Israel-PLO Peace Pact

* In response to “Group Hopes to Sell U.S. Jews on Israel-PLO Pact,” Sept. 25:

Americans for Peace Now asking “how can American Jews oppose peace in the Middle East” is group libel--but by members of the group. Neither American Jews nor American Gentiles “oppose peace in the Middle East.”

But here as well as in Israel both question whether it isn’t a move toward war rather than peace for the only democracy and true friend of the U.S. in the Middle East to risk its defendability in exchange for a paper promise of peace from the world’s terrorist leader in violence, blackmail and deception and from the world’s equal to the “Baghdad Hitler,” i.e., Hafez Assad of Syria.

Deterring Middle Eastern fundamentalism by “lands for peace” is a mirage. Power wielders retain power by chameleon allegiances. The constant is that appeasing with “lands for peace” invites further demands and war.

Trading “peace for peace,” not “lands for peace,” is the sane course.

LEONARD HORWIN

Beverly Hills

* Michael Parks accurately captured the motivation for the film which Carol Polakoff and I are making for Americans for Peace Now. However on one quote, a word was left out that substantially altered the import of what I was saying. “Some American Jews are ready to fight to the last Israeli.” I am keenly aware that the majority of American Jews have supported the notion of Israel’s trading territories for peace and thus are staunch supporters of the new peace initiatives between the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Israel.

It is an increasingly smaller, more vocal minority who are convinced that security is about maintaining the status quo, or worse, annexing the territories and expelling the Arabs. The majority of Jews in America are supporters with a certain hesitation and anxiety. This is understandable. The purpose of our film is to reach out and calm some of these anxieties in order that Israelis can enjoy the support and solidarity from their American Jewish brothers and sisters, which they deserve, to help them through the tremendous risks and challenges of making peace.

AHAVIA SCHEINDLIN

National Vice President

Director of Development

Americans for Peace Now, New York

* Your Sept. 14 editorial argues that the Palestinians have rejected coexistence with Israel “until now.” On the contrary, the PLO has accepted since the 1970s a two-state solution--Israel alongside a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Arab Jerusalem, and Gaza. This is still the PLO goal. Sadly, until now, Israel and the U.S. have rejected this equitable solution.

Your editorial stresses that the “security of (Israel’s) land and people” are Israel’s foundation for any agreement. But no agreement will work, nor should it, which does not safeguard Palestinian land, much of which Israel has confiscated, and the Palestinian people. Why no mention of Palestinian needs?

Finally, you ask Palestinians to “put aside” the past. But this is impossible as long as Israel violates Palestinian human rights, and international law, and rejects self-determination for Palestinians. Those human rights violations include systematic torture, which is the “norm,” according to Amnesty International and other human rights groups.

Perhaps when American politicians and the media put aside their double standards, Israel will finally be willing to grant justice and security to Palestinians--an end in itself and the crucial means to Israeli security.

EDMUND R. HANAUER, Exec. Dir.

Search for Justice and Equality

in Palestine/Israel

Framingham, Mass.

* Your editorial (Sept. 16) pleading more money for the Palestine antagonists baffles logic. Can’t we assume that the dramatic events of the past month will be an opportunity for these people to go to work and stop fighting? They are capable of making their own development plans, and funding them without hitting us.

The Palestinians, granted more independence and security, can certainly do this without handouts from the U.S. They will remain preoccupied for some time in arranging their new internal personal challenges. That we have to pay for assisting the coming of peace is not only an old and worn canard, it is ridiculous.

With regard to Israel, our annual entitlement grant of a minimum $3 billion-plus--this year $10 billion in loan guarantees and a naval base at Haifa--should certainly be enough in view of our own needs and their increased security. To say that Israel needs more arms is silly. Israel is already by far the best-armed and strongest military power in the area. More American arms pumped into the area will inhibit the delicate negotiating for peace.

EDWARD SHUCK

Thousand Oaks