Again: Michael Tarazi

Another point I failed to deduct from Michael Tarazi's op-ed in the NYT was fortunately picked up by this bright mind, Barry Rubin at the JeruzalemPost. Tarazi makes the point that by 'threatening' to become 'Israelis' out of despair, the 'Palestinians' are effectively returning to a one-state solution, in which they would pursue full citizenship. Israel would then be forced to either grant this, and in the not-so long run be turned into a Muslim-majority state, OR force a type of apartheid upon the Arab (something Tarazi argues already exists), thereby showing its true colors.
Rubin has the following to say about this:

[The PLO] has gone back to the explicit demand for a unitary state at the beginning of the process rather than as the outcome of years of subversion.

One need not be a genius to understand the consequences of such a "solution." The daily power struggle, bloodshed and civil war would make what is happening now look like a picnic.

To take the scheme Tarazi proposes seriously would be to assume that the Palestinian leadership is so humanitarian, so liberal and democratic-minded that it will sacrifice its own ambitions and totally change its historic behavior.

The movement's promotion of terrorism and vicious anti-Israel incitement belies any such intention.

Rubin makes another point, so simple that I have yet to see it being made anywhere else: Why would the Arabs fight on another state (it would be #23), called Palestine, while at the same time insisting on the 'Right of Return' for hundreds of thousands (if indeed not millions) to what is now Israel? Why would the Arabs want their own people to live in another sovereign nation, when they should contribute to the fledgling Arab state? It doesn't make sense, unless

Demanding a "right of return" to Israel sabotages any real Palestinian nationalism.

If the goal was to build a strong, stable Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel, everything would be done to discourage refugees from going to Israel. For why should a Palestinian state make a gift of these people, their money and talents to someone else?

But if you know that Israel will reject such a "return," then demanding it ensures postponing the end of the occupation, more violence, casualties, and billions of dollars in compensation.

The demand for return - PLO documents explicitly make this clear - is intended to subvert Israel and place it under Palestinian rule. That being the case, the returnees would not be lost to Palestine but would soon be making a real return - to the State of Palestine, bringing all of Israel with them.

Rubin has an important insight here. So please read it all.