I was greatly disappointed with Jon Huer’s column on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not because I disagree that Israel’s response to the Hamas attack is brutal and inhumane, but because of Huer’s statement that Israel could simply say yes to a two-state solution [“Between Israel and Palestine: Which side should we be on, and why?”].

As an academic, I would expect Mr. Huer to do his homework and not present a simplistic, black and white response to a situation with a 75-year history in which both sides have accepted and then rejected the two-state solution through various political regimes, aggression on both sides and valiant efforts on both sides to come to an agreement.

To quote Galia Golan from the Palestine-Israel Journal, at the heart of the struggle was “a basic identity issue that denied legitimacy of each side’s right to statehood. Palestinians viewed Jews as belonging to a religion rather than a nation (deserving of self-determination) and Zionism as a colonial movement that usurped the land and expelled its rightful, historic owners.

In a mirror image, the mainstream of the Zionist movement viewed the Palestinians not as a people (nation) but rather as merely a part of the broader Arab nation that had migrated into historic Palestine over the centuries, usurping the (exclusive) Jewish right to the land. ”

This conflict is not a simple matter of right and wrong but a complex situation that must be viewed not only as a present-day situation but in a historical context that recognizes the deep traumatic experiences and the dense political problems for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, as well as the role of Western powers in both fueling and trying to resolve the conflict.

As Shelly Berkowitz said in her My Turn column several weeks ago, it is important to understand the different sides of the tragedy in the context of the “good” and “evil” on both sides and not merely assume that the fault lays squarely on one side or the other [“Defining ‘both sides’ in Mideast conflict,” Oct. 21]. Mr. Huer’s characterization of the conflict is both ill-informed and likely to encourage other uniformed people to reach conclusions that make the situation much worse.

Diane Kurinsky

Wendell