Two-state solution a must in Middle East

To the editor:

I watch with sorrow as Israel continues down a path of self-destruction by its colonization of Palestine. As Israel continues construction of settlements on the West Bank and the Golan Heights, a two-state solution becomes more and more remote.

With demographics on the side of the Palestinians, in a generation the only options will be a one-state solution, with Jews in a minority, or a path to apartheid. Both of these options are unacceptable.

By removing the Gaza settlements in 2005, Israeli Jews tried to put off being a minority by a generation, but it is inevitable without a viable Palestinian state.

Israel is the only superpower in the Middle East. Israel spends twice as much on its military as Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iran combined. Threats to Israel's existence as a Jewish state come not from another state, but from the displaced Palestinians living in Israel, the occupied territories and refugees living in camps in Gaza, Lebanon and Jordan.

Along with all Americans, I fully support a homeland for Jews and Israel's right to exist in peace. But we need to be a good friend that gives honest advice when a valued friend is destroying herself. A two-state solution along the lines of the pre-1967 borders and a shared Jerusalem is the only viable option to save Israel.

Israel's punishment of civilians in Gaza in the name of self-defense is self-defeating and immoral. Abandoning the settlements in Gaza, while keeping a military blockade, does not relieve Israel of its responsibilities as an occupying power to care for the civilians under its control.

I pray that President Obama will be a true friend of Israel and demand that the blockade be modified to stop this collective punishment of civilians in Gaza and push for a two-state solution before it's too late.

Michael L. Carey

Henderson

On the money

To the editor:

After reading the absolute misinformation in James Clark's Monday letter, "Budget 'facts'? Let's take another look," I feel compelled to set Mr. Clark straight.

First, Congress is tasked with controlling the purse strings, not the president. The president submits his "wish list" budget, but the House does not have to go along.

Now for some real facts:

The tax breaks from President George W. Bush's first term actually brought in increased revenue to the Treasury -- just like similar tax breaks implemented during the Reagan and Kennedy years did. Reducing taxes has worked every time it has been tried.

Mr. Clark also failed to mention that Mr. Bush inherited a mild recession from President Clinton due to the dot-com bubble bursting, and Mr. Bush reduced taxes to get the economy back on track. It worked. The unemployment rate from 2003 to 2007 was the lowest this country has ever seen, bottoming out at 4.7 percent. Remember, the Clinton administration defined full employment at 5 percent.

Mr. Clinton did reduce the size of government; he did it mainly by reducing the size of the military. Mr. Clinton eliminated one whole Army Division (not to mention reducing the number of ships in the Navy), which reduced the amount of combat troops available for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Yes, Mr. Bush was responsible for the TARP bailout, but Mr. Clark failed to mention that Mr. Bush honored Mr. Obama's request and used only half of it. Maybe if the Democrats had not threatened to filibuster the 2004 Republican bill to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we may not have needed that TARP bailout.

It is the 2006 (and current) Democratic Congress and the most left-wing president in history who have increased government spending and the national debt to unprecedented levels that we may never be able to pay.

This oil spill tragedy just plays right into their hands -- it will throw this country back into a double-dip recession, depressing the economy even more, increasing dependence on the government and thereby generating more government-dependent Democratic voters. Meanwhile, the country will slip farther into a socialist/Marxist state thanks to the current leadership.

Warren Willis Sr.

Las Vegas

Bar games

To the editor:

Attorney and defendant Noel Gage's legal proceedings have now come to an end. The costs to the taxpayers must have been substantial.

U.S. District Judge Justin Quackenbush at sentencing gave Mr. Gage and the general public the proverbial "strong message" (Friday Review-Journal). In listening with the third ear, I heard Judge Quackenbush say that if you appear before the bench as a member of the legal fraternity, and plead guilty to obstruction of justice, your punishment will be tantamount to 50 lashes with a peacock's feather.

Mr. Gage received three years of probation, 90 days of house arrest and a $25,000 fine. What message does that send to the public?

This punishment is a travesty of justice. So Mr. Gage now sits in his comfortable home and dines on lobster and filet mignon. And I am sure the monetary fine put the smallest dent in his wallet. At a minimum, he should spend at least a little time in the slammer, and afterward be required to do some community service.

Attorneys must be held to the highest of standards. Is it any wonder the public has lost confidence in our system of justice?

Michael J. Di Bella

North Las Vegas