I am a fairly educated person. I have a doctorate and I have run my own business for over twenty years. I am in my fifties, a father and grandfather, and I have been following news out of Israel since the Six Day War, when I was

I am fairly good at understanding most things.

only 11 years old.


I was taken hostage by the PLO in a 1970 hijacking that led to Black September; and I have lived in Israel for the last 10 years. I am fairly good at understanding most things.


But I often hear political leaders make assertions that are expressed as fact. I am unable to understand these statements and would like someone to explain the following to me:


1. “The settlements are an obstacle to peace.”


If the world demands, and our government acquiesces, that we cede parts of Judea and Samaria to the Arabs, then wouldn't the settlements be evacuated? If so, the empty homes and neighborhoods could be used to house the millions of Arabs expected to return to the nascent Palestinian state. If, on the other hand, the houses will be destroyed, then what difference does it make how many houses are being built now?


And if, according to President George Bush’s famous letter, Israel will be able to keep some settlement blocs, then what harm is there in building inside the settlement blocs (unless former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon misled us about the interpretation of the letter)? So, how exactly is settlement-building an obstacle to peace?


2. “Two states for two peoples.”


If the stated goal is to create “two states for two people,” yet the Palestinian leadership refuses to recognize that the second state will be a Jewish state for the Jewish people, then who do the Palestinian and the rest of the world leaders think the second state is for? If everyone agrees that one state is for the Palestinians, but there is no consensus that a second state is for the Jews, then what are we negotiating about? Why are we participating in the negotiations?


3. “Gazans are innocent victims.”


The Palestinians elected Hamas in an open election even though Hamas made it clear that they opposed peace with Israel. Hamas consistently reiterated that it prefers the path of resistance. There was no surprise here, except of course to the “experts” in the Israeli and American governments. Thus, the Hamas government represents the will of the Gazan people.


If the people flock to sites that have been announced as targets to prevent an attack, then aren't they considered combatants? So why does the world, including our own political leadership, refer to the Palestinians in Gaza as innocents?


4. “There is no military option.”


History is replete with examples where military victories are followed by eras of peace between the warring parties. Germany and Japan are prime examples. But this can happen only after one side completely vanquishes the other.

The Hamas government represents the will of the Gazan people.



We have tried negotiations and "disengagement," and neither has worked. Please explain why there isn’t a military option. Also note that sixty years after the conclusion of hostilities in World War II, the US still maintains a peaceful presence in Germany and Japan.


5. “We know what to do.”


If you know what to do, then why don’t you just do it? If you know what to do, but aren’t doing it, aren't you being negligent? Or do you really not know what to do, but you are just saying that you do so that we think that you have things under control? If you really don’t know what to do, then why not make way for someone who does?


Perhaps the explanations for these points are clear and obvious to many people. To me, they are not. Would anyone please care to explain?