Q. On July 26, settler leader Dani Dayan published an op-ed in The New York Times justifying the settlement enterprise and dismissing the two-state solution and its advocates. What's your comment?
And he replied:
At the strategic level, Dayan's op-ed and the Times' willingness to publish it reflect the progress the Netanyahu government and its settler backers are making in turning the Israeli presence throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem into an internationally-recognized fait accompli.
...Dayan...seeks to legitimize the settlements by smooth-talking the Times' and International Herald Tribunes' American and international readers. Did I say smooth-talking? I meant double-speaking.
And he has some examples which prove who really is double-speaking:
Dayan states that "Israel legitimately seized the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria in self-defense. Israel's moral claim to these territories . . . is therefore unassailable." The self-contradiction is glaring: if the territories are acknowledged to be disputed--of course, many would say they are "occupied" but let's settle for "disputed"-- how can one have an unassailable moral claim to them?What has the morality of our claim, which is unassailable, to do with the political dispute between us and others? Alpher is doing the old pears and apples ploy, trying to compare two different themes.
Dayan goes on to argue that "The influx of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees . . . would convert the new [West Bank-based Palestinian] state into a hotbed of extremism. And any peace agreement would collapse the moment Hamas inevitably took power . . . . Israel would then be forced to recapture the area." Interestingly, Dayan appears here to acknowledge that a two-state solution is possible without any significant refugee "return" to Israel, thereby validating a consistent argument of two-state solution advocates.
Is he? Is hundreds of thousands "insignificant"?
As for the ramifications of a Hamas takeover in the West Bank, note that there is no Israeli inclination whatsoever to recapture the Gaza Strip despite five years of Hamas rule there, and that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas' parent organization, is not threatening to cancel that country's peace treaty with Israel.
They are threatening? Their president, Morsi, can't even acknowledge a letter to Peres.
Dayan writes that ". . . the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to implement a negotiated two-state solution." Israel and the Palestinian have never negotiated a two-state solution.
And why not? Because the Arabs consistently weasel out of negotiating at all. No autonomy. No nothing.
Dayan continues: "[expanding] existing Jewish settlements . . . . is not--as it is often portrayed--a theological adventure but is rather a combination of inalienable rights and realpolitik." Again, Dayan contradicts himself. Two paragraphs down he declares, "In the areas targeted for evacuation most of us are ideologically motivated and do not live here for economic reasons." So it really is a "theological adventure", isn't it? This is a land-grab in the name of a religious ideology
So, if Alpher espouses a political opinion, is that ideology? And if it is ideology, it is then theology?
Dayan argues that "[T]he attempts by members of the Israeli left to induce Israelis to abandon their homes in Judea and Samaria by offering them monetary compensation are pathetic. This checkbook policy has failed. . . . " In fact, this policy has never been tried.
Well, actually is has been. The Disengagement was checkbook, to a great extent but with empty government pockets. And Meretz has been active but no takers.
...Palestinians living near extremist settlements are the targets of continuing settler attacks that the IDF seems helpless to prevent and that Dayan acknowledges he and the Yesha Council he heads have until now done nothing about.
Libelous that. Dayan has been on numerous interview media programs as well as issuing press releases condemning the criminal behavior of the 'hilltop youth'. He has been pushed around, physically, as has Zambish from Amana.
Alpher is not an observer.
He's a player.