Times' Letters Scrape Bottom

"Israelis, Iranians and Existential Threats,"
A18, Letters to the Editor

In this case, two out of three is bad.

Two of three letters published, in response to Jeffrey Goldberg's recent "Amalek" piece, reflect a disturbing pattern at the Times: letters critical of Israel – no matter how inane or shallow – receive space on its opinion page.

One letter observes that Israel is in a “precarious” state due to “its continuing reliance on military power to solve political problems.” But are Israel’s conflicts with Hezbollah and Hamas diplomatically resolvable? Both militant movements continue to make clear that their problem is Israel’s existence – not its policies.

And does Israel “depend on its nuclear umbrella to dominate the Muslim Middle East," as this same writer absurdly contends, or does Israel depend on its nuclear umbrella to serve as a deterrent to fanatics clearly intent on destroying it?

Israel’s "failure to negotiate”, the writer continues, will do Israel in. “Nuclear parity with Iran,” may even be to Israel’s benefit as it “might shock Netanyahu into finally accepting peace — meaning a state for a people whose existence is truly precarious, the Palestinians.”

First, Israel doesn't need to be threatened with nuclear war to accept Palestinian statehood. They've accepted it, and negotiated for it, many times, only to be rebuffed by a Palestinian movement uninterested in ending the conflict.

Second, far from precarious, the Palestinians’ existence is on quite a strong footing. Palestinian health standards have dramatically increased under Israeli rule; its population has boomed; nearly all Palestinians in the territories live under PA control; they receive unprecedented international attention, backing and funding; all this for a people's movement that does not simply want its own state, but the demise of another.

What's most disturbing here is that the Times would take heed of the idea that Iranian nukes could lead to peace.

In the second letter, Israel may be threatened, but it needn't worry, since it has nukes and a first-rate army. In the third letter, Israel is not even threatened. It just “decimates the infrastructure of Lebanon, the civilians of Gaza, and now threatens Iran.” There’s no Hezbollah, Hamas or radical regime in Tehran controlling both.

“Instead of pre-emptive strikes, a mature, powerful country would engage in diplomacy, mutual agreements and safeguards to assure security, prosperity and peace.” If only Israel had such options.

These letters do not simply offer an alternative view, or criticism, of Israel's policies. They offer nothing constructive, serving merely as anti-Israel counterpoints. One wonders what interesting critiques of Goldberg’s piece were left out because they didn’t fit the Times’ view of the conflict – in which threats to a mighty Israel are supposed, and Arab states' grievances are rooted in concern for justice.

Unfortunately, the letters the Times chooses to publish on Arab-Israeli peace continue to scrape the bottom of the public discourse barrel.