U.S. Middle East policy

Israel-Palestine relations

Recently, some letter writers to The Star (6/6) have stated that “the two-state solution (of Israel and Palestine) is no longer viable.” Rather, they say a single state for both Jews and Arabs is preferable.But anyone with even a modest knowledge of history knows that the wounds and barriers, both real and psychological, between these two peoples over the past 60-plus years render that improbable anytime soon.

Living next door to Israel with its vibrant press, where dissent is more freely expressed than in the U.S., Palestinians appreciate and even envy this and other aspects of Israeli life, while they are understandably critical of how they perceive their neighbor is treating them.

If both Israelis and Palestinians keep in mind that a single state might be in their foreseeable future, they’ll continue perfecting their respective states. This process reduces the animosity between them and, within a few years, would create even stronger ties, including the possibility of a single state.

However, without this interim step of the two states living side-by-side in peace for several years, the idea of both peoples agreeing to create one state seems impossible.

Allan Abrams
National board member, Kansas City chapter leader, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, the Jewish Alliance of Justice and Peace
Prairie Village

Why be Israel’s big brother?

Sen. Obama recently appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful lobbying group supporting Israel, and stated that as president he would be uncompromising in his defense of Israel’s security.

I continue to read about issues related to the Middle East and wonder why our country continues to see itself as Israel’s big brother. It is clear that a great many of our national problems stem from our government’s determination to ensure the security and well being of the nation of Israel.

I certainly understand the practicalities behind this long-standing policy. Our country has a large Jewish population, which strongly favors support for Israel. Those individuals and their organizations vote for and contribute to politicians.

But, other than as a matter of political expediency for individual office holders, why as a nation do we have to invest so much of our own national well-being in the fate of Israel? I cannot see where it is in our national best interest to continue to focus on what is best for Israel as opposed to what is best for our own country. Among other things, we are alienating the people with the oil.

Glenn E. Bradford
Kansas City

Comments

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

The best policy for the MIddle East would be the Stealth Bomber policy.

[renfro]

G.E. Bradford wonders why “we have to invest so much of our own national well-being in the fate of Israel?” --- By intention or accident Barack Obama professes uncompromising defense of Israel’s security for “our wellbeing” not the Israelis. The Israelis persevere. They have the guts without the resources to combat and defend against world terrorism while candidate Obama leads a political party with resources and no guts!
If elected, President Obama and America will need Israel more than they need us!

[solomon]

katman,

As far as FDR, there was no nation of Israel in the 30s, although I'll be right behind you if what you're saying is the Christian nations sat by while Hitler did his thing. but remember, the Jewish problem had been a social and political hot potato for centuries before WWII. From earliest Christian times, when the hot button was to brand Jews as Christ killers and change Christ into a European image, to the inquisition and expulsion of Jews from Spain to the Ghettos of Eastern Europe Jews have been discriminated against by our good Christians.

The worst thing Jimmy did was hold true to a Middle Eastern policy that bred the climate we have now. As ineffectual as he was, he inherited a bag of shaving cream, be nice and clean, shave every day and you'll always look keen.

[katman]

Solomon, that statement wreaks with absolutes such as 'always' & 'never'. The 'anti' presidents were many including FDR & Jimmy Peanut Carter.

[solomon]

katman,

All Presidential candidates who want to be elected pander to the Jews.

[T. Hanson]

"Sen. Obama recently appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committe"

"Gov. George Bush appeared before Bob Jones University"

Do you think in both cases they would say something that would go against either group during an election year?

[katman]

Glenn Bradford, you have opened Pandora's Box with your comments exposing your bigotry towards Jewish people. You show little understanding of the history of the State of Israel & obviously have never been there.

Your views coincide with those of Iran & I think are very dangerous. I won't even go so far as to mention Obama's pandering to AIPAC.

Both FDR & the NY Times (Jewish owned then) turned their back on the Holocaust (Buried In The Times) thus helping Hitler implement the Final Solution. LEST WE FORGET Your ignorance angers me.