Israel Matzav

Pigs fly: NY Times publishes op-ed by 'settler' leader

Unexpectedly, the New York Times has published an op-ed by Yesha Council leader Dani Dayan (Hat Tip: My Right Word).

Arabs called for Israel’s annihilation in 1967, and Israel legitimately seized the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria in self-defense. Israel’s moral claim to these territories, and the right of Israelis to call them home today, is therefore unassailable. Giving up this land in the name of a hallowed two-state solution would mean rewarding those who’ve historically sought to destroy Israel, a manifestly immoral outcome.

Of course, just because a policy is morally justified doesn’t mean it’s wise. However, our four-decade-long settlement endeavor is both. The insertion of an independent Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan would be a recipe for disaster.

The influx of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere would convert the new state into a hotbed of extremism. And any peace agreement would collapse the moment Hamas inevitably took power by ballot or by gun. Israel would then be forced to recapture the area, only to find a much larger Arab population living there.

Moreover, the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to implement a negotiated two-state solution. The American government and its European allies should abandon this failed formula once and for all and accept that the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria are not going anywhere.

On the contrary, we aim to expand the existing Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, and create new ones. This is not — as it is often portrayed — a theological adventure but is rather a combination of inalienable rights and realpolitik.

I can hear the Left lining up now:

'Acquisition of territory by force is not acceptable.'

It is when it's done in a defensive war, when you have a better legal claim to it than the attacker, and when it's ratified by the United Nations in Resolution 242 (which famously said 'territories' and not 'the territories.'

'The status quo will force Israel to choose between being Jewish and democratic.'

Only if you believe the damned lies known as 'Palestinian statistics.'

'The 'Palestinians' are the indigenous people of the region.'

No, they're not. In fact, Newt Gingrich may have best described them when he called them an invented people.

But the most important thing here is that Dayan is adopting a form of the 'one Jewish state solution. That's a good thing, because it's the only solution that gives peace a chance.

Yossi Beilin, a left-wing former Israeli minister, wrote a telling article a few months ago. A veteran American diplomat touring the area had told Mr. Beilin he’d left frightened because he found everyone — Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — content with the current situation. Mr. Beilin finds this widespread satisfaction disturbing, too.

I think it is wonderful news. If the international community relinquished its vain attempts to attain the unattainable two-state solution, and replaced them with intense efforts to improve and maintain the current reality on the ground, it would be even better. The settlements of Judea and Samaria are not the problem — they are part of the solution.

Indeed. Read the whole thing.

Labels: Dani Dayan, Judea and Samaria, one-state solution, revenants, two-state solution, Yesha Council

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:32 PM