Surely not? Can it be true? The venerable New York Times publishing garbage that makes the case for a one state solution – an Arab one – in place of Israel?
Yes, folks, they even went as far as placing the article on the front page of the Sunday Review. Now, I seem to remember a piece in the Guardian a few years back, in which some nonentity named Liz McGregor urged Israelis to hand the reins over to Yasser Arafat, who, she posited, would prove a benign leader over all Jews and Arabs in the area.
To return to the Sunday Review article: this was written by a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania by the name of Ian Lustick. From his ivory tower, said Lustick displays an incredible disconnect to the reality of Israel and its people. Going way beyond a critique of the two state solution, Lustick suggests that the best way of achieving peace would be to dissolve Israel in its current form and replace it with an Arab-majority state. The article is simply a complicated and lengthy pantheon to a one state solution–essentially the end of the State of Israel.
So with Syria imploding, Christians in the Middle East being persecuted, unrest and violence continuing in Iraq and Egypt, the land of Israel will become a haven of peace and goodwill to all men under Arab rule.
Excuse me while I throw up.
Lustick envisions a future in which “the Israelis whose families came from Arab countries might find new reasons to think of themselves not as ‘Eastern,’ but as Arab.” Zionism, he asserts, has become an “outdated idea,” and Israelis should accept that “Israel may no longer exist as the Jewish and democratic vision of its Zionist founders.”
If you are not shocked enough already, then how about Lustick’s argument that the US and others should abandon the two-state solution and let the parties fight it out?
He posits further: With a status but no role, what remains of the Palestinian Authority will disappear. Israel will face the stark challenge of controlling economic and political activity and all land and water resources from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The stage will be set for ruthless oppression, mass mobilisation, riots, brutality, terror, Jewish and Arab emigration and rising tides of international condemnation of Israel.
As Jonathan Marks in Commentary writes: Lustick makes explicit the nihilism of the anti-Israel left. He has no strong reason to believe that the bloodbath he wishes on the Israelis and Palestinians will have results favourable to either. But why not break a few eggs if there is some prospect of an omelette? Like many of the anti-Israel left, but more explicitly, Lustick is prepared to entertain a morally satisfying position, which costs him nothing. That means a blood sacrifice for those whose best interests he professes to have in mind.
Lustick’s enthusiasm for the prospect of the end of the Jewish state is palpable. Indeed, he compares it to the end of British rule over all Ireland, the French hold on Algeria, or the collapse of the Soviet Union, historical events that he claims were once thought unthinkable but now are seen as inevitable outcomes.
So Lustick puts Israel in the category of imperialist projects rather than as the national liberation movement of a small people struggling for survival.
Excuse me while I throw up – again! To stand with the anti-Israel left is to hope for an open conflict that will result in the end of Israel. From his lofty academic perch, Lustick larks around with ideas that only useful idiots will take seriously. This particular academic cuckoo is as flightless as the Dodo – and his ideas just as redundant.