Opinion Forum

The NYT and Qaddafi

January 23rd, 2009

The New York Times doesn’t have much respect left, but they just lost some more. On January 21 they published a column attributed to Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan dictator with a history of supporting terrorism. Qaddafi proposes a “one-state” solution for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Beneath a thin veneer of moderate statements about both sides in the conflict, he would have Israel and the Palestinians in one state. Qaddafi proposes to name this state “Isratine.”

Of all possible solutions, this is the least realistic because neither side wants it. Israel could never accept a one-state solution because it would mean that the state of Israel would cease to exist, along with the only island of democracy in a sea of despotism. The Palestinians might accept it, but only as a waypoint along the path to destroying Israel and eliminating Jews from the region.

For those who still don’t understand, all that’s necessary is to read The Hamas Charter:

…the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! .

As for some diplomats and other naifs who propose to solve the problem through negotiations, they would do well to read The Hamas Charter:

There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game.

The New York Times would be more effective in advancing their agenda if they refrained from providing a soap box to a dictator whose hands are still stained by the blood of Americans killed by terrorists he supported.

UPDATE: James Taranto considered Qadaffi’s proposal and The New York Times’ decision to publicize it in a column in Opinion Journal. It’s worth reading. Quotes:

Whatever appeal this idea may have in theory, in practice it is even more fanciful than the two-state solution. Even assuming that Israel’s democratic institutions remain intact in form after the transition, “Isratine’s” Jews would soon be outnumbered by Arabs, given demographic trends and the “right of return,” which Gadhafi endorses.

In theory there is no reason an Arab majority in a democracy could not respect the rights of a Jewish minority. In practice, however, the Arab track record in this regard is dismal–and the Arabs of the disputed territories have been indoctrinated for generations in Nazi-style Jew-hatred–often, especially in recent years, with a religious justification. An actual “Isratine” would likely be another backward Arab-dominated regime, with Jews subjugated or worse. Israeli Arabs would be far worse off than they are today; Palestinian Arabs, probably not much better off. …

In fairness to Gadhafi, he did not begin the persecution of Libyan Jews. But isn’t there some rule of journalistic ethics that should have compelled the Times to disclose to its readers that its author is the man who, in his own country, finished what Hitler started?

Articles written by Tom Carter
Tags: Israel, Palestine, terrorism
Categories: History, Media, Politics | Comments (0) | Home