July 27, 2012 · 2 Comments
This letter appeared in the June 27, 2012 edition of the International Herald Tribune (IHT), the global edition of the New York Times. IHT letter’s Editors removed two remarks which have been replace here (in parenthesis).
From: Eugene Schulman
New York Times
I found “The futility of a two-state solution” (Views, July 26) by Dani Dayan (forgive the pun) beyond the pale.
In his opening sentence he repeats the oft-disproved canard that the “Arabs called for the annihilation of Israel in May and early June 1967, and Israel legitimately seized the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria in an act of self-defense.” But no one in the international community accepts the legitimacy of Israel’s occupation, and it has no moral claim on those territories.
Mr. Dayan then goes on to claim that the possibility of a two-state solution is dead. With that, I agree. But not for the reasons the author gives — that the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to implement a negotiated two-state solution — when it is well known that it is the Israelis who have rejected that solution.
Mr. Dayan seems to believe that Israel can continue on this path, and ultimately ethnically cleanse the Arabs from all of Judea and Samaria. I am afraid that, if he lives long enough, he will be in for a surprise, when the only possible solution to this conflict is one secular state for all its people, Palestinians, Jews and Christians alike. (Goodbye Zionist enterprise.)
Eugene Schulman, Geneva