Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, January 1, 2008 05:58 PM

  The gun-negotiation nexus

  Does Michael Bloomberg actually believe that Israel should not negotiate if a so-called "gun" is pointed at its collective head? In my experience, no one negotiates unless some kind of figurative or metaphorical gun is pointed at them - otherwise, one just takes what one wants or waits for what one wants. As for the non-metaphorical plane of existence, it seems obvious that there is no more critical time to start talking than whan a gun is pointed your way. If the Israeli political establishment actually wants peace as a precondition for peace negotiations, they are either being disingenuous or the biggest cry-babies on earth. Maybe Churchill and the Great Britain of 1940 refused to parley with Hitler, but like the Israel of today there were real obstacles, such as the English Channel and the Royal Navy, to an invasion by their enemies. In other words, British defiance was more calculated and less heroic than it might seem. More importantly, the British - like the Israelis today - ultimately counted on the USA to come to their rescue. In the present case, maybe the Israelis would be more likely to dispense with neo-Churchillian posturing and actively seek peace with neighorging Arab countries and entities - far less powerful and far less evil than Nazi Germany - if the Bush Administration (and its successor) were more neutral in the Middle East.

  —Anonymous
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel