Clinton should demand Israel honors international law

On Oct. 31, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed Israel was making unprecedented concessions by agreeing to slow down its construction of illegal settlements, built on illegally annexed Palestinian land [“Palestinian leader rejects Israeli plan,” News, Nov. 1].

On the morning of Nov. 2, Israeli bulldozers demolished two Palestinian homes in Jerusalem, and damaged a third in the process.

Before the home demolitions, Israeli police evicted the two Palestinian families, including elderly members who had lived there since before the creation of the state of Israel, after tossing their belongings out in the street.

One resident was hospitalized, and 20 more became homeless. Sadly, such crimes are not unprecedented, and clearly Israel is not slowing down its campaign of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from illegally annexed East Jerusalem.

What would truly be an unprecedented departure from this pattern of condoning and encouraging illegality, is for Clinton, herself a lawyer, to start with demanding that Israel abide by international law.

— Nada Elia, Redmond

Israelis, Palestinians don’t like our meddling

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for far too long.

The differences between the two groups are deep, and no amount of political pressure, especially from a government that is currently resented in much of the Middle East, is going to fix anything in a timely manner.

Dividing the region into two separate states isn’t a perfect solution, but it seems pretty obvious that after so many years of violence, physical separation is the only way to improve security in the region.

Plus, recent polls show the majority of Israelis and Palestinians still support the two-state solution.

The United States must tread carefully, and encourage other nations to support its agenda in mediating this peace process. Too often we are fooled, as a public, into believing we are helping underdeveloped nations and oppressed people, when really the focus is on economic and militaristic control abroad.

The Middle East doesn’t like this meddling — and understandably so. Thus an attempt to remain objective, and keep economic policy out of it, could well facilitate a much smoother transition.

— Steven J. Funcke, Bellingham