Palestinian State

I read with interest Rabbi Chaim Landau's comment on the possibility that the United Nations could recognize a Palestinian state in September ("Mr. Obama, don't equate Israel with its enemies," May 27). In 1948, the state of Israel was created by the United Nations; Israel had not existed for 2,000 years prior to then. Yet although land was taken from the Palestinians to create Israel, the Palestinians have never been compensated for their loss, nor have they or their descendants been granted any right of return to their ancestral homeland.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must have known how disingenuous he sounded when he professed to be shocked — just shocked! — by President Obama's call on Thursday for a resumption of Israel-Palestinian peace talks based on Israel's 1967 boundaries. That's been the unstated premise for every American-brokered attempt since 1993 to bring about a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians live side by side in peace. For Mr. Netanyahu to wax indignant over Mr. Obama's reference to the 1967 lines as a starting point for negotiations appears only to confirm suspicions that the current Israeli government isn't really serious about making peace on any terms.

President Obama was right to stick by his call for Israel’s 1967 boundaries as a starting point for peace negotiations with the Palestinians, in the face of an outsized reaction from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The statement made in the president’s Thursday speech on the political upheaval in the Middle East was not nearly so earth shaking as Mr. Netanyahu and Israel’s other supposed friends have made it out to be. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has publicly said the same thing, and the lines established prior to the 1967 war have been the de facto basis for all of the recent efforts at reconciliation and establishment of a Palestinian state.

News of last week's terrorist bombing near Jerusalem's central bus station that killed one woman and injured 30 people reawakened traumatic memories of the dark days in Israel between 2001-2004 when bombs exploded regularly in Israel's buses, cafes and streets, killing more than 1,000 innocent people. Those relentless attacks during the second "intifada" were the reason — the only reason — that the Israeli government built its security fence: to end terrorist bombings and protect its citizens.

Historians writing about key turning points in the Middle East 50 years from now may well point to last week when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lost a golden opportunity to enhance Israeli security. Following the end of Israel's partial settlement construction ban at the end of September, which led Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to break off the direct negotiations with Israel that the U.S. had so painfully arranged at the beginning of the month, the U.S. made a series of offers to the Jewish state, linking increased security and diplomatic assistance to Mr. Netanyahu's agreement to the reinstatement of the settlement construction ban for an additional 90 days.

With the departure of the last American combat troops from Iraq, President Barack Obama will tell the nation tonight that he is keeping his pledge to essentially end U.S. involvement in that long and bloody war, and that his administration remains committed to bringing home the 50,000 American troops still there by the end of 2011. But if concluding the war in Iraq — and, eventually, the more difficult fight in Afghanistan — is a daunting prospect, the difficulty it presents is eclipsed by the challenge Mr. Obama will take up Thursday, one that has vexed presidents going back four decades now: achieving lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Will Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement that he accepts the idea of a Palestinian state help move the Middle East toward peace? Yes 25% No 63% Not sure 12% (295 votes, results not scientific) Next poll: : Is the Baltimore Police Department doing a good job of responding to increased reports of criminal activity in and around the Inner Harbor? Vote at baltimoresun.com/vote

Progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict tends to be painfully incremental. But marginal progress is better than none at all, which is why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement Sunday that he is willing to accept a Palestinian state is a welcome development - even if it doesn't go nearly far enough. With Mr. Netanyahu's speech, a milestone has been reached. From this day forward, there can no longer be any serious debate about whether a Palestinian state will (or should)

Israeli voters' preference for hard-liners has left foreign minister and moderate Tzipi Livni in the unenviable position of having won but lost at the same time. With most votes counted, Ms. Livni, the leader of the center-right Kadima party, posted a one-vote win over the rival Likud leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, in parliamentary elections Tuesday. And yet a strong finish by a third party of ultra-nationalists has seriously undermined her chances at forming a government. This embrace of the political right will complicate the United States' efforts to restart meaningful peace talks with the Palestinians.

While Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has committed himself time and again to forging a peace agreement with the Palestinians this year, his government has overseen a robust expansion of Jewish settlements in the contested West Bank. Mr. Olmert is not unlike other Israeli leaders in this respect, talking about peace while ignoring one of the most divisive issues in Israeli-Palestinian relations. The more settlements, the less land will be available for a future Palestinian state. It's a problem that only deepens with time.