To the Editor:
Re “The Two-State Solution Is a Fantasy,” by Tareq Baconi (Opinion guest essay, April 7):
Coursing through Mr. Baconi’s essay about the impossibility of a two-state solution is the notion that Jews have no legitimate presence in the Middle East to begin with, and that their presence there represents only the last gasp of the dying British colonial empire.
This argument turns history on its head. Jews and Judaism are of course indigenous to the region (when we end the Passover Seder in a few weeks, we will recite, as Jews have for millenniums, “next year in Jerusalem”) and the partition approved in 1947 was an attempt to provide for the legitimate claims of two peoples to a land to which they had each been long attached. The Zionist leaders of 1947 accepted this partition. Tragically, the Arabs of the region rejected it.
The war that Hamas began on Oct. 7 was not in pursuit of a future state in which Jews and Arabs would coexist. It was a violent expression of the idea that Mr. Baconi expresses in more polite but nonetheless clear terms, that the presence of Jews in their ancestral and historical homeland is fundamentally illegitimate.
Neil Schluger
Bronx
To the Editor:
Tareq Baconi argues against a two-state solution, considering it a ploy for continued Israeli domination. Yet he fails to articulate an alternative amenable to both Israelis and Palestinians.
Rather, he alludes to a situation in which one merely replaces Israeli domination with Arab domination. How will that end the bloodshed? How would the Israelis ever agree without being killed or expelled?
Each side must compromise; each side will be disappointed. But the only way to avoid another Oct. 7 or another nakba (Palestinian catastrophe), isn’t a forced marriage in which one side dominates the other, but a structured divorce in which each side has its property and rights recognized by the other.
Two states for two peoples isn’t the best option; it’s the only option.
Benjy Braun
Washington
To the Editor:
“The Two-State Solution Is a Fantasy” is a gift to the Jewish right-wing argument that Palestinians will accept nothing less than the annihilation of the Jewish state and that therefore Israel must do whatever it takes to ensure its security.
The author does the exact thing that he criticizes: a simplistic one-sided view with no acknowledgment that there are two populations who each believe deeply that they are entitled to live in the region without mortal threat.
Neither of them will simply disappear. To think otherwise is the real fantasy.
Sharon Silverman Chabrow
Portland, Maine
To the Editor:
Re “White House Says Gazans’ Welfare Is Key to U.S. Aid” (front page, April 5):
The escalation in President Biden’s language in dealing with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel does not match the immorality of the conditions in Gaza.
As a longtime ally, the United States, from the beginning, gave Israel a broad license, in the form of arms, aid and support at the United Nations, to respond to the horrific Hamas attack on innocent Israeli civilians on Oct. 7.
Over time, Israel has abused and betrayed that trust by causing unnecessary civilian deaths and widespread destruction and deprivation in Gaza. Israel’s actions and inaction reflect a conscious indifference to civilian death and suffering.
That license must be revoked until a cease-fire is declared. Then, Israel must re-earn our support through scaled-back military operations that protect civilians and civilian infrastructure and concrete actions that relieve Gazans’ suffering.
Michael Curry
Austin, Texas
United (Briefly) by the Eclipse
To the Editor:
The solar eclipse on Monday (live updates, nytimes.com, April 8) served to unite humanity in the witnessing of a celestial spectacle in which racial, economic and partisan differences were set aside, however briefly, in a peaceful, awe-inspiring and communal experience of sublime wonderment.
As the sun was slowly yet inexorably obscured by the moon, all of our earthly human rancor seemed petty and ephemeral by contrast.
Compared with the magnitude and magnificence of our planet and its sun and moon and their heavenly dance, humankind’s quotidian travails and grievances are cosmically inconsequential, even if we foolishly and hubristically imbue them with incommensurate vehemence and import during our relatively fleeting lives on terra firma.
To the Editor:
Re “How to Make End-of-Life Planning Less Stressful” (Here to Help, March 27):
This helpful article is important, as so many people do not plan or have essential family discussions. As a result, the wishes of many patients are not respected, as no one knows what they are.
Some will receive unwanted treatment, and others might not receive treatment they would have wanted. Terrible conflicts between family members regularly occur, many unresolved.
Copies of the health care proxy should be readily accessible and should be given to relevant physicians. And people who are on Medicare should have advance care planning discussions with their physicians. These discussions are also very important and are reimbursable.
David C. Leven
Pelham, N.Y.
The writer is executive director emeritus and senior consultant, End of Life Choices New York.
The Church of Trump
To the Editor:
Re “Trump Rallies Are Evolving Into a Church” (front page, April 2):
There’s a lot of alarming information in your article, but you stop way short of clearly naming it for what it is. Donald Trump and his “church” are the latest, clearest embodiment of white Christian nationalism, a perversion that stands the message of Jesus completely on its head.
When Mr. Trump “preaches” hate, division and resentment along the lines of race, gender and sexual orientation and openly advocates violence over peace, his role is more akin to the often invoked “Antichrist” his followers seem to fear so much.
There is little reason to beat around the bush. This is a marginal, extremist cult of personality that would lead the U.S. into a dark and apocalyptic place animated by white supremacy. The New York Times of all publications should be willing to call it what it is without fear of alienating his cult members.
Jerry Threet
Victoria, British Columbia
The Peace Sign, Progressive as Ever
To the Editor:
Re “A Sign Battered by Time” (Sunday Styles, March 31):
As I put on my jacket on a recent morning — with a peace sign button affixed to it, one of many I have worn since the Vietnam War — I thought of the college student who commented in your article that he wouldn’t consider the peace sign “progressive or anything,” and that it merely signifies “a kind of neutral blanket statement against war and violence.”
If being against war and violence in a world convulsed by conflict and wanting all people to live their lives in peace, with justice, isn’t “progressive,” I would like to know what is.
Ellen D. Murphy
Portland, Maine