Response to "The Senate GOP's reckless intrusion into Iran negotiations"

Your recent editorial "The Senate GOP's reckless intrusion into Iran negotiations' fails to point out  the hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats. I do agree that perhaps the letter would have been better served if printed in the NY Times. That being said, the Democrats need to stop their hyperbole. At least seven times in recent history  Democrats advised America's enemies to oppose the President. In 2002, Democratic House members traveled to Iraq to avert the American led invasion in opposition to George W. Bush's foreign policy. In 1987 Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright of Texas personally entered into peace talks involving Contra and Sandinista leaders in Nicaragua and worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the US to visit with lawmakers without the approval of President Reagan. In 2007 when the Bush administration tried to isolate the Assad regime for failing to crack down on insurgents who used the country as a base for attacking Iraq, Nancy Pelosi , the Democratic Speaker of the House at the time, traveled to Damascus to meet with the beleaguered tyrant.

How sad that many Democrats are blowing this up into an artificial controversy. This is averting the focus away from the real problem which is recognized by the vast majority of both parties- Iran's path towards acquiring a nuclear weapon and a proposed weak deal that will apparently hasten the way.

 

Carol Denbo

18 Aspen Road

Swampscott MA

sent to Globe March 2015 //never published

 

Response to "Netanyahu’s victory, US must reconsider relationship with Israel"

After reading Michael Cohen's highly critical article "Netanyahu’s victory, US must reconsider relationship with Israel" I could not help but notice no mention of the fact that Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly asserted he will never accept "two states for two peoples" and has consistently refused to come to the table for direct talks "sans" pre-conditions even during the 10 month building freeze .

Violent upheavals in the Middle East and the continuation of incitement against Jews and Israel  would seem to be a logical explanation for Netanyahu's observation that there can never be another Palestinian Arab State. That being said,  if and when conditions were to improve and Abbas  were to recognize  and accept Israel's right to exist as a sovereign Jewish State, perhaps the time would come   to talk about two states. But until that happens, why are the White House and State Dept simply  ignoring the facts , castigating Netanyahu and planning to punish Israel for reacting to this?  Why is the media not acting responsibly and questioning our leaders about this unfair double standard?

Carol Denbo

Swampscott MA

Sent to Globe in March 2015//never published

 

Response to "Keeping the dream of a Palestinian state alive"

 

Ms Stockman's  article of "Keeping the dream of a Palestinian state alive" totally misrepresents the facts. If the Palestinian Arabs truly wanted a state, why did they reject the Peel Commission in 1936, the UN Partition plan of 1948, the Israeli offers in 2000, 2001, and 2008?

Why did they not push for a state between 1948 and 1967 when the disputed territories were under Arab control? Why has the Arab population grown cynical about peace talks?

Not because the Israelis have rejected peace talks but simply because the Arab leadership has run away from the negotiating table  and in more than two decades have yet to make a single concession. Israeli leadership including Prime Minister Netanyahu have stated over and over again that they are willing to accept a Palestinian State as long as it is prepared  to live in peace with Israel  and accept Israel as a sovereign Jewish State.

However, the PLO Charter, the Fatah constitution and the Hamas Charter clearly call for the destruction of the State of Israel  and state that "armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine". This does not sound like a wish for peace.  Mr Bahour's statement that there were 100000 settlers when Oslo was signed and that has now increased to 500000 is extremely misleading. According to the Jewish Virtual library the population of Judea and Samaria last year was 322000 and the majority of those people are in areas that would remain part of Israel in any agreement Unfortunately the UN bid to keep the dream of a Palestinian state alive is really an attempt to create an Arab state without  negotiating a true peace. It is simply  a preparation for the next stage of the ultimate goal - the  annihilation of the State of Israel.

Carol Denbo
Swampscott Mass

Submitted in March 2015 to Globe//never published

 

Question the White House Double Standard

 I realized that I've totally neglected this blog for more than seven years, during which - incredibly enough - the Boston Globe has gotten even worse. I've now resolved to go back and start posting letters I've sent which they've neglected to publish. At this point, it's been more than four years since they've published any of my letters and I've sent them at least 84 letters during that period. It's pretty clear to me that, besides their general reluctance to publish anything positive about Israel, they've canceled me.

Hopefully, others will also post their unpublished letters sent to the Boston Globe. To do so, send them to me at alan.stein@primerct.org. You may also request authorization to post directly.

Here's the first of my backlog of unpublished letters, submitted March 21, 2015 with the subject "Question the White House Double Standard."

To the editor:

Reading Michael Cohen's highly critical article, "Netanyahu's political casualties," I couldn't help but notice no mention was made of the fact that Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly asserted he will never accept "two states for two peoples," which along with the violent upheavals in the Middle East provide the reason for Netanyahu's observation that there won't be another Palestinian Arab state until these conditions change.

More important, why are the White House and State Department ignoring both Abbas' long-standing rejection of "two states for two peoples" while castigating Netanyahu and planning to punish Israel for reacting to it, and why is the media not acting responsibly and questioning our leaders about that unfair double standard?

Sincerely,

Alan Stein, Ph.D.

To the editor of The Boston Globe:

Reading in Nicholas Burns' commentary, "Will Congress torpedo Obama's Iran deal?," that "Congress will have every right to ask tough questions of the administration when a final deal is reached," one wonders why he opposes the legislation being put before Congress, with overwhelming and bipartisan support, that calls for just that.

Contrary to Burns' implication that congressional leaders are cooking up "schemes to block him [President Obama]," one measure calls for the congressional oversight Burns and the Constitution agree is appropriate while the other puts in place a contingency plan in case the negotiations fail.

It's hard to understand why anyone would oppose either measure unless he feared the proposal being negotiated wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. But isn't that why our government is supposed to have checks and balances?

Sincerely,

Alan Stein

Submitted March 19, 2015. Never published.

To the editor of The Boston Globe:

All the editorials, columns and letters in The Boston Globe about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's invited address to a joint session of Congress and the more recent open letter by Republican Senators to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran ignore the most rational explanation for these events.

With President Obama negotiating with Iran as if he has a very weak hand and on the verge of making a disastrous deal, the strong bipartisan support for Netanyahu's message and the Republican letter greatly increases his leverage. Whereas he has said it would be unrealistic to expect the Iranian mullahs to accept an agreement meeting what he had earlier said were his red lines, the Congressional opposition to what seems to be on the table enables him to point out that this deal, which would likely lead to a nuclear nightmare, won't cut it with his own government.

Is it not possible that our president, recognizing that he's almost blown it, has secretly conspired with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Congressional leadership, both Democratic and Republican, to pull his bacon out of the fire?

Sincerely,

Alan Stein

Submitted March 11, 2015. Never published.

To the editor of The Boston Globe:

Michael Cohen writes "Democrats owe it to their party to boycott Netanyahu's speech."

He's wrong.

Most Democrats, along with most other Americans and our friends and allies in the Middle East, understand that when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons program, the Israeli prime minister is correct and our president is wrong.

Our Democratic senators and representatives in Congress owe it to their party, to our country and to the rest of the world to be present when Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to a joint session of Congress about the most critical problem facing the world today.

Sincerely,

Alan Stein

Submitted March 1, 2015. Never published.