U.S. Should Broker a Mideast Peace

Graham Fuller (“Bush Must See Past the Acts of Terror to the Root Causes,” Commentary, Jan. 29) puts the cart before the horse. He writes, “Ending the occupation is the sole means of beginning to attain peace.” In reality, the first step must be the creation of a belief that a bordering Palestinian state will not be a security threat to Israel. Israel had such a belief while Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were negotiating, but it disappeared when Arafat turned down, without even a counteroffer, Barak’s offer of Palestinian statehood with a part of Jerusalem as the capital.

Arafat’s main excuse for rejecting Barak’s offer was that it did not give refugees the right to return to Israel proper, which, if granted, would subsequently have led to the demise of the Jewish state. This revealed the “real” Arafat, one who wants the elimination of Israel. The failure of Arafat to erase that image, by not curtailing violence, is why President Bush, Ariel Sharon and even the dovish Israeli left feel that Arafat is no longer a relevant negotiating partner. Bush and Sharon are right. The first step on the road to peace is to curb the violence.

The Palestinians will have their state as soon as a majority of Israelis is convinced that the new state will not be a security threat to Israel.

Jules Moster

Los Angeles

*

Bush may be making the worst mistake of his career by distancing the United States from Arafat while welcoming Sharon to the White House on Feb. 7. The only way the U.S. should get involved in this tragic and violent crisis is by attempting to broker peace.

Sharon does not represent the majority of the people of Israel; he is a hawk who intends to provoke a war and win it. His escalating battle of retaliation uses the extremists among Palestinians. As they violently avenge the latest Israeli action, public opinion in Israel and the U.S. turns against the Palestinians. This creates room for Sharon to launch an attack on the PLO and retake the territories, all in the name of “ending terrorism.”

Unfortunately, Bush has surrounded himself with advisors known for their right-wing beliefs and hawkishness. They may even believe that destruction of the PLO leadership would bring about peace. For the U.S. to fall into Sharon’s plan--to give him a green light, in effect, by welcoming him to the White House--is to risk a conflagration in the Middle East that surely will not end there.

Charles Mark-Walker

North Hills

*

Re “Palestinians Have an Alternative to Terror,” letter, Jan. 28: Aaron Levinson is right, the Palestinians do have an alternative to terror, but so do the Israelis. Violence used to induce fear for the sake of political change is terrorism, and it is wrong, even if a state commits it.

Israel has not made a reasonable offer to the Palestinians. The so-called generous offer at Camp David divided Palestine into three sections, with Israel controlling all travel between. It also did not address the right of return or the Old City of Jerusalem, and it left Israel in control of all of Palestine’s borders, as well as a host of other problems. The Israeli government and the Palestinian terrorists are mirror images; both are committed to violence, not peace.

Todd Gallinger

Huntington Beach

*

President Bush’s comments expressing disappointment with Arafat were not only unfortunate but untimely (“Arafat Helping Foster Terror, Bush Declares,” Jan. 26). Arafat has virtually been made a prisoner, surrounded by Israeli tanks, while F-16 fighters are destroying the police facilities that he is supposed to use in order to arrest the militants who have been terrorizing Israel. This administration is in the process of destroying any influence this nation has for fairness and credibility in solving this complicated situation. It may be time for the European Union or United Nations to intercede, or else the matter may explode into unimaginable violence.

Wally Armstrong

Torrance