How two-state believers live in their own, academic world

Following the article in yesterday’s Australian newspaper by Philip Mendes and Nick Dyrenfurth – lovers of enforcing “acceptable” boundaries over Israel/Palestine – that claimed “fundamentalists” have hijacked the Middle East debate, I submitted the following, unpublished letter:

Blind supporters of Israel have for decades framed the Jewish state as the victim of a vicious, global campaign of demonisation. Philip Mendes and Nick Dyrenfurth continue this inglorious tradition (Opinion, 11 November) by imagining a Middle East that simply doesn’t exist. It’s a humane Zionism in their heads. Israel has continued to occupy Palestinian land for years, refuses to divide Jerusalem or even acknowledge a Palestinian refugee problem. Gaza is under siege. The West Bank is under occupation. Just this week the legal editor of Israel’s largest daily, Yediot, called the situation in the occupied territories “apartheid.”

Peace will only come when facts on the ground are acknowledged, not denied. A two-state solution is a myth continually spun by those who see Zionism as benevolent, not belligerent. As the Financial Times editorialised this week, implicitly backing a one-state equation: “If Mr Netanyahu believes that he has achieved a victory by refusing to halt the settlements, he is wrong. It is more like a project of national suicide.”