All four of today's letters are critical of Friday's editorial and present an alternative vantage point for viewing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Several comments stand out for their astuteness.
Menachem Z Rosensaft, in counterdistinction to the skepticism of NYT's editorial board, sees promise in Netanyahu's statement that his government will be a "partner for peace."
For the peace process to succeed, "it must have the support [those] most likely to distrust its very feasibility," Rosensaft sagely states.
Jessica Weber asks why NYT questions Netanyahu's commitment to peace rather than focusing on how Hamas is the obstacle to an agreement. "A rebuke of Hamas' unwillingness to acknowledge Israel's right to exist" is in order, she writes.
NYT's "criteria [for Netanyahu] are the same cant that has been recycled for years," remarks Nathan J Diament. The editors "should be open to new thinking," he advises.
Finally, Tom Rockland says that all Israeli leaders want peace, but some, like Netanyahu, are skeptical that "peace is attainable" because no Palestinian partner exists.
Once again, NYT readers demonstrate that they are more reasonable than the paper's editors.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment