The Times editorial "Trump’s Middle East Deal Is Good. But Not That Good" about the historic agreements between Israel and two Gulf states, the U.A.E. and Bahrain, is correct in its conclusion that "for now, 'normalization' will suffice," but most of its analysis is heavily flawed. This is exemplified by the the penultimate assertion, regarding a hope that "an Israel at peace with the greater Arab world will eventually be more amenable to a just peace with its immediate neighbors."

The Times unjustly puts the onus on Israel rather than on the party that has repeatedly torpedoed incredibly generous offers to end the conflict. Mahmoud Abbas rejects the very concept of "two states for two peoples" and his government insists it will never negotiate directly with Israel.

Moreover, the injustice perpetuated by more than seven decades of war and terrorism against Israel can never be expiated. A "just peace" is impossible. The best that can be hoped for is a peace that forestalls more war, death and injustice. Israel has always been ready for that; the Palestinian Arabs obviously aren't, as is symbolized by the rockets they launched at Sderot and Ashdod at the same time as the ceremony at the White House.

The Abraham Accords can help bring about the needed realization among Palestinian Arabs that they aren't going to succeed in their dream of destroying Israel and get them to reconcile themselves to doing something that's been anathema to them for so long: living in peace with Israel.

Sincerely,

Alan Stein