Hillary Clinton hasn’t earned praise as Israel supporter

Per your edition of April 22, 2009, your editorial states the new President is supportive of Israel, mainly due to his boycotting of the racist Durban II Conference. I applaud him for that; he is truly a remarkable individual and I totally respect his endeavors.

However, Hillary Clinton, in retrospect, is in no way, whatsoever the supporter of the Jewish Homeland as you so describe. What horrible audacity she had, while on Israeli soil, she stood there recently and criticized for attacking civilian targets during the Gaza War. She made one slight, tiny remark about how despicable the enemy is for having fired rockets on innocent civilians, the latter of which is on a daily basis! I, therefore, cannot comprehend how the Light praises her.

I am not ‘picking’ on her because she is a woman; I could not care less; I do know, however, that in reality, she is truly a brilliantly intelligent woman but continues to be more of a critic than a friend to Israel.

In finality, she also fails to recognize that Israel is the sole ally to this great country of ours in the Middle East, and has been for decades.

Howard Sandler, University City

Requisites to safe peace in Middle East

The editorial contained in the St. Louis Jewish Light of April 22, 2009, “One State, Two State, Red State, Blue State”, in assessing the problem of the “Road Map” and its “Two-State Solution” primarily in terms of the shortcomings of the parties’ diplomacy, does not get to the crux of the matter.

The problem relates much more to substantive issues such as when will the Palestinian Authority stop its bombardment of the Israelis; stop harboring terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad; stop receiving armaments from Iran for use against Israel’s citizens; delete from its Charter in clear and unmistakable terms, its Covenant to destroy Israel; recognize Israel’s status as a Jewish State; withdraw its demand for “resettlement of refugees”, a code phrase for the destruction of Israel; and stop spreading hatred of Israel through schools and media, and otherwise calling for its destruction.

The assumptions made in your article that the establishment of a Palestinian State next to Israel would be a step toward peace are not borne out by the historical record. There is no more reason to believe that Israel’s security will be respected now any more than it was in 1948, 1956, and pre-war 1967 – at all times of which there were no Israeli settlements, nor control by Hamas of Gaza or the West Bank.

In 1973, Israel was subjected to the Yom Kippur War, followed by a series of “Intifadas” and for the past nine years, almost constant rocketing. In 2000, pursuant to the Camp David Accords, Israel offered virtually all of the West Bank together with a shared arrangement of capitals in Jerusalem, but the offer was rejected without benefit of a counteroffer.

As demonstrated by the extremely narrow and costly victory in the Yom Kippur War, Israel’s pre-1967 boundaries are not defendable. For Israel, the emergence of a Palestinian State on her border would not be a risk-free operation in which it simply works or not. What is at risk is the survival of the State. Your article concludes that “ultimately, a simple and significant choice rests with the people of Israel”, the alternative to which is to “continue to zig-zag between leaders of opposing views.” Such conclusion contradicts the historical facts of Israel’s consistent efforts toward peace, answered by constant rejection. The actions against Israel have not been and are not matters of choice on her part. They are within the control of the Palestinians and are the keys to peace.

Arthur Slonim, Olivette