Choice of Letters

Letters to the Editor

A group of letters appeared in the editorial section of the NY Times on Thursday about the editorial "Perils of an Israeli Transition." As far as the Times is concerned, Olmert's decision to sort-of resign is only significant in as much as it affects the "peace process."

The first letter, written by Stuart Pilichowski, an Israeli, is excellent, as it points out that "roadblocks aren’t strangling the Palestinian economy. Increased attempts at terrorism against Israelis are" - a point to which I alluded in "NY Times Solution" on Tuesday, August 19.

Pilichowski also notes the silliness of "turning Hamas into a legitimate and acceptable negotiating partner."

The second letter written by Michael F. Brown is simply repulsive, as Brown compares Benjamiin Netanyahu to George Wallace. This is an extremely weak analogy - one that the Times printed only to slander Netanyahu.

Brown goes onto to state that "Israeli settlement and barrier construction in the West Bank [will make] two states impossible." I am intrigued and would like elaboration since I don't think this argument is supportable.

The slander of Israel continues, as an analogy is made to apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow in the South. Eventually, he offers his ideal solution, which is a denial of the Jews' right to self-determination. It is "possible for Jews and Palestinians to live as equals" in one state, according to Brown. Brown is the co-chairman of the board of the Interfaith Peace-Builders (IPB), which has ties to the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. As required, IPB has the requisite number of pro-Palestinian Jews on staff.

The third letter is an anti-Bush statement, which is a Times favorite.

Just when one thought that a letter could be no worse than Brown's, the Times prints Steve France, who calls Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu "true peacemakers" and says "Israel is the aggressor and is still wedded to intimidation, violence and lies." Lord, Lord, Lord.

Michael J. Granoff, thankfully, restores a semblance of reason and compassion to the letters' section. It is best to simply read his remarks, as they are spot on. In short, he says that undue pressure is applied to Israel to secure a deal and that expectations of Palestinians are not high enough for a deal to be sealed.

Abes