This article by Schell and Sherwin is symptomatic of the right-ward drift that discredited The New Republic in the 1980s as a magazine for the thinking person. These guys apparently are not aware of the national intelligence estimate that said Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, they declare that the US should take the lead, with the help of Israel, to bring stability to the Middle East, at a time when its instability is a result of the activity of these same two countries. The man (Mofaz) who hopes to replace Olmert called for the murders of seventy Palestinians a day during the first intifada--as a true Zionist Ashkenazi would. Schell and Sherwin are so old school, they still think the US is a force for good, and that it is capable of leading the world to a better state. This drivel is disappointing.

Gregory C. O'Kelly

San Luis Obispo, CA

The authors ask, "Does Israel's arsenal have value beyond military deterrence? Can it be traded for the security and stability Israel has sought since its inception? Can Israel formulate a 'Grand Design for a Nuclear-Free Middle East' linked to a transformative settlement of the issues that have troubled the region since 1948?"

A majority of Israelis likely would agree to a resolution similar to that proposed by Clinton, but opposed by many readers of and contributors to The Nation: a true two-state solution with a divided Jerusalem and a very, very limited right of return--that is, a Jewish state living alongside a Palestinian state.

The right of return is incompatible with the hoped-for security the authors recommend for Israel. The continued support for a bi-national state from progressives and many in Europe actually has proven to be an impediment to peace as it stokes Palestinian irridentist dreams. The failure of progressives to condemn the Sderot rockets has convinced many Israelis that progressives will not condemn rockets sent from the occupied West Bank or will justify such attacks by looking to the "root causes."

Those who believe the settlements must be relinquished and with their demise the demise as well a dream of a "greater Israel" must also champion the demise of Palestinians' dream of a "greater Palestine."

Only then will Israel have the confidence to consider forfeiting its nuclear arsenal.

Thom Seaton

Berkeley, CA

It was back in 1970, President Carter told us we must end our dependency on oil... He lost the election to Reagan... We have been importing more oil thereafter... I would say Iran has learned the lesson that we refused. Iran will refuse to be dependent upon other nations for their energy... Might want to have discussion on this one, will other nations want to find themselves as the United States finds itself today? We are dependent upon other nations for our energy, get the point.

Rick Griffin

Union Gap, WA

Mssrs. Schell and Sherwin are right to be concerned about the possible proliferation of WMD in the Middle East. Mr. Benny Morris's article in the New York Times was scary, to say the least. Unfortunately, their solution, though correct, is idealistic. One would have to believe that Israel and the US actually want to have peace in the area. Nothing in current events indicates that such is the case. On the contrary, both Israeli and US establishments are doing everything to maintain chaos for purposes of acquiring complete hegemony--Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and the rest be damned.

Eugene Schulman

Overseas American Academy (Fellow)
Geneva, Switzerland

Here is a scenario. Today President Carter said that Israel had at least 100 nuclear devices. China has nuclear devices. China has oil contracts with Iran. Russia and China have recently conducted joint military exercises. Nuclear winter, anyone? That is one way of solving Gore's global warming.

James Pinette

Caribou, ME