[Peace-discuss] The Mideast's One-State Solution

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

>In fact it's from the NYT.

Interesting; I did not know that.

>Qaddafi's article would probably be the responsibility of the Op-Ed Editor,
>David Shipley, a former Clinton speech-writer who had been the executive
editor
>of The New Republic before that -- which probably makes his politics
>relatively clear;

Again, I did not know that either.

However, I am not going to apologize for my ignorance since I would be
spending all my time doing so.

-----Original Message-----
From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu] 
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 6:34 PM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: 'David Green'; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Mideast's One-State Solution

In fact it's from the NYT.  The International Herald Tribune is owned by the
NYT
and combines stuff from its own correspondents with material from the NYT.
(The
IHT is subtitled "The Global Edition of the New York Times.") It's been
based in
Paris since its founding in 1887, but it too will probably die as a hard
copy
when the NYT does, in the next few years.

Qaddafi's article would probably be the responsibility of the Op-Ed Editor,
David Shipley, a former Clinton speech-writer who had been the executive
editor
of The New Republic before that -- which probably makes his politics
relatively clear; and he used to be married to Naomi Wolf, but it's not
clear
that they split over politics... --CGE


LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
> David,
> 
> First, as far as I can tell, this article came via Truthout as taken from
The
>  International Herald Tribune and not the NYT.  The mis-attribution is not
a 
> big deal; but I did want to make the source clear.
> 
> Second,  I cannot and will not speak to any papers choice to publish or
not 
> to publish any specific article in terms of trying to determine their 
> specific motivations based on the little information that I have at hand.
As 
> I noted, I found it interesting (and I should also have said surprising)
in 
> its tone, content, and author.  I did not suggest anything by way of it's 
> authenticity (did he really say that in the way it was written or is this
the
>  work of an interpreter and editor?), its historical accuracy, Qaddafi's 
> motivation for writing or saying what was written or said or what he
thought 
> he would accomplish by putting his name on such a piece (independent of
the 
> newspapers motivations for publishing it), or what part the various actors

> behind the scene enticed him to put his name to an article of this sort or

> for what purpose let alone sought to promote its publication.  Nor did I 
> think that it was to be taken as a serious article or one whose
suggestions 
> were realistic in the short run (I have no way of speculating about the
long 
> run).  Hence my remarks: "Is it the author speaking, the US speaking, or
the 
> syphilis speaking? "  For all I know, the US and/or Israel might have
offered
>  him something as an incentive to get him to make such a statement in
order
> to (a) doom any future peace talks, solutions, or ceasefires by inflaming
the
>  Arab and Palestinian street, (b) undermine or doom to failure any one
state 
> solutions by suggesting that  this is what the Palestinians want for
ulterior
>  motives since they think that they can get complete control over such a
> state by virtue of demographics , or (c) isolate and alienate Qadddaffi
from
> other Arabs and Muslims so as to make him more dependent on the US and
Israel
> and make his country's resources more accessible to the US and Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly, if it actually is Qaddafi's article, given when and where it is 
> published, I have to wonder why he is only now making these remarks public

> and to what audience he is directing them to as well as why he is
addressing 
> that audience.
> 
> 
> 
>> I don't know the basis for saying that the Palestinians would not be
> willing to negotiate such a settlement if it secured their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this directed toward something that I said or something in the Qaddafi 
> article?  If it is addressing my remark ".but I doubt if either side
really 
> wants it or will ever want it in the foreseeable future", I can only say
that
>  I think that the people on the street bring too much baggage, mistrust,
and 
> animosity to the table to be willing to make the hard compromises that
will 
> be necessary from both sides.   With respect to the Palestinians, they -
like
>  the American Indians - have experienced too many broken treaties from
> forked- tongued antagonists and their so-called even-handed honest broker
> friends like the US and some Western European countries and leaders
without
> the guaranteeing international agencies being effective in enforcing
> negotiated settlements, treaties, and resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *From:* peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net 
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *David
Green
>  *Sent:* Monday, January 26, 2009 1:18 PM *To:* LAURIE SOLOMON *Cc:* Peace

> Discuss *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] The Mideast's One-State Solution
> 
> 
> 
> Laurie,
> 
> 
> 
> The NYT's publication of Qaddafi's piece was a way of discrediting the
idea 
> of a one-state solution, a kind of twisted black advance designed to 
> discredit peace rather than promote war. They chose not to publish an
article
>  by a respected source such as Israeli historian Ilan Pappe. I don't know
the
>  basis for saying that the Palestinians would not be willing to negotiate
> such a settlement if it secured their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, Qaddafi's article was particularly lame at a historical level, 
> claiming that the Palestinians were not expelled by force in 1948. That's
the
>  part that the NYT wants you to believe, in order to further undermine 
> Palestinian claims to right of return.
> 
> 
> 
> DG
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *From:* LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET> *To:* 
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net *Sent:* Monday, January 26, 2009 12:47:50
PM
>  *Subject:* [Peace-discuss] The Mideast's One-State Solution
> 
> Interesting considering its tone, content, and author.  Is it the author 
> speaking, the US speaking, or the syphilis speaking?  It might make sense
if 
> both sides really wanted peace and to live together in equity and
fairness; 
> but I doubt if either side really wants it or will ever want it in the 
> foreseeable future. And even if they did really want it and seek it, would

> the US really allow for such a place unless it was dominated by the US and

> served our interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Muammar Qaddafi | The Mideast's One-State Solution 
> http://www.truthout.org/012609K Muammar Qaddafi, The International Herald 
> Tribune: "The shocking level of the last wave of Israeli-Palestinian 
> violence, which ended with this weekend's cease-fire, reminds us why a
final 
> resolution to the so-called Middle East crisis is so important. It is
vital 
> not just to break this cycle of destruction and injustice, but also to
deny 
> the religious extremists in the region who feed on the conflict an excuse
to 
> advance their own causes. But everywhere one looks, among the speeches and

> the desperate diplomacy, there is no real way forward. A just and lasting 
> peace between Israel and the Palestinians is possible, but it lies in the 
> history of the people of this conflicted land, and not in the tired
rhetoric 
> of partition and two-state solutions."
>