Clash of views on the Mideast

Re “Annapolis is just the first step,” Opinion, Nov. 26

An example cited by Aaron David Miller is a perfect illustration of the single greatest weakness in the post-Oslo accords Mideast peace process. As an example of a successful conference, Miller cites the Wye River accords, “which produced an agreement on security for Israelis and gradual withdrawal from the West Bank for Palestinians.” That’s right: Israel withdrew from territory on the West Bank, which remains under Palestinian control, and Israel got an agreement on security, which remains nothing more than an unfulfilled promise.

Yet Israel is expected to give up more assets in exchange for a repetition of the same promises that have proved worthless in the past. Israel should not be expected to make additional concessions until the Palestinians take irrevocable steps to fulfill their as-yet-unfulfilled promises to recognize Israel and eliminate terrorism. Otherwise, history will continue to repeat itself as tragedy.

Yaakov Har-Oz

Beit Shemesh, Israel

Miller omits a crucial fact. The United States and Israel have historically been rejectionist when it comes to peace in the Middle East. The short-term goal of Israel, with the discreet backing of the United States, has always been to maintain the status quo in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. The long-term goal has always been to force the Palestinians out of Judea and Samaria and incorporate this “sacred ground” into Israel proper.

Miller also mentions terrorism. By far most of the terrorism in this conflict has been inflicted by Israel against the Palestinians.

Robert Lentz

Sylmar