Middle East peace …

THE PIECE by James Hecht on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was well done ("Precarious vision," Nov. 15), except for his opinion that the U.S. should regard an attack on Israel as an attack on the U.S. That sort of arrangement escalated a single assassination into millions of deaths in World War I. Given the current vicious tensions in the Middle East, the adoption of Hecht's proposal could easily fire off World War III.

Albert O. Kean

Westlake, Ohio

James Hecht replies:

Albert O. Kean's concern about a U.S. pledge to consider an attack on Israel an attack on the U.S. is one that I am sure is shared by many others. However, I do not think that the analogy to the start of World War I is a good one, since that war began with an assassination by an individual and not an attack by a nation. The U.S. did not retaliate against Saudi Arabia as a result of the murders of 9/11 although many Saudis participated.

A historical precedent for the pledge I propose would be the Monroe Doctrine. That pledge has not resulted in a war after almost two centuries.

Because of the strength of Israel's military forces, it seems unlikely that it will be attacked another nation. However, Israelis' hypervigilance on security makes such a pledge very desirable. One (unlikely) scenario that Israel may fear is that a nuclear-armed neighbor could launch an attack so devastating that Israel could not retaliate. The proposed U.S. pledge would make such an action unthinkable.

COPYRIGHT 2006 The Christian Century Foundation
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning