The Nov. 24 editorial ‘Door Ajar or Closed’ is well written, and moderate in voice, and I see some evidence that you have tried to be fair to both the Israeli and Palestinians sides. But I am baffled that you have written, “Yet the aggressive rhetoric of both Abbas and Fayyad, while playing to their own extreme base, tends to undercut the potential for effective peace negotiations.”

Even the utterly biased, blind, strongly pro-Israel, Obama administration considers Abbas and especially Fayyad as voices of reason and moderation; Obama has never accused Abbas of having either extreme views or having an extreme base of support. So, I wonder what prompted you to claim that the two of them have a base and supporters with extreme views?

You have also written: “Last week in St. Louis, Kenneth Jacobson, Deputy National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, told a group of local Jewish leaders that it was perhaps a mistake for President Barack Obama to have moved the issue of the Jewish settlements to the front burner by referring to the issue in his speech at Cairo University, in which he was reaching out to the Arab and Muslim worlds.”

Since it is widely recognized that the settlements in the occupied territories are illegal per international laws and also United Nations resolutions, why was the President wrong to mention the settlements in his Cairo speech? It would be helpful if you rethink about your position and what you have written.

Yesh Prabhu

Bushkill, Penn.