for Palestinian refugees" (6/22/13), Palestinians refugees were "displaced by the creation of Israel." The occurrence of the refugee issue, which The Washington Post continually omits, was due to the war that five Arab armies and the local Arabs initiated with the aim of defeating the nascent Jewish state.* The Arabs lost. That is the origin of the refugee problem. Remarkably had the Arabs won, the Jews would have experienced back-to-back Holocausts since they had no place to run, unlike the Palestinians. Please consider correcting this in your future publications. Thank you, Michael Berenhaus

Letter to Washington Post

Dear Editor, In "5 Ways to prevent NSA from spying" [6/19/13], The Washington Post is making America a safer place ...for terrorists. The article, which listed ways "to thwart the agency's snooping", allows terrorists easier access and provides abilities with which to accomplish their goal - killing Americans. By virtue of this article, The Post is flagrantly, albeit inadvertently I presume, aiding and abetting our enemies and is arguably now complicit in their crimes. Michael Berenhaus

Letter to Washington Post

Dear Editor, The Washington Post can't even write obituaries without injecting anti-Israel bias. In "Preserver of the Jewish Community inside Egypt's capital" (4/14/13), The Washington Post states that "Egypt's once thriving Jewish community largely left more than 60 years ago at a time of hostilities between the country and Israel". Hostilities between the two countries? In 1948, Egypt attacked Israel the day that Israel declared Independence! Egypt was dropping bombs on Tel Aviv. It was an organized attack by Egypt in an attempt to destroy the nascent Jewish state - not a mutual disagreement between the two sides - as inferred by the Washington Post statement. And to say that these Jews "left" Egypt also creates the wrong impression. The Post refers to Palestinians displaced during the Israeli War of Independence - a war the Arabs started - as being forced to leave. In the case of the Jews in Egypt, who were living peacefully side by side with their Arab neighbors, The Post says they merely "left" - as if on their own volition. They were truly forced to leave -a fate that has befallen Jews in almost every other Arab country. Jews of Arab countries are now virtually extinct whereas Arabs make up 20% of Israel. (For more on the fate of Jews Indigenous to Arab countries - see JIMENA.ORG). The Washington Post has a record of consistently distorting history and choosing words to cast blame on Israel and whitewash Arab misdeeds. Not even the obituaries are safe. Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Editor, In "Kerry, Netanyahu see steps toward new peace talks" (4/10/13), The Washington Post states that "Netanyahu is considered hostile to negotiations despite public assurances that he would talk under the right conditions." May I ask The Washington Post staff, who or what entity considers Netanyahu hostile to negotiations, other than The Washington Post, of course? What evidence did The Washington Post staff use to come to their conclusion? What scientific report or data does the Post use to support this accusation? Is the Post not aware that Netanyahu offered unparalleled compromises to bring the Palestinians to the table, only for his measures to be ignored. The Israeli Prime Minister has stated that he will negotiate with the Palestinians anytime and at anyplace. What part of that statement can be "considered" hostile to negotiations? Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Editor, According to Washington Post Reporter Scott Wilson ("Obama's trip to Israel aims to fix missteps", 3/18/13), negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians broke down because Israel refused to renew its construction freeze. A more plausible view is that the Palestinians doomed the negotiations from the beginning by refusing to sit down until the last month of the building moratorium. How much clearer can it be that the Palestinians are doing everything in their power - stalling, making excuses, protesting, circumventing the process - instead of negotiating, which would give them the state they supposedly want - a state side by side with Israel? The fact is, they don't want a state side by side with Israel - they want a state instead of Israel, as is plainly written in the Hamas Charter. And why does a reader have to read the opinion of a Washington Post reporter in the news section, when opinions belong in the editorial section? Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Associated Press

Dear Editor, The Palestinians have been given generous offers for a state of their own. What losing side of a war gets 100% of what they want? Ironically they were offered 100% by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008 - 96% plus land swaps. The Washington Post interviewed Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas - his response to the offer - "the gaps are wide." Speak with Fred Hiatt - editor of The Washington Post - he will affirm this. The Palestinians are not looking for a state side-by-side with Israel. They are looking for a state instead of Israel! That is why they are attempting to portray at every opportunity Israel as a pariah nation - to delegitimize Israel - so they can have it all. Articles like the AP piece 3/21/13 (Analysis: Israel settlements at core of conflict) serves the Palestinian propaganda machine. In a sense, the AP has been duped into participating. It is no less participatory than if the AP supplied rockets and missiles. Please consider this in future articles. Sincerely, Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Editor, Even though Jew hatred rears its ugly head on a daily basis and is ingrained in every level of Arab society, including state-sponsored TV and newspapers, the Washington Post is silent. Then, there is an episode of racism in Israel and the coverage begins ["Soccer racism raises concerns in Israel" 2/12/13]. By depicting one example of Israeli racism while ignoring the pervasive racism in Arab countries, it makes it appear as the norm in Israel, and insignificant in the Arab world, when it is clearly the other way around. I was in Amman Jordan just last year, and you couldn't walk by a book store without seeing Hitler's manifesto Mein Kampf prominently displayed (see attached picture). One thing The Washington Post did get right: The behavior by the soccer fans has caused a "national debate" in Israeli society. In Arab countries, however, there is no debate about their racist attitudes toward Jews: it is a national consensus. That is the real news - and the story that The Washington Post missed. Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

Dear Editor, Richard Cohen stated that Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated because he was "determined to make peace," yet he provided no evidence of this assertion. The fact is that every Israeli, even its criminals, wants peace. It was the proposed exchange of land for peace that prompted Rabin's murderer. [“Israel’s grim look within” 2/5/13] Unfortunately, giving up land is no guarantee of peace. Case in point, what did Israel gain by ceding Gaza to the Palestinians? Did it establish peace with Gaza? Not unless you believe that enduring tens of thousands of rockets and mortars fired at your citizens amounts to peace. Michael Berenhaus

Letter to The Washington Post

Hi Mr. Fisher, I was meaning to call you and discuss this but as they say, 'life gets in the way.' The main point that you may want to recheck is the statement that after the 1948 war ended, "one of the areas still under Palestinian control was the Gaza Strip." It was actually Egypt - a pretty important distinction. I have listed a fair number of other points in brackets that are pretty big points as well. I hope you take this in the spirit of making your piece even better. Thanks, Michael Berenhaus, OD Addressing a few points in: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/21/9-questions-about-israel-gaza-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/ 9 questions about Israel-Gaza you were too embarrassed to ask By Max Fisher , Updated: November 21, 2012 2. Whoa! How did that happen? In 1948[actually 1947], the United Nations declared that the British territory known as Palestine would be divided into two independent countries: Israel and Palestine[actually a Jewish and an Arab country - no names were given]. Arab leaders rejected the declaration and invaded to maintain [CREATE - not maintain - there was never a unified, independent Palestine there before - ever] a unified, independent, Arab Palestine [not true - evidence shows that it was a landgrab by Egypt as evidenced by their keeping Gaza and for Jordan as evidenced by their keeping the West Bank]. They lost, and by the time fighting ended, Israel controlled even more of the land than the U.N. declaration had granted the new country. One of the areas still under Palestinian control was the Gaza Strip[not true - even the map associated with this article shows that Gaza became part of Egypt after the 1948]. Israel occupied the territory in 1967, after another war with Arab states but withdrew its troops and settlers in 2005. Israel [don't forget to say - and Egypt] still maintains extremely tight restrictions on trade in and out of Gaza, which has a 40 percent unemployment rate. Thirty-eight percent of Gazans live under the poverty line. Gaza is not an independent country. 3. Who is Hamas, and why do they hate Israel? Hamas is an Islamist militant group based in Gaza, where it won a 2006 U.S.-backed election [Hamas won legislative victories - Premiership was not won by elections but by a coupe against Fatah in June of 2007]. The United States and other countries designate it as a terrorist group. It formed in 1987 as a “resistance” group, pledging to destroy Israel and replace it with an all-Palestinian state. It has since significantly softened its demands to an independent Palestinian state along the 1967 borders (more on this later), but it still does not formally recognize Israel as a legitimate country and still commits violent acts against Israeli troops and civilians. [As far as Hamas softening their demands: The Washington Post squashes this idea - Scott Wilson reported "In Gaza, surge of support for Hamas starts to fade," (11/30/12), that Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas founder and the movement’s foreign minister, states “First, our land is not just the West Bank and Gaza, and that is important. It is all of Palestine.” (meaning Israel) Joel Greenberg also reported in "Exiled Leader of Hamas visits Gaza Strip" (12/8/12) that Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal stated ""I ask God that my fourth birth will be the day when all of Palestine is liberated, " Meshal said. "Today Gaza, and after it Ramallah, then Jerusalem, then Haifa and Jaffa God willing, he said, naming areas Israel occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War along with cities inside Israel."] So Mr. Fisher, with the Foreign Minister and the Hamas leader both still claiming all of Israel for their own as evidenced by The Washington Post's fine reporters, how could anyone still say that their view has softened? Best to you, Michael