Bush’s Stance on Israel

Re “Bush Must Answer Sharon,” editorial, April 27: The Times criticizes President Bush’s recent acknowledgment of the obvious: that in any resolution of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, large settlement blocs will remain in Israel, and Palestinian refugees will have to settle in an eventual Palestinian state rather than overwhelm the state of Israel.

The Times cannot be more wrong. What Bush has done is no different from his previous pronouncements, unprecedented by an American president, in favor of an independent Palestinian state. Why did that not prejudge the outcome of the negotiations between the parties and inhibit the president’s ability to act as an impartial mediator? Because it is a mediator’s job to tell the parties hard truths so they do not cling to unrealistic expectations that make meaningful negotiations and difficult compromise impossible.

Until the Palestinians recognize what is and what is not feasible to achieve, they will cling to the unreasonable demands that led Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat to reject unprecedented Israeli concessions four years ago at Camp David and at Taba. The result of Arafat’s intransigence has been a moribund peace process, the unleashing of a Palestinian wave of terrorism and the inevitable, resultant hardship on Palestinians as Israel attempts to protect its citizens. It’s long overdue that someone told them the truth.

Jeff Kandel

Los Angeles

*

The Times underestimates the damage that Bush has done to American security by continuing to dance to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s tune. In spring 2002, former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote of “a nearly unanimous global consensus that United States policy has become one-sided and morally hypocritical, with clear displays of sympathy for Israeli victims of terrorist violence and relative indifference to the (much more numerous) Palestinian civilian casualties.”

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned recently that “there exists today a hatred [of the U.S.] never equaled in the region” (April 21). And on Monday, 50 former British diplomats stated in an open letter to British Prime Minister Tony Blair that U.S. Middle East policies were “doomed to failure.”

By ignoring the U.N., conducting an illegal war on Iraq and now endorsing Sharon’s land grab of West Bank territory, Bush is destroying any semblance of a world order and promoting a future of chaos, hopelessness and terror.

Ken Galal

San Francisco

*

Your editorial omits certain salient points. The Palestinian insistence on the “right of return” is nothing more than an admission that they wish to destroy Israel and have no intention of living side by side in peace; Israel is under no obligation to commit national suicide. All wars create refugees; Israel settled hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab lands. Why shouldn’t the Arabs settle their own, particularly Arab refugees from wars instigated by Arabs?

Also, U.N. Resolution 242 mentioned Israel returning “territories,” not “the territories,” implying that Israel would retain control of part of the West Bank. The Times never answers the question of why more than a million Arabs can live behind the green line but the West Bank should be Judenrein, or “cleansed” of Jews.

Finally, the Hamas leaders were genocidal anti-American/anti-Semitic killers; we should rejoice that they are gone.

Jonathan Matthew

Agoura Hills

*

Sharon should not be called the “Butcher of Beirut” (letter, April 27). Sharon, or any Israeli, for that matter, did not kill any Arab. That massacre was carried out by Christian Phalangist militiamen: Arabs killing Arabs. True, Sharon was cited by Israel in that matter. He knew, or should have known, that a massacre might occur.

As for Arafat, he is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the deaths of dozens of innocent Israelis, many of them children. The condition of immunity from assassination or deportation was removed. This was not a threat to assassinate. How many Israelis would still be with families rather than in their memories had it not been for Arafat?

Sheldon Kronfeld

San Diego

*

I am disgusted that Bush doesn’t have the guts to tell Sharon publicly that if he insists on trying to assassinate Arafat, he can forget about any further help from the U.S. I find Arafat despicable. But you cannot willy-nilly assassinate elected leaders. Bush obviously doesn’t care that he is further placing our troops, along with the rest of us, in grave danger from the increasing hatred of the Arab world.

Lisa Eriksen

Redondo Beach

*

The U.S. can search the mountains of Pakistan in order to kill Osama bin Laden, but Sharon cannot harm Israel’s Bin Laden without world outcry. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

Jonathan Grossman

Huntington Beach