The Bi-National Bogeyman

"Support for 2-State Plan Erodes" A10, 9/4/08
By Isabel Kershner

The enigmatic and vague threat of the Palestinians demanding a one-state solutions makes another appearance as the focal point in this article, not being the first and I am sure not the last.

So the article begins: "Even among the most moderate Palestinians, the credo of a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is beginning to erode."

The author then gives credence and legitimacy to the potential demand of a bi-national state: "Prominent mainstream Palestinians are increasingly warning that if they fail soon to achieve the kind of state they want — sovereign and independent, with East Jerusalem as its capital — they will opt instead for a one-state solution based on a long-term fight for equal rights within the state of Israel, a struggle they compare with what took place in South Africa."

Inadvertently, the author is unable to realize that many of the persisting Palestinian demands are quite extreme in nature and underline the extreme Palestinian ethnocentricism, which allows only for the acceptance of their own narrative while utterly rejecting any Jewish claims of legitimacy and sovereignty.

To the NYT though, a bi-national solution appears like a "quaint and positive" solution in order to make the Israelis better realize that their presence within any of the West Bank is the most supreme affront to humanity. While in principle a bi-national state may appear attractive, the rising Palestinian demand for such an outcome is not a measure of their desperation, but of their extremism.

Does the NYT even consider the practicality or result of an implementation of a bi-national plan? It would most likely be worse bloodshed and horror than the the sectarian-fueled Lebanese Civil War. It is disappointing that none of these practical concerns influence the NYT. All they can see is the beauty and harmony of such a preposterous resolution.

It seems that like the Palestinian Strategy Group, the NYT believes it to be "a 'logical scenario' given 'basic Western ideas' of individual freedom, democracy and rule of law."

That would be a terrible manipulation of such Western ideas, which advocate moderation and compromise, rather than maximalist and chauvinistic demands.