Bar of expectations
Regarding “Iron-clad bond” (editorial, May 12): That US President Donald Trump is bypassing Israel on his first Middle East visit since entering into his second term is not insignificant. What he and the leaders he’ll be meeting with discuss and decide on will be selectively shared with Jerusalem; Israeli leaders must be prepared for what will not be shared with them.
While your editorial understandably expresses optimism that the president will prove that he and the United States are entwined with Israel in an iron-clad bond, it would be wise to not place the bar of expectations overly high.
The president has not hidden the truth that he is very much an isolationist who prefers to keep both allies and enemies at a distance. It would therefore be a bit hasty to use achievements during his initial term as a litmus test of sorts. In an editorial not that long ago, you expressed dismay over the president’s empty promise to bring an end to Hamas if the hostages were not released. Why, then, the sudden boost of confidence?
Those three interconnected issues – the Gaza dilemma, Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and expansion of regional normalization – can very easily go the wrong way. Israel may be forced to accept a disastrous ceasefire agreement to have the remaining hostages freed, Iran may wind up making nominal concessions that leave the future uncertain, and normalization might be indefinitely tabled.
David Brinn asked the other day: “Is Trump Israel’s friend or foe?” (May 9). I guess we’ll soon find out.
AMI SHIMON BEN-BARUCHBe’er Ya’acov
Long-term ramifications
In “Has Trump abandoned Israel?” (May 12), Michael J. Salamon relies on rumors, unnamed sources and unconfirmed allegations of improper financial dealings as the basis for questioning the reliability of President Trump’s support for Israel. He fails to consider something more alarming – the psychological makeup of the leaders of Israel and the US, both of whom may be concerned more with self-aggrandizement than what is best for their respective countries.
Benjamin Netanyahu is a prime minister seemingly focused primarily on remaining in power; a PM who allows a large segment of the population to avoid military service in order to maintain his government coalition; a PM who opposes a badly needed state commission of inquiry into the causes of the October 7 atrocities because he might somehow be implicated; a PM who many fear is not sufficiently attentive to our hostages’ plight; a PM who mouths the platitude of “total victory” in Gaza yet gives no indication that he has any plan for “the day after.”
Trump has long lauded himself as a master dealmaker. The person who gets the best deal is the one who is willing to walk away from negotiations if the deal isn’t entirely satisfactory. However, Trump may want to prove his deal-making prowess by imposing on Israel an agreement that brings temporary peace, even if it fails to prevent future conflagration.
One wonders whether these leaders are ignoring the dangers of their actions because they will be gone when the long-term ramifications become evident. If so, a pox on both their houses.
Disagreements between nations are inevitable. Trump remains the most pro-Israel US president in memory. Imagine our perilous situation if Joe Biden or Kamala Harris were president today.
Until now, Trump has concluded that Israel’s interests match those of the US and his own. A changed conclusion would be to the lasting detriment of all concerned.
EFRAIM COHENZichron Ya’acov
Pains of peace
Regarding “‘The pains of peace are preferable to the pains of war’” (May 11): Apparently, the organizers of the People’s Peace Summit are totally ignorant of what transpired on October 7, 2023. In the case of Gaza, the pains of peace lead to the pains of war. Only when two societies with differences both want peace can war be avoided.
A few people from each society singing kumbaya just doesn’t cut it.
RAYMOND ARKINGModi’in
Narcissistic whims
“Hamas expected to release hostage Edan Alexander” (May 12) includes a sub-headline which reads: “Officials concerned US may close deal for one or two captives, then pressure Israel on humanitarian issues.”
That’s precisely the point. Did we suffer the tragedy of six million murdered in the Holocaust and the added nightmare that occurred on October 7 just to be subservient to the narcissistic whims of a New York real-estate developer?
We must say and do what is necessary for our own self-respect and the security of our precious nation and its people.
Yes, our leaders may be flawed, but the time has well passed whereby we must stand up and be counted and confront evil the only way possible, by destroying it.
STEPHEN VISHNICKTel Aviv
Eternal war
In “Avoiding false hopes: Supporting a demilitarized Palestinian state is delusional” (May 11), Louis René Beres makes some valid points. However, the bottom line is that without such a revolution, we are likely to continue eternal war, with the loss of many of our best young people, the loss of many Palestinians, continued and possibly increased diplomatic criticism and isolation, and continued and possibly increased antisemitism.
Of course any agreement would require that the Palestinian state is demilitarized except for internal security needs and that there be territorial swaps that would keep a strong majority of residents of Judea and Samaria within Israel.
The US and other nations should back this initiative and provide financial backing to improve the lives of all in the area, helping convince Palestinians that a conflict resolution is their best option.
If you disagree with this analysis, please indicate another proposal that has the potential to produce a better future for Israel and the Palestinians.
RICHARD H SCHWARTZShoresh