http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/07/26/settler-leader-wrongheaded-proposal/
TO USE GAZA AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW REMOVAL OF SETTLERS IS POSSIBLE IS LUDICROUS….THE REMOVAL OF THE JEWISH PRESENCE THERE RESULTED IN HAMAS AND ROCKETS INTO ISRAEL; SECOND, TO CLAIM THAT DAYAN’S GOAL IS DETRIMENTAL TO AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AND “STEADFAST SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL” IS EVEN MORE RIDICULOUS. ….HE GIVES TOKEN ADMISSION OF ARAB INTRANSIGENCE AND THE THREAT OF HAMAS, BUT THEN, IN A DISPLAY OF UBER STUPIDITY, HE WANT ISRAEL TO MAKE IT “WORKABLE.”….RSK
Yesha Chairman Dani Dayan’s New York Times op-ed is sure to rankle Mideast watchers on both sides of the issue. Dayan writes that not only is the two-state solution dead, but it should be declared so and the settlement movement should be free to expand throughout the West Bank. Although Dayan makes a couple of important points about the weakness of the current push for a two-state solution, he ignores both an accepted reality and the Palestinian people, and two of his ideas contained in the op-ed would be, if accepted, detrimental to the American foreign policy doctrine that results in such steadfast American support for Israel.
First and foremost, a majority of Israelis (usually around the 60 percent mark, sometimes higher) consistently support the two-state solution, even at a time when that proposal is clearly at a post-Oslo low point. So Dayan need not appeal to readers of the New York Times; he is far from convincing his own countrymen to join him. It is much easier to understand why the Times chose to publish the op-ed: the American left would like to frame the debate as consisting of two points of view–Dayan’s and J Street’s. Both are outside the mainstream consensus on this issue, and it is only up against Dayan’s arguments that the hard-left can appear reasonable. With regard to Dayan, there are three questions he should be asked after writing this op-ed.