The following letter is in today's JC:

Tzipi Livni’s endorsement of the call to Mick Davis to join the conversation is a little ironic, considering at the last elections her Kadima party refused to form a government with the other two leading elected parties.

Your leader stated “this newspaper has grave reservations about the current Israeli government’s genuine commitment to seeking a two state solution”. Your partisanship sits most uncomfortably alongside your tradition of being the 'organ of British Jewry', since a logical conclusion of this is that your editorials should reflect the wide range of opinions about Israel within the community.

The 'Palestinian Papers' have shown that to blame the breakdown of the peace talks on the government's unwillingness to extend the settlement freeze was a red herring since Palestinian negotiators had already conceded that most of the settlements would remain. And a freeze was offered, but in exchange for recognition of Israel, but Mahmoud Abbas vetoed it.

Israelis have seen the hasty return of land for peace in Gaza reciprocated with a regular hail of rockets into the south of the country. In view of these circumstances, quite understandably, the electorate chose parties which would be not be so quick to trade land and would look at other ways of achieving peace with their neighbours. Slowly the living standard of Arab citizens in the West Bank is rising and many West Bank Arabs would prefer to live under Israeli rule, as recent surveys have shown. This is a very challenging job and the Israeli electorate deserve our support -- not our criticism.

Sincerely
Jonathan Hoffman and Michelle Huberman

It was edited, here was the version as submitted:

Tzipi Livni’s endorsement of the call to Mick Davis to join the conversation is a little ironic, considering at the last elections her Kadima party refused to form a government with the other two leading elected parties. It was hoped at the time that Tzipi could raise herself above petty politics to work for the good of the country. And why can’t Mick Davis work away from the glare of the press? We feel sure he has plenty of opportunities behind the scenes to air his views directly to the Israeli government, but why does he need to hand ammunition to our enemies when we have already seen the likes of Gerald Kaufman use his comments to support his opposition to alteration of the Universal Jurisdiction procedures?

Your leader stated “this newspaper has grave reservations about the current Israeli government’s genuine commitment to seeking a two state solution”. Your partisanship sits most uncomfortably alongside your tradition of being the 'organ of British Jewry', since a logical conclusion of this is that your editorials should reflect the wide range of opinions about Israel within the community --- and not express a party preference. The 'Palestinian Papers' have shown that to blame the breakdown of the peace talks on the government's unwillingness to extend the settlement freeze was a red herring since Palestinian negotiators had already conceded that most of the settlements would remain. And a freeze was offered, but in exchange for recognition of Israel - a sine qua non one might think, but Mahmoud Abbas vetoed it. We already have our leading politicians openly criticising the current Israeli government, does your newspaper really need to add to the chorus?

Israelis have seen the hasty return of land for peace in Gaza reciprocated with a regular hail of rockets into the south of the country. In view of these circumstances, quite understandably, the electorate chose parties which would be not be so quick to trade land and would look at other ways of achieving peace with their neighbours. Slowly, slowly the living standard of Arab citizens in the West Bank is rising and many West Bank Arabs would prefer to live under Israeli rule, as recent surveys have shown. This is a very challenging job and the Israeli electorate deserve our support -- not our criticism.

Sincerely
Jonathan Hoffman and Michelle Huberman