Mideast Talks: Two Sides Must Agree on Terms

Re “Bolstering Arab Reforms,” editorial, Dec. 16: Shouldn’t policy proposals have some basis in reality? Your editorial makes some astonishing assumptions about the prospective benefits of U.S. funding for additional education for girls in Arab countries. It assumes that an Arab country can be found that will permit foreign, let alone U.S., interference in its Muslim-oriented educational system. Then it assumes that, because girls would get a better education, the men who control everything will grant them opportunities. Both assumptions have a low prospect of happening.

Your editorial further wisely states that “the best prospect for Middle East peace remains an end to the killing.” The Palestinian Authority claims no control over Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hezbollah, Tanzim and other assorted “militant” groups. Every one of these groups publicly vows to continue fighting -- not until there is a Palestinian state but until Israel no longer exists. Even if one more Arab state is established along with the other 22 Arab states, their killing will not stop. For Israel, peace is not the establishment of a Palestinian state but the end of killing. What is there for the diplomats to ask of Israel to negotiate, when for so many militant Arabs the minimum terms to stop the killing require the end of the “Zionist entity”?

Gary Dalin

Venice

*

Secretary of State Colin Powell’s initiative to help reform economic, political and educational systems in the Arab world will fall on deaf ears unless the Bush administration improves its image by taking a more balanced approach to the Palestinian question. Most studies indicate a declining image of the U.S. in the Arab and Muslim world. Such a decline could reverse itself if we put more pressure on the Israelis and Palestinians to come to a peaceful solution. Improving the educational and political systems are the last things on the minds of the Arabs, who see the homeless Palestinians as a much more pressing issue.

John Youssef

Woodland Hills

*

Re “Carter Is Willing to Mediate Mideast Peace Talks if Asked,” Dec. 13: How interesting that a Nobel Peace Prize winner declares his willingness to play mediator with regard to Middle East peace negotiations and then proceeds to declare that the U.S. failure to obtain a peace agreement is because the country is too pro-Israel. Is it any wonder why his administration will probably go down in history as one of the most ineffectual and weak presidencies -- after reading such a declaration of desire to act as mediator? Imagine: the U.S. acting too much in favor of a democracy.

Richard Becker

Valencia