Relocating Israel

[Martin]

At the "Vicious Momma" blog

 

http://viciousmomma.blogspot.com/2006/08/location-location-location-new.html

 

Rae Ann, a 38 year old Tennessee woman who is mother of 3 kids, has been discussing her idea for Middle East peace.

[Martin]

Another blogger, by the name of "Capitalist Imperialist Pig" has picked up on the idea and started another discussion of it

 

http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2006/08/modest-proposal.html

 

the Pig included a link to Rae Ann's sitemeter with a map of the world. Neat gadget:

http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm2ramskates&r=79&d=818&md=1&pg=1&v=100

 

she gets visitors from all over, it seems.

[ParanoiA]

I love it. I've been kicking the idea around for months. It's the pragmatic solution really. You can't put a value on the potential number of lives to be lost for however long this is to go on if they stay there. It's a bad real estate decision to stay in that neighborhood.

 

I would give them a 50 mile wide strip along the entire Mexican border. We could essentially have little or no border with Mexico. This would be considerably more land than what they have now. After dealing with those murdering pigs for decades, illegal immigration ought to be a snap for them.

[Martin]

Pleased to meet you, Mr. Paranoia. Welcome to SFN!

I see the above is your first post here, and look forward to many more.

[mooeypoo]

Amusing concept, but =quite= a ridicule to history, don't you think?

 

~moo

[john5746]

Amusing concept' date=' but =quite= a ridicule to history, don't you think?

 

~moo[/quote']

 

It is ridiculus, but I would be in favor of giving them twice the land they have in the US to get out of the Middle East. There would still be problems over there, but they wouldn't be able to use that excuse anymore.

[Pangloss]

Why relocate the Israelis, as opposed to, say, relocating the Palestinians?

[Sisyphus]

Why relocate the Israelis, as opposed to, say, relocating the Palestinians?

 

Cus who would want them?

 

Also, Israel was founded (both times ) on the idea that you can plunk down an entire people somewhere and found a nation. So it might seem less ridiculous to them.

[john5746]

Why relocate the Israelis, as opposed to, say, relocating the Palestinians?

 

The idea is to remove the excuse that the Israelis are the problem. I don't think it would actually work, but it would remove the excuse.

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure I understand that, but maybe I'm just being slow.

 

The unwritten premise of the "relocating Israel" idea in that blog entry is that Palestinians have some basis for a superior claim on the land. I don't accept that premise -- Palestinians have no more claim on that land than the Jews do. Nobody knows who was living there 10,000 years ago. And whomever it was, they're certainly not alive today, and I doubt anyone living there today can whip out a family tree and show lineage to imply ownership that old.

 

Even worse, the arguments about land ownership are not something to be respected and empathized with and logically reasoned out. They're something to be ignored. These people, Jew and Palestinian alike, have behaved poorly, squandering that land and showing little capability for turning things around. And frankly the only reason they still have it is because the rest of the world hasn't gotten fed up enough with their nonsense to take that responsibility away from them yet.

 

So the premise is flawed, and therefore the argument collapses.

 

Besides, as someone pointed out in a recent thread, it wasn't the arrival of Jews in the region that caused unrest, it was the creation of the Jewish state. But the Jews didn't come there entirely because it's a Jewish state, they came their because it's a Jewish state in the "holy land".

 

Which makes relocating Jews (or Palestinians) to Mexico pointless. They don't want to live in Mexico, they want to live in the "holy land".

 

That blog entry is an example of how poorly the situation in the Middle East is understood by average westerners.

[ParanoiA]

Why relocate the Israelis, as opposed to, say, relocating the Palestinians?

 

Because it isn't about the Palestinians, in terms of the hatred from the majority of the Arab region. The Palestinians are just an easy victim that validates their prejudice. The fact that Israel stood up, drew some lines in the dirt and called it theirs is what it's really all about. The Jordanians have the other half of the palestinians' proposed land, I believe, and they don't seem to be getting bombed for it.

 

I'm just looking at this from a more practical perspective. Since there's such a small amount of people to be moved, relative to the millions surrounding them, who hate them and are guided by a religion that arguably promotes their destruction - it is really more like a hostage rescue operation.

 

Their religion is as destructive to them as Islam is to extremists if they can't see the sense in getting out of there.

 

 

 

Pleased to meet you' date=' Mr. Paranoia. Welcome to SFN!

I see the above is your first post here, and look forward to many more.[/quote']

 

Thanks. Same here. I like a good debate. Strangers have changed my mind about things far more often than radio talk show hosts or distinguished experts.

[john5746]

Yes, it is ridiculus, I agree. I am not promoting the idea or the blog and am aware that religions have a stake in that land. I don't care about the history of the area, etc. The American Indians and African Americans have compelling claims to land and reparations in the US, so who am I to judge others?

 

I am just saying that if the Jews wanted to relocate to America, I would be in favor of giving them land.

[ParanoiA]

I'm not sure I understand that' date=' but maybe I'm just being slow.

 

The unwritten premise of the "relocating Israel" idea in that blog entry is that Palestinians have some basis for a superior claim on the land. I don't accept that premise -- Palestinians have no more claim on that land than the Jews do. Nobody knows who was living there 10,000 years ago. And whomever it was, they're certainly not alive today, and I doubt anyone living there today can whip out a family tree and show lineage to imply ownership that old.

 

Even worse, the arguments about land ownership are [i']not[/i] something to be respected and empathized with and logically reasoned out. They're something to be ignored. These people, Jew and Palestinian alike, have behaved poorly, squandering that land and showing little capability for turning things around. And frankly the only reason they still have it is because the rest of the world hasn't gotten fed up enough with their nonsense to take that responsibility away from them yet.

 

So the premise is flawed, and therefore the argument collapses.

 

Besides, as someone pointed out in a recent thread, it wasn't the arrival of Jews in the region that caused unrest, it was the creation of the Jewish state. But the Jews didn't come there entirely because it's a Jewish state, they came their because it's a Jewish state in the "holy land".

 

Which makes relocating Jews (or Palestinians) to Mexico pointless. They don't want to live in Mexico, they want to live in the "holy land".

 

That blog entry is an example of how poorly the situation in the Middle East is understood by average westerners.

 

Actually, could it not be that this entry is an example of how complicated most of us try to make the situation in the middle east? We're trying to legitamize the morality of claiming land with religion and chronology, which is just the same thing we've been doing for decades now.

 

I disagree there is an unwritten premise that Palestinians have superior claim to that land with this moving concept. It's just a logical approach to solving the problem. What gives man any right to any land anyway? All of the land on this earth has been fought for at one point or another, some more than others. I don't blame Israel for claiming a homeland, and I equally don't blame the palestinians for fighting to get it back - no value judgment necessary.

 

So, whether or not Israel or Palestine have a right to be there, to me anyway, is irrelevant. And since we have the unique advantage of a relatively small population, with a practical neighborhood to put them in - viola.

[Pangloss]

It's a valid point, and I agree with your point about whether they have a right to be there is irrelevent, for the reasons I stated above. Practical solutions are all well and good, I'm just not sure this idea is very practical.

 

You realize that Jews and Arabs lived side by side in the region before the Israeli state was born, right? I don't think the problem is that one group or the other has to be moved. I think the problem is that they have to be forced to grow up and stop acting emo.

 

(How's that for reducing the complexity of the situation?) (grin)

[mooeypoo]

It is ridiculus, but I would be in favor of giving them twice the land they have in the US to get out of the Middle East. There would still be problems over there, but they wouldn't be able to use that excuse anymore.

 

Israel is willing to have smaller the size of what they have now (speaking of giving out territories, remember?) and stay where they are. History, Tradition and Right of Land are not things that can be just erased by that kind of suggestion.

 

Plus, if you read history, Israel almost was started somewhere else (Uganda), but that idea flopped. Zionism is something that existed for 2000 years, on Israel, for Israel, on the LAND of Israel. The prayers, the traditions, the stories, the history, all goes to Jerusalem and Israel.

 

That suggestion is demeaning and idiotic.

 

If I'd suggest the Palestinians would move their land somewhere else to get a bigger one, I'd get fried in a heated argument (and quite justly so). Why THIS type of suggestion gets the attention it does is quite offensive to the people of Israel.

 

Should Americans just move because the Land used to belong to the Native Americans, and it is now being threatenned by terrorism? No.

 

Neither should Israel.

 

 

 

That said, I'm also not quite sure giving terrrorists exactly what they wanted is what i would like to see happen.

 

~moo

[Martin]

...I disagree there is an unwritten premise that Palestinians have superior claim to that land with this moving concept. It's just a logical approach to solving the problem...

 

I looked back at Rae Ann's original proposal and I did not see any evidence either that it promoted an "unwritten premise" that the Palestinians have a superior claim.

 

Also I agree with what ParanoiA said just now in the above post.

 

What I saw from Rae Ann's was a humorous example of offering a CREATIVE DEAL that has attractive aspects to both sides.

 

Eventually, for them to stop fighting, somebody has to come up with a deal that is acceptable to both sides.

 

So one possible deal would be to say to Israeli's "Well it looks like you are having difficulty living at peace with these neighbors, how would you like to try living with some other neighbors, like the us and mexico?"

 

and notice that this would have advantages for all 3 parties. the US would gain very intelligent educated productive neighbors, and an immigration buffer-state. the Israelis would get a larger piece of land. and the Arabs would be pleased as punch. They might even give us secure access to more oil.

 

but it would also have disadvantages and risks----like any deal would.

 

basically it is a "NO FAULT" deal that doesnt blame anybody or squabble about who has superior rights

 

But I think Rae Ann offered it only as at best an EXAMPLE of thinking outside the box to find a creative deal acceptable to all sides. To show how an as yet undiscovered solution MIGHT LOOK.

==============

Let's try a mental exercise of THINKING ABOUT THE UNTHINKABLE 21st CENTURY STYLE

(this is freerange speculation not intended to lead anywhere in particular---please contribute your own fantasies)

It seems clear the root cause of a lot of the world's warfare potential is differential birthrates. So the wars of the future are apt to be "demographic wars" to some extent (although of course oil and water are further factors).

The appearance of new demographic weapons might change the picture.

Say the Israelis invent a virus that makes women sterile. and protects its own population with a proprietary vaccine.

 

Demographic war calls for demographic weapons. Simple killing weapons, like WMD, nuclear etc., are very crude and counterproductive. If war is to be an instrument of policy and if the war aims are to affect demographic change, then there will be a major pressure to develop better weapons.

 

Israel would probably have evolved into a secular state by now if it were not for the higher Palestinian birth rate.

In other words, like everybody else, Israelis are a bit racist. There is a little touch of racist in everybody. And, since there is a taboo against racism they have swung towards religious fundamentalism.

 

Religious fundamentalism can serve as an OUTLET for racism or tribalism (or of course cultural conservatism). If we could allow people to be racist in their attitudes, subject to some constraints on how they express it, maybe they wouldnt get so crazy in other ways.

 

these are just random ideas---thinking out loud. Suppose the Knesset voted a EUGENIC LAW, that a family cannot have more than two children unless both parent IQ is above 110----or both parents are college grads---or high score on the Israeli "SAT", or something.

then they say to the Palestinians "Come and be in our secular state! No state religion laws. No religious education. Everybody is equal under the law. But you have to obey ALL our laws including the one governing birthrates."

 

AND THE PALESTINIANS say "Come on that is just genocide! We dont have good educational opportunities, you are discriminating against our birthrate!"

 

And the Israelis say "No really! Come be equal citizens, we will give you free tuition at our universities and all kinds of good stuff, we just want to control the birthrate of the lower-SAT part of the population."

 

then the Palestinians reject that and start doing bombs and rockets again.

And the Israelis say "Oh, and I forgot to tell you, one of our labs may have developed this virus..."

[mooeypoo]

This is one of the most superficial cheapest unknowing representations of the conflict in the Middle East.

 

A conflict that lasted for 2000 years, has now been degraded to namecalling the nations and comicbook subtitling.

 

You know, there are actually people in Israel who wants peace. There are actually people in Israel who are willing to give the Palestinians (who, by history, has NOTHING to do there) land and help building their own state so that they will have peace and quiet. There are actually people in israel who are willing to give half of Jerusalem (the holiest city to judaism, and a city that is never even mentioned in the quran ONCE) to the Palestinians in the sake of peace.

 

There are actually people in Israel - most of the country by a long shot, to be exact - who do NOT want to kill innocent Palestinians. Who want to see the terrrorism evaporate from the area so that the agreements Israel is trying for 60 years to sign are kept, and the stability is kept.

 

What these posts just did was dminishing ALL of those people - the majority of the Israeli population -- and most of the Palestinians families (who wish for peace aswell) to a group of comicbooks characters, bent on the distruction of one another.

 

I understand that being far from the situation means that you won't understand it fully, and it is okay, but between not fully grasping a situation, and telling it like THAT there is a very big difference.

 

Very Very Big.

 

~moo

[mooeypoo]

Martin, to top everything, your suggestion is the one who is racist.

 

Israel would never pass this law, regardless of Palestinians. Israel, in case you have forgotten, has a large population of Israeli-Arabs. Arabic people who are CITIZENS of ISRAEL.

 

While the country is not perfect (show me ONE that is), the israeli arabs are holding Israeli passports, and are a FULL citizens of the state. They have a representation in the Knesset.

 

That representation, by the way, travelled to Syria and back: an action that would get anyone into Jail for treason, and yet these knesset members were not tried for that; Israel understands that their Arabic population - while being full citizens with all the rights AND OBLIGATIONS attatched - should not be demanded to adhere to the Jewish laws, or sometimes to a law that may offend them.

 

This type of suggestion is what presents Israel as racist, but other than your random idea, you have shown no proof for that matter. Your idea is offensive to both Israelis, Arab Israelis and Palestinians.

 

And it is this type of idea that STARTS racism.

 

~moo

[Martin]

And it is this type of idea that STARTS racism.

 

~moo

 

Oh my! Please forgive me. I don't want to start racism!

I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that the basic reason for driving out Palestinians is that if all those Palestinians (with higher birthrate) were to be included as equal citizens in a unified secular state, then Israel would become an Arab country within a few generations.

 

But what do I know. Obviously this discussion is too hot for me so I had better vamoose!

[mooeypoo]

No one wants to drive off the Palestinians away. Even if Israel "wanted" this, it's not something realistic enough to even concider.

 

Israel wants peace. Peace can only be obtained with the current situation, and it is not a simple thing. Also, there is a seperation between the Palestinian state and Israel state. Their "birthrate" might increase THEIR population, not Israel's..

 

~moo

[darkangel199]

its a great idea. Its happened before so why would it not work now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

[5614]

Why relocate the Israelis' date=' as opposed to, say, relocating the Palestinians?[/quote']Cus who would want them?

 

Also, Israel was founded (both times ) on the idea that you can plunk down an entire people somewhere and found a nation. So it might seem less ridiculous to them.

Haha

 

Ye, it sounds a theoretically good solution. If Israel and it's Arab neighbours can't co-exist then move one. But hey, it's impractical, unrealistic and could/will never happen.

[padren]

Of course if it happened, it would not have been possible if the terrorist groups hadn't made it so uncomfortable to live in Israel.

 

All those palestinians who decried the violence of their peers would certainly have egg on their face, and the terrorist parties would probably get their own chapters should Islam ever branch and go "Book of Mormon" - considering such a feat has not ever been accomplished before.

 

 

Its hard to just say its a "no fault" move, when there is a direct link between terrorism -> reward.

 

 

Plus, its a lot more than land, its an entire nation's infrastructure; from highways to powerplants to military bases to hospitals and everything else.

[5614]

You wouldn't suggest moving Florida because of all the natural disasters (hurricanes and the like) that occur there. Now I know this is natural disasters whereas in Israel it is terrorism, but the reality of wanting to move a whole country (or even just 1 state) is just totaly impractical, it could never be done.

[Severian]

History' date=' Tradition and Right of Land are not things that can be just erased by that kind of suggestion.

[/quote']

 

I think it is that sort of attitude that is the root of the problem. The Israel that was dispersed by the Romans was almost 2,000 years ago. To suggest that that gives you some right to the land is as ridiculous as me trying to claim land in Norway by quoting my Viking ancestry.

 

If you are born in a land, I believe you have a right to stay there, so the Jews native to Israel should not be forced out. But then neither should the palestinians.

 

On the other hand the recent imigration of jews from all over the world to Israel is deplorable. Considering that this is disputed territory, it just throws more fuel on the fire, and it is also a deeply racist imigration policy that only allows jews to settle.

 

It is clear that the entire problem in the middle east is caused by states governments being religion dominated. Iran, Syria and Jordan are muslim states run by muslims for muslims. Israel is a jewish state run by jews for jews. It is no wonder neither side wants to give in to the other because it is in violation of their religious heritage. I can't help wishing that we could set up a secular state in the area of Israel and Palestine, which would be for all races and all religions.