The Settlements Debate
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Jackson Diehl is wrong ["End the Spat with Israel," op-ed, June 29] on all three counts he raises about the Obama administration's approach to the Middle East peace process.
First, a settlement freeze is absolutely necessary, both to demonstrate that Israel is approaching negotiations in good faith and to avoid reaching a point of irreversibility beyond which the creation of a Palestinian state would simply be impossible. Second, a freeze is achievable, both politically and legally, and if any Israeli government could enforce such a measure, it is a broad-based, right-wing coalition such as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's government. Third, the Palestinians have been taking steps to fulfill their commitments under the "road map" for a peace agreement.
A settlement freeze would entice the Palestinians to take more steps. The Obama administration is not "posturing" but rather -- at long last -- doing the right thing for the future of Israel as a democratic Jewish state and for Israel's future relations with its neighbors.
DEBRA DeLEE
President and Chief Executive
Americans for Peace Now
Washington
