Imposed Solution

With all due regard for Robert Sugarman’s past service to Israel and the Jewish people, his narrow perspective in “The Pressing Need for a Two-State Strategy” (Opinion, Aug. 5) fails to take into account the dynamics of many parties bearing responsibility for the lack of progress in reaching a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The reality is that the world is not waiting on Israel to present a thoughtful peace strategy that assures Israel’s security and paves the way for a Palestinian state. Whether motivated by their hostility to Israel’s challenges or guided by their own internal crises, many of the countries, organizations and NGOs that have inserted themselves into this issue seek to impose a solution on Israel, even as they exclude Israel from sitting at the negotiating table. At the same time, through trade and diplomacy, Israel has engaged in expanding its meaningful alliances in the Middle East and beyond. The choice for diaspora Jewry is whether to stick with the narrow strategy of a “two-state solution,” which often means an imposed resolution, or to support Israel in its quest for expanded alliances and support, within the U.S. and internationally, for meaningful partnerships that will help provide a firm basis for a negotiated solution.