I read with interest the comments that appeared in Tuesday's edition of The Crimson about Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his conception of the peace process. ("Netanyahu Lacks Both Vision and Will For Peace," Letters, October 1, 1996) Let me offer a different perspective.

It seems to me that the present instability in Israel has much more to do with the Palestinians' capitalizing on an opportunity to undermine the present Israeli government than with any serious or forseeable misstep on the part of the government itself. The Palestinians are discontent because Israel under Netanyahu is now, for the first time in the history of the peace process, insisting that they honor the agreements they have made--something that they are are clearly unwilling to do--and so, in order to divert attention from this in the eyes of the world media, they are shamelessly exploiting a minor civic decision that hardly even concerns them to focus the blame and censure on Israel. The Western press and our European allies are all too ready to publicize and sympathize with their whines and laments while ignoring their flagrant violations of the peace accords, such as the continued operation of illegal offices in Jerusalem--a much more serious infringement on the delicate status of the holy city, incidentally, than any entirely licit move made by Mayor Olmert. Indeed, the Palestinian Authority is barred by the Oslo Accords from establishing any official presence whatsoever in Jerusalem. Should we be so shocked, then, that the city's legitimate government is making reasonable municipal decisions without first consulting Yasser Arafat and his ministers?

The authors of the letter that was published Tuesday, in citing Israel's planned expansion of settlements and infrastructure projects in Judea and Samaria, also seem to have overlooked the fact that all of this is to take place in areas defined by the Oslo Accords as under complete and unequivocal Israeli control. As for the issue of the redeployment of IDF forces from Hebron, the recent violence should make clear to any objective observer how valid Netanyahu's concerns for the safety of the city's Jewish minority really are.

The reportage and propaganda that reaches us also glosses over the fact that not only did Palestinian leaders fail to discourage violent activity (Palestinian Cabinet Minister Hanan Ashrawi was even quoted in the Boston Globe as saying that "it would be impossible and irresponsible" to call on demonstrators to stop throwing stones and shooting at Israelis), but Palestinian police, who are supposed to be under the control of the civilian authority and thus at least nominally in the position of enforcing the peace, were also taking aim at Israeli soldiers. What can we make of that?

And, more importantly, what is Netanyahu to do? The Palestinians are eager to make him look bad; the American press is eager to buy into the Palestinian account of things. And our President and State Department, who have no great fondness for Netanyahu to begin with, can do nothing but pressure him to take impossible actions to preserve the impression during an election year that their own simple-minded policies have somehow succeeded in bringing peace to the Middle East. If he does nothing, he will hardly be advancing the peace process in the eyes of Israelis or Palestinians. If he caves into Palestinian demands (tacitly backed up by the U.S. and U.N.), he will be betraying the trust placed in him by the Israeli electorate (and we're talking about a substantial majority of Israel's Jewish population) to achieve peace without compromising Israel's security and sovereignty. He's in a very difficult position, and the way I see it, he needs the support of everyone who believes in real peace and the principles of democracy. --Kevin Shapiro '00