Editorial didn’t paint the whole picture

RE: Mideast peace won’t come easily (May 19)

The essence of the L.A. Times piece, that Trump was being ignorant about the ease of negotiating a Mideast peace, is correct. However, in listing important points of contention, the L.A Times included such things as “dispossession,” “imprisonment” and “refugees.”

The borders of most Middle Eastern countries, including a future Israel, were decided by the League of Nations after the First World War. By 1922, the British took 79 per cent of the land set aside for the Jews to create Trans-Jordan (later Jordan). By 1947, the British tried to partition the remaining 21 per cent and give half to the Arabs, but the Arabs turned it down, attacking the fledgling Jewish state in 1948. Today, Israel sits on merely 0.17 per cent of the Middle East but the Arabs still want it all. So who, exactly, is being dispossessed?

And since only Israel does the imprisonment, would the L.A. Times prefer Israel just execute its enemies as the Palestinians do? As for refugees, why does the L.A. Times not question why, after 69 years, they were never settled in Jordan, the original two-state solution, or why this is the only instance where refugee status is handed down to future generations? Most glaringly, the L.A. Times failed to mention the Palestinian charters, their incitement to hate and their support of terrorism.

The editorial seemed to be making an effort for balance but if it were truthful, it would have laid the greater fault on the anti-Jewish Arabs who have perpetrated this conflict for over 70 years. Steven Scheffer, Burlington