Readers React: The problems for Middle East peace

To the editor: Your editorial frames the diplomatic challenges well. It seems logical that a meaningful pact between Israel and the West Bank, including no new settlements, would allow Palestinians in the West Bank the chance to build an independent society and would give Israel some security on that front.
(Re “What’s next for Gaza,” Editorial, Aug. 27)

However, as long as Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, and as long as Hamas puts Gazan civilians’ lives at risk as the central pillar of its military strategy, peace on that front seems impossible.
That is the core dilemma, or perhaps folly, of the peace process.

Jonathan M. Rosen, Albany, N.Y.

..

To the editor: Only naive Americans and idealistic peace promoters would suggest peace negotiations toward a two-state solution with a democratically elected regime of terrorists (yes, not militants) whose aim is to annihilate one partner of the two-state “solution.”

Susanne Spira, Beverly Hills

..

To the editor: There will be peace when the Arabs are committed to it. The Times says that a two-state solution will help put the lie to the argument that armed struggle is the only way forward for the Palestinian people. But that lie is already clear.

If Hamas’ leadership cared about improving the lives of its people, it would take the capital it invests in building networks of terrorist tunnels under the border and invest it in developing business opportunities for its people.

Imagine if you were Hamas. You would gain power when you lead poor people driven by pain and anger at an external enemy. If the Gazan leaders cared about their people, they would send them into bomb shelters. After all, they know how to make tunnels.

Lisa Kassner, Northridge

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion