Ed­i­to­rial didn’t paint the whole pic­ture

The Hamilton Spectator - - OPINION -

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

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.