As I live and breathe, I cannot believe what I am saying: I agree with Qaddafi. His published opinion piece on the New York Times is measured, moderate and forward looking. He made one major mistake by insisting that the Palestinians weren’t forced to flee their homes by the Yushiv’s army at Israel’s founding in 1948. The refugee problem that has been created by Israel’s Jewish army in 1948 is documented by all the new historians, including Benny Morris who is no softy. If you can overlook that, the rest of the piece is an affirmation of Palestinian and Israeli rights to the land and a peace resolution to make the grumpiest hawk blush and the softest dove smile. Moreover it has proven a popular article, being the third most e-mailed article in the New York Times page and the most commented on. Many commentators give Qaddafi and the piece very high marks. Enjoy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22qaddafi.html?_r=1&hp;
Related posts:
- One State Solution
- Bob Simon of 60 Minutes: History Passed By Two-State Solution
- One-State Solution Gathering in London
- Death of the two-state solution?
- The Just and Lasting Solution for Israel-Palestine
I’m glad that Qaddafi is a one stater, but he’s an idiot.
He basically chalks up al-nakbeh to Palestinian fear and stupidity… ignoring truth and history.
And his claim that “Muslim Arabs” (he makes no note of Christians) take part in Israeli political life is disingenuous. He knows better than that.
And “Isratine”? That’s just typical Qaddafi showiness. He’s such a gaudy idiot.
Glad he’s a one stater tho.
… I think.
Posted by master splinter | January 22, 2009, 2:51 pmTheres a reason you can’t believe Qaddafi wrote this.
Thats because the entire concept of “Isratine” was created by his son Saif Al Qaddafi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isratine
While I am an advocate of the one state solution, I kind of wish the New York Times allowed someone more creditable to present the idea to the mainstream press.
However, Qaddafi sure does not sound like an extremist anymore. Hopefully other people in the region can learn to talk as sweetly as he does lol.
Posted by Arayus | January 22, 2009, 2:57 pmHow many Libyan girls were raped in the writing of this opinion piece?
Btw, you should read the works of Benny Morris before quoting him. His conclusions, after two decades of intensive research culminating in “The Refugee Problem Revisited”, was that there was no Plan D, or anything remotely similar to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in 1948.
There were some documented cases of Jews serving in the Jewish army from nearby settlements taking reprisals against Arab villages who had hosted Jordanian and other Arab armies. However, there was no plan to do so, and in fact the Yishuv later punished soldiers for participating in such actions.
However, most of the refugees left to avoid the fighting, assuming they would be able to return to their homes when the war ended.
After the war, the infant Israeli government, having to deal with a massive influx of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, a collapsed economy, hostile armies on its doorstep and the necessities of building a state and economy, realized that allowing the return of Palestinians would be one more headache to a long list of headaches at the time.
They took advantage of the Palestinians who left and simply refused to allow their return.
Those are Morris’s conclusions, in very brief summation.
Posted by Anonymous | January 22, 2009, 3:18 pmThe fact that the New York Times published a one-state article by none other than Qaddafi is telling — more about the New York Times than any thing else. Qaddafi also applauds the West Bank settlements as examples of “successfull assimilation.” What a joker!
Posted by Anonymous | January 22, 2009, 4:09 pmThe fact that the New York Times published an article supporting the one state solution which is full of out and out untruths is what is telling.
“It is a fact that Palestinians inhabited the land and owned farms and homes there until recently, fleeing in fear of violence at the hands of Jews after 1948 — violence that did not occur, but rumors of which led to a mass exodus. It is important to note that the Jews did not forcibly expel Palestinians. They were never “un-welcomed.” Yet only the full territories of Isratine can accommodate all the refugees and bring about the justice that is key to peace.”
http://www.soundofegypt.com/Palestinian/adult/massacres.htm
What’s the NYT trying to do? Be “hip” and whitewash Israeli crimes against the Palestinians at the same time.
Gag me with a spoon.
Posted by Robin | January 22, 2009, 4:15 pmUhm anon..
You did not read Morris correctly if you came to that conclusion. Furthermore, the majority of Israeli historians and almost every respected historian around the world knows that the Israelis participated in ethnic cleansing. Benny Morris himself admits that that the ethnic cleansing was necasary for the state of Israel.
Whether there was an official plan or not does not matter. Palestinians were still forced by the Jewish military groups to flee their homes.
And yea, Qaddafi is still a loser.
Posted by Arayus | January 22, 2009, 5:16 pmArayus,
I am a different “Anonymous”, but I have to generally agree with the person’s analysis of Morris, and not yours. Morris does not accept the ethnic cleansing notion (with the exception of Lydda/Rumle), though he obviously admits that lots of Palestinians left. He basically chalks up the argument to Palestinian fear (which he says was generally justifiable, considering that there was a lot to fear), and not to direct expulsions. And just to clarify for you, he supports ethnic cleansing now, and says that it was necessary for the Palestinians to leave for Israel to survive its early years, he does not really say that there was a plan for ethnic cleansing at the time. Other new historians strongly argue that Morris’ conclusions go against the weight of his own evidence, which seems to imply a categorical effort at ethnic cleansing. Morris himself does not make that argument though.
And further, wikipedia is full of bullshit on “Isratine”. Qaddafi has been an advocate of a one-state solution basically since he came to power. Also, he wrote the “white book” on the one-state solution decades ago, when Saif was still in diapers. you can read a translation here (it’s mumbled nonsense, but it’s not new. and it was not published in 2003, i am pretty sure that’s when he put it online.)
http://www.qadhafi.com/html-english/cat_03_03.htm
Posted by MENAChicago | January 22, 2009, 8:06 pmi dont agree with this ATT ALL.
no wonder NYT even put this.
Qaddafi is a dummmie.
Posted by Anonymous | January 22, 2009, 11:01 pmIf not for Mossad, Qaddafi would have assassinated the Saudi monarch just a few years back. He’s such a douche, traveling around with his cadre of incredibly hot sex slaves packing heat. I can’t even imagine what those girls must have gone through. Can you imagine deep throating… bleahdk;aj;fdsja i’m going to gag
Posted by Anonymous | January 23, 2009, 1:26 amYou did not read Morris correctly if you came to that conclusion.
If that’s your response, then you haven’t read Morris at all, of maybe one of his lighter books later on. “The Refugee Problem Revisited” is what he is known for, a work of real scholarship. I suggest you dig into it; it’s not an easy read.
Furthermore, the majority of Israeli historians and almost every respected historian around the world knows that the Israelis participated in ethnic cleansing.
That’s complete nonsense pulled out of your ass. The vast majority of Israeli historians agree there was no ethnic cleansing, or that there was no a plan of ethnic cleansing. In fact, I am not even considering Morris in this group. That’s why he’s called a “revisionist historian”. There are those more extreme than him, but they are very few, and well known for that fact – that they are so very few. The difference between Morris and the extreme revisionist historians, is that he actually references hard evidence, whereas the others tend to make shrill accusations with only stringy substantiation.
Benny Morris himself admits that that the ethnic cleansing was necasary for the state of Israel.
As the previous commenter said, it is only in recent years that Morris has become a proponent of ethnic cleansing. This is NOWHERE to be seen in his earlier work.
What he concludes, which I said above, was that the removal of huge numbers of Palestinians was a welcome surprise to an Israeli government that had its hands full with problems of nation building.
Using this evidence (of the surprise of the Israeli leadership to the Palestinian exodus) he suggests that nation building would have been much more difficult, or impossible, had those Palestinians remained. That’s not an endorsement of ethnic cleansing. That’s his opinion. The fact remains there was no plan for ethnic cleansing.
Having read most of Morris’s stuff, I have my own opinion on the man. I think when he was younger, he pushed a lot of limits to distance himself from mainstream Zionist historians. This established his independence and brought him fame, but it also pushed him to draw conclusions that were not necessarily supported by the facts, and which were used by people hostile to Israel to make vicious accusations.
I think the conversion he underwent from “revisionist historian” to essentially a Zionist historian, is a testament to his guilt in drawing outrageous conclusions in his youth that were great for his career, but that also empowered these people, who want to destroy a nation he loves.
Benny Morris was a darling of the anti-Israel fringe. Whenever one of them quotes his work, I am always amazed because it seems few have actually immersed themselves in his entire body of work, which demonstrates a shift to accepting the “official” Zionist history, not rejecting it.
Posted by Anonymous | January 23, 2009, 1:46 amLong Live “Filasreel”!
I am a supporter of the One State Solution, but this guy Qaddafi isn’t the first person to suggest such a “brilliant” idea.
Qaddafi, the Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution, is a just crazy old man who lives in a tent, wears loose, flamboyant robes all day and has a 200-strong all-female (all virgins too, from what I’ve read and heard) personal bodyguard of trained assassins called the Amazonian Guard. If I had the life he has, I too would pull stuff out my ass and not give a damn!
Posted by Sibawayhi | January 23, 2009, 6:30 amFirst of all read what I wrote.
Second of all I never said Benny Morris said there was a plan for ethnic cleansing. What I did say was that Benny Morris said ethnic cleansing was neccasary for Israel to survive. This is not disputed.
And finally, many if not most New Israeli (I should have clarified this, as this is my mistake)historians agree that ethnic cleansing took place. In fact most historians around the world agree with this assertion. Whether there was a deliberate plan for ethnic cleansing or not does not change the fact that ethnic cleansing occurred in 1948.
As for Qaddafi, thank you letting me know that he has long been a proponent of the 1 state solution. This is new information to me.
Posted by Arayus | January 23, 2009, 6:19 pmYes, Qaddafi has for a very long time been talking about this idea – even swirled into one of the recent Arab summits and brought it up again (as always in an ‘outfit’, with matching hat) – as have some others. It does have its difficulties but its merits, too. But, if it ever came to pass, I could only pray it NOT be called Isratine – no, no, no! – or Palareal, or any of these hybrid names, they are just too ugly. I propose Palestine-Israel in even years, then Israel-Palestine in odd years.
The 200 guards may be Amazonian women but are you sure the heat-packing sex-slaves are girls??
Posted by alfannaan | January 23, 2009, 10:22 pmAnonymous,
Now you are overdoing your normalization of Morris and the new historians. Birthright Revisited is pretty clear. Morris talks about there being smaller organized efforts at ethnic cleansing (outside of a grand plan), that there was random ethnic cleansing by war, and there was a generalized fear that lead to indirect ethnic cleansing (which was largely caused by fear of the other ethnic cleansing). Where I agree with you is that he totally rejects the idea that there was one massive effort/plan to ethnically cleanse the palestinians. But he says there were plans, and even recounts the silent wave of ben gurion that authorized ethnic cleansing. But Morris implicitly argued that there was ethnic cleansing, at least, by saying that the zionists explicitly kept the Palestinians from returning.
And Morris is was a new historian because he was the first mainstream israeli to argue that there was more to the palestinian exodus than the Zionist narrative saying the Palestinians left because they were called to leave by the arab leaders. He did so by filling in the details of what happened, and recognizing many zionist atrocities.
But, he is explicitly a racist, and he even says on teh first page that he would not use palestinian oral histories because they were not reliable (though he uses jewish oral histories). Also, he is simply recounting military archives, and it makes the book come out extremely one-sided. But even with that, he recounts enough atrocities and enough evidence that even he admits that there was ethnic cleansing, even while rejecting the grand ethnic cleansing concept.
And again, many of the other new historians, especially Ilan Pappe, argue that Morris has blinded himself to the reality of his own book. Because, Pappe says, Morris had enough info in there to make it hard not to draw the grand ethnic cleansing conclusion. which seemed pretty accurate to me, especially considering that his sources were all zionist military ones…
Posted by MENAChicago | January 23, 2009, 11:07 pmThe only records that exist are Israeli government and military records. Notes, letters, orders, assessments, operation plans, briefings, communiques… all this was recorded and stored, and it is from this that Morris compiles his work.
To the extent that any recorded history exists, it only exists on the Israeli side.
Looking at Palestinian oral history should be an important component. At the same time, we should not be blind to the lack of objectivity in the oral account, now 60 years old. There are certainly sociological, psychological and even current political incentives among surviving Palestinians to accentuate and aggrandize their accounts. These accounts should be documented, but cannot be viewed as objective fact and should be held to a high level of scrutiny.
In contrast, Israeli documents from the era are a real, factual snapshot in time of the thinking among the Israeli leadership and army, and the actions it took.
Posted by Anonymous | January 28, 2009, 8:53 am