JustASC

A friend is shocked not just by Muammar Qadaffi’s call for a joint Israeli-Palestinian state in today’s New York Times oped, but by the generally positive tone of the comments that follow it on-line.

The comments don’t surprise me. Qadaffi’s piece itself is incredibly seductive – generous to both sides, sympathetic to Israel’s security needs and its history, idealistic in its aspirations. Israel’s supporters might ask themselves this: If a piece like this were to be written about any other regional conflict – Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Cyprus, the Balkans – wouldn’t they find themselves sighing, “Ah, if it were only so”? If Mugabe, let’s say, were to share his own seemingly peaceful, humane solution to the conflict in Sudan, wouldn’t we go, “Awww, that is so sweet”?

Friends of Israel (and honest enemies) know that a one-state solution means the end of a Jewish state. They know the dismal record of Arab nations and peoples, including Qadaffi’s, of “living under one roof” with the Other, whether that other is Jewish, Christian, Kurd, or on the wrong side of the Shia-Sunni divide. And they appreciate the sheer chutzpa of Qadaffi talking about what I presume is an “Isratinian” democracy, when his own country is a dictatorship that severely restricts civil liberties, has supported terrorism, and abuses migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees.

But I think all of that is lost on people who a/ are sick and tired of hearing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and want it solved; b/ have no historical stake in a Jewish homeland; and/or c/ have forgotten that Qadaffi is so crazy that as the head of an entire country, he only promoted himself as far as “Colonel.”