The initial reviews are in on Muammar Qaddafi's "One-State Solution" article and they're scathing. The first round of letters have been printed in the Times, here are some highlights:
"Let’s give [the two-state solution] a try rather than clandestinely ramble on about what
people like Colonel Qaddafi have wanted to do since 1948 — eliminate
the Jewish state of Israel."
"It is cosmically absurd that Muammar Qaddafi — the brutal dictator
responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie,
Scotland, which killed 270 people, most of them Americans — would give
advice on a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
An ingenious and diabolical solution to Middle Eastern turmoil: the
creation of “Isratine,” or “one state for all.” All that it requires is
the eradication of Israel. Perhaps Muammar Qaddafi would consider a
trial run with “Libgypt.”
"Why did The New York Times provide precious editorial space to Muammar
Qaddafi? Is he the new political visionary for the Middle East or a
pariah who seeks redemption as a savior, unrepentant?"
Not surprisingly, the message has been overshadowed by the messenger. While we can't expect the readership of the Times to jump on the one-state bandwagon, the responses to Michael Tarazi's 2004 article "Two Peoples, One State " in the Times were markedly different (I can't find letters responding to Said's 1999 article, but would love to see them.)
This has only continued in the reporting on the op-ed. Several articles have combined it with a recent presentation Qaddafi gave on the subject to students at Georgetown University where Reuters reports he said, "If Jews did not accept a one-state solution, he said they could move to
Hawaii, Alaska or an island in the Pacific. 'They could live peacefully
in an isolated setting.'" Hmm, not the most practical solution.
The question in the last letter above resonates with me – "Why did The New York Times provide precious editorial space to Muammar
Qaddafi?" Was it simply to undermine the idea of a one-state alternative at a time when the two-state solution is increasingly seen as impossible or irrelevant? Was it in response to a good piece the Times posted online on their Lede Blog regarding the one-state solution only 10 days earlier entitled "Could There Be a One-State Solution?" From the update on the blog site it was evidently controversial and it was reportedly removed from the Times homepage soon after it was posted. If the Times actually wanted to promote intelligent discussion of this important idea there is not a lack of authors to choose from (Ali Abunimah, Ilan
Pappe, Virginia Tilley, Saree Makdisi, Tony Judt, George Bisharat, Ghada Karmi and Joel Kovel come to mind). But if the Times wanted to present the idea as a half-baked pipe dream from a discredited, demonized pariah then they would publish the article they did.
For a discussion on the one-state solution that is sure to be nuanced, provocative and inspiring be sure to check out this upcoming conference in Boston – One State for Palestine / Israel: A Country for All Its Citizens?. I wouldn't wait to read a report in the Times. (Adam Horowitz)
