Correspondence.

• Author: Steadman, Hugh

Sir,

You recently published an article by Jonathan Spyer as a riposte to my advocacy of a single-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (vol 30, no 5). Given Spyer's experience as international relations consultant to the Likud, your readers could not have hoped for a dearer exposition of Zionist argument and methods.

I agree with Spyer that there is an argument that the single-state solution will prove too tough for many Israelis to swallow and its advocacy might delay the peace process. This is also Gush Shalom's position. It is a reasonable position and I disagree with it only when balanced against the improbability of an Israeli government ever being prepared to negotiate a two-state solution containing sufficient justice to ensure peace.

Other than the above, Spyer's article hardly addressed the matter in hand. Although I specifically exclude such an outcome, he endeavours to smear the single-state proposal with the long defunct argument that its proponents envisage throwing the Israelis into the sea. This is blatant misrepresentation of my argument that the continued expansion of Israeli West Bank settlement was making the two-state solution physically unworkable and therefore a just alternative, fair to both parties, had to be found. I would challenge any of your readers to find justification for Spyer's final claim that 'Steadman is an advocate of a position ... denying all legitimacy and rights to one of the sides'.

Instead of explaining how the 10 per cent or 13 per cent remaining to the Palestinians after the Gaza withdrawal and the isolation of Jerusalem could somehow be made into a viable state and represent a solution the Palestinians could accept as 'just', Spyer blandly asserts that the withdrawal from Gaza 'irrevocably confirms the Israeli commitment to a fair partition of the land'. In this context what does 'fair' mean? Surely Mr Spyer was aware of the coincidence of the Gaza withdrawal with further announcements of illegal Israeli settlement expansion? He must also be familiar with the interview given by Dov Weisman, Sharon's closest advisor, to Haaretz (8 October 2004), in which he stated that 'The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.'

Mr Spyer sneeringly dismisses the validity of my contention that 1948 saw 'a thorough-going cleansing operation' and quotes even Benny Morris, an...