A leftist engagement
Regarding ҅ngage Iran DirectlyӠ(Viewpoints, May 26), first the good news: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States would join European negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. The bad news? Such negotiations are conditioned on Iranճ suspension of uranium activities that, in the opinion of most Western nations, is a cover for nuclear arms development.
What raises my hackles is Alon Ben-Meirճ implication that the Bush administration is responsible for Iranճ outrageous and dangerous actions. On the other hand, it is quite understandable coming from a lefty academician.
Mr. Ben-Meir may be a competent international relations professor, but he flunks history. Upon his return to London after meeting with Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlin stated, Ү..after my talks with Herr Hitler that if only time were allowed, it ought to be possibleɓ ad nauseam, ad nauseam. Well, we all know the result of that appeasement.
Does Ben-Meir expect a better result with the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Nowhere in Mr. Ben-Meirճ article is there a single mention that Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that the Holocaust is a myth, and that Israel should be destroyed. Doesnմ Ben-Meirճ argument require Iran to engage Israel directly?
Attention JTNews editors. Why was the article even considered given that the JTNews masthead declares itself Ҕhe voice of Jewish Washington?ӠNot a single reference to Judaism or Israel. Has the JTNews become a vehicle for leftist political expression?
I commend Ron Kampeasճ informative front page article (ҏlmert and Bush meet in the middle,ӠMay 26). Kampeas reports that Olmert agreed to delay unilateral withdrawal from parts of the West Bank and try to promote peace with the Palestinians in accordance with the Ғoad Map.ӠIn return President Bush gave his firmest endorsement to date of Olmertճ plan to go it alone should all else fail.
Olmertճ ңonvergence planӠappears suicidal. I fail to see how the forcible deportation of about 70,000 Jews in parts of the West Bank by its government, the destruction of settlements, and the handing over of parts of the Jewish homeland to its enemies is good for Israel. Israelճ prior withdrawals from South Lebanon and Gaza have played into Al Qaedaճ hands and have increased the terror threat for not only Israel but the civilized world as well. Israelճ enemies will be emboldened to continue attacking civilian centers with rockets and suicide bombers. Israel cannot afford to succumb once again to the delusion that retreating in the face of terror will bring safety and peace of mind.
If Palestinians want to negotiate a lasting peace, they first need to recognize Israel, disarm terror groups and honor prior agreements they made. U.N. resolution 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) call for negotiations to establish ҳecure and recognizedӠboundaries. The Palestinians after electing Hamas, a government committed to Israelճ destruction, and their culture of violence does not present Israel with a credible partner to negotiate peace.
Israelis, weary after so many years under siege, will be making a grave error if they proceed with Olmertճ ill-advised unilateral ңonvergence plan.ӠIt may well result in indefensible borders for Israel and a җest Bank terrorist stateӠat its doorstep.