- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
JonathanInTelAviv: "I agree with you that Israel's stopping the expansion of settlements can help reduce tensions, and therefore help move towards a solution by showing Israeli goodwill in the eyes of moderate Palestinians, thereby strengthening them."
Cool. Which is to say, you agree with me that settlement expansion in the West Bank significantly undermines the peace process. (I don't mean misrepresent your position - please correct me if I am wrong here.)
JonathanInTelAviv: "The conditioning you propose eliminates that effect, since then if Israel "caves in" it will be seen as weakness by Israel, instead of goodwill."
I disagree. Israel's adversaries are already well aware of Israel's weakness with respect to being reliant on U.S. "aid." As such, how would Israel's "caving in" to the U.S.'s condition that Israel stop settlement expansion to continue receiving said aid be perceived as an additional weakness?
And even if it were, how would that additional weakness undermine the peace process more than continued settlement expansion does now?
And do you agree that if the United States were to condition their aid Israel on stopping settlement expansion that it would be perceived an intention of getting serious with respect to the Israeli/Palestinian peace process on the part of the United States?
