I regularly read Jonathan Freedland’s perceptive articles and appreciate his informed perspective. May I take issue with his contention that many of those who have been advocating a ceasefire in Gaza are making mistaken assumptions that lead them to draw false and dangerous conclusions (Too many taking sides in this conflict miss the true nature of Hamas – and Netanyahu, 17 November). He claims they believe that “given all that Gaza has suffered, surely now Hamas will be deterred from future attacks”.
Israelis who have been calling for a ceasefire, I among them, harbour no such illusions about Hamas. We oppose further destruction of Gaza and the horrendous loss of life first of all, because we find it deeply immoral. Can this really be justified by Hamas’s unspeakable atrocities? And second, because these actions are counterproductive – they exacerbate the conflict, and have very likely delayed and complicated an agreement to release our hostages.
Golda Meir is reputed to have said: “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.” This sentiment is sadly still so pervasive here in Israel. The population of Gaza is suffering? It’s all Hamas’s fault, they should have known what was coming to them. As if mighty Israel were merely the passive instrument of Hamas’s evil machinations. Until we accept some responsibility for our actions, the prospect for peace remains bleak.
Avner Greenberg
Kfar Vradim, Israel
• In an otherwise informative article, it is a little difficult to believe that Jonathan Freedland is seriously suggesting that the US administration, and Israel’s other allies, are unaware that Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition are utterly opposed to a two-state solution. Tragically, a two-state solution seems beyond the current horizon, while the world is consumed with the aftermath of Hamas’s terror attack, Israel’s response, and the disagreements over calling for humanitarian pauses or a permanent ceasefire.
Regarding a ceasefire, can we look back to the precedent of 1982? Hillel Schenker, co-editor of the Palestine-Israel Journal, has made a proposal on the Times of Israel’s website, arising from years of active involvement in the struggle for peace. His proposal is for a ceasefire founded essentially on the following conditions:
(1) The exit of the Hamas leadership, perhaps to Qatar, similar to the exit of Yasser Arafat and the PLO leadership to Tunis in 1982 during the first Lebanon war.
(2) An exchange of all Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners currently held in Israeli jails.
(3) The creation of an interim international regime to rule over Gaza, organised by perhaps the US, European countries, UN agencies and Arab governments, this regime being a necessary precursor to a new Palestinian government in Gaza.
Prof Stephen Ogin
London
• Raja Shehadeh’s article about the failure of Israel to achieve a just peace after the six-day war (Israel has long wanted Palestinians out of Gaza – my father saw it firsthand, 20 November) fails to mention the Khartoum resolution of 1 September 1967, which emerged from a summit of all the Arab heads of state. This declared that the framework of principles governing Arab collective action would include “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it”. This gives a clearer context than anything in his article for Israel’s belief that its continued survival required it to retain control over the extra territory it had acquired in 1967.
Prof Rowland Wymer
Cambridge
