Two states would be a disaster; and which one is more important — the sentence or the paragraph?
President's Path Shows Fallacy of Two-State Deal
Stuart Eizenstat cites many true and relevant facts supporting President Barack Obama's Middle East peace policies, for which we should be supportive (Editorial & Opinions: "President's Chosen Path Paves the Way for a Secure Jewish State" June 30). However he drifts into less-secure opinion when he promotes continuing Israeli border concessions to further its security.
No Israeli government can survive massive destruction of settlements (just as no American government can survive massive budget reductions, once the implications become apparent). And no Palestinian state, as currently defined, will tolerate Jewish enclaves within it's sovereignty; nor would many Jews want or consent to live under Palestinian sovereignty.
This is the fundamental fallacy of the "two-state solution" as envisioned by the president and Eizenstat. The potential for future peace rests on recognizing this relevant fact, as well as what it means for Israel to be secure in the present and changing landscape of the Middle East.
Gingrich's Assertions Insult Our Intelligence
As a Republican Israel supporter and a member of the Jewish community, I saw Newt Gingrich's piece (Editorial & Opinions: "Administration's Morally Confused Policies Put Israel in Grave Danger" June 30) as an insult to our intelligence. He rightfully points out that Israel's greatest threats are not obsolete Arab armies but terrorist organizations and an expansionist Iran.
However, he would have us believe that Obama is guilty of "moral confusion" by supporting the same land-swap approach that has marked the last several rounds of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and that anything short of pandering to Israel's right wing will somehow embolden Iran and Hezbollah.
Arab hearts and minds aren't shaped by what the U.S. president says. They're shaped by the situation on the ground. As long as the occupation continues, al-Jazeera and other dictator-run Arab propagandists will always be able to portray Israel as responsible.
Palestinians join terrorist groups because parties like Fatah are weak — and it was the lack of an Israeli negotiating partner that forced Fatah to choose between allying with Hamas and losing face.
Similarly, Arab nations distrust Iranian expansionism, but Iran uses their fear of an "aggressive" Israel to gain influence. Real friends of Israel should support an experienced pragmatist like Jon Huntsman, not an ideologue like Gingrich.
Non-kosher Ingredient Upsets Regular Reader
In many years of reading the Exponent, I assumed that all recipes conformed to kashrut. I note, however, that the recipe on page 26 of the June 30 issue ("A Grilling Q&A") for sauce for grilled chicken calls for butter. I hope such errors will not be repeated.
Editor's Note: We regret the error. We strive to ensure that all recipes are kosher.
Sentence or Paragraph: Which One Matters More?
Regarding Robert Leiter's June 30 review of Professor Stanley Fish's How To Write A Sentence And How To Read One (Books & Writers: "The Elements of Style): According to Leiter, professor Fish puts forth the ability to write a sentence as the bedrock of writing. Everything I have ever read on the subject of writing (including Strunk and White) cites the paragraph, not the sentence, as the primary organizing tool of writing.