Alan Kardon, defending Israel's dismissal of the Arab peace initiatives in his letter ("Israel's right to exist comes first," May 30), says, "It is hard to make peace with people who have not recognized your right to exist."
If it is so hard, why has Israel had successful peace treaties with Egypt since 1979 and Jordan since 1994 without a "right to exist" clause?
If it is so hard, why has the United States never officially recognized any nation's "right to exist?"
In fact, no treaty in history has ever had a "right to exist" clause.
If it is so hard, why can't Israel say that a Palestinian state has a "right to exist?"
Palestinians and the Arab League have offered peace with a Palestinian state existing on 22 percent of the British Mandate of Palestine. Demanding a "right to exist" statement is asking the Arab world to glorify the expulsion of millions of Palestinians from their homes in 1948 and 1967.
It is like telling Native Americans that withdrawing to their reservations is not enough, they have to declare that "Manifest Destiny" is a good idea.
There are those who theorize that demanding recognition of Israel's "right to exist" is simply a stalling tactic in place while Israel's settlement expansion becomes sufficient to make a Palestinian state impossible.There is certainly enough evidence to support that theory.
I challenge anyone to give a plausible explanation of how a "right to exist" clause contributes to a just and lasting peace.
Tracy Bosko
Troy