Differing Assessments of Land-for-Peace Deals

Re “Brave Use of Land-for-Peace,” editorial, Feb. 22: You suggest that the World Court ruling on Israel’s placement of its wall is “only advisory,” and you advocate that Israel give Palestinians “some of its own vacant territory” as compensation.

The whole purpose of Israel’s settlement strategy is to confiscate the most valuable Palestinian land -- including that surrounding Jerusalem and that which sits atop aquifers in the West Bank. For Israel to offer vacant land as a substitute would be meaningless.

As for the World Court ruling, one reason the international community has been unable to enforce its demands on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian land is the United States’ veto in the U.N. Security Council.

In April 2002, President Bush stood on the White House lawn and declared that “Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end.” Bush echoed that sentiment again this week on his tour of Europe (“Bush Speech Chides Russia,” Feb. 22).

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will continue to do what he pleases until the Bush administration asserts itself and demonstrates that Israel will face economic and diplomatic consequences if it does not live up to its obligations to the president, the Palestinians and the world.

Khaled Galal

San Francisco

*

Your editorial is misleading in its presentation of the Gaza withdrawal plan and West Bank security fence construction as a shadowy and unfair land grab on the part of Israel. This is simply not the case. Part of the logic behind Sharon’s Gaza withdrawal plan is that it makes no sense to support a Jewish presence of less than 8,000 people amid a community of 1 million Palestinians. Likewise, constructing the security fence to include Gush Etzion and Maale Adumim -- which have always been openly called Israeli towns -- is a logical move.

These towns are Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem, with hundreds of thousands of Jews and few Palestinians. It makes no sense to think that Israel might withdraw from them, and it is much more likely that, should a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians occur, the territory on which Jewish towns are built will remain as part of Israel, and the Palestinians may be offered other areas in exchange.

This peace process is a compromise, and both sides have to realize that a final peace deal will mean that neither party ends up with its ideal situation realized. That is the nature of politics.

Amitai Adler

Los Angeles