Disagrees With Gelman


Susie Gelman in her opinion piece, “Partisanship In U.S.- Israel Relations Endangers Israel’s Security” (June 1) refers to May 14, Israel Independence Day, by the name Palestinians have given it, “Nakba Day.” She appears to suggest that tensions between Israel and the Palestinians are a new phenomenon instigated by the person she calls “the most divisive American President in modern history.” She writes that “the Gaza riots mark a low point in Israeli-Palestinian relations.

Also: “None of the key players has proposed an avenue for reducing tensions and returning to a legitimate peace process.”

One wonders if the idea proposed by the previous administration that Israel return to the pre-’67 borders before peace talks could begin is the legitimate peace process she is referring to.

President Trump, during his announcement regarding the Embassy move, renewed his commitment towards reaching a viable peace agreement. “The U.S. would support a two-state solution if agreed to by both sides,” he said. He reaffirmed established U.S. policy: “We remain deeply committed to helping facilitate a peace agreement that is acceptable to both sides.” Yet Ms. Gelman states, “it is clear to Palestinians that diplomacy will not deliver a promised state.” She admonishes Israel for not finding better options than to use “live fire” during the fight, a fight initiated by people who will be satisfied with nothing less than Israel’s annihilation. Should Israeli soldiers have engaged in conversation while dodging bullets and Molotov cocktails?

The partisanship Ms. Gelman talks about is clearly hers, one that is rooted in a bias that she promotes, one that appears to embrace Palestinian propaganda while it weighs heavily against the one country engaged in a fight for its survival in an ever increasingly hostile and threatening world.

Jamaica, Queens