For a comment check out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/opinion/the-one-secular-state-solution.htmlI found “The futility of a two-state solution” (Views, July 26) by Dani Dayan beyond the pale.
Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
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.
Eugene Schulman, Geneva