Try the new, improved Hartford Courant digital edition today
CT Now

Rx for peace: First return America's own occupied territories

Perhaps you are right that peace negotiations based on Israel's pre-1967 boundaries, though perhaps arbitrary, are basically "what has to happen" to end the Israel-Palestine conflict ("Obama and the Arab Spring," May 19).

But you should firmly tell our president that in order to demonstrate his moral leadership and credibility, he should have the U.S. first pull back from all its occupied territories.

First, the territories won in World War II: Guam, Wake Island, the Marianna Islands and Midway Island.

Next, any territory not bought directly from the indigenous population without coercion: Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Howland Island, Samoa, Navassa Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island and Baker Island.

But that's just the small stuff. How about the Mexican Territories: Texas, New Mexico, etc.?

Then there's California.

After all, about one-tenth of Israel's population — 650,000 Israelis — lives outside the country's original 1949 borders.

In addition to that, everything taken by force or deceit from Native Americans should be returned. That leaves the original 13 colonies. Wait, not even that — didn't someone "buy" Manhattan from the natives there?

Only then will America be in a position to tell its friends to do the same — and as a bonus, hold the moral high ground in dealing diplomatically with its enemies.

Please tell our president that this is the only way to a truly "pragmatic, nuanced" solution.

Jeff Aaronson, Baltimore

Copyright © 2015, CT Now
Related Content
  • No reason to deny recognition to Palestine

    I was disappointed with the genuflection of your editorial opposing U.N. recognition of an independent Palestinian state ("A painful veto," Sept. 19). The U.S. should support membership in the U.N. for Palestine. What are The Sun and President Obama thinking about otherwise? Doesn't the U.S. support...

  • U.S. must veto Palestinian statehood

    U.S. must veto Palestinian statehood

    Our view: The U.S. must honor its promise to block U.N. recognition of an independent Palestinian state, even though it hurts us — and the prospects for peace — in the long run

  • U.S. is wrong on Palestine

    U.S. is wrong on Palestine

    Obama puts the U.S. on history's bad side by opposing statehood bid at the U.N.

  • U.S. should pull funds if UN recognizes Palestine

    The United Nations needs to be restrained and warned that a declaration of a Palestinian state must not come about. President Obama needs to assume some leadership role and responsibility for the first time. A declaration and the establishment of a Palestinian state would cause great harm to the...

  • A U.S. veto of Palestinian statehood would uphold international law

    I disagree with Ariel Ilan Roth's op-ed "U.S. is Wrong on Palestine" (Sept. 21). I will make a purely legal argument why the U.S. should veto Palestine's unilateral attempt for statehood in the United Nations.

  • An independent Palestine would be just another rogue state

    Reader Christopher Boardman should check his facts before he writes that "Palestine has had its land stolen without compensation for years" ("No reason to deny recognition to Palestine," Sept. 20).