Readers React: Religion vs. peace in the Mideast

Re “The victim barrier,” Opinion, April 29

Christopher J. Fettweis makes a cogent argument that the tendency of both the Israelis and the Palestinians to hold on to memories of injustices makes it very difficult for either side to compromise.

Yet I would suggest there is another reason for both sides to claim the exclusive high moral ground: the belief by influential sections of both communities that God has promised all of the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River exclusively to them, making any two-state solution a religious abomination.

Muslim suicide bombers believe it is God’s will for them to kill their enemies. On the other side, a minority of Israelis (and an essential component of the prime minister’s governing coalition) interpret the Old Testament as God’s covenant with the Jews that all of ancient Israel belongs to them.

Until the voices of pragmatic compromise on both sides can overcome the religious zealots who preach the absolute truth of their interpretations of God’s will, the conflicting divine promises will make a peaceful resolution impossible.

Cyril Barnert

Los Angeles

Fettweis’ analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as centering on disparate yet defining narratives of historical victimhood does justice to both while simultaneously serving neither.

Throughout history, as George Orwell knew only too well, whomever dictates the story sets the agenda for the present and controls the past’s ancestors and the future’s progeny.

Simultaneous acknowledgment — while not signifying agreement or acceptance — of the role each narrative plays in the emotional infrastructures of each people’s political bloodlines would open the conflict to an array of options that were previously thought impossible.

Marc Rogers

Sherman Oaks