Your editorial, "Overheated Rhetoric", Jan. 3, dealing with the issue of Jewish residential communities in Judea and Samaria, or, the area named "West Bank", a term that originated in April 1950 when King Abdallah I illegally annexed them, suggests that, in the circumstances, "exaggerated rhetoric is offensive".
I agree. After all, the only reason no Jews were living in the area prior to 1967 was due to the Arab policy of ethnic cleansing, forcing all the Jews out from places where they lived in Judea, Samaria and Gaza during the 1948 hostilities. Arabs, despite initiating the aggressive war on the morrow of the UN Partition proposal, continued and continue to live in the state of Israel with full civic rights. The rhetoric of peace, if it is to succeed, must allow Israel to insist on the legal right of Jews to live in those territories, whatever political solution is achieved. That right is 3000 years old, was recognized by the League of Nations and President GW Bush already acknowledged their reality in his April 14, 2004 Letter which noted "new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers".
So I posted it there as a comment.
You'd think that if they published the PLO rep's letter*, a letter from a "settler" would be good journalism. Fairness, pluralism, interest, relevance.
In its Jan. 1 editorial “Rash rhetoric,” The Post again offers a faulty analysis of the Palestinian situation. A few points require rebuttal.
First, the editorial downplayed the impact of illegal settlements and settler violence on the daily lives of Palestinians, as well as on the viability of the Palestinian state.
Second, the editorial claimed that in 2008 Palestinians “conceded” areas to Israel. No such thing happened. As is clear in the notes to the 2008 meeting linked to the online version of the editorial, we put forward propositions; we had not conceded anything, since nothing was agreed.
Finally, the editorial asserted that we Palestinians ought to negotiate while settlements continue to be built. How can we negotiate over land that is being usurped as we are negotiating? We can’t. The formula is and has always been land for peace; Israelis can’t have both.
Maen Rashid Areikat, Washington
So, I added another comment:
and as for Areikat's claim - "The formula is and has always been land for peace; Israelis can’t have both" - waitm if there is to be 'territorial compromise', what land are the Pals. offering?
After all, they rejected the 1947 Partition, as I noted, and went to war. Between 1949-1956, they engaged in the fedayeeen terror campaign of incursions, killing hundreds of Israelis, almost all civilians. In 1964, the PLO was founded (and what "Palestine" were they liberating if Arabs held Judea, Samaria and Gaza? oh, it was Israel?) and began another round of terror starting on January 1, 1965. The war in which Israel managed to regain control over its Jewish national home lands in 1967 was defensive.
So, do not the Arabs have to offer territory as part of the compromise which will brong peace?
And if not, what "peace" are they really intending to negotiate with Israel?