To the editor: As an outdated Jew who helps a two-state resolution and as a former Center East editor at Nationwide Public Radio, I need to tackle the younger people who find themselves so outraged by the loss of life and destruction in Gaza that they are saying that they might vote for fv. President Trump. (“In an eye-opener, most California Democrats don’t need US to aspect with Israel,” column, Dec. 18)
Let’s evaluate Trump’s coverage in direction of the Palestinians: He appointed as ambassador to Israel an outspoken supporter of Israel’s unlawful settlements. His authorities declared that it now not thought-about the settlements to be unlawful. Breaking with long-standing American coverage, Trump moved our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, an enormous blow to the face of the Palestinians.
Senior officers within the Trump administration questioned the Palestinians’ means to manipulate themselves. Trump produced a “peace plan” after negotiating solely with Israel – the Palestinians weren’t included. Trump stopped US assist to Palestinians for issues like hospitals, infrastructure and faculties.
Criticize President Biden by all means, however Trump was – and can be once more – a catastrophe for the Palestinians.
Paul Glickman, Sherman Oaks
..
To the editor: I learn George Skelton’s column on Israel with deep disappointment. Hoping for a dialogue concerning the deserves of Israel’s invasion of Gaza, I as an alternative discovered an instance of why many individuals really feel they can not overtly and rationally talk about it.
Skelton quotes a former lawmaker who argues that the dearth of assist for Israel by some Democrats, and particularly younger individuals, stems from an ignorance of historic info and the “loaded phrases” used to explain the state of affairs in Gaza.
On the identical time, Skelton successfully makes use of arguably probably the most loaded phrase within the English language, Holocaust, to rationalize the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians.
Have we realized nothing? What number of extra individuals need to die earlier than we understand that this isn’t a world the place the victims are solely of a sure race or faith?
As I’ve gotten older, I might hoped we would realized one thing about extending our compassion to individuals in a much less unique means. Studying Skelton’s piece makes me extra pessimistic.
Paul Templin, Encinitas
..
To the editor: I must be amazed that there’s a lot assist for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, however I’m not. As a second-generation Holocaust survivor, I’m conscious of anti-Semitism, which existed lengthy earlier than the state of Israel was established, and which can proceed to rear its ugly head perpetually.
Hamas, the terrorist group that by no means agreed to a two-state resolution and controls Gaza, should be changed. If Israel ends the conflict now and leaves Hamas in energy, what would the long run maintain? As on October 7, Hamas would break any ceasefire as quickly because it might regroup and rearm.
This isn’t a conflict over a bit of land. That is an existential conflict that Israel is preventing for its survival.
Sure, city warfare usually leads to important civilian casualties. However Israel has no selection. Eliminating Hamas terrorists now will result in fewer civilian deaths in the long run and a greater future not just for Israelis but additionally for Palestinians.
Linda Goldfinger, Irvine
..
To the editor: I’ve learn letters saying {that a} ceasefire will solely enable Hamas to regroup, which can result in extra Israelis dying and Israel bombing Gaza once more – that it’s higher to destroy Hamas now to free Gaza one as soon as for all.
This jogs my memory of what a US Military Main reportedly stated a couple of village in Vietnam: “It grew to become essential to destroy the city to reserve it.”
That is precisely what Israel is doing in Gaza. The US should use its financial affect to cease the conflict now.
Jon Goldstein, Scottsdale, Ariz.
